Talk:Eastern Promises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Moving Official Plot Synopsis here

  • If someone can rewrite this, it would be appreciated. --Pixelface 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave it in the article and someone will re-write it. Now, there is nothing there and less people go to the discussion board then to just the main page. --RossF18 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a copyright violation and should not be in the article, so I moved it to the talk page. Moving text to the talk page to be rewritten is a common practice. Because it *is* a likely copyright violation, I've removed it from this talk page. Thank you for adding a plot synopsis to the article. --Pixelface 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the spoiler warning to the synopsis, as there are some significant plot points revealed. It would be much better if someone could edit it so there's a non-revealing synopsis people can read who haven't seen the movie yet. Nathanm mn 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone took it out, I just read something I shouldn't have while trying to find out about a film I wanted to watch. It's not right. I put the warning back. --Boonjava 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Note to "Jeremy Butler" - People sometimes read synopses to get an idea of a movie before they see it. Wikipedia users understand that some synopses posted here have spoilers and some don't: The ones that do have spoiler warnings. Boonjava 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, if you folks want to keep the spoiler warning in, you're welcome to; but you should realize that official Wikipedia policy discourages them. As WP:SPOILER, which I cited in my edit summary, states, "Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected." Also: "A section header such as "Plot Summary," "Detailed Summary," or "Synopsis" can be considered a de facto spoiler notice — a synopsis will necessarily describe the entire plot, so there's usually no need to repeat the warning."
However, I'm not about to start a revert war over this so I've left the spoiler warning in even though it is deprecated.
P.S. Take a look at the spoiler-warning-free articles for Psycho (1960 film), The Sixth Sense and The Crying Game, but don't read the plot summaries if you haven't already seen the films! --Jeremy Butler 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Official policy does not discourage spoiler tags. The guideline on no disclaimers in articles says spoiler warnings are an exception. Roger Ebert wrote in his review "'Just don't give the plot away,' Cronenberg begged in that interview. He is correct that it would be fatal..."[1] So I think a spoiler tag is fine. Some people know that Plot sections can contain information about a movie's ending and some people don't. Most film critics don't give away the entire plot of a movie, so I don't see why Wikipedia should. This is an encyclopedia, not CliffsNotes. The article has been tagged with {{current fiction}} before, it has been tagged with {{spoiler}} before, and one editor has also removed a paragraph from the Plot section, so I think there is a concern that the current article gives away too much information. So I've tagged the Plot section with a {{spoiler}} warning. --Pixelface 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thiefs in law

Vori v zakanoi translates to thiefs within the law, not thiefs in law. First, the word "v" is only literarly "in." In the context of the phrase, the word means "within." Second, these guys don't have their relatives married. I propose a change in the article and to the linked article title.--RossF18 04:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reception

This section should not be nearly as long as it is. IMO, one paragraph of reviews and two paragraphs of plot should be sufficied. --JD79 12:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not paper. The film has 78 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and I added reviews proportionate to the percentage.[2] 9 positive reviews and 2 negative reviews is 81.8%. When I added them to the article, the RT percentage was 83% positive. I suppose 5 positive and 1 negative (83.3%) may have been better. Now the percentage is 85% so maybe 6 positive and 1 negative (85.7%) would be OK. The problem is selecting only 1 negative review to show. I don't think 11 reviews is too much. The section gives a good overview of the general consensus among critics. If you read the section you'll see that the critics talk about the movie *and* the director *and* the cast and also previous works by the director. I suppose it could be split into sub-sections (film,director,cast) but I think it's fine as it is. What else is going to get added to this article? The Plot will probably expand and the Production section may accumulate more background information, but I think the critical reception is a valuable part of the article. In order to come to a compromise, I've removed 3 positive reviews and 1 negative review so now the ratio is 6 to 1 (85.7%). Although choosing only one negative review to highlight is difficult -- that is why I included 2 negative reviews, which meant I had to include 9 postive reviews to accurately reflect critical consensus. I suppose one could include an equal ratio of positive/negative reviews, although that may be giving undue weight to a minority view. --Pixelface 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that the {{toolong}} template is for the size of articles, not sections. --Pixelface 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the section just looks too long due to a lack of information about other items, like a full-fledged Plot section, Cast, and Production. Batman Begins#Reception is pretty lengthy, but there are other extensive sections, too. I'd suggest more information about the film itself. Below is a new link I found. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify: on September 17, 2007 I removed 3 positive reviews (Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jack Mathews of the New York Daily News, and Keith Phipps of The Onion A.V. Club) and I removed 1 negative review (Anthony Lane of The New Yorker). I think the Critical reception section should reflect the ratio seen at Rotten Tomatoes, which is at 88% as of the time of this post. The article currently has 6 positive reviews and 1 negative review, so the ratio is 85.7%.

7 positive reviews and 1 negative review is 87.7%. 8 positive reviews and 1 negative review is 88.8%. I think 1 more positive review could be added to the section. 1 negative review in the section may be not enough though. That is why I originally included 9 positive reviews and 2 negative reviews (81.8%).

Editors are free to quote another critic, but I think the ratio should be similar to the Rotten Tomatoes ratio (add a positive review, remove a positive review / add a negative review, remove a negative review).

I suppose we could include the same number of positive and negative reviews, but that may be giving undue weight to critics who did not give the film positive reviews. --Pixelface (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So I took out a few lines and spaced the paragraphs to make the section more readable and less unsightly. However, I believe each review in the section could be limited to one or two sentences each, especially if people don't want to get rid of any reviews. (I personally feel like we could remove two positive reviews and still project the image that the overall reception of the movie was positive; number ratios don't have to be exactly according to RT, they just have to give a general picture)

One last thing: Why is Carina Chocano's review in the generally positive review section? I couldn't infer anything from it that indicated Chocano really enjoyed the movie aside from the opening line. Dauthi (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how you can sum up a review in two sentences and give the reader any actual information other than blurbs. You removed the Carina Chocano review and the Todd McCarthy review and I don't really see why. Rotten Tomatoes classified the Chocano review as "fresh"[3]. The article really isn't going to accumulate much more information — maybe some Production information, maybe some info on tattoos, but that's pretty much it. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the repeated removal of Template:Spoiler

I do not appreciate the repeated removal of the {{spoiler}} template from this page by editors patrolling the namespace for any use of it. 5 of the 7 editors that have removed the template have made no other edits to the article. And its removal has been based on faulty assumptions. Quoting WP:SPOILER like scripture doesn't help when you ignore the policy on verifiability and reliable sources. A spoiler warning with a citation is more reliable than an unsourced section heading. I have placed the {{spoiler}} template on this page and so have 3 other editors. Only 1 of the editors that removed the tag has discussed it here. There is no consensus on this talk page to remove it. If the tag keeps getting removed I'm just going to remove the entire unsourced Plot synopsis section per WP:V. --Pixelface 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that isn't acceptable. The movie is very new to I'm putting a {{current fiction}} tag on it and removing spoiler warnings per WP:SPOILER. --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER says "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible..." That is what I have done. So the {{spoiler}} tag should not be removed again based on WP:SPOILER because I am following that guideline. Another reader added a spoiler warning to the article so there is obviously a concern that the current article gives away too much information. WP:SPOILER does not say that the {{current fiction}} and {{spoiler}} tags are an either/or decision. If an editor is looking to remove something, they can remove every sentence in the Plot synopsis section that doesn't' cite a secondary source. Thank you. --Pixelface 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no consensus for this. The article already has a perfectly good "current fiction" tag. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to compromise. Is it better? Axem Titanium 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks. "Noted film critic Roger Ebert said of this film that foreknowledge of the plot would be fatal to its enjoyment."
Noted film critic Roger Ebert is a bit of a silly sausage, sometimes. Knowing the plot of this film doesn't dent my confidence that I'll enjoy it greatly when it's released in my country later this month. But his opinion is perhaps something we should record in this context, though I would like to see if many other major film critics share his point of view. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think quoting Roger Ebert is fine. I've moved that from the intro to the Plot synopsis section in case any readers skip the intro and since the director commented on the plot. I cited Adam Nayman's article that Ebert referred to and quoted Ebert. Although Nayman's quote includes a critical opinion, I think the full quote (which includes the phrase "which prompted the director's anti-spoiler request") is best. I still think the Plot section may need to be rewritten. At least 150 critics have reviewed the film so there is no lack of secondary sources the section can be written from. --Pixelface 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edit seemed very counter-productive to me: you removed the current plot section in its entirety, as well as a sourced statement by the director about his preference for plot secrecy. Am I missing something here? --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You put Ebert's comments and Nayman's comments into their own section labeled Director's plea for secrecy of plot which I don't think is a neutral label, when the whole point of including Ebert/Nayman/Cronenberg's comments in the Plot section was because the {{spoiler}} template keeps getting removed. I've removed the Plot section because it cites no secondary sources. You're free to cite some and rewrite it if you want to. And go nominate the {{spoiler}} template for deletion if it bothers you so much. --Pixelface 10:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not decide by yourself to just remove the plot. Check other movie articles. Plot review are staple of every single movie article with no secondary sources needed. Just because the director went on record to plead not to reveal the plot, doesn't mean that here we shouldn't have a plot summarazied. I think the director meant not to come up to people who hadn't watched the movie and blurt out the ending just like one wouldn't want to hear about the game score to an unticipated game. However, people who seek out the plot summary by looking the movie up on Wikipedia, just like people who would go to check the score of the game on line, should expect that the plot, just like the score of the game, will be revealed in the site specifically dealing with the movie that they themselves decided to go to. Wikipedia is not a review website like IMDB that has a duty to preserve the plot. There are not movie times directly provided on the main page. So, even people looking for movie times don't have to read the plot. Only people who actually want to read the plot will read the plot. So, what's the problem. They could read the director's plea and take his advise but the plot should still be there for people who don't want to pay the 10 dollars and just want to know what happened. The policy that secondary sources need to be cited is valid so add a tag calling for secondary sources to be cited and give it some time, don't just blatanly deleat stuff without discussion that specifically addresses the deleation, not merely addressing whether or not to add the spoiler tag, which all that the previous discussion mainly concerned.--RossF18 14:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for removing the plot synopsis you wrote but I did not mean to offend you. I removed it out of a concern that it went into too much detail and because several readers have added spoiler tags to it (which have been removed) and a current fiction tag was added (and was removed, although the current article has one) and one reader removed the 3rd paragraph. Anyone could end up on this page by clicking Random article on the Main Page. At least two sources have expressed the opinion that certain elements of the film are better left to viewers to discover on their own. One reader was visibly upset from reading the plot synopsis. I think the article can be made neutral by adding a spoiler warning, but it keeps getting removed. Not every reader knows that a heading with the word "plot" in it indicates that spoilers may be present. That is evident from looking at the edit summary of this article. And I'm tired of editors who have never worked on this article before showing up and removing a tag that several readers support. I think it would be great if the plot synopsis cited some published sources so readers could verify that it's accurate. Thank you. --Pixelface 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The film is on general release in most English-speaking countries and the plot can be verified by watching the film. This is perfectly consistent with our guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the above poster and note that when fellow editors disagree, that doens't mean that someone has necessarily offended anyone. My comments above didn't mean that I was offended or that I wrote the synopisis section as Pixelface said. This is a Wikipedia, no one person writes anything and while I contributed to the plot synopsis with my fellow editors, my comments would have been idetnfical even if I hadn't because I contribute to other articles and favor standardization between similar articles. But I do disagree about your assertion that people might not expect spoilers when reading the section entitled Plot. This is not a critic review of the movie were they are bound by their employment at the newspaper not to reveal the plot but to just critique the movie. This is not such a cite. Our plots are complete and whether a person stumbles on this page or not, via random search or not, when the heading says Plot, normal common sense would normally indicate that a plot section would have a complete plot described, not a reviewer excerpts meant to get your interst up and to hype the movie. This is not a hype the movie kind of site, it describes the complete plot under the heading Plot. A few errant people unfamiliar with Wikipedia plot summary versus newspaper critic plot summary does not warrant deleating the entire section or something beyond what is already on the page. As far as the neturality of the plot, could you explain what you mean? The plot described what happened, what does neutrality have to do with it? It doesn't pass judgment or give personal opinion on what takes place, unlike a review would do, so perhaps you could give specific examples. Granted, the movie is better to be watched without reading the plot, but that's assuming that everyone wants to watch this movie and while I admire the two sources that you site that urge the people to watch the movie before reading the entire plot, but that's kind of common sense - watch the movie before reading the plot, doesn't take a lot to figure that out - that doesn't mean that people who don't want to watch the movie can't find out about the plot simply to preserve the suprise of those who do. As per your comment about not everyone knowing what the Plot section means as evidenced by the edit summary, I think there was quite a bit of an edit war going on where the same people were adding and deleating the spoiler tag. I HAVE NO PROBLEM with the spoiler tag, just don't deleate the plot just because the spoiler tag is not there. Decide amongst yourselves about the spoiler tag and whether it adds any value after the warning we added on the top and the director's comments before the plot that was added (those two things are one big spoiler tag). I think the spoiler tags are more applicable to talk pages on fan sites and critic reviews, the two sources people go to not expecting plot points. People go to an encyclopedia expecting a complete plot points. After all, you don't have spoiler tags on book summary pages such as Harry Potter and such. That's because people go to an encyclopedia expecting a complete plot not a critic version they can get everywhere else from more than 2 sources. And sorry for the rambling message. I did not enjoy writing so much, but it is better than 20 different shorter messages by me, as I image everyone would agree. --RossF18 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

[edit] 1

[edit] 2

[edit] 3

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Interesting Facts

I'm surprised to see why would someone want to remove facts on the significance of tattoos in the Russian criminal underworld - it's a major part of what adds elements of authenticity to this film.

TheDarkSavant (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much wrong with it, except that the title is lame and it's unsourced. Restored with reliable sources under the name "Russian underworld tattoos in the film" it would be a welcome addition. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title is different now, so some people should be happy. As for others who keep deleting this section - at least post a reason as to why you're doing so.

TheDarkSavant (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although you re-added it, there's still no source. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? AFAIC a reference to existing pages right here on Wiki, which in turn have their own reference list is enough for verifiability - correct me if I'm wrong. TheDarkSavant (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, now I've added 5 books by 3 different authors quoted as a source, plus 2 wiki pages - shouldn't be any more reasons to try and remove this section. TheDarkSavant (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are quoting generic sources on Russian tattoos. You haven't quoted a source that confirms that the tattoos used in this film are indeed what you say they are. That's your own analysis, and is therefore original research. Just find a third-party source that confirms the link you are saying exists. If it's that important, there will be such a source. And if there's no such source, I don't think it belongs here (see WP:OR). Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's put aside my personal knowledge on the subject. If you take the top book in the list, it contains the tattoos used in the film. Each and every one of them. According to what you're saying, that is not good enough. Technically, if I was to create a webpage with photos from the book and photos from the movie, that would satisfy what you're saying, i.e. there is now a third party link actually confirming the connection between the book and the film. But that's lame - if I do a research and quote a specific source of research, that by itself becomes something that is verifiable. Anyone can grab that book, or look at one of the many available online resources and confirm the same thing I've done.

Please tell me if I'm wrong, since I can't apply any other logic to this situation. TheDarkSavant (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This means that perfectly valid analysis might not find a home here, because it has never been published in a reliable source. As I noted, if it's that important, surely some other source has commented on the connection. If no other source has made the connection before you, then regardless of how true it might be, how important is it? Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't really heard me then, or looked at my references - I am providing a reliable source, and not one, but a whole number of them. Are you denying the reliability of that source purely because it is not in English? I hope not... TheDarkSavant (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

John Clark of The New York Daily News said:[4]

To burrow into the part, Mortensen, 48, spent several weeks in Russia walking around and taking public transportation. He learned a bit of Russian and had all of his dialogue translated into the language, some of which eventually made its way into the shooting script.

During the shoot itself, he had a Russian cable station on in his room while he was washing his clothes and making dinner. He says he styled Nikolai's enigmatic, withholding nature after Russian President Vladimir Putin.

To acquaint himself with the gangsters in this world, Mortensen learned all he could about the tattoos they sport. He consulted a documentary on the subject, titled "The Mark of Cain," and talked to guys who had them.

"I talked to them about what they meant and where they were on the body, what that said about where they'd been, what their specialties were, what their ethnic and geographical affiliations were," Mortensen says. "Basically their history, their calling card, is their body."

If TheDarkSavant has seen the same tattoos in the Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia, I think it's fine to say, "The Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia by Danzig Sergeevich Baldaev contains pictures of tattoos that are the same as ones seen in the film." If the documentary The Mark of Cain contains the same tattoos, that could be mentioned too. --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuff said - I'm quoting this source as an additional reference - hopefully this will finally put the issue to rest TheDarkSavant (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the section still needs a little work. Could we move it to this talk page to work on it? --Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One headline that Erik posted has some interesting information:

Michael Guillén of Greencine.com interviewed Cronenberg and Mortensen and asked them, "In Eastern Promises tattooed skin becomes primary and significant. Could the two of you talk about where that metaphor came from?"[5]

Cronenberg said, "When it comes to the tattooing, it wasn't really very prominent in the original script that Steve [Knight] and I wrote. It was alluded to, but it wasn't developed in a full way. It was actually Viggo, doing his research - we had already agreed we were doing the movie - who came up with a book called Russian Criminal Tattoo, which is a fantastic book, quite mindblowing really. It was about the whole tattooing subculture in Russian prisons. That immediately triggered off for us the substance behind this character [Nikolai Luzhin]...and that whole kind of life that he had and that whole ritual structure based on tattooing as identification, certification of your identity, authentication."

Cronenberg continued, "I sent that book and a documentary that Viggo found as well called The Mark of Cain - which is really fantastic, shot in Russian prisons with prisoners showing their tattoos and describing what they mean and so on - I sent that to Steve Knight and said, "This will blow your mind." [As if] the script had almost been waiting for this last piece of the puzzle to become the central metaphor of the movie and to make everything gel around it. As I say, we were already launched on making the movie but this wasn't originally in it."

Guillén asked, "In Eastern Promises there's a reference to "forced" tattoos. What's meant by that?"

Mortensen said "There's a caste system, not just in Russia but in prisons in this country as well." and said "there are certain kinds of crimes in Russian prisons that count against you and that limit you in the hierarchy in the prison"

Cronenberg said, "Basically...they force you to have tattoos that identify you as such." and said, "So these are tattoos that you have not agreed to have. They will hold you down and put them on you. It's like someone stamping something in your passport saying, "Do not allow this person to come into the country."

Guillén asked about a character gaining his stars and Cronenberg said, "It's like becoming a made man in the mafia. It's becoming accepted as "one of us," a man to be trusted, and this is indicated by these stars [on his chest] and on [his] knees; that's [his] mark of acceptance and authentication, that [he's] a guy to be trusted. Now, if [he] should end up in prison again, he would have great status in that prison hierarchy because of those stars. In those prisons, if you fake a tattoo, if you just put those [stars] on and they find out, it's not very nice what happens after that."

Cronenberg later talked about a particular scene in the film and said, "Of course, it's all set up properly because of the tattoos that you meet there, so people can see the tattoos and see that it's all legitimate, and then it goes quite wrong."[6]

Now I don't think this should be copied verbatim into the article, but it's something to be considered. --Pixelface (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great source AND it mentions the books I use as a guideline. I'll sleep on how to put in an abridged version without taking up too much space. Thanks :) TheDarkSavant (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

They even messed up with tatooing. I'm not one of those guys in the movie, but everybody in Russia either seen or new those people. And this movie is so far from reality ... . They shouldn't have researched on tatoos, they should have researched on how these people at least look like. On my (not professional though) opinion, the good example of the movie about the Russian mafia, thiefs in law and gansters (there are tow kinds), is the Russian made movie "Antikiller" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.122.155 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More from the headlines Erik posted

When interviewed by Edward Douglas of ComingSoon.net, Cronenberg said, "About the tattooing, for example, that was in the script, but it wasn't as deep and it wasn't as central a metaphor as it later became. It was Viggo finding these books called "Russian Criminal Tattoo" which are fantastic and a documentary called "The Mark of Cain" which was made by a friend of his named Alix Lambert that we really understood this sub-culture of tattooing and Russian prisons and how it went back to Czarist days before the Soviet Union and how it evolved and how it emerges and how it shifted, fantastic stuff and very exciting and I sent this to Steve and said, "When you see this, when we do our next re-write, you're going to want to incorporate this, big time, into the script because it's fantastic material.""[7]

John Anderson of Newsday interviewed Cronenberg and wrote, ""Viggo was very involved, not just as an actor trying to tailor his character, but in doing his research," the director said. "He came up with a book called 'Russian Criminal Tattoos' which was phenomenal. And there's also a documentary called 'The Mark of Cain,' which was made by a friend of his, Alix Lambert. She, somehow, got in to a maximum security Russian prison in 2000 and interviewed prisoners, who talked about the subculture of tattooing which has existed since czarist days ... a kind of secret society that's developed mostly through prisons. "The tattooing tells everything about you," he continued. "It's your passport, identity card - but more. It's a medical report, it tells what crimes you've committed, what your sexual orientation is, where you served time, how long, and where you might be in the hierarchy of criminals. "And woe be you if you lie about it, because they'll give you 20 minutes to get rid of the tattoo. And in prison, that pretty much means ripping off some skin. Or they'll kill you. So it's taken very seriously." Seriously enough to worry the patrons of a Russian restaurant in London, when Eastern Promises was shooting. Mortensen, trying to save the makeup man some work, had kept his tattoos on overnight. "I had them on my hands, my left hand mostly, old-school prison tattoos of a sort Russians would recognize," Mortensen said, in a telephone interview. "The poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko had happened while we were filming and that, understandably, increased their paranoia." "Yes, but once he told them he was working on a movie," Cronenberg said, "they said 'Oh, a movie,' and laughed and went about their business.""[8]

Sara Schieron of Rotten Tomatoes interviewed Cronenberg and asked how Cronenberg and Mortensen work together. Cronenberg said, "No, it's a real collaboration, and it has very much to do with the kind of person Viggo is. I have been saying recently that with Viggo you don't just get a violin, you get a whole symphony orchestra. To give you an example, the tattoos, which are a crucial part of this movie, were alluded to in the script originally but just alluded to. Viggo found, while he was digging around and trying to get into this character, he found a book called Russian Criminal Tattoo, which is a fantastic book. Really recommend it. He also found a documentary by a friend of his named Alix Lambert which is called The Mark of Cain, which is also about tattooing in Russian prisons. He sent it to me. I sent it to (screenwriter) Steve Knight. I said, "When you read it, it's going to blow your mind, and when we do our next rewrite, you will, as I will, want to incorporate this as a central metaphor for the movie." So, that all came from Viggo. I don't know that we would have come across that otherwise. That's just one practical example."[9]

An article in The Daily Telegraph says "Cronenberg says that during pre-production, Mortensen sent him a book on Russian criminal tattoos, which was filled with explanations of their meaning, as well as countless pictures. Several of these were then transferred to the movie, standing, says the director, as "intense metaphor and symbol". Mortensen's character sports 43 tattoos in all."[10]

In an interview by Jordan Riefe of UGO.com, Viggo Mortensen said, "I have - I don't know how many - four dozen tattoos or something on my body in this movie, and a lot of them are pieces of songs or out of Russian literature, poetry or just sayings that people know about but that have more than one meaning. And there's one that was on a Russian prisoner. Actually, I saw it twice; once on someone's torso and once on his leg, I think. But anyway, I have it on my back. It says, 'The important thing is to remain human,' in Russian. And to the people that had those tattoos, mainly I think the important thing is to remain human means be your own man. Take it like a man. Don't respect authority, be a tough bastard and don't forget, keep your dignity. It's all that, but it also has another meaning, in the face of this hideous existence for people and very severe way of life. It was almost like that was something I remembered or I thought of a lot, that phrase. For Nikolai, that's sort of a guiding principle, in the end, strange as it might seem at first, when you meet the guy. The important thing is to remain human in the face of all this."[11]

I saw a documentary on the Russian Mafiya's tattoo system. Fascinating stuff, but does anybody think we should list the meaning of the tattoos shown in the movie. Of course, we'd have to get it well sourced (the article on criminal tattoos is just okay, but it certainly doesn't include much of the good detail that exists out there). Support and constructive criticism would be appreciated. MwNNrules (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as you're doing that, I might as well put the mention of tattoos back into the lead. This is because the lead is merely a summary of the article, and while the section remains detailing the use of tattoos, the lead should reflect this. I know they're an incidental point, but they do appear to have been seized upon for some real-word comment. Steve T • C 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I expect that somewhere we have an article on such tattoos. Find it. Add relevant information to that article. Cite that article under "see also" in this one. Eastern Promises is, first, last and everywhere in between, a work of fiction. It is not a documentary. It is not a treatise on tattoos worn by the Russian mafia. We must be careful not to represent the tattoos shown in this film as in some way authentic (if it should be that they are so, it can only be by coincidence, or because of Viggo Mortensen's skills and dedication). --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But I'm still for adding the meanings of the tattoos. However I am in agreement that that article should be edited first. Unfortunately, having seen one documentary (the one on the History Channel) makes me no expert so I'm not exactly qualified. My concerns are, as stated six words ago, concerns at best. If I bought a few books on the subject, I might be able to help, but, slacker I may be, you probably won't see me working on the article. In an act of good faith for the article, I had previously checked for seemingly authentic websites. I could find nothing I truly wished to rely upon. If someone could suggest a truly reliable book or website, I'll consider taking it up. Otherwise, I don't do a hell of a lot on wikipedia (other than minor edits). MwNNrules (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I've moved the Plot section to the bottom of the article. --Pixelface (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has reverted it. I was considering doing that myself, but figured I'd wait to see the general reaction. I am not surprised. It looked very odd. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a thread about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Re-ordering_sections. The Plot section is the only section in the article without citations (besides the Cast section). And the plot isn't real world information anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is indeed a thread, but no consensus to do so. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well not on every film article, no. --Pixelface (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Earlier I moved the Plot section below the Production section because I think the Production section should come before it in this article. Is that better than having the Plot section at the very bottom? --Pixelface (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Either is okay with me. The plot section is often the first named section of an article on a book or film, and in my opinion this is less than ideal. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning

The section "Director's comments concerning the plot" needs to be removed in its entirety because it is a violation of WP:SPOILER. The section could easily be re-titled "Director's warning about spoilers" and still have the same purpose. Verifiability does not warrant immediate inclusion, especially when this information attempts to warn about the spoiler in a roundabout manner. The commentary is very clearly delivered in a way to "warn" the reader of the plot -- if it was incorporated into a production-esque section to reflect the structure of the film, that would be appropriate. However, considering the recent attempt to "justify" spoiler warnings with verifiable citations, this section does not belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a violation of WP:SPOILER because the section is not a spoiler warning. The section contains commentary by Adam Nayman, David Cronenberg, and Roger Ebert. --Pixelface (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It is very transparently an attempt to accomplish through the "back door" what cannot be done explicitly (i.e., warn the reader about forthcoming spoilers). Perhaps it is relevant that Nayman, Croneneberg, and Ebert, made those comments. But I am certain that a non-spoiler-obsessed editor would have given them far less weight that the article currently does. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Citations are not a "back door." I can't cite the director of the film now? Do I need to remind you of the policy on neutral point of view? --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the content is related to the release of the film, I have moved it to that particular section instead of its earlier placement that was strategically pro-spoiler (right before the Plot section). However, I think it should be removed in its entirety, because it's recentism, failing to be a historical perspective and instead written to be a "current film" kind of warning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of critical reception. I've cited verifiable interpretations of the plot that appear in reliable sources. I've moved the section. It's not a disclaimer. What policies does it violate? If you move it again I'm going to remove every sentence in the Plot section that doesn't cite a reliable source per WP:V and WP:OR and WP:RS. --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's critical reception; you're reporting what others have said about the film. Just because you have citations does not mean the material has been organized properly. WP:V and WP:NOR are bedrock policies, but good editing does not end there. The material needs to be organized in a sensible way. You'll note that we have not removed the material (though its relevance to the article, quite frankly, is dubious); we've only moved it to where it more properly belongs.

One also cannot ignore the edit history of this article. You ran a veritable master class on all the different ways that a spoiler warning could be added. After each and every one of them was reverted (multiple times), you removed the plot summary entirely. After that was reverted, you added the section that is now in dispute. Your objective, quite plainly, was to get a spoiler warning into the article any way you could. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? The director's comments are critical reception? And how is that? The material was in its own section. Could you point me to the policy that says director's comments must be placed under a Critical reception heading? I don't care what you think is relevant. There is no policy on relevance. What do spoiler warnings have to do with the section? I've removed material that doesn't cite reliable sources. Maybe you should help work on this article. The criminal tattoo section can be expanded and there's material above on this talk page you can use. Thanks, Marc. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: And now that your spoiler warning has been moved, you've returned to your old bag of tricks, and tried to remove the plot altogether (see WP:POINT). Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Removing material that doesn't cite reliable sources is policy. I don't see how WP:POINT applies to that. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a rewritten plot. The previous version had some stuff out of order, included some stuff that in my opinion was of minor importance and omitted some things that were important to understand the story.

As for the spoiler and location of the plot section, take a look at all other Wikipedia film articles. The plot (or summary or story or whatever it's called) always comes first, never contains a spoiler warning, and never includes references (nor any "original research" tag - that's silly). Here's two examples off my watchlist, but like I say, 100% of movie articles follow this pattern: Charlie Wilson's War and Flightplan. --RenniePet (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't cited any reliable sources. That's policy. The {{OR}} tag is not silly. WP:OR says "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I really don't care if those other two articles violate policy. This is the talk page to discuss improvements to this article. I suggest you find some reliable sources, and cite them and rewrite the section based on those citations. --Pixelface (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface, you were opposed by overwhelming consensus regarding the writing of the plot. I encourage you to stop re-hashing arguments that are not at all supported by the community. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR is a policy and is supported by the community. WP:OR says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article." If the Plot section does not cite reliable sources, I can only assume it's original research. And I still don't know why the heading above is Spoiler warning. If Doczilla was talking about the spoiler warning inserted by 84.191.184.240, I could see how it applies, but the Director's comments concerning the plot section is not a spoiler warning. --Pixelface (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing the film itself for the description of the plot is perfectly allowable, and not original research. It's a paraphrasing of what happens on the screen. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on primary sourcing, please bring it up at the appropriate place and attempt to have it changed there instead of disrupting this article. As things stand, this article conforms to Wikipedia policies; inserting these tags is therefore inappropriate. Steve T • C 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you know the person who wrote the section wrote it from the film? The only way an editor can demonstrate they are not performing original research is to cite reliable sources that directly support the material in the article — that's policy. And the guideline on reliable sources says articles should be written from reliable, third-party sources. I'm not disrupting this article. I've put alot of work into this article. You can see for yourself.[12] That's called a citation. Even if I believe you that primary sourcing is acceptable and that the person who wrote the section wrote it from their memory of watching of the film, if you read the Plot section, you'll see it contains original research. The {{OR}} tag is still appropriate. --Pixelface (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I find this argument specious. If you cite a book which is out of print, or a newspaper from 1954, how do I know you wrote it from these secondary sources? It doesn't matter whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources have been used, if you don't have access to the materials to double-check an editor's contribution, you have to take it on faith. I haven't read the plot section for this article beyond the first paragraph or so, so I can't speak for how good it is or how much interpretation it contains, but good plot summaries are reached through collaboration and consensus-building. See I Am Legend (film)#Plot for a recent good example. It's still a work-in-progress, but it's pretty good so far, reaching its current state through this very method. Steve T • C 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability — meaning readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Where has the plot description in this article been previously published? Readers should not have to put faith in anonymous people on the Internet. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and it's unwise to put faith in material just because it appears on this site. We have a policies on verifiability and no original research and neutral point of view, and a guideline on reliable sources so readers don't have to take material on faith. This film isn't out of print. There are plenty of reliable sources that have written about this film. As soon as this article is unprotected, I recommend whoever wants to keep the Plot section in the article provide reliable sources that directly support the material. --Pixelface (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources include primary ones. This film is a primary source. It has been "published". It can be checked. If you wish to disallow the use of this film as a primary source, you also wish to disallow the use of all primary sources. I hereby suggest you present this major policy change at the appropriate talk page. Steve T • C 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not what the guideline on reliable sources says. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" and "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." The film is a primary source, true. But how do you know the film was used to write the Plot section? I'm not trying to change policy; I'm trying to follow it. The policy on original research says "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I see no citations in the Plot section that directly support the information as it is presented. I think it's clear that this is the first place the text in the Plot section has been published — it's self-published. If the text cited a blog, it would be unacceptable. If the text cited another wiki, it would be unacceptable. If the text cites no reliable sources, it's unacceptable. This film was reviewed by over 150 critics, and many of them can be cited. I invite you (and everyone here) to work on a Plot section that cites reliable sources under the heading below, Plot section that cites reliable sources. I can help write it. --Pixelface (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dealing first with the technical point you raise, could a plot summary be constructed using solely secondary sources? For some films, including this one, yes. Others, no, because the same wealth of material will simply not exist for many projects. And while this is merely anecdotal evidence, experience has shown me that thrashing out a correct version of a plot summary on an article's talk page is far less problematic than the arguments which ensue when two or more secondary sources provide conflicting information. At least the film itself can be referred to as a primary source in order to resolve the dispute. Concerning that, you quote "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources;" yes, based on. i.e. secondary sourcing should provide the rationale for an article's existence and should also provide the bulk of its content. I know that you will interpret that differently, and that's fair enough; there is ambiguity in the wording. While that exists, I will therefore refer to policy concerning primary sources, which (currently) are considered reliable sources when used correctly (and I heartily agree that in many cases, they are not; I'm also currently looking for an appropriate way in which a primary source such as a film can be properly-cited). I do think that it would require a major change in Wikipedia policy to get your own way on this, and you should therefore bring the matter up at the appropriate village pump or talk page. I appreciate your objections, but as I disagree, I do hope you'll understand if I say I can't wish you luck if you do go down that route :). Best regards, Steve T • C 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I saw the film in a cinema yesterday evening. Liked it very much. (Hadn't even heard of it before the wife and I started talking about what we should see - she'd read some reviews and it was on her shortlist.)

Now, I did see some things that I think are holes in the plot, and so did my wife. If I'd included this sort of information in the article then it would definitely be "original research". But I tried to simply describe what I saw in a neutral tone as best I could remember it, with some help from the previous plot description.

You want original research? How about this:

  • They all jump to the conclusion that Semyon must be father to the baby because he had raped the girl and then she was fed P-pills after that. But P-pills don't start to work for a week or so, and assuming she was forced to work as a prostitute immediately then there would be many men who could be the father of the baby.
  • Kirill kidnaps the baby, presumably to prevent DNA evidence being taken from the baby. But presumably the normal procedure would be to take DNA evidence from the baby at the same time as taking DNA evidence from Semyon.
  • Anna is seen as having custody of the baby in the last scene, and calls herself mother or mum when talking to the baby. It's not normal that a midwife can take custody of a baby with no relatives just because she fancys the baby.
  • Why weren't the police involved in the case right from the start? A 14-year-old girl (and how do they know her age?) with no identity papers and junkie punctures on her arms and a diary written in Russian dies in a London hospital, nine months pregnant, and the police aren't notified and begin to investigate?

Still, I think it was a great movie. --RenniePet (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The original research tag is unmitigated nonsense, and further more, the editor who placed it perfectly well knows this. His only agenda is to get spoiler tags in Wikipedia, and if he can't get that, then he wants the spoilers themselves removed. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The {{OR}} tag is not nonsense. Do you think statements like "leaving the viewer to wonder who Nikolai really is and why he did what he did." are not original research? Where has that been previously published? I'd be happy if the Director's comments concerning the plot section came before the Plot section. That's all. Erik removed it and called it a "disclaimer" — which is ridiculous. Erik said the section violated WP:SPOILER — which is ridiculous. If that section doesn't come before the Plot section, I am forced to defer to policy — which says the Plot section needs reliable sources. Unsourced plot summaries are frequently ignored on Wikipedia. I like reading them occasionally myself. But they are not supported by policy. When unsourced material is causing a problem, it needs to be dealt with. The policy on verifiability says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I think the entire Plot section should be removed, but for now I am fine with the {{OR}} tag.
Tony Sidaway requested this article be protected. I don't see why. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wishes to keep or restore material. Like I've said before, there are plenty of reliable sources that have written about this film which can be used to write a Plot section. I suggest editors start working on it here on this talk page. I'll start a new heading below. --Pixelface (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The above comment says it all. If the plot summary is original research—which of course it is not—you ought to object to it regardless of how the other sections are organized. And you ought to object in the thousands of other articles that contain plot summaries without footnotes. Instead, you object only when your spoiler warning is removed. Marc Shepherd (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I ignore the speed limit frequently too. But when pedestrians are on the road, I start to follow the rules of the road. When unsourced material is causing a problem, it needs to be dealt with — by following policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Could WP:PSTS be any clearer? Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably, yeah. If you look at the talk page of the policy on no original research and it's archives, it appears that WP:PSTS is debated and may not have consensus. The policy on no original research says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Do you disagree with that? The policy on verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." So, the question is: Where has the text that appears in the Plot section been previously published? --Pixelface (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that WP:PSTS is debated and may not have consensus. Practically all policies are debated. The only way we will know it lacks consensus is if it changes, and the change endures. Should that happen, everyone would need to adjust their behavior. But for now, it remains the law of the land. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:PSTS is the "law of the land." WP:SPOILER, however, is just a guideline. If editors are going to remove anything in this article "per WP:SPOILER", I'm going to have to refer to another guideline, WP:RS. If you want plot details in this article, you'll have to cite reliable, third-party sources for them. --Pixelface (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the published material the film itself? It has been "published" by the fact of its release to the general public. The text summary of this primary source, as with our use of all secondary sources, is a summary of the cited material. If an actual citation in the plot text for such a primary source is required, it could be placed at the end and look something like this:
Best regards, Steve T • C 10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The Plot section has no citation. Does the Plot section cite the theater version or the DVD? And I wouldn't link to the Internet Movie Database in the ref because it is not a reliable source for plot summaries or plot synopses. It's like citing a blog. --Pixelface (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If I were citing the DVD, I'd probably say so; similarly with the theatre version. This particular point is no different than deciding which edition of a book to cite from (and I wasn't citing the imdb for the plot summary; merely providing a link to further information on the film which, yes, is probably unnecessary). I'm not sure as to the correct method of citing certain primary sources; I was just fiddling around trying to come up with something, as none of the regular templates seemed appropriate. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Pixelface was correct when he said that the plot summary contained some elements of original research. Not huge problems, but identifiable and correctable ones. I think RenniePet's rewrite has addressed that and other problems rather well. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that my rewrite was an attempt to make the plot summary more accurate, not to avoid any "original research" accusations.
If it will make Pixelface happy, I'm willing to change that last sentence about "leaving the viewer to wonder". Or he can do it himself, of course. If/when the article is unprotected. --RenniePet (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that last sentence should be removed — that would bring the section more in line with WP:OR. But if editors are going to refer to WP:SPOILER and remove any spoiler warnings, I am going to have to refer to policy, WP:OR and WP:V and WP:NPOV, and the guideline WP:RS. I've already cited reliable sources that the film contains spoilers. If editors want spoilers in the article, they need to cite reliable secondary sources for them. The burden of evidence is on them. --Pixelface (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we've been through this before. A statement of fact about the plot of the film can be verified by watching the film. --Tony Sidaway 07:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I'll go rent the DVD and watch the film and rewrite the Plot section myself. Do you think I'm a reliable source? --Pixelface (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether what you write is accurate or not. If you make mistakes they will be corrected. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it would invite the question why you were rewriting a section that was already in existence. If it is inaccurate, your corrections would obviously be welcome. But perhaps you are just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Following WP:RS is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Pixelface (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It matters whether what I write has a source or not. --Pixelface (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, earlier you removed the Interesting facts section "Because it's unsourced" and you said the section about tattoos in the film was unsourced and if it had reliable sources, it would be a welcome addition. Why remove that unsourced section but allow the unsourced Plot section to remain in the article?

Marc, you removed the Russian criminal tattoos in the film section from this article and called it "original research." The section said the tattoos in the movie are fairly authentic. You said it had no source. Why remove that unsourced section and not the unsourced Plot section? Do Plot sections not need sources, yet other sections do?

I found reliable third-party sources for information in that section and posted them on this talk page. The Plot section should also cite a reliable third-party sources, right? --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a parrot, the film is a source for the plot. --Tony Sidaway 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And for about the 995th time, WP:PSTS expressly permits the use of primary sources for such a purpose. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The film is not a reliable, third-party, published source per WP:RS. WP:RS says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." but the Plot section contains no citations to third-party sources. --Pixelface (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And the film was also a source for the the tattoo section. --Pixelface (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Marc has cited official Wikipedia policy which explicitly states that primary sources can be used in this way and for this purpose. You have cited a guideline that appears to conflict with official policy. Now there are several ways to handle this apparent conflict between a guideline and a policy, but none of them involve ignoring official policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If policy says the film can be used to write the Plot section and doesn't need to be cited, that's fine with me. The guideline WP:SPOILER says "Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings." The guideline WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." If WP:SPOILER is going to be followed in the Plot section, we must also follow WP:RS in the Plot section. --Pixelface (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
But isn't there a difference there? As far as I can see, there is no conflict between WP:SPOILER and another policy or guideline on this matter. Whereas, if your reading of WP:RS is correct, there is between that guideline and WP:PSTS. Steve T • C 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the Plot section currently conforms to the current (protected) wording of WP:SPOILER, but I do not think the Plot section currently conforms to WP:OR: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." and WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I suppose WP:SPOILER could be followed and WP:RS ignored, but the Plot section still does not contain citations to reliable sources that directly support the information as it is presented. --Pixelface (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem of an actual inline citation to a reliable source could be solved easily enough; we could cite the primary source, which is considered a reliable source such under policy WP:PSTS. The format that would take, perhaps similar to the one I presented yesterday, would merely be a technicality to be thrashed out elsewhere. Steve T • C 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of WP:RS. However, for the sake of argument, I will for now assume you are correct as to the guideline's intent.WP:PSTS expressly allows the use of primary sources. WP:RS, for the sake of argument, does not. However, WP:PSTS documents an official Wikipedia policy, whereas WP:RS is a guideline. Both are to be followed, where possible. But where there is seeming conflict between the two, policies take precedence over guidelines. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, policy does take precedence over guidelines. The statement "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." from WP:V and the statement "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." from WP:OR take precedence over the statement "Wikipedia carries no spoilers warnings" from WP:SPOILER. --Pixelface (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm genuinely not seeing the conflict here between WP:SPOILER and any of those, but maybe I'm being dim; I'll go take another look at it. Steve T • C 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any conflict with policy either. The film is a direct primary source for the content of the film, and about as reliable as it's possible to get. If there are different versions of the film (as for instance with Blade Runner), the plot summary should make it plain which version of the film is being referred to at any given point in the summary. the fact that the film is not a textual document is immaterial; it is still a verifiable source for its own content. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the film is a direct primary source for the Plot section, I think the section still needs to cite the film, per policy and the guideline on writing about fiction. I think the Plot section should cite reliable, third-party sources per WP:RS. I am willing to accept third-party sources simply for plot details; I am willing to leave sourced interpretations of the plot out of the Plot section. If citations to reliable, third-party sources are not provided for the Plot section, I think the Director's commentary section should appear before the Plot section. I think the current layout of this article is unacceptable. Hopefully readers will read the Director's commentary section before reading the Plot section and stop adding spoiler warnings to this article, although I can make no guarantees. How about I remove this from the Plot section, remove the {{OR}} tag from the Plot section, cite the film in the Plot section, and move the Director's commentary section before the Plot section? Is that acceptable? --Pixelface (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the removal of that interpretative comment at the end of the summary. What do you have in mind for the format of the citation? When I've suggested this to others, they've made the point that a cite might be redundant, as any information it may contain would already be in the article. Thoughts? Steve T • C 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have objected to the {{cite video}} template in the past because I feel it provides no more actual verification than a blog post would, but if editors insist the film is the primary source for the section, I think the {{cite video}} template could be used. I see that a link to IMDb is common. Some people may consider the {{cite video}} template redundant, but it is used in many articles and I suppose it would bring the Plot section in line with WP:OR which says "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." It would help clarify that the section was not written based from a blog or MySpace page. If the Plot section should cite the film itself, I think the citation for the Plot section should look like this:
{{cite video |people=David Cronenberg (Director), Steve Knight (Writer) |date2=2007-09-08 |title=''Eastern Promises'' |url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765443/ |medium=Motion picture |publisher=Focus Features |location=[[Universal City, California]] |accessdate=2008-01-11}}
In the past, I have frequently seen editors say that an editor watching a film or playing a videogame and writing about it themselves is original research. I still do not know if the editors that wrote the Plot section actually watched the film, but I suppose it's incredibly likely. I think this article should be unprotected soon if the final proposal I made at 23:18, 10 January 2008 is not controversial. --Pixelface (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to your adding such a citation to the article, though it seems superfluous in this context. It probably isn't a good idea to include a URL in the citation, because the film isn't available on the web and a URL might mislead someone reading it to believe that you were citing the website you linked. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the URL may be misleading. I included it above because Template:Cite video said "Provides a link to either the production's website or to its entry at IMDb." I think we can leave it out. --Pixelface (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've no particular objection to the cite (though others may), other than to suggest leaving the location and url fields blank. As for your proposal, I'm not sure that moving the section on the director's commentary to before the plot section would fly either; it does go against the style guidelines for film articles and would be acting as a de-facto spoiler warning. I've had an alternative thought, however. I probably shouldn't be saying this, and other editors might decide to open up a can of "whoop-ass" on me for it, but it would be remiss of me not to mention that in certain, rare, select circumstances, WP:LEAD might be your friend instead. For example, if the comments in the Director's commentary section were to remain in this article by consensus, then it would probably apply here. I will stress that I do tend to disagree with that section's inclusion, though I would be happy to go with consensus on the matter. Best regards, Steve T • C 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about I remove this from the Plot section, remove the {{OR}} tag from the Plot section, cite the film in the Plot section, and move the Director's commentary section before the Plot section?

I take it that you are now conceding that plot summaries derived from primary sources do not violate Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, we could not even consider your proposal, because editors aren't allowed to agree among themselves to contravene policy.
I agree that the {{OR}} tag should be removed from the plot section, and I agree that the interpretive statement at the end of the synopsis should be removed.
I agree with Tony that "citing the film" within the plot section would be superfluous, and it would be also be inconsistent with all of the other film articles. It would be better to make a proposal at WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, so that we can treat all films similarly.
The final portion of your proposal is entirely independent of the others. Its merit has nothing to do with whether there is an {{OR}} tag on the plot, or whether the plot summary is cited. Most editors seem to think that the flow of the article is disrupted by placing that section where you want it. The main reason you're so fond of it is that it offers a de facto spoiler warning. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish??

It is mentint at least two times Turkish in the text. Why? They are not Turkish but Chechen or Kazachs. I am talking about knive fight in the spa and barber shop.

71.99.125.232 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the barber and his retarded nephew are supposed to be Turkish, while it is correct that all the mafia types are Russian or Chechen. --RenniePet (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot is far from reality. Everything is far. They even messed up with tatoos

[edit] Plot detail

The rewritten plot is good. However, an important detail is missing: Nikolai receives the same tatoos as Kirill. Could this be added (either now, if there's easy consensus, or after protection is lifted?) Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of plot summary

The plot summary is now enormous and minutely detailed, which really isn't on for an encyclopedia. We should give a picture of the significant plot events, not a blow-by-blow account.

Compare the current version [13] with one from early October [14]. The current version has over 1000 words, the earlier version just 400. Is anything really significant missing from the latter? I strongly suggest that we consider reverting the plot summary to something more closely resembling that concise, but still informative, version. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Award nominated?

Someone recently added "Academy Award nominated" to the first sentence of the intro. Is this justified, considering that it is Viggo Mortensen who got the nomination, not the film as such? --RenniePet (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If any person who worked on the film received an Academy Award nomination, I think it's typical to say the film is Academy Award nominated — although I don't have a strong opinion about that phrase in the lead. --Pixelface (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There's been some small debate about this recently. My own feeling is that the standard description of the film should come first in order to provide context, with the nomination mention towards the end of the lead. "Academy Award-nominated" doesn't really provide much information. Far better to flesh it out a little with something along the lines of "Mortensen was nominated for Best Actor at the 80th Academy Awards." I'll punch-up the lead a little later on if there are no objections. Steve T • C 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's done. I think it gives a much better overview of the article, including the numerous awards and nominations. Let us know if it's not to everyone's satisfaction. All the best, Steve T • C 09:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the lead look great. I know IMDb is not considered a reliable source for much information, but I do consider it reliable for information regarding release dates. --Pixelface (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

Isn't "Canadian crime drama mystery thriller feature film" a little too specific? (Actually, just about the ugliest wording I've seen in a while...) --JD79 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Consider it sorted. All the best, Steve T • C 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Nuts. I was hoping for "Canadian/British romantic violent crime drama mystery thriller motorcycle feature film". --RenniePet (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)