Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film) article.
Article policies
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.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.


Contents

[edit] Incredibly poignant

A group of us saw this yesterday. Amazingly moving stuff. Flawless. You couldn't really blame the British media and cinema owners for, in effect, censoring it. 193.1.172.163 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. An excellent film. It makes you think too. I wonder about the politics of it. Loach's sympathies are clearly against the 'Free Staters' towards the end of the film but I wonder how I would have reacted if I had been there at the time. Not accept the Free State and partition would have meant the Civil War continuing to this very day. And sooner or later the whole of Ireland will become one as the Catholics are outbreeding the Protestants in the North. In 20-30 years time the Catholics will be the majority in the 6 counties. What will the Orangemen do then? (I write as a Englishman btw)SmokeyTheFatCat 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Great film!! It was very moving. Makes you wonder when the wars would ever end. But i do side with the Free Staters. In my mind, the other camp is too idealistic and radical. Like fundamentalist. There will always be a compromise!!
Tremendous! What I particularly liked was that Loach doesn't tell you how to think, as evidenced by the comments above. You can understand the rational behind the Republican's and the Free-Staters position, portrayed so tragically, personally and movingly in the conflict between the two brothers. The very fact that right-wing commentators in GB lambasted it (some before they's even seen it!) tells you, you gotta see this film! Camillus (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Great movie. There was a rapturous round of applause in the theatre in France here last night... there's definately material there for a part 2. --Wmcnamara 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think he crammed too much into the film - the was material for three films in it and my only other critisism with the film was that the scene in the room when they were discussing the treaty was very staged. Apart from that it was a very good film. Vintagekits 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I havn't seen it yet, but will this Thursday. I've heard it's heavilly biased to please the massive Irish-American market. But we shall see! Logica 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes - it was great - A great job for IRA propaganda!! Completely biased and one-sided!! What about the hundreds of Royal Irish Constabulary officers who were killed and those who were driven across the border or over to England?? Ken Loach fails to be balanced. Would he have the same "courage" to make a film from the POV of an RIC officer who is burned out of his house/family killed/friends killed, etc - simply because they wanted to do a job upholding the peace? One of the characters asks "What's it like to kill an Irishman" at the end - well, what about killing fellow Irish RIC officers?? Best part of the film was when Cillian Murphy's character was shot by his brother - I laughed!!!! And yes, I'm a Northern Irishman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.241.223 (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not a Northern Irishman, you're no kind of Irishman, you're a Brit who got planted into Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.143.14 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A beautiful film. Very well-made. The best I've ever seen on the subject. Yes the Civil War was gruesome and terrible, but the reality of it has got to come out of the cuproard some time. I'm disappointed that Wiki has said that the section telling to story of the film is biased. Well, it's what happened, in the film and in life. To yer man the Northerner, the war in Carsonia was much worse than this, and it wasn't only the nationalists causing all the bother. kelt1111 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR DISCUSSING THE FILM. --Melty girl 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, the idea of laughing at anyone's death by firing squad, or any reason, brings home the point that the director appears to have been trying to make early in the movie. The arrogance and brutality of the Black & Tans.--PSlevin 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Great Job

Spot on, matches what I've learnt about those times and the tales of my Grandparents and their chums who were in the flying columns. There was a lot left out, like the fracturing of the country into soviets and the local currencies, but what was in the film was accurate. Many a religious man was excommunicated by the Church and many never returned even later when the Church "took back" the excommunication.

PS All the actors were from Cork, so saying the corkonian accents weren't accurate is frankly rubbish. 83.70.231.135 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Something to point out is the Black and Tans were mostly played ex-British Solders. Ken Loach says this in the DVD commentary. --Internet Nerd 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

it is an average film it was saved by great acting by padraig delaney and cillian murphy ken loach isnt a great director his metheods dont work certainly the black and tan excesses shown in the film did happen my grandmother waa young child at the time her mother died and her mothers funeral was held up by black and tans seaching people in the crowd for arms they took away some men including her uncle [who was an ira member in fairness] and beat them upBouse23 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Heffer

Does anyone have a direct link to Heffer's article about this film? I can't find it on the Telegraph site, and the reference given points to a completely different article. 217.155.20.163 19:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...if you look at the linked page, the second item is "Black is white in northern Ireland", but for some reason this link no longer works (it used to, I can vouch for that)- at the bottom of the page, you can still see the comments replying to Heffer's "review" of the film, but there is no longer any sign of the article. I know that newspapers do archive their pages from time to time, I guess this is what's happened. I suppose the reference will just have to be changed to "Black is white in northern Ireland", Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph, June 3, 2006... Camillus (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction in England

My brothers girlfriend is English and when she saw it her words were "It's good to see this because we never learnt about Irish history". I think that English people should see this just to show that their history wasn't all tea and crumpets and valiant wars against evil empires like Nazi Germany and that the British Empire itself was a very oppressive and evil empire itself. Irish Catholics were subdued and brutalized every since the arrival of Oliver Cromwell (another celebrated as a hero) in the 15th century until the day they left. As for the treaty, although it was elected many of those elected FOR it out of fear that the British would return. The boundary commission was meant to be temporary and was to be reviewed a year later, it wasn't reviewed until Good Friday 1998. Having an election with the backdrop of impending fear and terror is never going to be a fair one.

Erm, please don't patronise me on my history. Furthermore, the fact that you are referring to the "English" suggests it is you who need a history lesson... This is Wikipedia, a place of FACTS not for spurious comments like the above. Take it to a trashy message board, buddy. Logica 03:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree, this is a discussion on the film not the events of people like Cromwell and Churchill. However, there is a valid point to be made because I do personally know that the topic of the Irish War Of Independence and results of it is not dealt with in nearly enough detail in English history lessons which I believe is the point made

I know, we didn't do any of it in history at school. But this is an argument that comes up again and again about all sorts of 'important' historical events. What do you reccomend we leave out? The Holocaust, then First World War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution (...etc)??? It's easy enough to say it "should" be included, but you've got to push some other event aside that will make some other people unhappy. Logica 12:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that the Irish war of Independance is indeed nt thought at all outside of Ireland. As is the Great Famine for that matter. The Irish were brutalized for 8 centuries by the empire and it's true that atrocities committed by the empire are not thaught. Nor are the atrocities by the republicans thaught here in Ireland. After all, history is written by the victors. As a scout I know what our first chief scout did in the Boer war and I know what the British empire did during Ireland's war of independance but I believe a topic about a movie is not the right place to discuss it. It's just a movie that romanticises a view most Irish at the time did not have. Most Irishmen wanted to go back to Home Rule or a greater independance within the empire. The movie shows great support for the Republicans where as an active member of the republican movement I can tell you there was not, and still isn't a great support for a socialist republic in Ireland which is the goal of the IRA and the Republican movement. Jorgenpfhartogs 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but this isn't the place to be discussing all of this. These are somewhat dubious sentances that deserve no place in a factual encycloedia. As I've said above - there are plenty of message boards and chat rooms where you can express your belief. Logica 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Having been thought History in Ireland I can assure you that there is no illusions painted that all the IRA fighters were romantics. That being said, the tales of the Black and Tans are not fabrications and the stories have credible sources. It was a brutal war but it is very much in the past. In this day and age bitterness is absolutely stupid and carried only by common thugs who wanted something to give out about. I can't speak for Northern Nationalists but the state of the Republic's economy owes a great debt to the English people and their Economic policies towards Ireland. If you are asking which topics should be left out of English History curriculum I would say none but they could be shortened down to address the history of British Rule in Ireland. (FearSneachta 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

I think that "Logica" does not appreciate the seriousness of the for said film. You are right this is an encyclopedia, and with that it is fact that the British army did commit attrocities against inocent Irish people in the Anglo-Irish which are far from forgotten. However having been thought History in school and continuing it in University I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it is not biased or "Anglo-phobic". We do learn about IRA attrocities, and as regards that a great majority of Irish people are somewhat Jaundiced about the IRA and Sinn Féin. By the way "Logica" it's not your history, especially if you're a plastic paddy! ([User:roryf1|roryf1)] 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC))


Irish history is of little importance to Britain or indeed the rest of the world which is ironic given that so many millions of Irish emigrated to every corner of the globe - resultant in millions of people considering themselves Irish but yet haven't a clue to the history of our little Isle of Saints and Scholars - but I guess its down to politics and money to a degree also the history of Ireland is an embarassment to Britain - It was the first British colony and was ruled very heavy handed until fairly recent times (20th Century). It is also important to remember that the Treaty was only signed by the Irish because Britain did threaten to do worse if the Treaty was not agreed. I do not recall the exact quotation but it was something like "If you thought we were bad now wait until you see what we will do" The threat was there and is recorded in various histories of the time. It is mentioned in the film but unless the viewer has an understanding of the time and background it is easily missed. The majority of Irish did not accept partiition but Britain refused to recognise this and gerrymandered the vote to include only the 6 counties that had the majority of Protestants. They did this by excluding 3 of Ulster's nine counties which is why although Northern Ireland is referred to as Ulster it is only 6 of Ulster's 9 counties the other 3 being Donegal (the Northern most Irish county yet is classified as "Southern" Ireland), Cavan and Monaghan. It is also important to point out that Britain was equally heavy handed in Scotland during the 18th Century and the infamous reign of Oliver Cromwell was the 17th Century not the 15th Century as stated by a previous contributor above.Vono 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The dumbest thing said in the above debate was that Oliver Cromwell is celebrated as a hero. Since bloody when!? He is not glorified or celebrated, and I've heard a few times him used as an example of a despot, rather than a man to be seen as a hero. He was a religious fanatic (which makes it hard for left-wingers to worhsip him) who fought against his king (hard for many right-wingers to celebrate that) and betrayed his parliament and ruled as a dictator (noone can or does celebrate that). We dug up his dead body and cut his head, and for good reason too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.205.118 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 July 2007

There is a memorial statue of Cromwell outside Westminster. He is regarded by many as a British hero even though he was an absolute tyrant in Ireland, outlawing the practice of Catholicism and executing many priests. He told the removed Irish to go to "hell or to connaught" (the poor land in the west of the country). Also with regards to this time of history another man who is seen as hero by the British but in the time of this film was an absolute demon to the Irish was none other than Churchill. It is an historic fact that he wanted all the leaders of the Dáil executed without trial during the War of Independence and he and Llyod George pressurised the signatures of the treaty to divide Ireland. He also was instrumental in forcing Collins to Shell the Four Courts after the irregular occupation of the building by threatening an immediate re-start of British Military Occupation of Ireland. He may have done great things for Britain in the war but make no mistake he is not a popular figure with many in Ireland.

Chill out, mate. Churchill won the war, remember. If it wasn't for him, the Irish would all be eating sauerkraut and wearing lederhosen by now. Don't tell me Uncle Adolf would have respected their neutrality... 142.167.169.173 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Links were removed for the following reasons:

  • [8] - International Marxist Tendency: decided to keep one article from Socialist Worker - section too loaded with Marxist reviews otherwise
  • The Wind that Shakes the Barley on Britfilms.com: better link is the Internet Films Database, which is what most other film articles on Wikipedia link to in this section
  • "The most powerful film I've seen" - review from An Phoblacht, 1 June 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
  • Interview with Ken Loach about the film from Socialist Worker, 10th June 2006: already one link to the Socialist Worker - do not want to bias the section
  • "Powerful portrayal of rebel Cork" - review from An Phoblacht, 22 June 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
  • Black & Tans were "no angels" - major concession by Loach critics! - An Phoblacht, 6 July 2006: solid reason: requires registration to see it
  • review from the website of Socialist Democracy (Ireland), 23 July 2006: already have a link to a socialist review of the film - do not want to bias the section
  • "Loach: The Coronation Street Of Class Struggle" - review from Soundtracksforthem/Indymedia Ireland, July 1 2006: site is not really noteworthy

This section could do with some other external links to balance out the socialist analysis that is already there in the one article linked to the Socialist Worker. Logica 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] songs

When the men are walking in the fog w/ the stolen motorcycle right before the ambush on the tans, what song are they singing? ty

The song they are singing is: Óró 'Sé do bheatha 'bhaile [1], The song has been recorded by numerous Irish artists including The Clancy Brothers, The Wolfetones, Carmel Quinn and many others. It is a "Rebel Song" mostly sung in Irish but occasionally in English too . The theme of the song is similar to that of Four Green Fields i.e. the welcoming home of an old woman (Ireland) who was sold into bondage - the analgy to the time (1916-1922) being the rebirth of Ireland through independance from Britain. These songs were popular at that time and through the 1970s but the new generations of Irish prefer to forget them or relegate them to history - it is not "politically correct" to sing them anymore in Ireland - "the war is over" However they do retain an ongoing level of popularity within Irish circles outside of Ireland even though for the most part the listeners are seduced by the tune lively tune and chorus rather than understanding the meaning as most do not understand Irish. Hope that this is useful Vono 18:18, 29 April 2007

The song is indeed Óró 'Sé do bheatha 'bhaile. The lyrics of the version from the movie were written by Patrick Pearse of 1916 fame. The air of the song, however, predates Pearse's version and is taken from a Jacobite song from the eighteenth century about the return Searlas Óg/Bonny Prince Charles the son of James II. While traditional Irish music does not enjoy the popularity it once did, to say that Irish people wish to "forget" or "relegate" these songs to history is entirely incorrect. As alluded to many artists have covered this song over the years, one of the most recent being Sinead O'Connor on her 2002 album Sean Nos Nua. That the song is not "politically correct" is spurious with the song being sung on Irish National Television during the recent "Charity You're a Star"(an Irish version of the X-Factor/American Idol talent show). Cliste 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tim Luckhurst

The references to the Monbiot article commenting on Tim Luckhurst make insinuations that he did not see the film because the Guardian do not have a record of him attending a screening and that he did not wish to comment. This evidence by itself is clearly not enough to support the insinuation, and it is very damaging to Luckhurst. Thus, the information is clearly not notable because it does not support anything, but instead makes implicit insinuations that Wikipedia should not deal in. If there are no objections, I am removing it. Logoistic 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say the Guardian has no record of Luckhurst attending a screening, it says that the production company has no such record. It is clear that this is within the timeframe before the film was released, so one is given to wonder how Luckhurst could deliver the criticism of it he did. Nick Cooper 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nick, you took the words right out of my mouth. This sourced material must not be removed, especially while Luckhurst's comparison of Loach to a Nazi is allowed to stand in the article. The only way that Luckhurst could have seen the film before going to press was at a production company screening, and they are the ones who say he did not attend. If he had actually seen the film, he would have told The Guardian that he had, but instead he refused to comment, which damages him, but is damage of his own making. Logoistic, your other edits do seem to give a better neutral tone, but your removal of this part of the article is not NPOV. The material is absolutely pertinent, given Luckhurst's inflammatory Riefenstahl comparison, which is what opened him to scrutiny. The material does not insinuate -- it is absolutely verifiable, and whether or not a critic actually saw the film before condemning it so incredibly harshly is absolutely pertinent to the Responses section of this article. I ask respectfully that you please do not remove it again. --Melty girl 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I misread - I thought it was the Guardian record we were talking about, not the production company. I take it back then. Logoistic 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. --Melty girl 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis tone problem

Recent edits to the synopsis seem very politically tilted toward Teddy's favor and toward an indictment of Damien, despite the fact that Damien is a more prominent character, that the film is very sympathetic toward Damien even as the situation is complex, and that more of the characters in the film stand with Damien than Teddy. Damien's death seems to be more Teddy's tragedy than the man killed! In my opinion we must strive for a more NPOV tone, both politically and from the perspective of interpreting a work of fiction. --Melty girl 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Melty Girl, In response to your message, I would say the following. As an Irish-American who was raised in a Pro-Treaty household, I have grown up hearing many stories about the time portrayed in the film. As a Traditionalist Catholic who attends a Chapel run by the Society of St. Pius X, I was horrified by Damien's transformation into a Left Wing extremist. I was especially scandalised by his yelling match with the priest. However, I loved the character and was devastated by his death.As for Damien's death being Teddy's tragedy, that is exactly how I see it. Damien goes before the firing squad with his head held high, while during the same scene, Teddy's face reveals a man whose heart has already been ripped in half. The people I felt most sympathy for after viewing the film for the second time were Teddy and Sinead. Teddy will spend the remainder of his life haunted by the death of his brother. I would not be at all surprised if he were to blow his own brains out. As for Sinead, the loss of Damien is more devastating by far than the murder of her brother Micheail. Although they do not seem to have been married, Damien's execution was every bit as horrific to her as the loss of a spouse. Although I understand why she drove Teddy away at the end, it seems to me that it was a foolish thing to do. Deep down, Teddy is the only person who can understand her grief. Kingstowngalway 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but your background isn't exactly relevant to the synopsis of this film. And your personal feelings and sympathies aren't relevant either. Your personal interpretation isn't exactly what belongs in the synopsis -- on a film like this personal feelings about the characters and the meaning of events will differ widely. Try to stick more to telling what happens and leave your feelings about it out. Your writing is biased and doesn't represent the film's plot with a that fundamental Wiki principle, NPOV. --Melty girl 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Melty Girl, My description of my background and opinions were simply meant to help you understand things from a different perspective. The synopsis you took exception to, in reality, was meant as an early draft of a work in progress. I would be quite interested, therefore, to learn your opinion of the current plot summary as I have written it.
PS
I have witnessed a great deal of biased writing over the time I have been contributing to this site. I have often acted to correct such articles when it seemed that no one else would. Witness for example my alterations to the article on the 18th century Irish satirist Brian Merriman, which once painted him as preaching of Secular Liberalism, feminism, and the sexual revolution. Kingstowngalway 23:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope to have time to come back and work on the synopsis soon. Right now, I can't -- and that is why I wanted to raise the idea of NPOV to you (and any other interested editors) while the synopsis suddenly seems to be getting some long-needed attention. Cheers, Melty girl 00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you do come back and work on the synopsis, Melty girl. The trouble with it as it stands is that its tone reveals all too clearly that it was written from Kingstowngalway's "Pro-Treaty" and "Traditionalist Catholic" perspective (so that coming to this page and learning that that is self-admittedly the case proved to be no surprise). A Wikipedia film synopsis is not meant to be a place for the expression of personal views on the characters' motivations ("How I see it"). This synopsis certainly does need work in that respect -- not to counter the POV element with opposing views, but to try harder to remove it. [I, for example, was far more "scandalized" by the behaviour of the priest in the church scene than by that of any of the congregation, but that is my POV: the job of the synopsis is simply to report the action of the film and reflect the reactions of the characters, not the viewers -- that is criticism, not synopsis.] -- Picapica (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Very well put, Picapica. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disturbed by Kingstowngalway's lack of understanding of what NPOV is. I hope to get back to this at some point; haven't had a lot of time for deeper editing lately. I hope you'll keep working on it. --Melty girl (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read the current version of the synopsis, and I think it's fine, both in tone and content, with one exception: the reference to a British "death squad," which is obviously POV. The men in question were a section of Auxiliaries, and it's clear from the film that their original intention was simply to harass the hurley players. The situation then escalated when one player first refused to speak English, and then resisted the raiders with force. I am going to edit that passage to simply read "Auxiliaries". --Cliodule 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Picapica and Melty girl,
Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the first draft of anything is garbage. As I have written above, my work on this article was meant as a first attempt at a work in progress, nothing more. I have continued to work on this article as you both may have noticed and have added descriptions of Teddy's misdeeds which did not appear in my early edits. I really do not know what more you expect me to add or subtract. BTW, I do not appreciate the tone of your postings here or your implecation that I am incapable of writing objectively. Kingstowngalway (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to both cut the length but also correct POV problems. Sometimes the latter requires a bit more text. I try to restore the balance by deleting unnecessary detail. I may not always get the balance right, but it's better to talk about things here than to just the "undo" key. If there is a problem with my most recent changes, please let me know here why you think they're problems. In particular, I think it's important for NPOV to note that the IRA hits back after the first killing by killing four Auxies. Without this detail, the subsequent imprisonment of the IRA brigade makes it seem as if the Auxies and/or British Army are more abusive than even the film -- which clearly has its own POV (and that's okay; it's a film) -- makes them appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twins Too! (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, now the article is protected. I just want to commend Twins Too! for trying to pitch in. This should be a collaborative effort, but sadly, the response has been negative. Unfortunately, this only further discourages editors from trying to improve the article, myself included. I watch, but steer clear. Kinstowngalway, when you talk about your background and political perspective as a defense of your writing, it does not help your case regarding POV. And talking about it being a "work-in-progress" and Hemingway doesn't add anything meaningful either. Several editors have now commented that there's a problem with the plot as you've written it; you might consider taking this to heart and allowing the edits of others to stand. --Melty girl (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The current state of the plot synopsis.

As it stands, I think the plot section is simply too long. There is no need for a blow-by-blow description of the film. Furthermore, this section is now laden with POV language, and here is an example: "ambushes and slaughters an armed convoy" (slaughters is an unnecessary characterization of the events). We need to get this sorted out. The plot synopsis was fine some time back, and there is no reason it cannot and should not be restored to its former state. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Blow-by-blow is unneeded and quoting the film is undesirable except in the case of truly pivotal and memorable lines. But I have to disagree though -- as I remember it, the plot section was rather weak and short before Kingstongalway began working on it, and now it is long and problematic. I suggest that everyone interested in contributing read WP:Plot carefully and read some top quality film pages during the time out. --Melty girl (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
RepublicanJacobite, as far as the ambush sequence, I cannot think of a better term than "slaughters" for what takes place. The IRA patrol opens fire on the Auxiliary Division from an elevated position and kills every member of the convoy. MeltyGirl, I actually have allowed the edits of others to stand, I have just reworded them to improve the writing. In fact, the main thing I have taken away from this film is the great danger that comes from placing politics and ideology before the lives of one's own friends and family. Both Teddy and Damien are guilty of doing this and it compounds the tragedy of their relationship. It took a long time for me to come to this conclusion, but I have tried to include this in my recent edits. Kingstowngalway (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Kingstowngalway, as I've tried to tell you before, the plot section -- in fact, this whole article -- is not the place for your personal interpretation of the film. That's POV and original research. --Melty girl (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if I'm one of the editors that I take RepublicanJacobite suggested to Ryan Postlethwaite as engaged in an "edit war," but I infer I may be, since I've made several edits lately. I have to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's description above: I don't think the problem has been a battle over POV, although the article does present POV problems -- almost inherently given the subject matter and the subtlety of the film, in certain respects.
Rather, it's been a combination of disagreements over length, what's important and what's not, interpretation vs. description, and what counts as good writing, as well as POV. Also, there are at least three separate POV disputes, it seems to me: (a) the British / Auxie vs. IRA conflict, with some editors favoring changes that seem to characterize one side more favorably than the other; (b) the pro-Treaty (Catholic / Free Stater) vs. anti-Treaty (Socialist / anti-Commonwealth) conflict; and (c) a further dispute over whether the film is primarily about Teddy, Damien, or both, and the extent to which the film wants us to sympathize with one, the other, both, or neither.
In particular, my last change, and the last change before the article was protected (and thus the one that I infer triggered RepublicanJacobite's objection), was a pure stylistic / anti-interpretive edit, deleting the phrase "a broken man" as a descriptive, when there is nothing in the film that makes that reading clear -- "dejected," "unhappy," "ashamed," etc. all would be perfectly fine, but "a broken man" takes a stronger stance than is clear from the film.
Separately, "slaughters" is (In my view) correct: the Auxies were just that -- killed to a man, with only one casualty on the IRA side. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, for what that's worth -- that's the nature of warfare outside boyish stories. But the film clearly intends to show how upsetting the nature of this particular ambush is to the IRA members themselves, as they react afterward. Twins Too! (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Twins has said, particularly the characterization of the edit war. It was things like describing Teddy as "a broken man," which is an interpretive extrapolation of what's actually shown on screen -- a total stretch! -- that made me put up the neutrality tag in the first place. "A broken man" is no longer able to function in life as before -- do we know that that's true for Teddy's character? Absolutely not. All we know is that he is sad on the day of his brother's execution, but we do not know what he goes on to do after that or whether he feels any remorse at his participation. I would say that calling him "ashamed" would be a stretch -- it is not definitively depicted onscreen. It's the "broken man" kind of overinterpretation of characters' emotions and motives that I have repeatedly objected to here.
I also want to add that the movie spends more time with Damien's character than it does with Teddy. We see him more and thus we know more about how he feels. Damien is the primary character, Teddy is second, then probably Sinead, then Dan. If you were to do a content analysis of the character's screen time, I have no doubt Damien's primacy would be borne out. I believe an analysis of reviews would also reflect this reality. I'm NOT saying that this means that Teddy is a villain, because the movie isn't that simplistic, but Damien is the primary hero (again, he's not simply good, but he is the main character). This was my other objection at the time I placed the disputed neutrality tag: Teddy was primary in the plot section as written, and that's simply inaccurate.
I must disagree with Twins on one thing: I think "kills", "shoots dead" or "assassinates" are more dispassionate than "slaughters". "Slaughters" is probably best avoided or reserved for unarmed non-combatants who are killed, as it connotes defenselessness, and neither armed side is defenseless.
Last, I urge everyone to read WP:FilmPlot before trying again at the plot section. Important note: on Wikipedia, when writing plot summaries, we do not worry about spoiling the film for people who haven't seen it. Spoilers are welcome, and plot means the whole story (though not a blow-by-blow). A quote from the style guideline: "As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending." Also please note the guidelines' instructions about section length: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." The last version was a little too long, but I think some folks here would actually want to cut the section too short; 700 words is not short. Last, take a look at some of the articles at Category:FA-Class_film_articles.--Melty girl (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
While I will admit to focusing more on Teddy in my early edits, I now believe that my main reason for doing so was due to a greater ability to understand his viewpoint than Damien's. I would have to say, however, that Teddy is "a broken man" at the end. Just look at his face in the execution scene. This film traces Teddy from a charismatic idealist to someone who even Damien describes as being, "already dead."
I do think that the word "slaughters" should stand as well. During that ambush, quarter was neither asked for and I doubt it would have been given even if it had been. This film is depicting warfare without honor, which is a very ugly thing.
I would agree with you, MeltyGirl, that this film is far from being simplistic. Unless, of course, you consider the absence of Catholic priests in the Anti-Treaty IRA and Republicans coming from the Anglo-Irish landlord class. It is well documented that both of these did exist. But I do consider this a complicated enough plot for the summary to need its current length. Even as it now stands, a great deal of the story and its implecations remain unexplored, which is why I have considered it best to add links to other articles in order to keep it from needing to be even longer. Kingstowngalway (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Melty girl for the comments and (partial) agreement!
I can live without "ashamed" or any other characterization of Teddy as he leaves, although when I first cut the "broken man" phrase I did pause because simply saying he rides off doesn't quite capture the moment. I'm sorry to say, Kingstowngalway, I continue to disagree with you. I can't "see" Teddy's future, which is what you need to "see" to say he's a "broken man." There are less interpretive ways of describing his face in the last scene.
On "slaughter," on the other hand, I'm still more in agreement with Kingstowngalway. I'm willing to live without it, but I would point you to Wiktionary slaughter, which includes these two meanings: (1) To massacre people in large numbers and (2) To kill in a particularly brutal manner. One might argue that soldiers killing soldiers isn't brutal, but they still do kill a large number all at once, which is why I had thought the verb apt. Again, however, I can live without it if others think it seems too loaded given the content of the movie.
But that does make me want to say one more thing: I think there's a difference between NPOV as a Wiki policy, which we should strive for, and affect-less "neutral" (neutered?) description of film scenes (or book plots) that are clearly intended by the filmmaker to be something emotional, non-neutral, affecting, etc. Admittedly, it's hard to strike the right balance, particularly when the subject matter remains the source of ongoing political controversy (I should say, by the way, that I'm descended from both Catholics and Protestants, both English, Scotch-Irish and Irish, and don't think I have much of a political or other agenda -- not that any of that will or should convince anyone of anything).
I think part of Wiki's charm is that difficult topics like this can get worked out, albeit slowly, in a kind of two-steps forward, one-step back manner, writing by committees of the committed (commit-able?). That's why I'm not sure the rush to protect the page made sense, particularly without further discussion here -- Kingstowngalway seemed to have accepted additions recently that pushed against the arguably pro-IRA POV of the prior write-up, even as he resisted others. But I'm relatively new to the page; perhaps there's more here than I can see.Twins Too! (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Sorry to say this, Kingstowngalway, but I do not think you grasp the difference between reporting what was depicted in the movie and your own interpretation of it. True, as Twins points out, it's not like that's a simple issue in the first place, especially when a movie is emotionally and politically loaded. Still, you've failed to respond our specific comments as to why the description of Teddy as "a broken man" is a personal interpretation/POV of what's actually seen onscreen. We could accurately say that on the day of Damien's execution, Teddy is upset, grieving, tearful, downcast, etc., but that's all we can say for sure without going into our personal interpretations of what he may have been feeling or how the ordering his own brother's execution may or may not change him. Can you actually demonstrate how the movie SHOWED that Teddy is a broken man? Broken men are radically changed, unable to go on as before because of grief, etc. But does Teddy tear off his uniform? Renounce his path and position? Retreat to his room for a month? Become an alcoholic? Or does he go on to execute another anti-Treaty person the next day? Does he continue to serve in the military, run for office and rise in power despite his grief? We simply don't know, because the movie ends right after the execution. When you write that he's a "broken man" you're telling Wiki readers that Teddy can no longer function because of his grief. This is not depicted onscreen, period. While you continue to be unable to acknowledge this POV in your phraseology, I will continue to be hesitant to spend my time editing this plot summary. And the "broken man" problem is just one example of the problematic content you've added. I fear that you cannot distinguish between what's onscreen and your own personal assumptions.

BTW, I do think it's significant that neither Kingstowngalway nor Twins saw what was happening as an edit war. Perhaps protection was unnecessary. But it's good that everyone is talking. I must say that I feel rather pessimistic though. --Melty girl (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make this response as brief as I can because I frankly do not wish to get dragged further into this dispute. Ken Loach, the director of this film, is himself a socialist, so it is little surprise that Damien, and the Republican Socialist tendency in general, is shown in a more sympathetic light. The ambush sequence is clearly based on a very similar ambush perpetrated by General Tom Barry's West Cork flying column, in which the IRA men were so distraught afterward that they had to be led through calisthenics and marching drills in the road in order to keep them together. The film does not go to those lengths, but the sense is much the same. I still feel that "slaughters" is an inappropriate word to describe what happened. It is an inflammatory word that implies a massacre.
All of the edits I made to the article were with the intent of trimming the synopsis and removing POV---whether pro-IRA, pro-Brit, pro-Damien, or pro-Teddy---including, if one will take a look, trimming the final sentence in which Teddy is described as a "broken man". We have to imagine that this plot summary will be read by someone with little or no knowledge of the film and less knowledge of the historical background---in the United States today, this latter is very likely---and we should provide said hypothetical person with enough information so that they will understand the basic plot without giving away important plot points---at this point, the synopsis needs a spoiler alert given the fact that numerous key plot points are revealed---or taking sides in the conflicts within the film. That is all I have to say on the matter. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You've dragged yourself into the dispute, by asking for page protection before discussing anything here, so it's not a particularly kind thing to imply otherwise. It would have been better, for example, to explain here why you cut "slaughters" the second time in a row, after seeing someone restore it. (See the Wiki policy: Bold, Revert, Discuss.)
On that particular point, I'm confused why you think "slaughter" is inappropriate, given that as you note the film strongly suggests the distress their killing of the Auxies caused them. Are you worried that a stranger to the film will think the film is more anti-IRA than it is? Given the rest of the plot summary, it seems to me that's an unlikely risk -- after all, the film begins (as the summary note) with a murder by the Auxies, and then describes the British torturing IRA prisoners. As I say above, I can live without the verb, but I think it's apt, and if it helps Kingstowngalway agree to compromise on other points, I don't see the harm. Whatever you may think about the edits from Kingstowngalway (or me), reaching compromise among Very Interested Editors is part of the point of Wiki.
You also fail to address Melty girl's point that Wiki policy does not bar, and in fact asks to ignore the possibility of, plot spoilers. For what it's worth, I do agree with you about the film's perspective on Damien -- I think it's more sympathetic to him than Kingstowngalway does, and less sympathetic to Teddy.Twins Too! (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
For the nth time, spoiler alerts are inappropriate for Wiki, as is censoring the synopsis to hide important plot points. And may I remind everyone that this is a film article, not an Irish history article? Have I been wasting my time to ask editors to read WP:FilmPlot? Ugh. --Melty girl (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "slaughter" is pretty much always going to be an inherently POV word, unless you cite it to a source. It is not up to us (editors) to decide what a situation was like, we can only report. If you look at this, which states "Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care;", you can see, the word is problematic, and best avoided. Murderbike (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, Melty girl, I saw that you posted the link to WP:FilmPlot, but I never got around to reading it. Now, I have, and I see that the other film articles I have read that included "spoiler alerts" were, in fact, incorrect for doing so. I stand corrected. Given that the matter is being discussed, and that other editors have joined the discussion, and the fact that I feel we are getting some things straightended out, I am going to request that Ryan Postlethwaite lift the page protection. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! --Melty girl (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for revising the Plot section. Exclude quotes in their entirety because this is an overview of the film -- quotes are way too specific for this. Define key events but don't get in so much detail. The Plot section is meant to complement the rest of the film article so the background and the reception can be understood. It's really a matter of boiling it down to the elements -- the ones that everyone can agree happens on the screen. If there is a particular issue that is questionable, try to make the issue ambiguous. For instance, one issue that I've seen often is the type of vehicle or weapon used in a film even though it's never stated, and there is edit warring over that. A better solution is to just say "car" or "gun". I don't know if the same thinking could apply here, but it's just a matter of providing plot points for a brief understanding of the film to serve as context for the article, not to attempt replicating whatever underlying themes that may be perceived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is clearly biased against Damien and in favor of Teddy. Words like "slaughter" are loaded; while the definition may be appropriate, one has to consider the connotation of words as well. The summary also focuses on Teddy more than Damien, which is inconsistent with the screen time allotted to their respective characters. The very POV nature of the plot summary detracts from the seriousness of the article and should be fixed. This is my first post on Wikipedia, so I'd be afraid I'd mess up the article if I edited it. Missandei (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

...And it just keeps getting worse -- and longer. If I had more time to write and to (inevitably) discuss and struggle, I'd try to do a rewrite. Sadly, all of us who have voiced concerns have left it to the editor who keeps changing it without solving the problem of bias or unnecessary detail, probably because of the sticky political nature of this film. If only there was a way to drum up more interest in this article and/or drum some understanding of WP:FilmPlot and WP:NPOV into the most interested editor. Oh well. --Melty girl (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Melty Girl, As the synopsis now stands, I am willing to accept it with one exception. There should be at least some mention of the look on Teddy's face during the execution. As Teddy sees it, he is being forced to choose between preserving what limited independence his country has gained and the life of his little brother. This is a question that makes Teddy feel sick in the pit of his stomache and Padraic Delaney shows it on his face from the moment he visits Damien in the prison cell.

Damien, however, was motivated to fight in the Irish War of Independence by his dream of a Socialist Republic. It was in pursuit of this dream that he shot Chris Reilly. For Damien to accept anything less than its immediate fulfillment would make him feel that all the killing he did in the War of Independence had been for nothing. Rather than even consider this as a possibility, he prefers death, even with the full knowledge of the devastating pain it will cause Sinèad.

As for me, I am inclined to view both Teddy and Damien as off the mark. As a Traditionalist Catholic and a Paleoconservative, I view laissez faire capitalism and socialism nothing more than two sides of a counterfeit coin. Nevetheless, Damien's repudiation of the Catholic religion is something with which I can never identify.

As for my "error" about Damien and Sinèad's marriage, it was caused by a photograph from Dan Breen's "My Fight for Irish Freedom." Dan Breen's wife wore a wedding dress uncannily similar to what Sinèad wears at the village celebration. Best Wishes, Kingstowngalway (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingstowngalway, you continue to offer your personal interpretations of the film and your own political perspectives, no matter how many times you are reminded that neither have any place in a film plot summary on Wikipedia. This is the crux of the problem with what you've done to the section. I am at a loss for what else to say to you about this, because you just don't seem to understand WP:NPOV. The synopsis as it stands now is still problematic, as noted by several editors above. That is why the tag still stands. None of us seem to have the time or energy (myself, I'm pregnant) to work out a wholly better version, but hopefully the tag will eventually attract someone with the time and finesse to fix the problem. --Melty girl 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Melty Girl, Some things in my recent edits always seemed to me to be progressively less POV, yet you continue to remove them. For example, Damien is very "contemptuous" of Teddy during their debate outside the church. He regards Teddy as a traitor who has compromised with the enemy. Also, the Kilmichael Ambush is definitely the basis for the attack on the Auxiliary Division depicted in the film. The article on Kilmichael makes that very clear. In addition, after his arrest, Damien is facing a traitor's death no matter what decision he makes. Teddy does not realize that the Anti-Treaty IRA is much bigger than their little village. If Damien had turned on them, Sinead would have renounced him and the IRA would have hunted him to the ends of the earth. Therefore, Damien held firm to what I consider his misguided principles and dies unbeaten. As for the links to other articles, they were meant only to assist anyone looking to delve into some of the real history which inspired the film and the issues discussed therein. Best Wishes to You and Your Coming Child, Kingstowngalway (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, overly long plot descriptions, such as this one, are fundamentally unencyclopedic. Teddy asserts, Damien responds, Teddy pleads, Damien replies all in one little paragraph, with quotations to boot, reads more like a script than a summary of events. Allowing such detail in a plot description sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually lead the plot section to baloon into something as gigantic as the Cast Away article was experiencing until recently, with this version's plot summary containing over 2200 words. As it stands right now, this article's plot summary is at 942 words which could easily be trimmed down without losing context in the synopsis itself.
Kingstowngalway, I must whole-heartedly agree with Melty girl that your personal intepretation of the film is getting in the way of both neutrality and relative brevity of the section. The very fact that you claim that your edits are getting progressively less POV shows how unaware you actually are of your non-neutrality. You seem to be passionate about things and I like that, but that can sometimes get in the way of writing neutral and encyclopedic prose. You must be able to admit that something you say is inherently not neutral if others question the implied meaning of what you said versus the expressed meaning of what was presented on-screen. If it was neutral, it wouldn't be questioned. Facing a traitor's death either way is not a neutral statement but facing death either way is neutral. Can we agree on that? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
SWik78, I agree with you completely. At this point, I am just trying to stem the tide to keep the Plot section from getting even worse and even longer. But given Kingstowngalway's preoccupation with constantly editing and adding things, I am not up to the task of doing a rewrite that would truly improve it.
Kingstowngalway, I do thank you for the good wishes. But as usual, I am at a loss as to how to enlighten you. I fear that you just don't get it, and any subsequent efforts on my part will fail as all previous ones have. You don't seem to understand NPOV, and now you reveal that you don't understand the Wikipedia tenets of reliable sourcing and original research either. The Kilmichael Ambush article cannot reveal that this film was based on it -- that's a conclusion that you're drawing on your own, unless you can produce sources about this film that say that the filmmakers based their historical fiction on that event. Sorry, but I will continue to try to stem the tide of unnecessary detail, added length, seemingly random edits, original research and bias, as long as you keep adding stuff. Sticking to the status quo, as mediocre and problematic as it is, is better than allowing this article to grow and grow and worsen. --Melty girl 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Melty Girl, As I promised to defend my recent edits on the talk page, that is what I am doing now. I too am tired of this constant battle, but I really don't see how this dispute can be resolved unless we both make concessions. As for me, I have attempted to read the lists of rules that you have linked to several times. However, they proved unable to hold my attention (I am autistic). I have realized that Damien is the protagonist while reading a book about story structure by Robert McKee. I have tried to alter my former focus on Teddy as a result, while also giving his viewpoint a fair hearing so that the viewer can decide for themselves whether Teddy or Damien is correct about the Treaty. As for "Dominion status within the British Empire" vs. "Full Independence," it was merely meant to describe the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and what Damien objects to about it. Would a statement that the Treaty makes Ireland into an "British Dominion instead of an fully independent Republic" be sufficiently neutral? I described Damien as "disgusted" over having to kill Chris Reilly, because "rattled" seems like too much of an understatement considering his obvious horror at having to kill a close friend. As for Teddy, even those editors who opposed my currently regretted description of him as "a broken man" conceeded that he is "very sad" on the day of Damien's execution. I still insist that some mention be made of this. If these matters would make the plot section too long, I am sure that other paragraphs could be shortened. As for the other sections I have worked on, I can locate citations for them if need be. At present, however, I am suffering through a very devastating heatbreak. However, I am certain that this article still could use improvement. Best Wishes, Kingstowngalway (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingstowngalway, I sincerely do apologize if this will sound insensitive but it looks as though you are finding out why it is imperative to know at least the main points of the policies and guidelines to which you have been directed by Melty girl: it is so that long, sometimes excruciating discussions like this one don't have to be had on every single film related article. Many points you are trying to make have been discussed countless times before you and many of them have been summarized in a very general fashion to form official guidelines that are meant to eliminate unnecessary repetitive arguments and to help lead editors to further expansion and improvement of the article rather than getting us stuck in this drawn out discussion that seems to be going around in cirles. I'm glad that you spoke of making concessions but you are going to have to surrender to the fact that concessions will first and foremost have to be made to official policies and guidelines. Only then can they be made to individual editors' points of views. At the present point in time, the major point Melty girl is trying to make is that your edits, as correct as you may believe them to be, are in violation of policy and no commited editor on this project will be willing to make concessions while they believe there are major policy violations impeding the progress of the article. I hate to sound mean or bitey but you really should read the links to the policies Melty girl provided to you. She knows them inside-out (trust me, she's proven it to me when I stood where you're standing right now) and I think it's only fair that you get the basic grasp of them if you expect your suggestions to be considered seriously. Until you do that, you will have a hard time finding another editor willing to defend your arguments in this debate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
SWik78 summed things up very well, and from the community perspective that we all must take at this project called Wikipedia. You consistently seek to make things personal here, injecting your personal politics, your personal interpretations, and now, the idea that the thing to do is to work out a compromise between your personal feelings and mine. Well, that's not what it's about. It's about the community's policies and guidelines that you've been pointed to countless times: WP:NPOV, WP:MOSFILM, WP:RS and WP:OR. You don't follow them, and I seek to bring them to bear. This is not a personal struggle that needs compromise. As long as you keep compulsively editing the article, making the Plot section more biased and longer and injecting history that's unsourced, I will keep seeking blocking that, because of Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand how this all works, but there's nothing I can do about that. --Melty girl 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)