Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon Heffer[edit]

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

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

External Links[edit]

Links were removed for the following reasons:

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

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

songs[edit]

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

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

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

Tim Luckhurst[edit]

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

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

Synopsis tone problem[edit]

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

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

The current state of the plot synopsis.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lateral moves and length creepage[edit]

Kingstowngalway, it is rare that someone works on a plot synopsis, for nine months with no sign of stopping. Is there any way to get you to see that obsessively changing the wording in this section, usually by lengthening it (it's already too long) and making other violations of MOS:FILM is a pointless exercise? Most of your wording changes do not improve anything -- obsessively swapping in synonyms of your own words that you've already changed countless times only makes lateral moves. At a certain point, I started undoing your changes, because you're spinning your wheels, gradually worsening the prose, and slowly making the section longer and longer (the edit history is there for anyone to see). The only thing that you've managed to stop doing as much is adding as much biased material.

Meanwhile, all other editors are rebuffed from trying to improve this article -- who would want to try to contribute when they can see that you seem likely to go on for years changing the wording, even if someone was to come along and give it the rewrite and word cut it should have? Is there any way that you're going to let go of this plot section? After nine months, you should have been able to retell this rather short story as effectively as is possible for one person to do. This is a finite topic, not something to be researched and updated constantly like a bio of a living person or an academic subject. Revisiting this plot over and over seems rather bizarre. Where is the endpoint for you? And why don't you respect community policies or the other editors above who have tried to help get you on a better path? --Melty girl 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Kingstowngalway and Melty girl married? To each other, I mean. It would explain a lot. Just curious.Twins Too! (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the impression you get? Really? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have a very dark view of marriage. This is a strange comment coming from someone who also tried fruitlessly to reason with Kingstowngalway. I suppose it's not the end of the world if this particular Wikipedia article is held hostage forever by Kingstowngalway, but it's also not particularly helpful for you to mock other editors. --Melty girl 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
</deirony>Here's the thing, Melty girl: you're right 95% of the time, on substance; but you're just as over the top in tone. You need to take a long break. (I don't bother to give K. the same advice because it obviously wouldn't do any good.) We'll hold the fort and revert every silly edit. I promise. As for criticizing me for mockery, you must be ... mocking me?Twins Too! (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was being sarcastic with my marriage quip. Sorry you think I'm over the top, but don't you think the situation that Kingstowngalway has created is a bit over the top? And do you care to name your specific problem with my tone after nine months of an editor repeatedly doing the same thing over and over to this article, despite repeated discussion? It seems a little bit insulting to tell me to take a break and say that "we" (who's "we"?) will "hold the fort" when no one else but me has been holding their finger in the dike. I'll believe it when I see it, but I'll be very happy to see it. I'll be even happier when this article starts moving forward instead of just trying to hold on to the bad status quo... Melty girl 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot now within WP:FilmPlot length and detail guidelines[edit]

I managed to cull unnecessary details from and refocus the plot section, as well as get the length back down below 700 words, as per the MOS:FILM guideline. Please, please, please don't bog it down again.

It's been a year of this nonsense, Kingstowngalway, and a lot of discussion with multiple editors hasn't sunk in. This isn't supposed to be a blow-by-blow and it's not supposed to be long. If you can restrain yourself, please do (don't know if you're able to). --Melty girl 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make edits so constantly, it's impossible to discuss each one. But I will mention one type of problem you consistently introduce. You don't need to add the adjective "violently" when the next phrase says that Teddy's fingernails are pulled out! It's redundant: obviously, the pulling out of fingernails is violent. Likewise, you don't need to say Damien "personally" shot the spies -- if you simply say Damien shot someone, then obviously he himself personally did the shooting. This is one kind of thing that you do that is redundant and adds unnecessary length. --Melty girl 07:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Historical Accuracy section[edit]

A section on historical accuracy is undoubtedly valuable; the quotations provided are described as being what "critics have noted" and it is clearly verifiable that critics have indeed made those observations. If any critics are on record as having praised the film on grounds of historical accuracy then that too can be noted.Thoskit (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the references provided in that section do not pass muster. Find some references that meet WP criteria for notability and verifiability, and then we will talk. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh...) The film's critics who are quoted are critics who have published their opinions - their reviews are as notable as any film critics' can be. As for verifiability, the claim made by the section intro is that critics expressed these views, & you can't get a much more verifiable than providing a direct link to said reviews.Thoskit (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thoskit!! Historical Accuracy supporter[edit]

I am not an editor just an interested party who likes to see context and balance

i.e. that all arguments or beliefs do have, in fact, contrary and opposing points of view. Sic truth.

I added the historical accuracy section because, after watching, the movie I was piqued by some of its emotive elements such as the indiscriminate killings and the sectarianism.

This lead me to read several wikipedia articles on the Anglo Irish War and the Irish Civil War and also several reviews of the film which questioned the films historical contexts.

But almost as soon as I had created a section entitled Historical accuracy an editor (called RepublicanJacobite, hmmm no strong and NPOV issues there, me thinks!!) deleted it under the usual auspices that the references don't suffice.

  • yawn

The 'reference line' is always peddled when an editor has issue with some one else's point of view! As most articles on wikipedia are under referenced (but most of them don't hold contentious POVs - unless you want to argue about the manufacturing processes involved in making Butt Plugs or the educational merits of Pokemon et al and etc')

Ironically if you care to look at the website from which the information came:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/

Yep opendemocracy.net the foremost site on the web for open-minded and fair opinion, now decried as a poor place for unsourced references. I'll remember not to believe a word again on that 'duplicitous' site!!

The simple problem here, is you have two editors who have a very jaundiced opinion on Ireland. They are both American who have been brought up in staunchly republican families, whose ancestors, rather than stay in Ireland, left and emigrated to 'the land of opportunity'. (Remember the grass is always greener on the other side).

This article, as it stands, is idolising *their* understanding of the war for Irish Independance, in fact, all I tried to do was help the 'lazy reader' who can't be bothered to read half a dozen seperate articles about the period by creating context by noting and acknowledging that elements of the plot in the film did occur but there are historical differences. People should understand why The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a WORK OF FICTION!

But according to the editor named MeltyGirl, a section entitled Historical accuracy has no place in this article as it's all about the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley; it's not a history lesson. So is that a new Wikipedia policy? All films covering historical events can't be analysed. Well, we should all get over to Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers articles, and make some changes Pronto!! Or are we just cherry picking here!?

Or is MeltyGirl simply trying to say don't put anything in this article that gets in the way of *her* unchallenged view of history which this movie portrays perfectly?

Which really comes down is whether the cruelty of the British in the Irish War of Independence was commonplace or isolated and sporadic, hence this quote from opendemocracy.net:

What is far more contentious is whether any of [the brutality] – except the swearing – was commonplace, routine, or typical of British behaviour as the film implies, or how far it was sanctioned by political or military leaders. Many historians argue that such incidents were rare, isolated, unauthorised and indeed were denounced, sometimes severely punished, by the authorities. Wind, on that view, doesn't entirely invent anything, but does mislead by selection and implication

I don't know but that was what the historical accuracy section was for!! So using this logic, RepublicanJacobite and MeltyGil must by reason believe that, for example, Errol Flynn's They Died With Their Boots On is an accurate telling of Battle of the Little Big Horn!!

The Irish War of Independence was a bloody period fought between British troops, Auxillaries and the IRA. Yet historically speaking more irish men, women and children were killed by their fellow countrymen in the Irish Civil War than in the preceding conflict!! Please read the aforementioned article.

I brought balance; others bring an agenda. But par for the course on the revisionist soap box (Sic RepublicanJacobite,MeltyGirl) that is Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.93.59 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's fiction. Ugh. Sadly, I do not have time to argue this out more fully. But I will simply take issue with your contention that you brought "balance." The point here, at this Wikipedia article, is not to "balance" the film's viewpoint -- and it certainly does have a viewpoint, there's no denying that. The point here is to document what the film was about, who made it, what their viewpoint was, how it was made and distributed, how much money it made, and how the film was received (info on the controversy about its reception is already present in the article). We are not here to provide alternate viewpoints to the film's perspective on history -- other filmmakers and writers can do that, and audiences of this film and other films can decide for themselves what they think. Go argue about history on a history article. This WP article is meant to be about what was presented by this film, whether some people like what the film had to say or not. And besides all that, the Historical accuracy section only presented one perspective on history, so references aside, it in and of itself was not balanced anyway. But anyway, this article should not devolve into a Irish history battle. The film is what it is, and it's our role to report on that. If you don't like the film, go work on an article for a film that says something you agree with. --Melty girl 04:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your feeling upon the subject of maintaining a NPOV on ALL articles on WP you have to agree that this site has certain formated layouts for almost each and every genre and films are no different. Articles which have a contentious theme at their heart are always going to subject of 'wording' and 'editing' issues and film such as this is no different and can often lead to 'edit wars' between editors. If the talk page was used to discuss these issues then a more civil tone would be maintained all partys. (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
Those were not my comments; I merely restored them after another editor tried to silence the anonymous editor by deleting his comments. Dppowell (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I have not tried to silence anyone. A quick look at WP:TPG and WP:SOAP would be the rational I used. If I think I'm wrong, I'd be the first to put my hand up. --Domer48'fenian' 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regards the historical accuracy section, I was asked to comment on it by Thoskit. I certainly needs some work, better attribution (and perhaps a new section title), but I'm not sure I agree with its deletion in entirety. Rather than arguing over whether http://www.opendemocracy.net/ is reliable (rather pointless, because it is a source of opinion pieces), it may be more relevant to ask: who wrote the material being sourced and how notable or reliable is their opinion in context? In this case it appears to be Stephen Howe, academic [2]. Just a thought. Rockpocket 00:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cork City or Kilmainham Gaol?[edit]

The article says the final execution scene was filmed in Cork City Gaol, but the referenced provided is about Kilmainham Gaol, and said reference says the film was shot there. So, which is it? Clearly, if it's Cork City, we need a source that says so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film was shot entirely in Cork. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460989/locations Kilmanham Jail is in Dublin. QED Kilmanham not used. Goireland ref is wrong. Thickplank (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found another location refrence http://www.iftn.ie/locations/sublinks_static/cork/?act1=record&aid=70&rid=2839&tpl=filmography_dets&only=1&force=1 Thickplank (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Section?[edit]

I think this article requires a section examining the themes of the film. The cyclical nature of the revolution, for example - as the war progresses, the Free State soldiers find themselves raiding the very houses they used to see raided by the Black and Tans and executing opponents of their regime, just as the Black and Tans had done to their opponents. The only thing they draw back from is torture, and you wonder about that.

But a more important theme within the film is the extent to which the Irish Revolution was a Social Revolution as opposed to a Nationalist Revolution. Loach quotes many IRA members in the film quoting Irish Republicans who say that it was supposed to transform Irish society, not just the colour of the flag. The failure to achieve this, and the reasons for this failure, are one of the main themes of the film, I believe.

Other identifiable themes? What was the film ABOUT? (This isn't the same thing as the plot.)Steve3742 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're absolutely right, and more power to you. Don't be surprised, however, if people who disagree with the themes of the film thwart you. I'll watch the page though. --Melty girl 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added one. Feel free to add to or edit itSteve3742 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks well-written to me. I just wonder about the line between original research in directly seeming to interpret the film, versus relating how published critics have analyzed the film. I only see a footnote for the first part of the section. How would you defend the section against OR accusations? Thanks, Melty girl 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always difficult when writing about a film. The quote from Ken Loach is an attempt to defend against accusation of OR in that he explicitly states that this is one of the major themes of the film. What precedes this quote is just illustrating how he's done this and over half of it is direct quotes from the film - not OR. Perhaps the Ken Loach quote should be first, to emphasis this. Quotes from other reviewers would be good, but it's amazing how few reviews there are of the film, especially ones that note this theme (amazing, because it stood out a mile to me.)
The second section needs a lot of work. I'm looking into it.Steve3742 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve3742, I echo Melty girl's concerns: there are significant issues of WP:NOR and WP:SYN in this section. There are no sources so we can only assume it is the conjectures of an editor. I appreciate there is an interview quote from Loach in the article, but to explicitly draw a connection between what Loach said and what his characters say and do without either Loach or a reliable source making that connection, well, that's original research. If an editor recognizes a possible thematic element, then it's perfectly fine to research it and locate a source which parallels her/his opinion and put it in the article. I hesitate to put such significant content in first without a source. As a reader, if I see such an extensive treatment in an article without a source, I can only assume its an editor's opinion. As it stands now, the first paragraph is fine on its own, but everything after that appears to be the effort of an editor to show how Loach and Laverty manifest that position in their work. If sources can't be found to connect Loach's position and those lines of dialogue then it's synthesis and should be removed.

I did have a chance to glance at the PSL article referenced in the themes section, and it does contain quotes from the film which may assist us in accomplishing the same thing, however. I'll spend some time today digesting it.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could dispute the OR criticism. From what I can see, OR is using source A and source B to prove point C, when C is a NEW point (it specifically says this.) I'm using Points B and C (the film quotes) to illustrate point A (Ken Loach's quote) - but point A isn't a NEW conclusion.Steve3742 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve and Jim, Kingstowngalway has begun his typical hacking away at the Themes section. It may have had problems before, but was promising. Now it looks to be going downhill... Good luck with protecting and improving the section! (Wish I had time to help.) --Melty girl 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Historical accuracy section[edit]

The recurring "historical accuracy" section has been removed (again) because it consists of original research, specifically synthesis of the film's content with other writings not directly related to the film. This is contrary to WP tenets. One source article (counterpunch.org) is only tangentially a review of the film (it mentions reviews of the film, but is not a review itself) and does not support the copy to which it is attached. The other source (Coogan) cannot be a source since it was published a dozen years before the film premiered. Finally, the relevance of an "historical accuracy" section is problematic since the film is fiction, not a documentary; as such, no pretense of accuracy is claimed nor should be inferred. If the story's depiction of historical events engenders a significant reaction and credible sources see fit to react to that, then maybe that information should appear in the Reception section if it is not mere trivia.173.72.140.146 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put! I second the motion. --Melty girl 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"an article containing inaccuracies"[edit]

Can one of the people reverting this please explain their reasoning?70.20.108.19 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been re-applied (twice), this time misspelled as 'Historical innacuracy', and again without justification. The onus to make a case for its inclusion has not even been attempted. So much for consensus! RashersTierney (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a section header recently as, although the film may have depicted the anti-Treaty IRA as more socially radical or further to the left than it was in reality, it would be an oversimplification to describe this as "the Marxist view". See near the end of this article: http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/History/History100YearsOfSinnFeinPart2.html for some comments from the Irish Marxist group Socialist Democracy on the Civil War. (They also have a review of the film on their website.) While it is legitimate of the article to mention this issue, a detailed discussion of the Irish Civil War is outside the scope of this article and we should avoid biased headers. PatGallacher (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how is a title 'Historical innacuracy' less biased? RashersTierney (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe something like "alleged historical innacuracy" would be better. PatGallacher (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 points; spelling of 'inaccuracy' and the more substantive one of Original Research. Whether a Marxist view accurately reflects the conflict will always be down to POV, but if the film has been criticised for that reason then a specific quote to that effect is necessary, certainly not the general one given. I think we agree that a sweeping critique of Marxism is beyond the scope of this article, ostensibly about a film. RashersTierney (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material must be about the film to be in the article. As mentioned above, a specific reference to the film from Decoding the IRA would do much to argue inclusion. I don't have access to the work, so I can't say with certainty whether it does or does not mention the film, so I'm going to leave it up to the original contributor (or someone else) to provide film-relevant material (with a page cite). In the mean time, there's no reason to keep the material since it does not clearly mention the film. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book, and can confirm no material supposedly sourced by it should be in this article. The part about the IRA being a petite bourgeoisie organisation is talking about the IRA in the mid-1920s, not during the War of Independence. Worse still, the book does not even mention the film. This is obvious original research, using a book that does not even mention the film and is talking about the IRA during a later period of history is a long way across the line of acceptable editing. O Fenian (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Language" in infobox[edit]

It's been a while since I've watched this movie, but I don't remember anyone speaking Irish in it. Am I wrong?Prezbo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the scene in which the British have imprisoned the Brigade, there is a certain ammount of speaking in the Irish language. The Soldier's Song, Ireland's national anthem, is also sung in Irish. Kingstowngalway (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry, I had forgotten that.Prezbo (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key questions to consider: are subtitles in English provided? If not, is comprehension of Irish necessary to understanding the events and action of the film? The Film Style Guidelines state for Infoboxes, "Insert the language primarily used in the film. Databases often give every language spoken within the film, even if they only reflect a few lines in the overall script. Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with a line break." Based on what's mentioned above by Kingstowngalway, it appears English is the "primary" language and should be the only one mentioned in the Infobox. Keep in mind that by putting "Irish" in this Infobox, the film article is automatically categorized as an Irish language film. Would that be accurate?
Jim Dunning | talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Damien[edit]

Just rewatched the film. My earlier impression was that Dan politicized Damien, however this time I noted that he already seemed to know his Marx when they met in jail. Yet Damien's actions seem to be entirely reflexive of him; he abandons school when he sees him beaten and chooses death following Dan's shooting. Am I missing something and is it relative to the synopsis? MartinSFSA (talk)

Irish film[edit]

I'm not convinced about calling this an "Irish film" in the opening sentence. The fact that it takes place in Ireland is not enough. Throughout the article it is variously described as an "Irish film", and "international co-production" (referring to 8 countries), "British independent film", "European film" and "British film". I suggest ammending "Irish film" to just "film". The remaining sentence makes it very clear that the film takes place during a pivotal moment in Irish history without being misleading about country of origin;

"The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a 2006 war drama film directed by Ken Loach, set during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1922) and the Irish Civil War (1922–1923)."

I will make the change now. Please post here if you would like to discuss this. BananaBork (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in 'Reception' section[edit]

At present the section includes criticism by Simon Heffer (who admitted he hadn't seen it), Michael Gove (who apparently wasn't in Cannes so hadn't seen it at the time of his review, and according to George Monbiot it seems he hadn't seen it), Ruth Dudley Edwards (who also admitted she hadn't seen the film when reviewing it) and Tim Luckhurst (who also hadn't seen it, according to George Monbiot). It's one thing to have criticism of a film from people to have actually seen it, but to include criticism from four people who haven't seen the film seems somewhat unusual. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no attempt to justify the opinions of people who hadn't even seen the film, I have removed them. FDW777 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wind_That_Shakes_the_Barley_(film)&oldid=1210977350"