Talk:Children of Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Children of Men has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children of Men article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
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.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Contents

[edit] Restoration of cast section edits

Brandon, I restored the material you removed [1] for a second time. This cited material was previously explained at 19:57 on 28 May 2007, here: Talk:Children_of_Men#Cast_section. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It has since been restored. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I restored it here. I'm not following or understanding your comment. —Viriditas | Talk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding is not required, Viriditas. I was referrring to BYT's edits that have been restored. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please watch Wikipedia:Etiquette. Understanding is required. If you can't be civil, please don't edit here. BYT's edits were not restored, contrary to SlimVirgin's edit summary. To help you understand the problem, I restored edits that were removed as unsourced when they were sourced. I hope that clears up the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
General understanding is required; your specific understanding is what is not required, Viriditas. Please learn to know the difference. Any by the way, thank you for editing out your uncivil remarks from the removed posts. Please maintain that same level of personal vigilance in your future posts, as it creates a better editing environment, wheher in this article or in other places. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited out any "uncivil remarks" because I never made them during this discussion, nor can you show that I have. I have, however, removed your incivil comment "Your understanding is not required, Viriditas." Please try to stick to facts. Specific understanding is required; if an editor makes comments that don't make any sense, then communication is not possible. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for help. Furthermore, please try to discuss the topic under discussion and refrain from commenting on the "understanding" of other editors, as that is a good example of incivility. Thanks for your attention in this matter and for your help trying to improve the quality of the discourse. —Viriditas | Talk 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Perhaps you might want to consider following the letter of your own advice, my young friend. Assuming that people haven't read posts clearly is pretty uncivil. And no, you don't need to respond to this. Follow your own adivce and keep your comments focused on the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be reading things into this discussion that don't exist. I don't see where it I have assumed "that people haven't read posts clearly." Perhaps the words, "I'm not following or understanding your comment" and "To help you understand the problem, I restored edits that were removed as unsourced when they were sourced. I hope that clears up the problem" threw you off, I don't know. But your continued removal of editorial comments and addition of incivil comments while writing in the edit summary, "please do not alter my posts, Viriditas - that in itself is considered disruptive and uncivil" can be considered hypocritical. After all, you've been altering my edits to this article for more than a month. Please feel free to help improve or discuss this article at any time without removing topical comments. If you can't do that, ask a neutral administrator for help. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit the Diff here to see where you have specifically suggested that people haven't read the material as much as you. Pointing out a fact is never disruptive. Pointing out an opinion usually is. That it is a fact that I asked you not to alter the wording of my posts is a fact. That i removed some of your posts as either uncivil or personal attacks is also a fact, as defined by both WPA and CIVIL. My edits are to improve the article and - when you are less than polite - to help train you to become more polite. I hope that helps improve your understanding of the stiuation. Happy editing. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The diff implies nothing of the kind, and none of my comments could be considered a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Your comments could only be construed as off-topic since they neither address my original statement or the topic of this article. Viriditas | Talk 06:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. The diff points out clearly what I claimed. Now, perhaps you might wish to refocus on the article, hmm? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The diffs do not support any of your claims. —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary references

Regarding the "Allahu Akbar march", if you will, this reminds me of a video I once saw on television showing members of Hezbollah at an outdoors rally. Specifically, the bright green-colored clothing and white horse make me believe this is a reference to Hezbollah and/or that video specifically.
Unfortunately, I don't have a source for that video. Perhaps someone else does? The white horse from the video is really what suggests this to me, as I remember a "leader-type" trotting in front of the crowd on a white horse. Also, isn't the white horse pretty out of place in the crowd of people marching? Last, of course, note that they are chanting "Allahu Akbar" and have a banner with Arabic text. I'm interested in others thoughts. Modul8r 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The way this article has been evolving (and I'm not saying I agree with this standard), you would have to find a published citation linking the sequence in the film to the rally you saw. Personally, I don't think it has anything specifically to do with Hezbollah, but as it stands both of our viewpoints would now be excised as WP:OR. BYT 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've got several citations for the march and "Allahu Akbar", but they are trivial, hence I have not included them. If anyone feels they should be included, let me know and I'll share the material. —Viriditas | Talk 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please share that material. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you feel they should be included? —Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Because someone asked for them. Because you offered to share that material. Because it might make the article better by leading to better sources. I hope that clearly explains matters. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the part where I also said, "If anyone feels they should be included..." —Viriditas | Talk 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the part where I asked for it, which suggests rather clearly that we shoulkd see them to see if they should be included. This is the second request for material. Please provide it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I said, "If anyone feels they should be included". The actual sources have no bearing on the importance or relevance of the topic. Surely you must see that. —Viriditas | Talk 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So, this is me, asking you to impart the sources you have offered. Allow me to decide for myself as to their import or relevance. Will you present them or not? This is the third time I've asked you to present them. Either you have them, or you don't. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, most of them are already in the article. Second of all, I asked you why you feel the march and "Allahu Akbar" should be included. Simple question. I'll give you a hint. Some sources claim that there is an Islamic subtext to the film. Do you think that is true?(without looking at my sources, I think it was the BBC who popularized that claim) Personally, I think the film touches upon every religion, so I would like to add Islamic references only to balance out the religion section. —Viriditas | Talk 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, i guess I don't want to play your game anymore. I've asked politely three separate times for the references, so I could make up my own mindas to what they represent - not what you think they are, but what I think they are. Four times now, you have avoided presenting them. You don't want a viewpoint different from your own; that seems clear.
And you wonder why people think you have OWN issues. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the personal attack you made. Please address the topic, not the editor. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing other people's posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop restoring personal attacks. What part of "comment on content not the contributor" do you dispute? —Viriditas | Talk 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on, guys. Please stop bickering. My intention wasn't to start something like this. I'll search for that video clip of Hezbollah that I was reminded of and share it with you all if/when I find it. Modul8r 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone compile a list of pop-culture/modern day references in the film like the pig balloon at Battersea Power Station/The Ark of Art (Pink Floyd's Animals album), the Banksy paintings in the film and the London 2012 sweater Theo wears. Cheers. 129.234.4.76 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually on the dvd there is footage of it. 210.56.69.23 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of bonus features section

Getting back to Phil Sandifer's original suggestion, I would like to work with Brandon and whomever else to develop the bonus feature material, highlighting the Slavoj Zizek material. This will include the DVD bonus features, "The Possibility of Hope" and "'Children of Men' Comments by Slavoj Zizek", "Under Attack", "Theo & Julian", "Futuristic Design", and "Visual Effects:Creating the Baby". I think we should start by making use of primary and secondary sources, expanding the DVD section, and then spiraling out to Themes, Production, and adding a new section, "Interpretations" or "Philosophy" if needed. —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, V. Hope we can work on this together. BYT 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking forward to it, BYT! I apologize for any misunderstandings in the past. —Viriditas | Talk 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Below all looks great to me, thanks for the effort here, V. No worries. BYT 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Preliminary structure

[edit] Sections

  • Themes/Interpretation/Philosophy
  • Production
  • DVD

[edit] Primary sources

  • DVD (List sections for development here. Please replace "develop" with content to be added or proposed)
    • "The Possibility of Hope" (documentary, need running time)
    • "'Children of Men' Comments by Slavoj Zizek" (need running time)
      • develop; new Philosophy/Interpretations section?
        • Slavoj Zizek
    • "Under Attack" (need running time)
      • Move to production section; where?
    • "Theo & Julian" (need running time)
      • Update Theo and Julian entries in cast section
    • "Futuristic Design" (need running time)
      • Move to production section; update Style and design
    • "Visual Effects:Creating the Baby" (need running time)
      • Move to production section; update Single-shot sequences
      • Fair use screenshot would be helpful

[edit] Secondary sources

  • Articles (this will be a reflist to link to the above section)

[edit] Spoiler warning

This page needs a spoiler warning before the plot section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.104.24 (talk • contribs) 11:48, June 30, 2007

Plot summaries don't need spoiler warnings.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if they give away the ending? Hmm.

Yeah. It's called Being a Grown-Up. If you don't want to learn about the plot of the movie, maybe avoid reading the big, bold subsection, called "Plot." - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindertotenlieder

Arcayne: I am undoing your revert of my addition to the article. It is against the policy of wikipedia to simply delete entries you think might need improving. To quote: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." (from the "Help:Reverting" article). If you thought my addition needed a citation, you should have either provided one or flagged it for discussion, not removed the whole section right after I posted it.

As for your opinion that a cite to a "review or article" is needed, I don't think a further one is needed. Two reasons: (1) You don't want to cite to a secondary source (movie review, article, etc.) if you can cite to a primary source (e.g., Kindertotenlieder, movement I). Just as "movie xxxx quotes Shakespeare's play yyyyy" is better supported by "Shakespeare play yyyy, line 359" than by "bob of the miami tribune says xxxx quotes Shakespeare," so "Kindertotenlieder, movement I" is a better cite than "bob's review says the movie uses Mahler." Primary sources are good because they are easily verifiable, which is the point of having cites. And (2), you don't need a footnote if you cite the source in the text, as I did.

Gzoek 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A cite is needed for Gzoek's contribution, otherwise it is original research and therefore not allowed in an encyclopedia. Just commenting that the piece is included in the soundtrack is fine; afterall, other works by Mahler, Handel and the Stones are appropriately listed. However, this contribution begins with "One subtle use of music . . .", which in itself is OR (because of the word "subtle") unless we are quoting a critic. And although the juxtaposition of the conversation about dead children with a work titled "Songs on the Death of Children" may seem like an obvious connection, it is not the place of WP editors to make that connection, unless we are referencing a reliable source's analysis doing the same.
Maybe Arcayne didn't need to remove the contribution to make his point, but I too would hesitate to put a {{cn}} tag on a fully sourced GA article when all the contributor has to do is add the cite. I can understand Gzoek perceiving the removal as a revert, but Arcayne was careful and constructive in his edit summary: "can you cite a review or article that notes that as well? We cannot use it w/out citation". It doesn't appear he made the change because the edit is "problematic, biased, or inaccurate"; it just needs a reliable source. In actuality, we cannot rely on "primary sources" and do have to cite a secondary source. That is WP policy.
Gzoek, can you provide a cite? Otherwise the contribution needs to be removed or appropriately merged into the preceding paragraph.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited statements from the soundtrack section, but to avoid the perception by anyone that I am simply trying to remove it arbitrarily, I am placing it here, pending proper citation.
One subtle use of music in the film is the scene at Jasper's house in which he tells Kee and Miriam the story of the death of Theo and Jullian's son. The music playing in the background is the first movement from Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder ("Songs on the Death of Children").

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see the point that is being made. Now I have a question: is there a way that I can put this information in that doesn't cause a problem? Could I simply remove the "subtle" language, and put something like this: "During the scene at Jasper's house in which he tells Kee and Miriam the story of the death of Theo's son, the music playing in the background is the first movement from Mahler's Kindertotenlieder ("Songs on the Death of Children")."? Is this still OR? If so, why isn't the synopsis considered OR as well?

I wasn't trying to interject my interpretation of the movie; I would simply like to point out the fact that a certain piece is played in a certain scene. I can't find a reputable source that mentions this fact. Any ideas?

Gzoek 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that: there have been many discussions about plot synopses being WP:OR, and most recognize that WP editors are walking a fine line when describing the plot (not to mention having concerns about WP:COPYVIO). Style guidelines require that only essential elements be included (I happen to think that this article's plot description is far too detailed, but that's another discussion), so I would ask if noting that that particular piece is played is essential to an encyclopedia article on the movie? If you note that work, then why not every piece of music in the movie? If you do that, then the article degenerates into a trivia list.
Now I can see a discussion of that selection in the themes section (because I suspect that its placement in the movie is intentional — your recognition of a "certain piece [being] played in a certain scene" is equally alluring to me), but, again, it would have to be a reference to a reliable source's analysis of it. So, in the end, unless you (or another editor) can find someone's else's discussion of Kindertotenlieder in CoM, it can't be done. Sorry.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the subject of all synopses being OR, I guess that would be the case, but the very nature of WP allows for a consensual outline of the film's events to develop itself out and take shape. I italicized events, as they do not specifically - in the evaluative sense - speak to what is not implied or inferred. What everyone sees on the screen and subsequently writes about is indeed usually considered a primary reference, but when a great many people agree as to the events as they are depicted, and these are backed up by secondary sources (reviewers and the like). Furthermore, these secondary sources have the ability to speak to those implied or inferred matters, as to the usage of a piece of music, or sepia-toning for effect. We don't get to do that. We are sort of like Marvel Comics' The Watcher, in that we can observe and report, but not partake of the opinions ourselves.
I hope that helps. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS entire movie is very simple-minded and engineered. how come there are still dogs????? no dog could be more than 18 years and race at best condition...
there was a very bad mistake with the story line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborgio (talk • contribs) 03:11, July 4, 2007

I think theres only one example of simple-mindedness being shown here...maybe you should go back to something a little less complex. Like not saying anything. 172.207.140.131 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Errr, because the movie was positing the problems of looming extinction caused by HUMAN infertility. I don't think dogs would really be affected by that, unless their existence required people to pet them.... :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression of this page is that it is rather pretentious - it is making a poor film seem somehow important.--Spanker LUFC 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the critics listed on Rotten Tomatoes, who have given this "poor film" a 91% overall approval rating. Since you obviously know better than these professionals, perhaps you can take the opportunity to teach them a few things. —Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Viriditas. I was aware of rotten tomatoes' (and imdb's) glowing coverage when I made the post, which was made out of frustration at the disparity between my disappointment with the film (and that of about half the people reviewing it on lovefilm) and the coverage on this page, which makes it sound like a masterpiece. Which it must be, obviously, silly me. I am vaguely aware that part of the point of wikipedia is that an individual's opinions are neither here nor there, that you have to reference something, so I will not comment further on the film, much as I would love to. I will consider searching through the rotten tomatoes reviews, and elsewhere, and posting something more in line with wikipedia's requirements. --Spanker LUFC 12:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro: "Britain, the last functioning government"...

Er, the propagandistic TV ad certainly implies this, but that doesn't make it so within the film's canon. Mdiamante 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Baby" Diego lived in Buenos Aires, and as far as I know, that's in Argentina. Kalez 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.36.85 (talk)

[edit] FA?

Has anyone ever considered nominating this article for FA status? I'd definitely support (and it's not necessarily because the movie is my favourite of all time, along with Titanic and Citizen Kane).

Also, can someone add a "See also" section? The article seems to end too abruptly... Orane (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's a Wikipedia principle somewhere that great articles don't need "See also" sections. I think the logic is that if something needs also seeing -ahem- then it should be part of the prose somewhere. Seegoon 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've heard about that, but it's not principle per se, simply preference. 'See Also' is still outlined in our Manual of Style. Orane (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The outline does not mean that you must use those sections. It merely describes the most common sections and their usage. —Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That's why I said it's simply preference to place the see also section. (Seegoon had said you're not supposed to have it, and I told him/her not true. You can still have it, since it's still outlined in our MoS.) Personally, I love to see it. But you don't have to put it. Orane (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What would you like to see in a "see also" section for this article? I can think of some things related to immigration or infertility, or even religion, but I'm not sure how useful it would be here. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it isn't needed, really. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolic Use of Music in the Film

We should have a goal of adding a section specifically about the use of music in the film as a means of highlighting an aspect of the action onscreen. The filmmakers do this at least twice that I have noticed.

Kindertotenlieder. This was discussed earlier in the discussion. During the scene at Jasper's house in which he tells Kee and Miriam the story of the death of Theo and Jullian's son, the music playing in the background is the first movement from Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder ("Songs on the Death of Children").

Arbeit macht frei. The Libertines' song Arbeit Macht Frei plays during the scene at the internment camp. Arbeit macht frei is the famous slogan placed on the gates of many Nazi concentration camps, and the song is about concentration camp members. As the article discusses, the scene in the movie alludes to Nazi camps, and using this song at that moment in the film seems like the filmmakers are underlining a point.

These are just two examples I have found. Given how intentional these seem to be, I would bet there are other examples in the film. Unfortunately I have not found any secondary sources which discuss this aspect of the movie, and don't have much time to spend on wikipedia. So I pass the challenge on to all of you: find more examples of music used in this way, find sources to cite, and write a new (sub)section for the article exploring this technique in the film. I think it's worth doing; it would add yet another interesting layer to this movie.

Gzoek 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It goes even farther than that. According to an interview with the director, some of the music was used in the film because it happened to be playing while they were writing the screenplay. But yes, every song in the film has a specific, direct meaning attached to the scene. —Viriditas | Talk 23:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Trivia

When the protagonist and his cannabis growing friend are in the greenhouse used for growing the cannabis, the song playing in the background is "Life in a Glasshouse" by Radiohead. byelf2007 09/11/07

[edit] Film's cars

The article currently states "[...] Cars were made to resemble modern ones at first glance, although a closer look made them seem unfamiliar." Some of them are clearly recognizable: the main characters drive a Fiat Multipla during the ambush scene, and later flee to the safehouse in a Renault Scénic. Other cars are the Fiat Ducato (the Fishes' black van; perhaps it's a Peugeot or Citroën sister), Peugeot 1007 and Renault Modus (traffic cars); the limousine that takes Theo to his cousin's is clearly British, I don't know whether Bentley, Jaguar or Rolls-Royce. The differences between the film's and the real models are basically the front and rear ends, which are blackened and whose lights and grilles are different. I don't know if this piece of information is relevant enough, but the French-Italian origin of the car design could be added to the article, couldn't it? -- NaBUru38 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to know a lot about cars! :) Unfortunately, your keen spotting of these models isn't really citable, and there is also the issue of notability. An argument occurred early in the article's creation wherein I wanted to add a fairly advanced-looking weapon, and was correctly nixed as to the lack of notability. I am only hoping that I am addressing it better with you than was done for me. When considering whether something is notable, ask yourself if the info you want to add is vital to the subject of the article. If it is, include it and hope others feelthe same way. If you get reverted, discuss it. If you aren't reverted, then at least one other person felt it noteworthy, too. :)
Again, good attention to detail, NaBUru38. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I seems the Scénic is actually a four-door Avantime. Did I just say four-door!? That means it was specially made for the film! (The Internet Movie Car Database shows in fact nearly every model featured in the film, most of them barely visible in screen) Well, I would say the chosen cars are "strange" in the case of the Fiats and French models (Renaults' tails, Multipla's bonnet, Peugeots' mouths), which are the ones clearly shown. I should look for some reliable website stating this, but it might get impossible. -- NaBUru38 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A minor query on the plot section

In the fourth paragraph of the plot section, it details the ambush of the main characters in their car when they are traveling through the woods, goes on to say that the police soon follow them, but omits that Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor) shoots the police officers dead when they are pulled over for inspection. I was wondering if anyone else felt that this was important enough to mention as it caught my attention when I didn't see it included. --Spobbs 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not initially placing my edit under old text. --Spobbs 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do whatever you like as long as you keep the plot section short and to the point, sticking to major plot points. —Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from the novel?

No section on how the film differs from the novel? That's too bad. I always rather enjoy reading about that. :) RobertM525 09:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be added, but requires careful sourcing as some editors will take the opportunity to write editorials. I think we should have at least two paragraphs on the subject. I have enough material for at least one large sourced paragraph at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's please place the paragraphs in the Production section, perhaps following or merged with the first paragraph that addresses the adaptation process.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great. Only problem is, the "one paragraph" I have has now turned into four. :( —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinematical.com a reliable source?

I just fixed a ref format for a Clive Owen writing credit. The source is Cinematical.com, which appears to be a blog. The actual interview appears legit, and the author Kim Voynar has a net presence, so is this a reliable source?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of film websites straddle the line between blogs and reliable sources. Interviews and set visits conducted by them however, are reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Christ exclamations

I was hoping to discuss the second sentence of the following (from the Myth and Religion section of the article):
Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when Theo asks Kee who the father of her child is, she jokingly responds, "I'm a virgin." Additionally, when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross.
I am not finding the original article (by Richstatter, Katje (Mar-Apr 2007). "Two Dystopian Movies...and their Visions of Hope" (Reprint). Tikkun 22-2), and the publishing magazine, Tikkun, isn't available for article search outside of a subscription. Because of this unavailability to verify that the exclamations of Jesus Christ (or the making the sign of the cross) being intended as a Christian symbolism connection between Jesus' and Dylan's birth, I am concerned that an OR connection has been made. It would seem a more plausible explanation that these exclamations to be of surprise and awe at a highly unexpected surprise and not of identification/comparison with the Christian Messiah. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Jandry2 changed the material and added his observation "Theo asks Kee who the father of her child is, she jokingly responds, "I'm a virgin" on 05:07, 26 March 2008.[2]. The original sourced material should read:

The film has been noted for its use of Christian symbolism; for example, British terrorists named "Fishes" protect the rights of refugees.[1] Opening on Christmas Day in the United States, critics compared the characters of Theo and Kee with Joseph and Mary,[2] calling the film a "modern-day Nativity story":[3] Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross.[4]

Jandry2 isn't wrong, but his addition is not supported by the sources in question. The article in Tikkun states:

The need to find or create meaning seems to be one commonality of human existence--through storytelling, myth, or religion, we can connect to our core decency, a place untouched by the vagaries of the world....Without the ability to reproduce, human extinction is imminent, and in this context it seems plausible--since it's clear that animals can still breed--that God's wrath toward humankind, or our own inability to leave genetics alone, might be the reason....Rations include antidepressants and suicide pills, and citizens like Theo (Clive Owen) plod along, self-medicating, averting their eyes to the caged refugees, protesting religious zealots and random violence. Theo is...recruited...to be a part of a guerrilla group called the fishes...There is a class component to this struggle, with parallels to liberation theology movements, but...the resistance forces are plagued with the same cutthroat hierarchy as the dominant society. Theo is entrusted with transporting Kee (Claire-hope Ashitey), who is miraculously pregnant--a fact tht is revealed to him in a barn (manger). The religious allusions range from blatant to subtle, and Western (upon seeing Kee and her newborn, the most common response is either "Jesus Christ" or signing the cross) to Eastern (Kee's midwife chanting Tibetan mantras) expressions. Kee's child is the last hope for human survival, a spark that transforms Theo, who commits his whole self--running barefoot (literally) over the rubble--to help her escape. And though organized religion is mostly portrayed as reactionary--the two sects of protesters are the "Renouncers" and "Repenters"--the quest itself might suggest something different. The citizens of Children of Men are disconnected from nature and themselves, a split that suggests a spiritual crisis, and a yearning to return to the basics; no killing, stealing, lying or coveting? Or better yet, the healing values of tolerance, faith, brotherly love, and altruism.

If he's interested, I believe I can help him find a source, but I don't have it front of me. However, I do have a printed copy of both Tikkun and the Omaha World Herald in front of me, both of which can be found in the EBSCO database system of every major public library. I don't see any "OR connection" except for the addition by Jandry2. After all, the theme in question is myth and religion, so it's right on topic and its covered by many sources. Typically, religious believers aren't concerned with "plausible explanations", so I don't see how such concerns are relevant, but by all means, find a reliable source that addresses that very question and add a rebuttal. —Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
For Jandry2: Steve Vineberg in Christian Century (02/06/07, Vol. 124, Issue 3) writes: "In James's scheme, Kee is the "key" to the future of humanity. Cuarón underscores the idea that she is also an earthbound version of the Virgin Mary, carrying the miracle child of an unseen father (she isn't sure of his identity) whose birth will change the world..." Vineberg appears to be familiar with the novel, so that statement could confuse people, considering that Kee isn't in the book. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error in Jandry's edit. It confused matters. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha World-Herald

From the eighth paragraph in the article from Fischbach, Bob. "Movie Review: Acting in 'Children of Men' makes futuristic film engrossing", Omaha World-Herald, 2007-01-05. :

The almost mythical Human Project is rumored to be working towards a new society.

—Viriditas | Talk 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry; may I ask how you are finding that particular article? I am unable to locate it via typical search. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I explained in the above section EBSCO database. You can find it in every major public library, or access it from home with your library card. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I was unable to locate it using such. I should point out that a great many libraries typically do not have EBSCO resources. Could I trouble you to point out what criteria are used when sources aren't readily verifiable? I am not doubting the source, per se; I am asking hte question from the point of view of someone who may not have access (for verification purposes) to either EBSCO or JSTOR resources. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you name a public library in your area that does not offer EBSCO or similar article databases in 2008? Almost every library in the U.S. pays a fee to these companies for their patrons to access archival articles. The criteria is basically to do what you have done: place a message on the talk page asking for verification. However, it is my understanding that the WP:REFDESK is used for this purpose, as is a related page composed of Wikipedans who have offered to search these databases for interested editors. I can't recall the name of the subpage right now, but someone else will chime in with it. The page has a list of editors who are willing to look up articles for you. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I could name four, but because of privacy concerns (as well as the likelihood that the geographical absence of EBSCO or JSTOR isn't unique), I am going to abstain from mentioning them. Here on the mainland (presuming again that you in Hawaii), municipal libraries sometimes don't have the resources to subscribe to the online db's.
As far as Refdesk goes, i think we both know that they take forever, if they bother answering at all. You will recall that a claim that we both were curious about sourcing (re: Lennon mentions in a certain NY guide) remains, many months later, still non-verified. I think while its great in theory, the practical expectation is that Refdesk simply isn't all that helpful given our time constraints.
However, that might be a topic for discussion elsewhere, ie. how often should we utilize atypical databases that aren't universally accessible (or are fee-based subscription services). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcayne, I'm wondering whether in your sourcing philosophy you're confusing the guide recommending not to add links requiring registration or subscription (see Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration) with Wikipedia:Verifiability. We shouldn’t add links that people can’t actually access but that has nothing to do with verifiability. To be verifiable doesn’t mean a source needs to be easily accessible on the internet, it means it needs to be a WP:Reliable source. Are you still worried about the Lennon source? I thought that was resolved ages ago, don’t you remember when Viriditas even uploaded photocopies of the source, linked to the text in Google Books, and even contacted the publisher and confirmed it? What more verification do you feel is necessary? I see it’s also on AmazonOnlineReader here. --MPerel 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi M. No, I wasn't confusing the two articles. When a source is questioned, the source's reliability depends, I think, on not just taking the editor at their word but being able to verify the source for one's self. As the old adage goes, 'salute optimism; await evidence.'
And no, the Lennon issue was never resolved. The last I heard from you, you were going to come up with new ways for V and I to interact. That was before Christmas. As you seem to be operating just fine with V, I am presuming you felt no other development was necessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, MPerel just resolved the Lennon issue. Right here. Did you visit the Amazon.com link MPerel gave you? The material you claim does not exist is in that link. What's the ISBN of the book you claim it doesn't appear in? She just gave you the electronic link to your book, where you will find the material that appears on page 212, the same material that you continue to claim does not exist. It's sort of hard to argue with the facts like that, but there you go. Good luck. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not having a discussion about another article in this discussion, except to state that my own conversations with the publisher confirmed that there were two different versions (and not just two similar books) due to printing errors. If you wish to continue this discussion, you may do so in the pertinent article, on your page, or not at all, seeing that the statement in question hasn't been in use for almost 6 months. It's a rather dead horse. Either way, this article discussion page really isn't the place for it, I am sure you would agree. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Printing errors? Arcayne, you always put a smile on my face. Glad to have you here, friend. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Really?That's very nice of you to say. I also find you greatly amusing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mutant Reviewers from Hell

How does this self-published website used as a source in the body of the article meet the barest, most minimum qualifications for WP:RS? All of the "about" links consist of Rick Roll hoaxes. —Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should perhaps be noted that with today being April 1st, some links all over the net are going to undoubtedly look odd. I did read the review for CoM, and it included the material cited. I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that the site is a self-published one. It appears to be no less credible than, say, Chris Gore's Filmthreat or Box Office Mojo. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Film Threat is an actual, recognized published film magazine that while initially underground and half-serious, had an enormous distribution channel for a zine. It was in publication from 1985-1997 and even published a video guide. Larry Flynt published the magazine from 1991-1997 and they had an actual editorial board. Gore also hosted a cable TV show. Today's net version of Film Threat features articles and interviews with professionals in their field. Mutant Reviewers from Hell doesn't seem to meet the barest of these qualifications. —Viriditas | Talk 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, it seems to have a fairly solid base of reviews and, whilst it doesn't have all the pretty trappings of funding that the other two have, it seems reliable. It doesn't look to have been around for that long, but has built a steady core of reviews and articles. We haven't agreed on sources before. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. As the claim (the statement regarding the laughter and shouts of children) isn't an extraordinary one, the source isn't required to be extraordinary, just reliable and verifiable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to be very open-minded about these things. The general rule is, if you use an unreliable source to support material in an article and another editor questions the source based on WP:RS, then you should find a second source, more reliable than the first, to support the same material. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to be less open-minded about sources, actually, but I do find myself in disagreement with your characterization of MRfH as "unreliable". As it isn't really such, there really isn't a need to duplicate sources. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How does the source you added (named in the heading) meet WP:RS for inclusion in this article? Please take a look at this link for guidance. As the guideline says, ...self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Therefore, I request another source that meets the basic, minimum requirements for reliability. It's a very simple request. The website you added is a personal website belonging to Justin Olivetti, a horror film fan. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Might I ask you to point out where the site indicates it is "self-published" or a personal website? As the site clearly isn't a blog or forum chat or similar material, I am curious as to how you arrived at that assessment. I would point out that using Internic to determine the owner of the site isn't the same as calling it a personal website. Many websites are owned by single individuals, and this doesn't interfere with their reliability. Lastly, I would pont out that even if it is self-published, it seems to fulfill the criteria for inclusion of WP:SELFPUB- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also point out that apparently, Rick Roll hoaxes are permeating the web today. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
USA Today refers to the website as a "horror film fan site", in other words, a personal web site: "The idea of an evil doll come to life is a fun, freaky concept," says longtime fan Justin Olivetti, 28, a youth pastor in Livonia, Mich., who runs the horror film fan site www.mutantreviewers.com. "I'll definitely see Seed of Chucky."[3] —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Olivetti is a pastor who runs a personal website; In other words, the site fails inclusion criteria for WP:SELFPUB. —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not seeing how Olivetti - if he is in fact the sole person running the entire site (after all, we are speaking of USA Today) fails any of the seven criteria noted at selfpub. Using the reasoning you've suggested, we could not use info from a privately-owned Jack the Ripper site, even if it uses solid information, nor could we utilize information from websites about San Francisco burritos. I simply don't see any failing in the Selfpub criteria. If you could point out which of the seven listed criteria for inclusion that the site fails, that would be appreciated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And just to be very clear, yes Olivetti is in fact the sole person running the entire website, and that has been confirmed by USA Today[4] and a simple whois. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Olivetti is not a film critic who has been published by reliable film journals or newspapers. He is a pastor and the owner of a fansite - a personal website where he self-publishes film reviews. That website doesn't meet the minimum standards for inclusion. Please stop adding personal websites and find a reliable source that has an editorial board and fact-checking capabilities. This is the hallmark of a reliable source. —Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. That his website has published/uploaded film reviews is not disputed. What he does in his day job is not of consequence here. The site is not a fansite, as CoM (clearly not a horror film) was reviewed. I am not sure how you are determining that he - and he alone - is publishing each and every one of the film reviews listed, but I don't see any indication of that. As far as an "editorial board" or "fact-checking capabilities", could you point out where in the policies or guidelines these new criteria are stipulated?
I have been poite, and would appreciate you addressing solely the content of my posts and not me. I have asked for you to specifically note how the website fails any of the seven criteria of WP:SELFPUB (if indeed it is a self-published website, and not simply a personally-owned one). If you could do that, I would appreciate it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have only addressed your addition of unreliable websites as sources and the removal of reliable sources as "unreliable" - even in cases where you did not check the sources. Per SELFPUB, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves. This article is not about Olivetti or his website. Our standards of inclusion are higher and require WP:RS that are not self-published, have editorial boards, and are known for rigorous fact-checking. Authors should be either noted film critics in their field of expertise, or journalists working under editorial oversight in a reliable publication. It's very simple. I've asked to you a supply a more reliable source to replace the one you have added. Please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, the citation is addressing a review done by the website. I am not sure why you kept citing SELFPUB, as it was neither applicable nor in volation of that. A more appropriate link might have been Self-published sources. As the notability of the source has been addressed (USA Today specifically quoted the owner of the site in regards to a film review) by a third-party source in its relevant field, it fulfills the criteria for inclusion. :::Again, I have asked you to cite where you are garnering your (and not "our", as in Wikipedia-en) additional criteria, specifically the requirement of an editorial board or the "rigorous fact-checking" (which undoubtedly comes into play during film reviews). Please take the time to answer my question, with the understanding that your own personal interpretation of policy is not going to be sufficient to deny inclusion of a source that states something unique and interesting to the article. If you feel another source would be helpful to your understanding or clarification of the material, please feel free to seek it out and add it. As per the policy and guidelines as they exist today, the source is reliable enough, notable enough and relevant enough for inclusion. If you can quote specifically where in WP specifically notes the additional criteria you've noted above, please let me know, as it would undoubtedly be a wealth of knowledge for us all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, your April Fool's Day joke was very funny, but I believe you only have 12 hours left to revert yourself. This edit you made added material from a personal website that directly quotes the IMDb "trivia" page located here and acknowledges quoting IMDb for the material directly above it. The personal website also quotes Wikipeda below it. We cannot use trivia from IMDb in a film article, nor can we use personal websites that directly quote that trivia verbatim, and acknowledge it as a source, nor can we self-referentially quote personal websites that cite Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A. My edit is not an April Fool's joke.
B. The source of the statement is not directly or specifically attributed to Imdb. While the cite mentions both Imdb and Wikipedia, so does Film Review. Should we exclude sources from them as well?
C. For the third time, I have asked for the specific locations of the additional criteria you specified for inclusion. Neither RS, V or CITE mentions the material you are utilizing as hurdles to inclusion. Unfortunately, until WP choses to enact these new criteria, they are not going to be used as a filter for sources. If you want, I can suggest a few places where you might want to begin lobbying for such a change. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The criteria is found in WP:RS and here, and is the bedrock of all sourcing guidelines, on and off Wikipeda. Contrary to what you claim, the source of the statement is directly attributed to IMDb above it, and represents an exact quote from IMDb verbatim. You did not use the film review to quote a reviewer; you cited a trivia section on a personal website directly sourced to an IMDb trivia page, trivia that has been previously removed from this page many times in the past. Here is the material side by side for you to compare:
Mutant Reviewers from Hell, a self-published website from Pastor Olivetti, sourced to IMDb IMDb - Crazy credits for Children of Men

At the very end, one can read "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih" with children shouting and laughing on the soundtrack, which can be heard repeatedly throughout the end credits.[5]

At the very end, one can read "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih" with children shouting and laughing on the soundtrack, which can be heard repeatedly throughout the end credits. This is the last line of T.S. Eliot's 1922 poem "The Wasteland." "Shantih" means "peace" in Hindi.[6]
Looking at the our good friend the Internet Archive shows that the IMDb trivia page preceded The Mutant Reviwers from Hell website by a month. The IMDb - Crazy credits for Children of Men trivia page was first archived on January 19, 2007 and the CoM Mutant Reviewers from Hell page was first archived on February 22, 2007. This is open and shut. The personal website quotes IMDb, the quote is directly lifted from an IMDb trivia page, and the source is not used to cite a film review but to cite IMDb trivia. End of story. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Again, RS, Selfpub (or any part of V) state the specific criteria you've additionally specified ("editorial boards", "rigorous fact-checking," and so on and so forth). The source meets the current policies and guidelines as they exist at this time. If you wish to seek a 'raising of the the bar' for inclusion, you must first seek to change the relevant polices to accomplish this.
I apologize for not suggesting that you do so - I had simply assumed that you would - but you should probably look at the source info again. It says "some sources Imdb". Your pointing out the Imdb page and review updating aside, can you specifically cite that the material is from Imdb, and not a part of the actual review? I mean, most of us actually stayed to the end of the credits, and heard the laughter and shouting. I must assume the reviewers did as well, thus noting the instance of such. Since you cannot specifically state with absolute assuredness that the laughter and shouting of children was not observed/heard by the reviewers, then we cannot be sure if the info taken from Imdb is about the Shantih, the authorship of the Wasteland poem, or something else.
Perhaps you should apply your rigor of opposing any addition I choose to make to the article to the other citations as well. Actually, go ahead and do that. I remain unconvinced by your arguments in regards to this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, I want to reiterate something here, in case my dear friend Arcayne doesn't understand where I am coming from. I seriously want this material to be in the article. But I don't want it to come at the expense of circumventing the use of reliable sources to do it. I would much rather use the film as a primary source - that is to say, quote the film directly - much like we do a plot section. The problem is, we would have to be careful writing about it in the themes section. It would help greatly if we had a special section devoted just to "closing credits" where we could place this material. It would be acceptable to describe the credits in this section using just the film as a source. However, placing it in the themes section as it is, sourced to an IMDb trivia page, doesn't really work. The context of the material is not discussed in a reliable source in terms of religion, and until it is, we are engaging in OR. A short-term solution would be to place it in an isolated closing credit section and just describe the credits, the songs that are played, and the end sequence. It should also be noted that another self-published source supporting the statement "these words are also used at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land" is currently a deadlink. Unlike Mutant Reviewers, this site has actual, professional writers and an editorial policy. I'm curious if Arcayne is going to replace the link or just remove the content. After all, we want to verify it, right? —Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You might wish to more closely examine my comments above, my dear, sweet, lovable and furry friend Viriditas. While you have made an interesting argument that the reviewers chose to copy a trivia bit from Imdb when they actually sat in the theater and reviewed the movie themselves, you haven't been able to prove that the citation came from there specifically. Your proposed solution doesn't really work, either, as the laughter and shouts of children isn't part of the released musical soundtrack. As for the TS Eliot link, I am sure you or I or someone else can find a new link. We both know that links go dead all the time, ergo maintenance fixes. Feel free to grab a new Wasteland link.
And if you are curious about something regarding me, Viriditas, please just ask, honey. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, you haven't actually used the source (Olivetti) as a reference. The source you have used is a self-published film review on a personal website which contains a trivia section at the bottom that is directly sourced to IMDb and Wikipedia. We don't cite personal websites that use trivia from IMDb and content from Wikipeda. Furthermore, its placement in the religion and myth section doesn't work because the original context of the content is neither myth or religion but trivia from IMDb. The content has to be appropriate to the context, and the sources have to be reliable. —Viriditas | Talk 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm think it was sourced correctly. Calling it a self-published film review (where the presumable owner's review is but one of many listed for CoM), whic notes that some info was taken from Imdb - which info, you cannot say with absolute assuredness. The source is reliable, the statement is verifiable and also has the advantage of being accurate.
Clearly, we aren't going to find common ground on this (no big surprise there). Please feel free to submit the matter to a neutral third party for evaluation. I am not convinced byyour arguments. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I demonstrated quite accurately and adequately, that the section in question has nothing to do with the film review, has nothing to do with religion or myth in the context of the review, and is sourced directly to IMDb, based on the preceding section which describes IMDb as a source, the link to the trivia page on IMDb itself which duplicates the content in question verbatim, and the dates in the Internet Archive which show that the content appeared on the IMDb trivia page one month before Mutant Reviewers copied it to their site -- in a trivia section sourced to IMDb above and below it. Since you are the one who added the source, it is your responsibility to show how it can be considered a WP:RS, how it concerns myth and religion in the context of the review, and how it is acceptable to use trivia from IMDb. (unsigned comment by Viriditas 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, you are now arguing something else entirely, Viriditas. You are now arguing that the statement doesn't belong in the section. As your arguments have not convinced me, perhaps your time would be better spent in explaining hy the information doesn't belong in the section. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And I thought I was quite clear; I wasn't citing Imdb; I was citing the film review. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you are the one who added the material, it is your responsiblity to defend it. You have not responded to any of my points above. The fact that your statement doesn't belong in the section is another argument altogether, but it's one of many I have offered you to think about. It is not my arguments that are required to convince; I have not added the material in dispute. The burden of proof remains on you, the person who added the material, to explain and defend your edits, and to convince others that your edits are sound. So far, you have not responded to any of my questions, so I will ask them again:
How does the source you have chosen to use meet WP:RS? Please reply directly to that question.
What is the editorial policy of this site and who is their publisher? Please reply directly to that question.
Who is the author of the film review and what is their background in film criticism and/or journalism? Which reliable sources frequently publish their work? Please reply to this question directly.
Where does the material you have chosen to add to the article appear in a film review with an authors name attached? Please reply to this question directly.
Is it acceptable to use trivia from IMDb that is replicated on a personal website that cites IMDb and Wikipedia as sources? Please answer this question directly.
Where does the film reviewer discuss the material you have added in relation to myth and religion? Please answer this question directly.
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to defend your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have answered your questions above rather clearly. Unfortunately, you haven't established to my satisfaction (or with any degree of specificity) the additional criteria you now wish to impose on citations for this article. In point of fact, you keep pointing to RS and V's selfpub as the source for these pet rules, when in fact, neither policy goes this far. When and if you specifically answer my questions as to where in policy we ask for these new things now, we will go on. Until then, I think the matter is going to remain unresolved, because I am not going to defend that which doesn't really need defense under the current policy. When you provide the very specific locations for these new interpretations of the current criteria, I will be happy to answer your challenges. If you don't wish to do so, please do not trouble yourself to await a response, and simply feel free to contact a neutral admin.
And, on a side note, you should know very well now that demanding anything of me is never going to garner you cooperation. Ask nicely (after you explain where precisely you are gathering this new criteria from, which should be easy for you - just make a table for it :) ), and you might find a different response. If you find that beyond your abilities, go ahead and contact that neutral admin as I mentioned before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Where have you answered a single question about your edits? I don't have the burden of proof. These are your edits, not mine. To repeat, how does the source you have chosen to use meet WP:RS? What is the editorial policy of this site and who is their publisher? Who is the author of the film review and what is their background in film criticism and/or journalism? Which reliable sources frequently publish their work? Where does the material you have chosen to add to the article appear in a film review with an authors name attached? Is it acceptable to use trivia from IMDb that is replicated on a personal website that cites IMDb and Wikipedia as sources? Where does the film reviewer discuss the material you have added in relation to myth and religion? If you can't answer these questions, then why should your edits remain in the article? —Viriditas | Talk 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but when you address my concerns about where you have found the new set of criteria (editorial boards, fact-checking, etc.) for inclusion (which doesn't appear to have been applied to any other editor's additions but mine), I am afraid I am going to have to assume that these are personal interpretations of existing policy. I believe I stated above that if you are able to present something a tad more specific than a simple acronym (which doesn't say what you apparently want it to say), I will be happy to answer the questions. Until then, I will be unable to assist you. Of course, if you are able to find a neutral admin who agrees that your interpretations of these policies are not being vindictively implied, then I will respond. Until then, I will wait for you to provide me with what I am asking. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you actually read WP:RS and WP:V and take your concerns to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Make sure you show them the links to the talk archives where you have spent the last year tendentiously trying to add this material to the article. Until then, unless you can defend your edits, I see no reason why they should remain in the article. Furthermore, the second link supporting the material in the next sentence is dead, and there is no way to verify the material. Is there a reason you have left a deadlink in the article? It's ironic that the entire statement that you added to the theme section comes directly from IMDb's trivia page. So, is it your opinion then, that it is entirely acceptable to add trivia to film articles from IMDb and personal websites? Where do these two sources even discuss myth and religion? —Viriditas | Talk 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've already read these policies; I had already read them in the two dozen or so times you bring up that snippy remark. I am not going to argue with you I have clearly stated what you have to do to continue this discussion (bring evidence that our film sources need editorial boards, fact-checking staffs, etc), and have asked that you specifically address the edits and not the editor, as I have been the target for your uncivil behavior in the past.
I am not sure why you think I am going to answer your odd questions about the source of the citation in spite of your unpleasant behavior, but I assure you that unless you present specifically where in policies and guidelines it states these things, I will not be hurrying to answer you.
If you feel the matter is currently insoluble, please feel free - as I have advised you three times before - to seek out the advice or third opinion of a neutral admin. Until then, I am not sure what else we have to say. I am sorry that you felt it necessary to be uncivil again, and I am double sorry if you feel my insistence of you providing where you are garnering your criteria for inclusion is uncivil in and of itself. It is easier to disengage and await a neutral admin than continue to be pushed by you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why you think I need to defend your tendentious insertion of an unreliable source into this article? —Viriditas | Talk 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions on NewsBank:

  • LaCara, Len. "Cruelest of months leaves more families grieving", Coshocton Tribune, 2007-04-22. "Eliot ended his epic poem with the Sanskrit phrase 'Shantih shantih shantih,' which he said is feebly translated as 'the peace which passeth all understanding.' The bleak, brilliant film Children of Men ends with the same phrase." 
  • Lowman, Rob. "Cuaron vs. the world", Los Angeles Daily News, 2007-03-27. "Cuaron is hopeful. The last thing you see on the screen is 'Shanti, shanti, shanti.'[sic] And he has given us hope in the best film of 2006, one that gives us the hope to keep going, that we'll wake up to the dangers we face." 

Do what you like. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Support. Great work as always, Erik. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on Shantih phrase

Continued from community discussion:

With the references I found and presented in the above discussion, would it be safe to say that we do not need to worry about the review from Mutant Reviewers from Hell anymore? My impression from discussion at WT:FILM is that the website was not reliable. We have a couple of print sources to reference instead, so I think we could move in a new direction regarding commentary about the phrase "Shantih shantih shantih" at the end of the film. My suggestion had been to provide a simple description of the display both visually and aurally, particularly a description that would not be contested. My concern had been that the sound of "children laughing" would be disputable, but apparently the English subtitles reflect this. Now, when we provide the reader with the description, we can follow up with commentary about the meaning of the phrase. While there is no actual commentary about the laughing children, I think it would be acceptable to include that detail and permit the reader to have his or her own take on how the sound ties in with the phrase or the film. I don't think that there is a concern of original research if we do not say anything about the laughing children beyond mentioning the detail. Perhaps Viriditas was concerned about its presentation in the Themes section, with the placement of the detail implying a correlation with the outlined themes (in particular, "Hope" and "Myth and religion")? Viriditas also suggested a screen cap of the phrase, though I'm still not clear why this is necessary. I think that a screen cap of another element under Themes would be more visually appealing. Feel free to share your thoughts about the presentation of the "Shantih" ending. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the confusion. You may not be aware that the "sound of laughing children" occurs throughout the credits and between the songs played as the credits roll. The "Shantih" appears at the end of the credits. So there is no direct "tie-in" with the phrase. So, since the sound of laughing children appears throughout the credits, it really has nothing to do with the Shantih, and describing the sound of laughing children just in relation to the shantih in the theme section is really OR. We have a source that refers to the Shantih as a theme for hope. That's great. We don't have any sources for the laughing of children except for the user-generated IMDb "crazy trivia" page which appeared on the net just before someone added it to this article. A month after IMDb uploaded it to their trivia page, Pastor Olivetti, a horror film fan who runs a personal website devoted to film reviews, took the IMDb trivia verbatim and sourced the section above it to IMDb on his website. If anyone contacts him by e-mail, he will explain that he got the information from IMDb. In any case, there is consensus by the leading members of the Films WikiProject that his website does not meet WP:RS. So, we are left with adding the Shantih to the theme section on hope, and either leaving the "sound of laughing children" out of the article (it's pure trivia which is why no single film critic appears to have mentioned it in a published reliable source) or describing it as appearing in the credits in another part of the article, either in a screen capture that comments on the credits themselves (which is perfectly acceptable as it describes the scene). I'm pretty open about either using it in a caption or in a section only about the credits. But using it to describe the Shantih alone is not supported. If what I am saying is still not making sense, please ask me as many questions as you require. I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to deal with this year-long dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I had a nagging suspicion that the sound of children laughing wasn't limited to the showing of the phrase. (Been some time since I've seen the film, I suppose.) Since these elements are not specifically paired, I then agree with you. I think that commentary about the phrase would fit well under the "Hope" subsection, and based on the references available, the sound of children's laughter would be only a small detail in this article. If we can find commentary about that from reliable sources, great. (Would look now if I wasn't busy with this graduate paper -- I have enough distractions.) In the meantime, we can focus on solely the phrase and the commentary. Any specific issues with this? Is a screen cap necessary any longer if we take this path? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Sounds like the right approach to take. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with the speculation as to where the info from the website owned by Olivetti (not sure what sort of stigma the attachment of 'pastor' is supposed to be adding to his contribution to the site), it appears that the website hasn't garnered enough flash and pop from the Films wikiProject, (I'd hardly call it a consensus) and I guess for now, it's out.
I think that the sound of the laughter is being misconstrued. It occurs as the screen fades to black. The sounds don't "fade out" during the soundtrack, and continues throughout the credits until right before the Shantih. I wanted to make sure that no one was laboring under an inaccurate timeline. Because of this, the shantih and the laughter are paired/connected; in the way that a prayer precedes the closing 'amen,' the laughter of children (in a movie about the complete absence of children) is the prayer, and the shantih is the 'amen.' I will concede that the preceding is my non-usable assessment, as it is interpretational, not observational. What is observational is that the laughter is still part of the story that the director is telling. I am open to suggestions as to how to include the laughter, wich I feel is pretty important to the film.
I am not sure we can use the captioning, as the interpretation of the captioning agent might run into a rs issue. A few times during the film, the captioning agent mislabeled dialogue, so I am not sure how - using the current criteria for evaluation - we can include a caption. Including a screen image of the shantih could be done, though I am not sure the inclusion of the captioning is acceptable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any supporting evidence to show any connection, implied or otherwise, between the shantih and the laughter in the credits. It would be pure OR to even make that assumption without a RS. There seems to be a miscommunication about the use of a caption. I was referring to Wikipedia:Captions, and in this instance, using a caption to describe an image of the shantih in the credits, while also describing the laughter in the credits, but not drawing any relationship between the two, is acceptable. In another matter, I believe we have discussed whether or not the sounds occur "as the screen fades to black" and I believe that it does not, however I am willing to take another look. If I recall correctly, the sounds occur as the credits begin. It is true that the sounds do not fade out during the soundtrack, and if I recall, as each song ends in the credits (2 or 3 songs I believe) one can hear the laughter. Still, I'm not sure what this trivia has to do with this article. You obviously find it very important, and I respect your opinion, but we don't write articles from our personal POV. If you can't find RS describing the importance of the shantih (or anything for that matter) in direct relation to the laughter, we can't make that connection. What we can do, is describe the credits in the most neutral way possible, using the film as a primary source, just as we do for the plot section. I'm not entirely clear why we are still arguing over this when WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR are clear on these points. The question is very simple: what reliable sources are you using to verify your information? We don't publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I am little surprised that this argument about a trivial sound appearing in the credits is still going on after a year of the article languishing without any substantial expansion. There are far more important things to discuss, some of which can be found on Talk:Children_of_Men/Temp, and have still not been added to the article. Let's get to work. —Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, I don't blame you for having the take you do about laughing children. I tried to poke around NewsBank to see if there was any coverage about the credits to no avail. I think that the general impression of the website was leaning toward the negative. It's no GeoCities, but it still doesn't command authority. Do you think Sandy would OK the website during a FAC process? My personal opinion is that this article should constantly strive to be a Featured Article, especially since it's considered a good Article. Using this website, unfortunately, seems to me as backsliding. Some articles probably wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing FA status, so it would probably be less disputable to include websites like the one in question. I think Children of Men is in terrific shape, despite the oh so many discussion that have taken place here. :) If you want some satisfaction, see how many people viewed this article last month. It's a nifty tool to use to see how many eyes one's work can reach. Arcayne, my suggestion is to keep an eye out for academic studies about Children of Men. These usually take some time to emerge after a film's release, and I have a feeling that scholars would have a lot to say about the film and its presentation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas: Yes, I was mistaken about which caption we were talking about. Thank you for pointing out my mistake (and for not being rude about it). You are right that I feel it is important to include the laughter thing (as the movie is well-enough made that I am sure Cuaron must have had a reason for including it), but, as I said before, I've been here long enough now to know the line between my opinion and proper attribution. After having re-read the discussion at WP Films, I can understand their reasoning for nixing the review site.
As well, I appreciate your proposed compromise of adding a caption to the screenshot of the shantih words at the end of the film. I would be concerned that addinghte bit about the laughter, when it isn't noted anywhere else in the article would be problematic. Thoughts?
Erik: As I noted before, I guess I will simply have to wait longer for something to emerge from retrospective reviews. I guess it was a change int he tone of the discussion that prompted me to reevaluate how I was viewing the problem. I am open to suggestions. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Another perspective to take on that review website is to hypothesize that it offered a different interpretation of the children laughing. If the website said it was to imply that Cuaron was making a big joke or something obviously disagreeable to us, we would criticize the reliability of the website more closely. If Film Comment made that claim, we couldn't be as critical. Just a way to bypass any cognitive bias that any of us have had and may have. At the moment, I don't think there is much that can be attributed to the laughter. Cuaron's film assaults the viewer with so much imagery that this detail may have simply gone under the radar in light of the more controversial elements like parallelism to Guantanamo. Lastly, I wanted to share a small piece of advice to all readers that I've learned on Wikipedia -- if you are in disagreement with someone, avoid rapid-fire discussion. Allot some time to think about what the other person said. Wikipedia's not going anywhere. We have the page history available to us. It's not a tragedy if some details are temporarily misrepresented. Just read the other person's comments, edit elsewhere for a while, then come back and share your thoughts. I think that permits discussion to ultimately be more amicable. Just my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent advice, Erik, and your presence and perspective is very helpful and appreciated. --MPerel 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is. When I don't let myself get goaded into arguments, I think I tend to follow that. Thanks again, Erik. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, now that we've settled all this, can someone please revert User:Jandry2's unsourced modifications, and add Erik's source in for the shantih in the hope section, but leave the sound of children laughing out until we have agreed on that matter? Also, someone recently changed "hippy" to "hippie", and as this is basically a UK production of a film set in the UK, the correct spelling of the term is "hippy". —Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now April 11 and still no response or action on this by the original editor who has introduced changes into this article. Viriditas (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the addition on the basis of synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Viriditas - I wasn't aware you had contacted me expecting me to do something. maybe ask me or let me know next time. And Erik, the proper removal justification would have been RS (as per the discussions here and elsewhere) and not the synthesis of the material ported over explicitly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, it looks like you weren't talking about my citation at all, Erik. My bad - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, consensus on this page and on the Films project is against using the source (and the material) in this article at this time. Some of the material about the theme of hope could be salvaged with one of the reliable sources Eric offers above. Could you please remove the material you added? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now April 14, 2008, about 12 days after consensus was reached to remove the disputed material. Why is the material still in the article, and why hasn't the original editor followed-up on this issue? Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now April 21, 2008, and as Arcayne refused to discuss the issue, I went ahead and removed the material and added a new section. Although Arcayne ignored repeated requests for discussion, he has now showed up to edit war again. So there is a clear record of him ignoring discussion and choosing to edit war: [7], [8], Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shantih, redux

I have not seen the film, but I'm curious to watch it now, after all this discussion. Could someone who has seen it tell me, does the word "Shantih" appear on-screen in readable English? If so, then no citation tag is needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This was previously explained to you on the OR noticeboard. The word appears both as a quote from a character in the film and in as an end title in the closing credits. Some sources discuss the former, while others the latter. Sources are required for all material that is challenged, and this has been challenged many times. There is no guideline or policy that overides WP:V. The OR and RS noticeboard is pretty clear on this. The film credits can be cited as a primary source. I don't know where you got the idea that no citation tag is needed; citation tags are always needed, especially for primary source material. I think you are confusing this with the WP:MOSFILMS guidelines for plot sections, in which case, the exception in that guideline applies directly to this problem, and the exception is a pointer to the dominance of WP:V. Since this particular end title appears at the very end of the film, after the credits, most people will have never seen it, and will not know about it. Providing a source with the exact time the titles appear is a benefit to the reader who wishes to both find and cue the titles. Now, you don't necessarily need to use a source. You could just as well use a note that gives a brief explanation of where the title begins. The purpose of the citation tag is to show the source used for the claim. By not including the citation tags (or note) in this instance, it gives the false impression that the unsourced material is cited to the secondary source citation at the end of the paragraph, which in fact, it isn't. Laura Eldred's comments refer to the term, but it is unclear if she is talking about its use in general in the film by Miriam, or the credits in particular. Erik has kindly provided additional sources that can be added to the article to support just the credits. So the MOSFILMS exception applies again, this time in terms of "details that are unclear or open to interpretation". I'm moving this section up above the RfC, because it seems designed to take attention away from that current discussion, like you did when you wikistalked me to the OR noticeboard page from Talk:Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If it does in fact appear in print, unambiguously, then calling it "controversial" doesn't make sense, because it's verifiable by anyone who can read. Explaining that it appears at the very end of the titles should suffice; I doubt you need the exact timestamp, but that's up to you. And your accusation of wikistalking is false. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you're confused. Those sources have not yet been added to the article. Erik just provided them a few weeks ago. Hence, the need for a cite needed tag as a placemark to add them. I'm working on it, but Arcayne was supposed to add them three weeks ago. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Roger. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Bugs: I was supposed to apparently use the Force to telepathically know what Viriditas wanted me to do. Sorry about that. :)
Actually, the RS and OR Noticeboards are pretty clear on the opposite of your interpretation, actually. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Erik provided the sources for you three weeks ago here. You were asked to remove the unreliable sources you added here. No telepathy required. And, there is no "noticeboard" that contradicts WP:V. If the material is challenged in some way, then sources are needed. This is why WP:MOSFILMS has the exception to the use of citations in the plot. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avatara

Does "avatara" really mean "saviour," as it says in the article? I thought it was just a term for any manifestation of god in physical form in Hindu religion, and that there wasn't necessarily any saviour concept. Professor Chaos (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a worthy question, and I suggest we both look into it. Of course, the term is sourced directly to a reference. Have you read it? Looking at an online definition of the word, saviour can also mean, "a person who rescues you from harm or danger." Would you say that Hindu deities can or cannot do that? And, why do people worship them? Glancing at the literature, the concept of a saviour seems to be present in Vaishnavism. —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One of those links is broken, the other is a review of the music. I don't trust it as a reliable source on the meaning of the word. My understanding (not being Hindu myself) is that while many common Hindus believe in many gods, Hinduism officially recognizes only one in many forms. They are called avatars when they take physical form. Savior is typically a Christian idea, since we don't have a repeating cycle of life doctrine. I'm sure it could mean God in the context of the song, and is probably calling for help, but I doubt it's in the way that we call on Christ to save us from our sins. The quote in the article is almost directly from the review. Professor Chaos (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Could you post the broken link here, so I can fix it? And have you looked into the concept of a saviour as it is used in Vaishnavism? I suggest taking a look at this website and comparing it to the wiki article on salvation. That should clear up some of your questions. I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem here is that you are coming at this from a Christian POV, which is fine, but keep in mind that most world religions share many things in common, and their similarities greatly outweigh their differences. If you are concerned with the translation of the Sanskrit word as cited in the review, then we should discuss just that issue rather than trying to highlight differences between Hindus and Christians, which is outside the scope of this article. From what I can tell, there is a substantial body of evidence pointing to the word "saviour" as one translation of "avatara". Ramakrishna writes: "God comes in the world and then disappears again to reappear in a different age at a different place. Whenever He appears, He comes as an Avatara, a Saviour of Man. All these Avataras are different manifestations of the One Spirit. We do not believe that God incarnated on earth only through Jesus; but we heartily accept Christ as one of the Sons of God."[9] That link provides some interesting differences between Christianity on a few key points, such as the need for a saviour for atonement, which is shown to be a Christian concept, replaced in Hinduism with the law of Karma. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that clears up a lot. I was of course coming at this with a Christian point-of-view, but my thought was that probably the reference of avatar meaning savior was also a Christian point-of-view, and that was my concern. Your Ramakrishna quote is enough to convince me, and when I have time later I'll look up that link. Thanks! Professor Chaos (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RevolutionSF link

Arcayne wrote: not sure why you saw the link as dead. Perhaps someone cocked up the cite news template. I've used the old standby ref. Please feel free to convert to template fashion if you wish.[10]

Thanks, but the link you added into the article is not the same link I removed. You can see that for yourself here. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Err, okay. And you felt the burning need to point this out...why?
And, as a matter of fact, the citation you removed was the same link, once you peel away the cite news template:
Like I said, something went sideways with the cite news template, it's not as if I was blaming you for it or anything.
What I am curious about, though, it the addition of the bit about when the laughter is heard during the credits 3 seems to be over-describing the matter. "Twer it anyone else, I would simply purge it as bloat, but I am mentioning it here because avoiding the recrimination would be nice for a change. As well, I am fairly sure we don't need to timestamp the instance of the laughter. Perhaps maybe discussing that would have helped. Lastly, describing the children's activity when we cannot see it, qualifying it as playing seems a bit too OR. laughing and shouting is fine. If the reader chooses to read into it that the children were playing, that's up to them. Otherwise, thanks for adding on the cite template for the RevolutionSF link that was re-added. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, please revisit the diff I posted above and the links you added. As a matter of fact, the two links are entirely different, and have nothing to do with the citation template. The link I removed was a dead link as you posted above: (article.html?id=3444) while the new link you added was completely different (article.php?id=3444). To summarize, you questioned me as to why I saw the link was dead (it was dead, you posted the dead link yourself), and you responded by adding a new link to the article. You did not add the same link, you added a completely different one. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand, but you can go farther back in the edit history to see that the link I removed was a dead link, and the link you added was different. Please look very carefully at the two links:
The former is the dead link I removed, the latter is the new link you added. This is very easy to see. Look at the dead link. It has "article.html?id=3444" at the end. The new link you added has "article.php?id=3444". So you did not revert my change, you added a new link into the article to replace the dead one. And you apparently got the new link from the 404 page that I just saw, where it says that the RevolutionSF website "had some server rejiggering recently that changed our file names". So the old article name was correct until the site changed the name. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The link went dead - the server is to blame - we'll have it shot at dawn, and send its various parts to the four corners of England. Not really a very solid reason to delete the entire cite, but there it is. I am not really sure why you are still arguing the point, as I found the correct link and put it in the article. You added the proper templating to it. I thought it was all better now. Do you still see a problem with the citation? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please address why we need to mention the sound of laughing children in the article in the section below this one. I'm not going to argue with you about what the children were doing, but it is beyond obvious that they were playing. That you feel the need to argue about this is beyond me. The viewer is even given a clue in scene 12, "Waiting for Syd", where the quiet of a school playground is remarked upon by the characters: "As the sounds of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices." (1:02:43-57) The sound of children playing in the credits draws upon this silence previously remarked in scene 12. We can also draw upon the official screenplay which was published by the studio. I think it is obvious to anyone who listens to this audio in the credits, is that it is the sound of children playing in a playground. I honestly don't know why it is even in the article. Why does the reader need to know this? Using a timestamp is best practice for all uses of film as a primary source, which is exactly how it is being used. I am having trouble understanding why you would be against using a timestamp, as it is encouraged by the {{cite video}} template. The parameter info for the "time" says to state, "Roughly what time, if accessible, a scene occurs with-in a production. Useful for citing specific scenes, quotations or data." I don't see anything wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we both know from our previous conversations here and elsewhere that what seems obvious to some is not always that obvious to others; its because of that reason that we cite material, and citing that the children are playing needs that. As for the timestamping, its encouraged but not required, as noting that the laughter happens during the credits pretty much specifies exactly where it the laughter occurs. Therefore, timestamping isn't really useful (also part of the reasoning for using it, according to the template description.
I think I am going to withhold discussing the matter of the children's laughter with you for the time being. In the past, it has led to enormous amounts of wasted time arguing and both of us being blocked for it. Maybe you should just resign yourself to the fact that we are two different ediotrs who maintain very different opinions on this subject, and leave it at that. Anything we could say on the matter would just be rehashing old points and reopening old arguments that are better off left in the past. That the laughter is noted is a good thing, and adds to the breadth of the movie, and maybe even its message. Be happy with that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the term "playing" as a temporary compromise. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw it, and appreciate it. I have removed the cite video template, though, and reinstated the accidentally-removed Closing credits substitution. Maybe hold off on reverting your changes back in until we have found either a satisfactory compromise or a consensus for your changes, please. When reverted, BRD suggests discussion. That means actual discussion, with two or more people discussing matters to arrive at an agreement. I am pretty sure it doesn't mean, 'post in discussion and then revert back'. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, I offered the above compromise in a good faith, and yet all you do is revert. I think you need to take a step back and actually answer the questions I've asked of you in the below section. You just reverted telling me to take it to the talk page, when you are the one who hasn't been using it. I've compromised and I've discussed the issue. Let's see a little bit of both from you besides the usual edit warring and forcing of "your way" into the article. This is a collaborative website, so please try to work with other editors instead of constantly reverting them. The term "closing credits" is correct, as is the cite video template and the inclusion of the songs. If you disagree, then your response is eagerly awaited in the below section. I hope you would have the courtesy to discuss this issue and not edit war over the issue, as I showed you the same courtesy for almost three weeks, waiting for you to remove the unreliable source you added to the article against consensus. You will notice that I asked you to remove it for three weeks without any response from you. And yet, here you are, edit warring again, whenever I try working on this article. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) My apologies; if you are only seeing me revert, then perhaps my edit summaries and posts here haven't been clear enough. Maybe you could consider that what I am seeing is you posting her and then heading back to the article to revert my alterations out. I rather thought that discussion was actually supposed to be composed of people discussing things until a conclusion was arrived at by all parties. I don't see that occurring just yet - as I am sure that you don't see that, either. My undoing the changes were summarized by a request to continue discussing the matter. I intend to see that discussion actually occur.
As well, I am a little disappointed that I have to ask you to again please focus on the edits, and not the editor. Neither one of us is perfect, and our past interactions with each other have been deplorable; I have no intention of allowing that to happen here.
For my part, I was unaware that you were waiting for me to remove the poor citation; I had actually thought that you had already removed it. Had you let me know you were waiting, I would have been happy to excise it. This article is on my watchlist, but I don;t usually pipe up unless an edit occurs that I disagree with or something that needs discussion. To be clear, I am not simply here to remove your edits. I am here to make a good article.
I appreciate your compromise, as I am sure you appreciate my compromise with the substitution of the closing credits in place of end credits (they are synonymous, and both link to the new article). WE do have a sticking point,and I am yet to be convinced that the timestamping - or even the template itself is necessary here. I read the template, and I see nowhere in there that it is required; if so, why aren't the majority of FA articles also the recipients of time-stamps as well? The template says its useful when the point being cited might be otherwise difficult to find. As it takes place in the closing credits, we kinda know where it is already. Since it lasts throughout the credits, it further removes the useful utility the template function would provide. It feels like overkill. The text tell s us where it is, and there is citation provided that explains the Shantih mentions, and it seems of far more note than a list of songs in the credits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, that isn't a compromise. The section is called closing credits. You haven't explained why you have removed the songs from the closing credits section. Why is the sound of laughing children and the end titles more important than the songs played in the credits? The section on closing credits is about closing credits. I really don't understand your edits or why you have showed up to edit war after remaining silent on this matter for three weeks. The entire closing credits seciton is trivia. I added it as a compromise of good faith to you. Instead, all you do is show up to edit war, again and again. Your rationale for removing the songs and the citation template is totally unjustified. We use the timestamp in the cite video template to help the reader. Why would you want to disinform the reader? There really is a clear pattern here. You disappear from this article for three weeks while I tried to discuss the issue with you, and when I make my very first edit, you show up to revert and edit war. I've put a lot of work into this article, and yet all you do is show up to edit war and argue over pure trivial matters, like the sound effects in the credits, or the use of a timestamp in a citation template. All in all, it's highly disruptive. I would actually like to see you write a new section here, or see you make your first major contribution to this article that does not involve edit warring. How were your recent edits collaborative? How did you seek to preserve the edits of another editor while building upon them and expanding the article? All you did was remove information for no reason. How can you justify that? What is your motivation for removing a citation template? Why would you remove the names of songs that appear in the closing credits? Why is the sound of laughing children and a title that appears at the very end of the film more important than any of these things? And why are you still arguing over such trivial matters? You repeatedly say in your edit summaries that you want to see discussion before reverts, but in fact, you've done the opposite. Who started reverting here, Arcayne? And who continues to revert without discussing the reason for their reverts? If you aren't able to discuss and defend your edits, then I'm going to remove the entire section and place it on talk for discussion. Then, you can spend as much time as you like discussing it while I work on the rest of the article without your edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually you changed the section from End Credits to closing credits, Viriditas. End credits would have been just as satisfactory and I don't care much one way or the other.. However, the speculation that children were playing is your interpretation of the sounds. You might consider that marking it as a "temporary" compromise isn't really a compromise at all. Something given with the implied idea that it is only being offered temporarily isn't much of a negotiation.
Again, if you want me to respond to your questions, please understand that you are going to have to address the edits and not the editor. Characterizing my contributions as edit-warring is not going to get me to respond any more favorable to you, and might simply lead to me ignoring your posts. I ask you again to be polite, please.
I am not of the opinion that the template is necessary or useful in this article, Viriditas. The movie, while densely packed with lots of symbolic imagery, is pretty clearly cited. There isn't really a need to have a time-stamp directing us to the closing credits when we have text that explicitly tells us the same thing. We don't really chew the food for the reader. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, what are you talking about? I added the section "end credits" and when I realized that I had given it the wrong name, I changed it to closing credits. So, you are trying to tell me that your compromise consists of reverting to an erroneous version I originally added? I'm really not following you at all, but I am waiting for you to directly respond to my questions. You feel that a citation template is not necessary? That's absurd. You know perfectly well what the sourcing policy is here, and adding a timestamp to the cite video template where the reader can go to find the credits and laughing children is for the benefit of the reader and is good editing. You say it is "pretty clearly cited", yet that particular piece of information is not cited anywhere in the article. You know this, so I have no idea why you would even make that claim. And you still have not explained why you removed the music. I have no idea how you consider unjustified and indefensible blanket reverting as "favorable" behavior. In case you haven't figured it out by now, we are no longer discussing the "playing" of children, as I pulled that out of the article as a gesture of good faith. In return, you reverted my edits and removed citations and content about the songs in the credits. Like I said, if you can't address your questionable edits, I'm going to remove the entire section, and you can discuss it to your heart's content. You say I need consensus for my edits? You say I need to discuss my edits? Great. You will need to do the same in order to add the section back into the article after I remove it. I suggest you compromise instead, but I'm not sure you understand the concept. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, your removal of the citation template is a direct violation of Wikipedia's core policy, verifiability. All material that is challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You know perfectly well that the "laughter of children" has been challenged for a year on this page and in the talk archives, so your removal of the primary source supporting its inclusion doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Arcayne, you seem to have contradicted yourself. At 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) you claimed that the soundtrack music was just as relevant as the sounds of children laughing and the Shantih. That makes your revert all the more confusing. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Unfortunately, I cannot discuss anything with you when you become uncivil. Considering that vitully every time in the past we have interacted, it has descended into bitter recrimination wherein nothing constructive is accomplished. If you choose to re-frame your requests in a more civil tone (which I know you are capable of doing), then I will respond. Until then, I am not going to reply to any request from you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. You were politely asked to discuss the issue of unreliable sources for three weeks in the above section, and you refused to reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children's laughter

After adding the content to the new "end credits" section, I'm not really sure how mentioning the sound of children laughing in the credits improves this article. Why do we need to know this? Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, why did you remove the mention of the songs in the credits? And, why are they less important than the sound of children laughing? Please discuss why you are removing this material. This is neither "bloat" nor "OR"; it is a description of the end credits. If you don't think it belongs, then why do we need to mention the sound of children laughing and the end title? Let's treat this section as objectively as possible. It describes the end credits and what occurs during the credits. The Lennon and Cocker songs only appear in the credits, so they are given additional meaning due to their unique placement. There is no logical reason to even favor just describing the auido and end titles, without also making mention of the special songs played. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne writes: Please stop. This is not discussion,and you need to find a consensus or seek an agreement before reinstating.

That's strange, I see at least four open threads on this topic, and yet you are still edit warring, claiming that I need to find consensus or seek agreement. What do I need to find consensus or seek agreement for, Arcayne? The talk archives clearly shows that there is no consensus to add the material about the laughing children, but you've spent the last year edit warring it into the article. So why don't you please take your own advice? You haven't explained why the sound effects of laughing children are more important than the three songs that appear in the credits. Why have you deleted them? And why have you deleted the timestamps from the cite video template verifying the source? This is correctly called the closing credits and it documents that subject. Discussion has been ongoing on this page for three weeks, but I haven't seen you participating in any of the threads, and yet, here you are, edit warring once again. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring comments by Jim Dunning on this topic from Talk:Children of Men/Archive 6

To be fair, if the laughing during the end credits is mentioned, shouldn't the laughing at the beginning be included as well? Also, since it's audio, couldn't the music played during the end-credits then be mentioned in the synopsis, too (its mood, lyrics, intent, etc.)? It seems that those that wish to include reference to the laughing have attached some story-significance to it. I did (that of hope), but I recognize it's my interpretation, and acknowledge it could be no more than a reinforcement of the movie's topic (children), especially since it appears at both the beginning and end (if hope is the intent, why at the beginning when the focus is on despair?). I can find no reputable reviewer's mention of the laughing anywhere, so I'm hard-pressed to think it should be included in the synopsis. Even then, since it is SO open to interpretation, I'd be inclined to restrict it to the Themes section if a source could be found. — Jim Dunning talk  : 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoring comments by A Man in Black on this topic from Talk:Children of Men/Archive 4. He was asked where in the article the sound laughing children should go

Nowhere. Its importance and relevance is disputed, and there's no reference to back any view. Lots of things happen in this movie; it is not possible or desireable to describe every single moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like if this minutia is properly sourced, it should be OK. Still, it seems like this debate has been going on for like a year now. And I thought *I* was obsessive. :\ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is in fact minutiae, Bugs. It certainly isn't worth the level of recrimination that it apparently inspires in some editors. I'm not sure aboutyou, but I am certainly a different edtor than I was a year ago. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. My point is that if this debate has been going on for a year, then maybe arbitration is needed. Never having seen the film, I'm in no position to say whether it's really minutia (singular) / minutiae (plural) or "significa". But it's not up to an editor to decide something like that unilaterally, it should be driven by consensus and by what valid sources have to say about it. The important thing, though, is that now I know how to spell minutia and minutiae. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Well, if I come to Wikipedia and don't learn something new every day, I feel cheated. :)
I should point out that I have sought DR to resolve the personality differences that often cause Viriditas' recrimination to spill out into the articles where he and I interact; it has failed or stalled every single time due to V's apparent lack of interest in such. It doesn't really bear discussion in this article discussion. Either way, I don't mind arbitration, though I feel we would get laughed out of the committee board for introducing such a WP:LAME dispute.
While I realize that the info about the children's laughter is not cited, it has been determined through the RS Noticeboard discussion that noting the laughter is observable phenomena, and is an exception to the NOR rule, much like the plot summary of the observable phenomena is. I think that the laughter of children that plays through the closing credits of a movie that posits the end of humanity caused by human infertility to be kinda important, though what form that importance takes varies depending on which editor you ask. I certainly didn't add it to the section currently being discussed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Closing credits

Should a section on "closing credits" appear in this article? If so, should it mention the sound effects (children laughing), the three songs in the credits, two songs of which only appear in the credits? And should the details of the sound effects and music be directly sourced to the time the events appear in the film using the time parameter in {{cite video}} for verification? Note: the film is used as a primary source for all elements except the use of the term "shantih", which is sourced to an online website, revolutionsf.com, and appears at the end of the credits as a closing title. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All details

As the closing credits begin, background sound effects of children laughing and shouting are played.[5] The laughter is interspersed between the songs, "Bring on the Lucie (Freeda Peeple)" by John Lennon, "Fragments of A Prayer" by John Tavener, "Cunts are Still Running the World" by Jarvis Cocker, and a reprise from John Tavener. The children's laughter closes out the credits as the Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", appears in end titles.[6] Writer and film critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs".[7]

[edit] Select details

As the closing credits begin, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard. The Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", are also shown at the very end of the film. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs".[8]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Simon, Jeff. "Life Force: Who carries the torch of hope when the world is without children?", The Buffalo News, 2007-01-04. 
  2. ^ Children of Men., People. 1/8/2007, Vol. 67, Issue 1.
  3. ^ Dana Stevens. "The Movie of the Millennium", Slate, 2006-12-21. Retrieved on 2007-02-15. 
  4. ^ Richstatter, Katje (Mar-Apr 2007). "Two Dystopian Movies...and their Visions of Hope" (Reprint). Tikkun 22 (2). 
  5. ^ Michael Caine, Pam Ferris, Julianne Moore, Peter Mullan, Clive Owen. (2007-03-27). Children of Men [DVD]. Universal City, California: Universal Studios. Event occurs at 1:40:16.
  6. ^ Michael Caine, Pam Ferris, Julianne Moore, Peter Mullan, Clive Owen. (2007-03-27). Children of Men [DVD]. Universal City, California: Universal Studios. Event occurs at 1:49:00.
  7. ^ Andrew Kozma; Laura Eldred. "Children of Men: Review", RevolutionSF.com, 2007-01-16. Retrieved on 2007-02-08. 
  8. ^ Andrew Kozma; Laura Eldred. "Children of Men: Review", RevolutionSF.com, 2007-01-16. Retrieved on 2007-02-08. 

[edit] Comments

[edit] Bzuk

After reviewing the film, I agree with you as to the impact of the closing credits and either a separate section title (or sub-title) would be appropriate. I have provided the following minor revision (note changes in the date structure and author order):

As the closing credits begin, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard, interspersed with three songs. The Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", are also shown at the very end of the film credits. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs". [1] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] MovieMadness

I agree the closing credits in this film are unique enough to warrant discussion in a separate section. However, I vote for the "All details" version above. Given the director must have had his reasons for selecting the specific songs heard, I think their titles should be listed. (Are the closing credits discussed on the DVD release? I don't recall, but if they were, the commentary could be summarized here as well.) MovieMadness (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blueboar

Popping over from WP:RSN, where this issue has been raised. It is not OR to state that a specific sound effect can be heard during the opening credits (it is a fact that can be cited to the film itself). My real question is: Why is this fact being mentioned in the first place? It seems fairly trivial. If the fact does have some significance in the context of the film, that should be mentioned. Of course, in order to mention that significance, you will need a reliable secondary source that discusses the significance (otherwise it would be OR to mention it). In other words... you certainly can mention it, but why bother? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that, without significant citation as to the meaning of the children's laughter and shouting, we cannot suggest one. I think that isn't really central to the problem as it existed when the issue was revisited yesterday. Nor is the other editor's frustration at my continued participation in this article, which is why I initially disengaged from discussion, so as to gain some emotional distance from his comments.
I would submit that the point about the Shantih (which is cited) is not solely att he end of the film, but occurs as an exclamation of one of the main characters of the film, noting the hope that Kee's baby will reverse the infertility crisis threatening to extinct-ify the human race. Therefore, it seems plausible that this is somewhat less than trivial. Time and academic analysis of the film will likely delve into the significance of the children's laughter and shouting at the end. Until that time, we can encyclopedically note its presence without entertaining notions as to what it means.
The central points of the RfC here are
  1. whether the laughter of children playing throughout the closing credits is observable phenomena, and therefore an exception tot he NOR rule similar in application to that of plot details;
  2. whether or not the cite video template is necessary to time-stamp the instance of the laughter that plays throughout the closing credits when described in a section by that same name; and
  3. whether songs that play through the closing credits are notable on their face, or if they require secondary citation as to their significance.
I tend to think that the Select details example is more concise and encyclopedic than the All details example offered above it. I would however, trim the last part of Eldred's quote, "a world on its last, teetering legs" as extraneous. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - It would be rather helpful if Viridtias could suspend reverting the article until the outcome of the RfC he has requested, or the two difference noticeboard discussions he began. Continuing to revert while seeking opinion as to the validity of those reverts seems tendentious and disruptive. If he is confident in his viewpoint, he shouldn't have trouble awaiting confirmation of that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Response - This RfC was designed to get responses from users /other/ than you and I, so I have no idea why you are commenting here, as you have stated your opinion on this subject many times throughout this page and the talk archives. Adding citation tags is /not/ a revert. You just reverted the citation tags and asked me not to revert? As usual, you make no sense. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"I have no idea why you are commenting here" - Said the guy commenting here. I don't ask you for permission hwere to speak. Stop expecting it. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The RFC was explicitly requested to solicit outside opinions - in other words, not your opinion. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MPerel

Should a section on "closing credits" appear in this article? Per WP:TRIVIA, there is indeed some question as to whether these details should be included at all. If the section is included, however, it needs to carefully adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR via reliable sources. The songs mentioned are unique to the closing credits and are discussed in depth by critics, particularly notable is one academic's mention of the significance of the film's lone John Lennon song since Caine based his Jasper character on Lennon. So the songs would be the most notable inclusion if the section remains. Laura Eldred's observation of Shantih Shantih Shantih being found in Eliot's poem seems significant enough to include. Are there any critics that mention the significance of laughing children? I’m concerned that the "Select details" version as written above places the laughing children in juxtaposition with the Shantih Shantih Shantih phrase implying a connection not made by any reliable sources. If mention of the laughing children is included, the "All details" version above (my first choice of the three possible choices given) at least sources its occurrence and avoids appearance of Wikipedian original synthesis. --MPerel 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - With respect, I disagree with your interpretation here, MPerel. The policy as it exists is that observable phenomena, such as the plot (from which we derive the Plot Summary) is one of those exemptions from WP:V. The consensus thinking is that the general consensus as to the content of the film will be pared down to the elements by those who've seen the film (ie, no space alien invasions in The Wizard of Oz). As no one contests that the events actually occurred (the dispute instead revolving about what the events mean), the observable phenomena is allowed sans citation. Were this incorrect, plot summaries throughout Wikipedia would have to be cited throughout.
Per that reasoning, the observation that children are laughing and shouting is allowed. Any speculation as to what that means is not. The Shantih actually improves on that observational quality by having at least three different references that improve upon that. The citations provide context for the observation. The observation isn't dismissed, unless it's contested on the basis of factuality.
That the observation of the laughter of the children occurs in the section before the shantih citation is not necessarily a 'juxtaposition' per se, but rather that it is the natural progression of the film. The laughter occurs during the credits. After the credits, the Shantih phrase is the last thing on the screen. I am not sure any connection is implied, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we could avoid this. We have a responsibility to present all the info observed to the reader, but we don't 'chew the food' - ie., we let them arrive at their own assessments. This is why we give them the whole observed story.
The connection between Jasper's characterization being an interpretation of an older John Lennon and the inclusion of the Lennon song by Lennon needs specific citation connecting those two, so as to avoid synthesis issues. The music noted, without specific citation as to why it deserves mention in an article about the film. I would posit that, if such citations exist, it belongs in the Music section. It would certainly be more notable than anything else currently there (save for the Tavener musical development) or in the spin-off article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, we already know your position. This section is used to request comments from other people, in order to bring in outside opinions. Is there a reason you keep responding here? Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If I choose to respond to posts, I am not sure why you should be bothered. It's called discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A discussion involves an exchange of ideas, an agreement and a disagreement, concessions, compromises, and the goal of consensus. Considering the fact that you have been trying to force this trivial information into the article for more than a year, and in the process, ignored every consensus that was reached, I see no discussion from you. What I see is a tendentious obsession with trivia that detracts from the larger issues facing the improvement of this article, and distracts from the writing process. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your definition of discussion, which makes it all the more boggling as to why you are so quick to dispense with it. To begin with, consensus isn't static. It can and does change. Your forcing the article to look the way you wish it to is a pretty clear sign of ownership. You have taken a discussion about use the cite video template and turned it into a battleground. When you did not get your way about the cite video template your solution was - instead of discussion - was to throw a tantrum and say, 'oh yeah? I am going to remove it all, then'. You followed that by edit-warring about the removal. Your behavior has been deplorable here. And you wonder why I oppose your edits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you've spent the last year gaming the OR and RS policy, continually challenged each consensus on the matter, the results of which concluded that the sound of laughing children in the credits were both trivial and lacking RS. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comments (mirrored from WP Films)

Now, I dig that films like Mulholland Drive and Memento are mindbenders when it comes to interpretation, ergo the caveat about applying interpretative narrative to events there. There are also a few films that provide credits running backwards (some sort of allusion to the film which, for the life of me, I cannot recall) which are observed and commented on as part of the observable phenomena of the film.
Currently, in Children of Men, a discussion is ongoing about the mentioning of the non-soundtrack sounds of children's laughter and shouting observed occurring during the closing credits. There is also the phrase, "shantih shantih shantih" at the conclusion of the credits that was initially strongly opposed for inclusion. That opposition has since evaporated since the observable detail of the phrase is accompanied by an cited interpretation as to its meaning.
The laughter of the children is observable phenomena, and its existence is not contested. It is part of the movie (which is considered the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film), and it bears noting that the laughter occurring during the closing credits is available in all three subtitles available on the DVD available in the States, as well as bootleg copies from China and Singapore subtitled with the same observation.
What is currently contested is whether the observable phenomena belongs in the article uncited (much as the plot summary is uncited). No interpretation is being applied to this observation; it is just being noted. No interpretation + no dissent about occurrence = no citation required.
In short, the film is the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film. For interpretation, we seek elsewhere.We give the reader the whole film, add citations where interpretations are made on the film, and leave the reader to evaluate the rest. We don't chew the food for them, but we do give them the food. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Media artifacts (in this case the film) are the source. Including what you see or hear in the film can be posted, because it is verifiable -- anyone can look at the film and confirm it to be there. There is absolutely no difference here from citing anything you've read in the book. You read the book (i.e. observe it), and post what you've read (observed), with a citation to the source. Someone who wants to verify it goes to the source (the film) and confirms it. Entirely the same, there's no additional level of interpretation, IMO.

As you say, if you were placing an interpretation on it, or a conclusion about its meaning, that would require a secondary source. In this case you're simply reporting the contents of the primary source, the media artifact. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are used all the time in Wikipedia articles. And they are always supported by WP:RS to avoid WP:OR. In terms of film articles, we generally do not use citations in plot sections because we are dealing with basic information about the film that can easily be verified in any review or critical treatment of the subject. If, however, the material is challenged due to is ambiguity, importance, or accuracy, then sources are requested to see how it is used. The exception in MOS:FILMS describes this scenario, and exists to show that the policy of WP:V always trumps guidelines. We do not report our observations about any "media artifacts. Plot sections only describe the most important elements. If a dispute arises as to whether a specific aspect of the plot is significant, secondary sources are called upon for comparison. This holds true for any content, not just plot sections. The "closing credits" section of Children of Men is pure trivia. Trivia sections are generally discouraged, and whenever possible, trivia is moved into established sections for expansion or illustration of a topic. The sound effects of "laughing children" in the credits take up less time than the three songs that appear. So, if we are discussing the closing credits, we are discussing the sound effects and the music that is played. There are several reviews of the music in RS, but no mention of the sound of laughing children. We could easily source the sound effect to the film with the cite video template, noting when it occurs with the time parameter. This was done, but was removed by Arcayne; he also removed the three songs from the section, only mentioning the trival sound of children laughing without reference and the end credits that appear in the film for less than several seconds. This is essentially the same content from the IMdB and Mutant Reviewers sites, except this time, Arcayne has used a web source to support the existence of the "Shantih" in the film, but that does not support the sound effects of children laughing. Furthermore, the RevolutionSF website that is being used as a reference, does not support the credits, but rather the use of "Shantih" in the film (i.e. spoken by one of the characters). So again, we have Arcayne, reverting back to the original trivia from IMdB and Mutant Reviewers but using the RevolutionSF source as a crutch. That source says nothing about the shantih in the credits and nothing about the laughing children. So again, we are left with using the film as a primary source to support this trivia. In order to show that this trivia is important, secondary sources must be offered. Erik has provided at least two film reviews that support the idea that the Shantih was used in the credits. These references can be used, and the material can be incorporated into the body of the artice, but these sources say nothing about the importance of trivial sound effects. Arcayne is attempting to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effects and the shantih, and he has spoken about his pet theories at great length in the talk archives. In one example, from 00:04, 27 May 2007, he writes:

To begin with, there is no children's laughter at the beginning of the movie (or anywhere else in the film, for that matter). You may recall that the fil opens with the Bristish nescaster discussing 'day 100 of the Siege of Seattle'. Secondly, the laughter is not a part of the soundtrack (it is neither listed as such in either the credits, is not part of any song listed in the credits, nor does it appear in the released soundtrack for the film). It is in fact notable that the laughter begins immediately before the screen fades to black, and continues through the credits and end title music, and stops immediately before the words "Shantih, shantih shantih" appear on the screen. Whereas the 'shantih' has been in the past effectively argued as a thematic component, this laughter doesn't appear to serve that same sort of purpose. The suggestion that - as another editor has suggested here - the infertility crisis is averted since Kee (and her baby) have made it to the rendezvous with the Human Project (justifying Theo's sacrifice) is a valid point; there is no other instance of children's laughter in the film. It only appears at the end of the film, when we are left wondering if humanity dies out or not. It's presence hints that man's extinction doesn't happen. However, never let it be said that I am unreasonable; please tell me why you think it is a thematic component. At least you aren't suggesting that the laughter was just some odd little happenstance that a bored film editor accidentally dropped in. Lastly, I think the only reason reviewers haven't mentioned the laughter at the end is because it is so clearly a spoiler. I think one would be equally hard-pressed to find a reputable reviewer who revealed the surprise endings of Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects. Following your wisdom, we could not detail the identity of Keyser Soze or Dr. Crowe's true nature because we couldn't find a reviewer who told us it was such. However, such are includable because they are a part of the, story - the film experience. The same is true for the laughter. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's only one of many examples of Arcayne's idea that the laughter is notable. No reliable source has ever made that claim or mentioned it. This is a continuing attempt by Arcayne to evade WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be completely arcane, but Arcayne is correct in making a connection between the laughter as part of the central theme of the film. Is it a "pet theory"? maybe but that is a dismissive way of deciding the argument, as well as insisting that a reliable source back up an eminently verifiable element of the film. Is there consensus for the use of the closing credits as a thematic device? If so, then, as the editor has made valid attempts to link the director's decisions to provide an overarching conclusion for the viewer and tried to provide as much attribution as possible, I cannot see the harm in introducing this element. FWiW, this discussion seems to have "migrated" from the talk page of the article and does not seem to have a bearing on the original "string." Bzuk (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
Wikipedia does not publish original thought. We cannot make connections in the article without evidence, such as WP:RS, due to WP:NOR. The only reasonable connection that could be made outside the article based on the evidence that we do have, is the connection of the laughter to scene 12, where the character of Miriam comments on the absence of children's voices. Still, we cannot discuss it in the article without proper sources. To say that anyone is "correct" in making a connection between one thing and another seems to miss the point, as I could make hundreds of "correct" connections. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for original research. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that I'm told this article: Kevin Crust. "CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision", Los Angeles Times, 2007-01-07.  references the laughter while talking about the film's audio in general. Anyone with a pay account for their archive should be able to access it online. Steve T • C 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've been given the wrong information. It's a good reliable source that discusses both John Lennon and Jarvis Cocker's songs and how they are used in the closing credits, but it says nothing about the sound effects of children laughing. I want to thank you for bringing it up, because I'm going to add it to the article to support the songs Arcayne deleted. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I tried to locate this article, but I couldn't find the whole thing. I saw it in Google News Archive Search, though. Not sure why it's been difficult to come across. Arcayne and Viriditas, may I just make a bold suggestion: Remove yourselves from this article entirely. Take it off your watchlist. Leave the article untouched, even if it's not the revision you want. Don't consider sneaking back with sockpuppets. Just... walk away. Every second and keystroke that you devote to fighting it out could be focused elsewhere, in a more contributive light. I realize that both of you have sort of done this before, but I mean permanently. There are so many articles on Wikipedia that could use your editing skills and not the debating skills you two have fine-tuned so well. I had wanted to weigh in about my findings (or lack thereof), but I also wanted to say that this is not worth the sorrow. Just look at the archives and see how long in the tooth your discussions have been. All for what? A sentence or two. Children of Men is a great film, but it by no means requires the most conservative presentation or the most intricate layout as opposed to some major topics on Wikipedia. I really hope both of you would consider this option. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Erik, I appreciate it. I'm not going anywhere, but I promise to try and be more polite to Arcayne in the future, as he deserves more respect than I've been giving him. As for the Los Angeles Times article, is it ok if I e-mail it to you? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not going anywhere either, and I must say that I appreciate Viriditas' promise to be more polite. I would also like a copy of the article as well, pls. That whole 'trust but verify' thing, you understand. As for where, if the citation is sufficient, should go, we have a music section that pretty much speaks to the musical aspects of the film. Barring exceptional tie-ins with the credits, it should go there.
While consensus does and should change over time, this is a particularly thorny issue that keeps revisiting us, and I think about 80% of it is due to personality clashes. The other 20% is over things that we are actually here to do.
The inclusion of the laughter of children is not a "pet theory" as has been dismissively suggested at least a dozen times in at least 4 different pages. True, I personally think there is a connection, but since shedding a lot of my newbie ideas about what should be included and what shouldn't be in the article, I haven't injected my interpretation of the children's laughter, even though citation eventually affirmed my interpretation of the shantih phrase (also pooh-poohed at one point as my "pet theory"). The laughter is an observed part of the film that is not part of either of the two soundtracks commercially available. It is part of the DVD release (both legitimate and bootleg) in at least four different languages; meaning that not only is it considered part of the movie in the authentic versions of the movie enough to closed caption its its presence for the deaf, but in other languages and in bootleg versions that present the same info in languages like Chinese. As such, it is covered by the same MOS rules that govern the inclusion of a plot summary. This has come up in RS and NOR noticeboards in the past, and was noted by User:Blueboar as being of definitive consensus that for observed material of a film, the film itself is the explicit and implicit source of the citation. External citation is unnecessary, and an exception to the verifiability rule, as consensus ensures that the content is in fact an accurate ad neutral depiction of the film.
This beings us to our next problem. Do we use the cite video template to time-stamp the incidence of laughter? The noted instance of laughter occurs only in the closing credits, and throughout it. The section noting it is called 'Closing Credits'. Do we need a time-stamp telling us that it is in fact in the part that the section is telling us it is in? To me, it seems redundant and unnecessary.
Lastly, the question has been raised as to whether the section 'Closing Credits' following the Plot Summary is even necessary, and if the statements within are trivial. As I didn't create the section, I am of two minds on whether the section should exist. I do not know of any other FA article that has one, and that consideration (for good or ill) tends to be chief amongst my litmus tests for inclusion. Perhaps the statements there belong in the 'Themes' section As for whether the statements within are trivial, I believe that my numerous statements here and elsewhere are notable enough for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has not changed on this issue nor on the policies and guidelines related to this problem; most editors see the content as trivia, and core policies demand tight sourcing to avoid original research. The burden of proof remains on the editor who wants to add the information. You've been trying to add this information for a year. Since that time, a few sources have shown up mentioning the Shantih, the homage to Eliot, and its use in the film. While not exacty a theme, I would support adding it to the appropriate section of the article. However, your continued insertion of the "sound of laughing children" has never risen above the level of trivia, and without secondary sources discussing it, we cannot gauge its importance. The version you are arguing for currently, is identical to the version on the IMdB website. A version which was added in January 2007. Prior to that time, an anonymous IP, User:80.192.175.116, was the first to introduce part of it into the article, on 00:00, 10 November 2006.The IP wrote: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again.[11] Another IP, User:66.207.89.105, showed up to add it back into the plot on 04:29, 13 February 2007.[12] The original IP showed up again to add some of it back into the article in June 2007[13] and was reverted by JimDunning based on consensus that had been reached on talk.[14] There are more IP's, I believe, but I would have to look through the page history. Based on your discussion about the laughing children in the talk archives, this particular OR has always been your root reason for inclusion. And to date, this has never been published in any reliable source. You've also gone one step further, trying to connect this to the use of the shantih, synthesizing unrelated, unreferenced material, with a secondary source that doesn't support it. That's why you removed the primary sources which used the cite video template, and that's why you removed the mention of the songs in the credits, which are supported by an article in the Los Angeles Times. By removing those two elements, and tying two unrelated things together, we are back to the OR. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(←outdent) Okay, this inspires a host of questions, but I will limit it to these:
  1. what do the IP address have to do with me or my edits? Are you accusing me of socking without any sort of proof?
  2. can you pull up an edit that is not more than a year old where I have added any interpretation of the laughter or the shantih to the article?
If you are going to accuse me of sock-puppetry using anon IPs, the right place to do that is right over here. As well, if you are going to accuse me of pushing what you keep calling my "pet theory", maybe try to find a diff that isn't over a year old. You've been told that characterizing it as such is uncivil and dismissive, and you just got done telling another editor you were going to try to be a lot more civil to me. I am personally not seeing the improved civility. Maybe you could just restrict yourself to comments that aren't going to likely result in you blocked, and simply focus on the edits, and not the editor. Consider this your last warning on the subject.(unsigned post from Arcayne)
Your description of the sound effect as "children's laughter" is an interpretation. To me, it sounds like children playing or talking and is trivial. That is why no single reviewer or critic found it worth mentioning. When the anon. IP says that the sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again, the IP is interpreting a sound effect and claiming it has an implied meaning. In your quest to add this interpretation to the article, you have agreed with this anon IP's argument on many occassions throughout the talk archives. I think you've been very clear on why you want to add this to the article. Sadly, there are no sources to support your theory. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, who's wiki-lawyering? It is the sound of children laughing and shouting - you yourself have edited this in. Your current edits reverting back to our favorite version notwithstanding, it will return to that version. My version places no interpretive value on the laughter, and it is an observable piece of the film. It stays. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Comments - arbitrary break 1

Now, focusing on the actual subject at hand (ie, having to do with CoM and not another editor), discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if you wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS:
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."
As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.
Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:
"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."
Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.
Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:
"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."
Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.
Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia
"Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."
and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:
"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."
This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.
It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to what you claim, no noticeboard discussion ever stated that the material does not require a reference. I don't know why you keep repeating that, but it isn't true. Furthermore, the material has been challenged in relation to its use in the article as unsourced trivia. All primary sources on wikipedia are supported by secondary sources. This is to avoid the kind of OR you are engaging in here. Why is the sound of laughing childen in the credits important to this article? And what reliable source are you using to guage its encyclopedic value? Pretty simple questions that demand an answer. We don't pick and choose random, trivial elements to add to an article. Also, why are you linking the unsourced, trivial sound effects of children laughing in the credits to the closing titles of the shantih? No reliable source supports this link. If you are doing it to describe the credits in general, then why have you deleted mentioning the three songs that appear in the credits whose placement and meaning is discussed in a RS (LA Times)? In fact, if one were to choose the most notable elements of the credits, they would be the three songs by Tavener, Lennon, and Cocker, as they take up most of the credits and have significant meaning per the LA Times. So, we see, what you are arguing doesn't make sense. To avoid OR/synthesis, we use RS in order to verify content meets our standards. Where can I verify the sound of children laughing in the credits? In a primary source. In the one you removed. Now, where can I verify its importance and relevance in the article? In a secondary source. Where is the secondary source? The author of the LA Times article has published two separate articles devoted to the sound of CoM. And at no time, has he ever found the sound effects of children laughing in the credits to be significant or notable enough to discuss. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies primarily on secondary sources to avoid OR. Primary sources can be used if they are supported by secondary sources. To date, there is no RS that discusses the sound of children laughing in the credits. So, why should we include it in the article? You are trying to game the RS and OR policies, and the material you are arguing to include is a duplicate of the IMdB page that an anonymous person wrote, and it represents a position you are trying to promote like the anon. IP, namely, that the sound of laughing children is significant because it comments on the conclusion of the film. We don't know that, and that's why we need secondary sources. This doesn't reach the proportions of exicornt, but when one sees how this started with an anon. IP in 2006, moved over to IMdB in early 2007, and then found its way over to a personal website and then back here again, one sees the necessity of strict sourcing policies. We don't interpret sound effects. We rely on reliable sources to interpret them for us. The "sound of laughing children" you describe, is a very small part of the credits, and sounds like children playing and talking. No reviewer or critic found it notable to mention. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
When you make that post anything approaching civil, I will respond. Not before then. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no incivility in the above edit. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for a year. That fact can be supported with archives 2-6 and this current talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide any basis for the accusation that actually occurs within the past year, V.If you have to point to an archive, you are not making a current point. I am not trying to provide interpretation as to the laughter. I am simply saying that we will in fact note it as it is from the source of the film itself, and we don't need a time-stamp to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources cannot be used by themselves to support the inclusion of material. In cases where the importance of the material is unclear, secondary sources are requested. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"There was no incivility in the above edit. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for a year" - um, you don't consider that in the least uncivil? lol
Of course primary sources can be used to support material. Using the cite video template makes them easier to see, but we don't cite observed phenomena; observable phenomena that you yourself have agreed were as they are observed - the laughter of children. No secondary source is necessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not incivil; it's a fact supported by diffs in the edit history. There is no policy or guideline that says challenged material doesn't require a secondary source. I have challenged the material on the basis of OR, trivia, and RS. Please face the challenge or remove the material. It's very simple. All challenged material requires RS. We don't use primary sources to support challenged material. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was not the apology you were supposed to provide. I am not going to respond to repeated mischaracterizations, personal attacks or incivility from you. Clean up your demeanor towards me, and you will get a response. Not until then. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music in the credits

Kevin Crust, staff writer of the Los Angeles Times:

The thread that holds this crazy quilt of sounds together is British composer John Tavener's "Fragments of a Prayer," a 15-minute commissioned piece that Cuaron envisioned as "a spiritual comment rather than a narrative support." Tavener wrote it based on the screenplay, in contrast to the traditional method of scoring to a film's images. The director initially introduces the piece after a tragedy and then strategically places segments throughout the film, developing it as a motif. A sacred entreaty with recurring hallelujahs, it features mezzo-soprano Sarah Connolly and powerfully reinforces the idea of faith defying the blind malevolence of chance. By the end of Theo's journey, the theme has built to a complex emotional level that coincides with the film's climax. After a provocative ending that keeps audiences in their seats for the credits, "Children of Men" continues to reward aurally, finishing strongly with two politically pointed songs. Leaving us with Lennon singing the anti-nationalist rant "Bring on the Lucie (Freda Peeple)" and Jarvis Cocker declaiming global society's ills with an unprintable refrain in "Running the World," Cuaron emphasizes the timelessness of this future-set film and stamps it with a humanistic double exclamation point.

Arcayne's idea that music must be confined to a "music" section is ridiculous. Elements of casting, production, themes, and reception are always overlapping. Do we just talk about the director in production? No, he is discussed in almost every section. Do we just talk about the cast and characters in the cast section? No, they play a vital role in production and themes. The music is no different, and we currently have the music appearing in the theme section. We also have LA Times staff writer Kevin Crust describing Tavener's music as the "the thread that holds the sounds together", appearing throughout the film. Crust even describes the Lennon and Cocker songs as appearing in the credits. If we only we could find a reliable source that described the interpretation of the sound effects of "children laughing". Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for reprinting that source here, Viriditias. You could have avoided wasting a lot of our time by doing that straight away, instead of arguing and arguing. Second of all, could you perhaps tell me where I have indicated anywhere on this page (or any page, for that matter) that the music "must be confined" to the music section? I don't recall saying that. I believe what I said (most recently, in the post immediately above) is that the music should be put into the section that best describes it - in this case, music to the music section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by arcayne (talk • contribs)
You've posted many times above, on the RS and OR noticeboards that, "the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'." You've also misunderstood the burden of proof. You have consistently asked me to prove a negative with statements like, "you cannot specifically state with absolute assuredness that the laughter and shouting of children was not observed/heard by the reviewers". That's not how Wikipedia works. As the editor who added your own personal interpretation of the credits, you need to show why this is important to include in this article, and you need to support your interpretation of the credits with reliable sources. I can already do that with the music in the credits, but apparently you think that no reliable sources (laughing children) is preferable to reliable sources (music in the credits). Please ask an uninvolved expert on RS, like Blueboar, to explain this to you. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read my posts, as I think you have at best, misread them. Your interpretation of "burden of proof" is inaccurate, and I've been good enough to point out how it is actually used; maybe re-read that.
As well, you have been asked to provide a more recent (ie, an edit within the past 12 months) wherein I sought to add any interpretation of the children's laughter or shantih to the article. Your next post addressing this should provide a diff of that. I suspect that you are going to be about as successful in doing that as you have been with providing anything resembling proof of your ill-advised allegations of sock-puppetry. So, do everyone a favor. Provide recent instances of my in interpretation in the article or proof of socking, or kindly keep you personal attacks to yourself. And maybe it would be beneficial for you to note that you are the one who went forum-shopping to the noticeboards. That those same noticeboards haven't supported your view of this might be that consensus you seem to be dismissing.
WHile I don't think this concludes matters, I am going to revert your changes to the article. Discussion os not complete, and consensus is not with you. I would ask that you invest more time in rebutting my specific points, and less time on personal attacks and edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the changes of other editors, especially citation requests, notes, and sources. Please read WP:V and understand why we use sources in articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Says the fellow who is edit-warring any version that mentions the laughter. Physician - heal thyself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I would love to add the laughter to the article. Tell me where I can find a secondary source that describes its importance to the film. Please answer that question. We do not use primary sources to selectively choose things. This is very simple. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely the point I have been endeavoring to make to you for the better part of a week, Viriditas: we do not need a secondary source. When we are faced with primary information from the film itself which is notable (in that it is as unusual as the shantih bit), we source the film. You saw this as well, which is why you added the cite video template to the article to source it. That it is the sound of children laughing and shouting isn't disputed by anyone - least of all yourself. It is not questioned and therefore does not need secondary souring for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline that supports your contention that we do not need a secondary source. All challenged material requires a secondary source. I have challenged the material on many levels, from its selective inclusion due to its implicit OR as discussed by you in the archives, to its trivial nature and lack of importance, to its lack of a reliable published source. Those are three challenges that have not been met. All challenged material requires reliable, published sources. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, your belief that the "three challenges" have not been met is in the decided minority. I've already explained here and on two noticeboards how I've met your criteria. I am not willing to repeat arguments which you simple refuse to "understand". Forgie me if I let you play this particular game alone. My edits are based in policy and guidelines. If you don't recall the instances, you called it "wiki-lawyering and gaming the system." Not really a characterization that encourages healthy dialogue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary source

Arcayne, you recently changed "the sounds of children" back to "the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard". To support your change, you wrote in the edit summary:sorry, the primary source supports the info staying the way it is. Perhaps you thought discussion was concluded?[15] Could you please add a link to the primary source that claims that there is a "sound of children laughing and shouting" in the credits? That's your interpretation of a primary source, and it requires a secondary source to support it. I look forward to reading your reply that defends your revert. Hint: if a source supported that interpretation, it would in fact be a secondary source. The only thing that supports your interpretation of the sound effects of children "laughing and shouting" in the credits is you. The only thing that supports this trivia as notable is you. That's not how we write Wikipedia articles. All challenged material requires reliable sources. This material has been challenged due its interpretation and its notability. Please supply those sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather did that above. Did you perhaps miss that post wherein I cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines? How about the noticeboards, where several editors noted that noting the children's laughter unnecessary, as it is observable phenomena, much like the plot? Now, you seem to taking the tack that the identification of the laughter as that of children to be OR. Hmm. As your subsequent edits after adding the overkill cite video template seems to contradict your own comments here. That the laughter is of children isn't disputed (not even by you in both article and article discussion space), your argument rings, well, false. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, you haven't posted any secondary sources to support the inclusion of the material, and for some strange reason, you keep removing primary sources and notes indicating where and when the "laughter of children" appears in the film. Not a single person on the noticeboards at any time has ever said that references are unnecessary. This is because, Arcayne, WP:V trumps all other guidelines. If you can't understand this points of contention, please have a neutral party explain them to you. You also made a very strange claim in your edit summary, where you wrote: we cannot use cc for a primary sourcece. First of all, the reference to cc (closed captioning) was a note, pointing the reader to where the "children laughing" appears in the film. Second, referring to closed captioning in the film is referring to a primary source. There is no reason we cannot inform the reader of its appearance, so I have no idea where you get this from. This reminds me of the time (several times actually) where you have claimed that we should not be allowed to use books as references because editors can't check them easily for verification. Please follow your logic. If we cannot use closed captioning in a film as a primary source, then why can we make mention of a sound effect in the credits? You need to find secondary sources that explain the importance of this trivial sound effect. As a compromise, a primary source note was added to provide the reader with some information. Your constant removal of these pointers and inability to support the inclusion of your material with secondary sources is a problem. We do not get to pick and choose elements from the film that we personally think are important. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Following the conversation you had on the NOR noticeboard, I am willing to compromise to allowing the movie to be cited using the cite video templet. It is foolish and a wase (what's next, we start templating the plot summary?). I've moved the music to the music section, since it seems better to have it there. It would appear you agree, since you fixed the tags for it.
I certainly hope you can live with that compromise, because your behavior has made you fairly intolerable to be on the same page with. I've been patient with your lack of good faith and personal attacks. Maybe this will draw the petty crap to a close - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The compromise explicitly involves the full proposal. There is no partial agreement on the table, and that was clearly spelled out. Allowing a source in the article is not a compromise in any way; it is policy. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. Consensus isn't a suicide pact; it has been found that the laughter can be cited to the film. While I feel that the cite video template is cumbersome and hackneyed, I am agreeing to its inclusion - an inclusion that less than a weeka go, you personally advocated. The part of your re-interpretation of that consensus and compromise - the bits about the music that have since been placed elsewhere (and edited in place by yourself) - is not going to be revisited. Use the cite video template for the laughter. Consider it a smallish victory and walk away fast. Your behavior has been deplorable here, Viriditas, and will be the subject of further discussion outside this discussion page.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't respected any consensus at any time, Arcayne. And we don't rely on primary sources for any material, especially trivia. That the laughter can be cited to the film has never been in question by anyone familiar with policies and guidelines; in fact, only you have quesitoned it. Inclusion is an entirely separate issue, and one you need to address. Why is the sound effects of children important to this article? What reliable source discusses it? And, why do you keep removing two songs that only appear in the credits and have been discussed by the staff writer of the LA Times? Please asnwer these questions. Adding your personal observations of the film and removing RS material to create a synthesized, partial description of the credits is not acceptable, and it is being done to support your one personal theory about the credits, one that you have discussed in the archives. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing to use sources is not a compromise, it is policy. Consensus has been reached to merge the music into the credits. This is supported by Blueboar, MovieMadness, MPerel, myself, and others. You keep removing it because you are trying to game the OR policy by drawing an implicit conclusion about the credits. My behavior here has been to uphold policies and guidelines while you tread upon them and try to force your POV into this article. Wikipedia is built upon collaboration and working towards consensus. It is not built by angry, POV-pushers who don't respect sourcing, verification, and OR policies. You need to take a step back and look at how your edits have harmed this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, for two reasons. First, the sounds are drawn from the film itself, which serves as the explicit and implicit source for the material, just like the plot; you may not wish to equate it as such, but it is. It can be sourced using the cite video template, which, oddly enough, you performed on the laughter of the children before I removed it as extraneous. Secondly, WP:PSTS explicitly says that primary sources can be used, but are not given preference over secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources of the information, there is nothing challenging the primary sourcing of the film.
The consensus did not include the musical bits, and you have not pointed out where it was specifically made a part of that consensus. As I disagree with it, and there are others that see the laughter bit as allowable, I would point out that you do not have consensus.
You need to step back yourself and see how you have edit-warred about the usage of a cite video template into a personal vendetta. Were that assessment inaccurate, ask yourself this: is the cite template note the children's laughter? Is the noting of the children's laughter anywhere in the article? No. How about the music? Why did you insist that it be in the closing section? Why did you move it from the section on music, where it had been crafted? You have shown precisely no willingness to compromise (I personally think you see compromise as a weakness, but that's just my assessment), even when told to by a great many others, while forum-shopping. You have ignored my repeated requests to be more polite. I am working to improve the article, Viriditas; what have you done except to use your considerable editing ability to oppose anything I suggest? Of course, you must be aware that the edit will not stand. It will return to the proper form it did before your continued version war. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You cannot argue from the negative. I do not have the burden of proof to show why it is not important. This is very clear. This discussion has nothing to do with a citation template. That is policy and is not even debatable. All challenged material requires sources. You have just threatened to edit war unsupported information back into the article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies upon secondary sources. We don't get to use primary sources to selectively choose what part of a topic we like and don't like. Please provide secondary sources that describe the importance of the laughing children in the credits. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are misinterpreting the usage of "challenged" here. IT isn't a matter of 'like' or 'not like'. At all, and I think that is part of your basic misunderstanding of the issue here. No one is challenging that the phenomena exists - not even you, who added the cite video template and laughter in the first place. What you are challenging is to prevent an interpretation that no one is currently making. You are speculating as to what the addition of the info would signify, and we simply do not do that here at Wikipedia. When someone adds an uncited evaluation of the laughter, I will remove it, as I am sure you will. I am not going to add info that is uncited. There is no reason to deprive the reader of a phenomena that occurred within the movie because you are afraid that someone (namely me) will add some sort of interpretation to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't rely on primary sources, especially in cases of trivia. All trivia needs secondary sources for it to rise above that level and for the reader to guage the importance of the material. Furthermore, we don't synthesize unrelated primary and secondary sources; when challenged, the secondary soures must support the primary. A good example of this is Terri Schiavo, where primary source documents are used to flesh out the secondary claims. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You are in the minority when it comes to considering the observable phenomena as trivial. Please credit me with enough experience to recognize a straw-man argument when I am presented with one. I do not accept your premise that the info is trivia. You certainly don't, since you added and cited it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. The vast majority of editors that have discussed this issue have stated quite explicitly that the sound effects are trivia. Where exactly are you getting your information from? I'm in the minority? Not quite, Arcayne. If you have a secondary source, please provide it. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed section

[edit] Closing credits

During the closing credits, the sound of children laughing and shouting is heard. which continues until the end, where the Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", appears in end titles. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs"[2].

This disputed section has been removed to the talk page for further discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it has been reinstated until discussion/compromise/consensus are forged. There it will remain until we are done. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not how Wikipedia works. Disputed sections are removed until discussion has concluded. You appear to be approaching things backwards. One editor does not get to force their POV into an article. Please learn to collaborate and work towards consensus. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is the way it works. Disputed material is removed while discussion is ongoing. The dispute about the tagging of the children's laughter - the source of your initial hullabaloo - has been resolved on two different noticeboards. As for collaborating and working towards consensus, we already have it. Your behavior notwithstanding, your point of view hasn't found a consensus. The comments remain until discussion is concluded. If you refuse to accept the findings of the noticeboards (both of which note that the children laughing can be cited to the film), then you might wish to seek other remedies, like mediation. Please stop edit-warring. This is your last warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, disputed material is removed while discussion is ongoing. Then why have you restored it three times in the last 24 hours? [16] [17] [18] Are you even understanding what you are writing? Your statement above is truly bizarre. I have accepted the consensus of the RFC and Blueboar's findings on the noticeboards.[19] You, on the other hand have not.[20] Since you cannot abide by consensus, then you have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello pot, meet kettle. [21]. You have been removing material in a tendentious edit war to add a template to a piece of observable phenomena, and then when you didn't get your way, you removed it altogether. I have been polite on every noticeboard you've forum-shopped this to. You have been told that the info is notable and citable. You are currently disagreeing (meeting your own 3RR warning/edit-warring criteria) because the compromise saying 'it stays' doesn't include the omnibus changes you wish to make. I am sorry, but I am compromising in agreeing to allowing the cite video template to be used to note the laughter of the children - the original disagreement. I am not agreeing to anything outside the aegis of that compromise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Still don't "get" it, do you? The burden of proof is on the editor adding material. You have not answered why the sound effects of children laughing is important to this article, where I can find a reliable secondary source that supports your claim, and how come you won't accept the neutral, third-party compromise propsed by Blueboar, and the findings of the RFC. You have edit warred your chosen POV into this article for more than a year, and you have repeatedly thumbed your nose at multiple 30's, RFC's, project interventions, OR and RS noticeboards, and suggestions from neutral editors. I have agreed to a compromise and I am on record making concessions. You have done neither. I think the evidence shows beyond question who has been editing this article tendentiously for more than a year, attempting to game OR and RS policies. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For the nth time, I have adequately proven that the inclusion of information source to the explicit and implicit source of the movie itself is allowable. I have even compromised in agreeing to the overkill usage of the cite video template to time-stamp the sound of children's laughter (which you keep thinking I am adding interpretive value to in the article, despite the fact that I have not in over a year). What compromise have you offered? What civility have you offered to me as a fellow editor? You have accused me of everything from sock-puppetry to being unable to read. In what bizarro world do you think that promotes professionalism? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything you just asked was answered above, so repeatedly asking the same questions and hoping for a different response is not an acceptable form of communication. A regular contributor to the OR/RS noticeboards named Blueboar offered a proposal and I accepted it here. This was discussed above. Consensus has already been achieved on this issue via the RFC and noticeboard discussions, and not a single editor has objected to having the material in one section, except you. You seem to think that agreeing to add a primary source to support your material is a compromise of some kind. It isn't. Policy is very clear on this. Challenged material requires sources. Now, if you can explain why your personal observation of the sound effects of children laughing in the credits is important to this article, when no reliable source/commentator has said anything about it, I would like to hear it. Right now, I am not convinced of its importance. As editors, we do not get to selectively pick and choose things we like without secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comments above in regards to why the laughter observation is notable, as well as the policy/guidelines info that explains why it is deemed allowable. The musical bits being added to the closing credits is counter-intuitive to the reader (especially when there is an actual section reserved specifically for music in the article). The basis of your challenge does not stem from the existence of the phenomena (which would require secondary citation) but rather, a speculative interpretation as to what the inclusion of that observation means to you. This is not a "pet theory", or anything of the sort. I will even go so far as to guarantee that if I see anyone add information interpreting anything within the film without citation, I will remove it (and will more carefully watch the page to make sure something like that doesn't go unaddressed for three weeks). That's about as far as I am willing to go on this matter. I do not oppose the usage of the cite video template (though I still feel it is overkill), but I oppose the non-intuitive addition of the music to the closing credits, especially when it can be noted in the Music section (as per this edit) just fine. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You have not answered the question as to why the sound effects of laughing children are notable in this discussion, so asking me to look above for your comments on the matter is absurd. On the other hand, you have answered the question in the archives, and you have made it very clear that this sound effect - that no reliable published source has ever mentioned - is notable because you think it is. That's not how we edit Wikipedia. You also misquoted the LA Times piece to push your POV. The two songs in question never appear in the film - only the credits. The facts are very clear: 1) You have engaged in this disruptive POV pushing for a year, and your behavior has never changed. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for the same amount of time. 2) Aside from your pet theory, you have never been able to support the claim that the sound effects of laughing children is notable in any way. 3) Your removal of the two songs that only appear in the credits is being done to selectively highlight your pet theory, using a primary source to support it. It is a fact that the two songs in the credits appear in the credits for a longer time than the sound effects of children laughing and the end titles that read "shantih". It is also true that the two songs are only used in the credits, making them unique to that aspect, and not to the music that appears throughout the film. Finally, the edit summary of your latest revert was quite telling. You claimed that you were "reverting to a better version", the classic edit summary of the consummate POV pusher. The fact is, consensus has been established before, that the sound of children laughing in the credits is trivia, and without reliable sources should not be included. The fact is, recent consensus has been formed from both an RFC and from comments on two different noticeboard discussions demonstrating that the music in the credits is appropriate for the credits section. You have never, at any time in the past year, respected consensus. Instead, you keep trying to force your POV into the article by edit warring. Looking at the edit history, we can see a pattern of the same behavior: you tried to force your theory that Theo may have survived into the plot section (contrary to the director's comments on the matter); you tried to force your theory that "unsmiling people" appeared on the ship at the end of the film in order to skew the conclusion (your personal observation); you tried to convince us that because you knew the type of gun being used in the film, we had to mention it (even though there were no sources describing it); you tried to tell us that the sound effects of laughing children in the film were important because they spoke directly to the survival of humanity in the conclusion (your pet theory, no RS); and now you are trying to tell me that primary sources are all you need to add your "observation" about a trivial sound effect. And you are also trying to sell me on the idea that reliable secondary sources that describe the importance of two songs that only appear in the credits isn't good enough? No. You need a secondary source showing the importance of the sound effects. Editors do not get to pick and choose what we think is important in an article. We only describe what secondary sources find important. The reason plot sections do not usually contain sources is because the most significant aspects of a plot can be found on the official web site of the film, in multiple critical reviews, and in interviews with the cast and crew. You have tried to game the OR and RS guidelines by using the plot guidelines and synthesizing them with critical reviews, in effect mixing primary sources and secondary sources to form a selective description of the credits that cannot be supported by RS. That's not how we edit on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I think I have answered your oft-repeated questions both here and in the noticeboards you sought a consensus for removing the information. They did not agree with you, instead noting that it can be cited to the film. Please do us all the kindness of not asking the same questions over and over and pretending not to have heard or understand the responses you are getting; it is tendentious. I will answer them for the last time here;
  1. The sounds of children's laughter are notable because they do not occur in other films, whereas the usage of music that doesn't appear in the film (and you should feel free to provide a link so as to support that statement, please) is quite a common occurrence, like Eddie and the Cruisers, King Ralph and the Blues Brothers.
As observable phenomena, like the plot summary, they can be cited to the film (which has been confirmed for you by no fewer than four different, established editors). You and one other editor are the only ones who feel that a secondary source is necessary for inclusion, and are in the significant minority. Were there secondary sources on the laughter and shouting, they would trump or supplement this primary sourcing via {{{title}}}.. Until then, we do not cheat the reader out of a complete article by hiding info that can be sourced to the movie.
  1. As well, please stop using year-old archives to imply that I am attempting to implement an interpretation of the children's laughter. Point to how I am adding interpretive content now. If you cannot do this, i would suggest you simply stop mischaracterizing my current edits. It's uncivil, especially when I have asked you to stop, or provide a recent instance of such.
  2. And if you could perhaps stop implying that I am sock-puppeting (when you have no evidence of such), it would be much appreciated.
  3. The music has been placed in the music section because its is is easier to find by the reader, and not scattered all over the article. It isn't rocket science to put the music in the Music section of the article. That's how we do it in Wikipedia.

I hope this answers your questions, as I am pretty much tired of saying the same thing over again. Either you will listen and respond politely, or you won't. If its the latter, I won't be responding. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Kevin Crust is specifically talking about sound, and music is a part of that. The "sound of children laughing" should be grouped appropriately, and the contemporary references referring to the T.S. Eliot have been placed in the correct section. I'm still waiting on your secondary source that supports including the trivial sound effect of children laughing. At least we have it in the correct section, now. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre edit summary

please discuss edits you are well aware are going to need consensus for inclusion. You have edit-warred this action for almost two weeks now. Just stop

Er, what? All of the information is in the article. What do I need consensus for? Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, care to explain this strange revert/deletion of material that I added to expand the article? [22][23] Do you need to be reminded of WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR? It's totally inappropriate for you to blanket revert expansion of this article when all of the disputed content is intact. And just in case you decide to make your fourth revert, here's your third:[24] Please note, you've reverted every edit, expansion, and change I've made to this article since April 22. That's not appropriate behavior. Either learn to collaborate and work with others, or go somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current version

Arcayne, if you want to discuss the current version of the article, then you are welcome to do so. Blanket reverting me with no explanation on talk is not acceptable. I've expaned the article in good faith. I do not have to ask your permission to edit this or any other article. On the other hand, you need to explain your reverts. After being here for a few years, I would expect that you would know the rules by now. Explain your reverts. The current version of the article has removed all OR connections between sound effects, the shantih, and the credits - and yet - has preserved ALL of the information intact. Sound has been moved to the sound section and the Shantih has been moved to the themes. I believe it was Erik who first suggested this and you appear to have agreed with him. So, since the content is intact and the OR issue is removed, the only thing you need to do now is find a secondary source to support your "observation" of the credits, as it is purely trivial. Perhaps I should quote Blueboar from the OR policy talk page: "Very often, the problem is that editors see a connection between two things, but do not bother to establish that they are directly related. If you want to discuss X in an article about Y, try finding a source that connects X to Y... then you can go on to discuss X." If you want to discuss the importance of the sound effects of children laughing in relation to the Shantih, then please find a source that does just that. We've got sources that talk about the sounds and music in relation to the credits, and the Shantih in relation to the themes. We do not have sources that discuss the sound effects of children laughing and the Shantih. Please do not respond with "it's my observation of the film" when it is clear that you are picking and choosing what you wish to "observe". Never mind the fact that you have expressed your personal beliefs on this subject throughout the archives, going so far as to say:

One of the things that ties the shantih at the end to the story is that the sounds of children's laughter and playing is heard while the credits roll (and while end title music plays). After the title music ends, close to the end of the credits, the children sounds are still heard, which fade at the same time the shantih fades. then there are 4 more seconds of silence until the film flickers the way it does before the lights go up. Arcayne 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have stated on several occasions that it is part of the story, and is part of the plot as final piece of the story, tied together by the sounds of children playing and laughter. These sounds continue in the background, while the music plays, while the credits run their course. The sounds stop after the Shantih is displayed...Simply put, the Shantih is part of the plot because it occurs during the sustained past of the film, tied to it by the sounds of children laughing and playing throughout the credits and musical accompaniment. It is stated, like dialogue or graffiti on a wall, and not purely thematic (like the presence of pets, or the fact that Theo never touches a gun). That the Shantih is also thematic is not disputed. However, it is a part of the plot as well. I am not going to spend more than a moment to address the rather silly claim that the sound of children laughing may not even be that, and is not up for us to decide, because if that were true, then nothing we can observe throughout the entire movie is up to us to interpret, and a plot synopsis itself in an invalid concept. Nor am I going to address the prior claims that the sounds or the words were diegetic in nature, as it simply doesn’t meet the definition of such. And I think it would be unfair to address the claims that the laughter and sounds of children does not “reflect directly upon the structure of the plot or its conclusion” - in a movie about a possible future without children at all. Arcayne 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The observable fact that the items aforementioned are actually in the movie, and a continuation of the storyworld are inescapable and honest. To deny they exist is silly, as the proof of one's own eyes from viewing the movie clearly shows. Arcayne 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In short, the sounds of children laughing and playing as well as the Shantih have thematic components. They are also technically a synoptic part of the movie, not as set dressing, not as lighting, not as background, but by themselves. And I have said this before, but the practical...While I personally think that he tells us that everything works out by using the sounds of children laughing and playing, it has proven (at least here) to be very ambiguous indeed. Arcayne 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only a partial quote of your extensive theory you've invented. So, the justification for your inclusion is on record. You are convinced that there is a link between the children laughing and the shantih in the credits, which is why you continue to remove the music in the credits - the music that takes up the majority of the credits and is sourced to the LA Times. So, we have your theory on record. And that's just the part from archive 2; there's four more archives where you talk about it. And still, not a single secondary source supports this interpretation. In fact, no reliable source links the sound effects of children laughing to the shantih, and no RS even mentions the sound. Now, do you want to explain why you have been removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced synthesis? Viriditas (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but that is unacceptable

Unfortunately, Viriditas chose to participate in gaming the system to lock his version in place. He made his 3rr (1 2 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later. I am giving notice that I will not participate in any discussion of which Viriditas is a part in this article as a result. This sort of back-handed maneuver used while edit-warring is unacceptable, and because of it, I cannot see any proof that Viriditas is willing to accept any compromise that doesn't result in his version. Therefore, discussion to seek a compromise is moot, and I will not waste my time thusly. I will treat this behavior appropriately. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)