Talk:12 Monkeys

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Brad Pitt: Star or not?
The Development section states that "Universal took longer than expected to approve 12 Monkeys, although Gilliam had two stars (Willis and Pitt)..." However, the Casting section states that "Pitt was cast for a comparatively small salary, as he was still relatively unknown at the time." These seem to be contradictory, and unfortunately the references for these are not available online (Christie's book and the DVD production notes). Could someone with access to both of these sources check them to see if this is a transcription error, or if the sources are contradictory? RobRoyDuncan (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the sources but I don't see them as contradictory. If you look at Pitt's filmography, at the point of 12 Monkeys he didn't have many breakout roles (Seven being the first real one). He was known to the media (and to Gilliam) but he wasn't A-list material at that point. I do agree double checking the wording will help. --M ASEM (t) 20:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Brad was begging to do it, and I wasn't so sure whether I wanted him. In the end, his enthusiasm sort of won me over. [...] Bruce is one of those guys who became a star very quickly. [...] Brad, on the other hand, was not yet 'the sexiest man in America' when we signed him on. The studio couldn't believe their luck!" Terry Gilliam, interview with Paul Wardle, 1995. Brad Pitt was right on the cusp of becoming a star when 12 Monkeys was in production, and by the time it was released, he was "the sexiest man in America". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"doesn't need refs"
Most articles about fiction don't ref their plot section, but most articles' plot section contains WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. By using references we stem and differentiate between verifiable information and original research. MOS:PLOT encourages citing sources, even primary sources like the work of fiction itself. Bright☀ 12:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the plot summary clearly had problems with original research (such as in this case, (mis)interpreting the "insurance" line from the very end of the film), that would need to be sourced or removed. However, this summary seems rather straightforward reporting only what the viewer sees and doesn't make leaps that aren't there. So refs aren't needed. If one can find an RS that fully describes the plot, then yes we could include that, but it's not required. --M ASEM (t) 12:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Masem, thank you. The plot should say what happened, including quotes from characters, but does not need explanation. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Not required" or "not needed" are not reasons to remove references, and not a reason to remove content at all. You should only remove content if it's detrimental to the article. Just because you know this is the correct plot summary, doesn't mean the reader should just trust Random Wikipedia Editor because They Say So. "Refs aren't needed" doesn't cut it. The refs improve the verifiability of the section, and they should stay. On top of that you removed information that has nothing to do with the refs. Bright☀ 19:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:
 * using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
 * You're pretty much making the article worse because "the other articles have bad plot sections, so this one needs to be bad too". Bright☀ 19:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said the quotes should be used, but not in the form of ersatz refs. And the plot should not include interpretation. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  12:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I am reinstating the references. Bright☀ 15:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film? If not, even quotes from the film are not necessary. They should only be used if there's a plot point that races by that may be difficult to miss (for example, here, the scientist saying she's working in "insurance" might be something to quote but I don't think we need to mention that). --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film? I don't see how that's a hurdle that needs to be passed in order to cite the plot to the primary source. MOS clearly states "key or complex plot points", there is no need to show that "the average viewer" is unclear on them. By default, a reference to a reliable source is better than no reference. WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits the use of primary sources to describe the plot of a work of fiction. There is no sense in removing these references because they're "ersatz" or because other articles ignore the importance of referencing "key or complex plot points". Bright☀ 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reinstatement of your preferred version is not what was agreed to above. I am persuaded by Masem's argument that the quotes aren't necessary at all.  Again, this is a question of interpretation of Cole's statement and whether time travel can alter the past – as such, it does not belong in the plot at all. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're both going against WP:V and the quoted part of MOS. Stop removing valid references. Bright☀ 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * interpretation - there is no interpretation at all. The article states "Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it." This is literally what happens on-screen, and the quote in the reference is verbatim. There is no interpretation. Bright☀ 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You have no consensus for your proposed changes. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  00:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're acting against MOS and general WP:V policy about adding and removing citations. Locally the two of you may disagree, but MOS deems it helpful and WP:V favors adding citations to reliable sources over removing them. "This isn't necessary" is almost verbatim given as an example of a bad revert in Wikipedia policy, and that's the reason you've given, over and over. Bright☀ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But it is a fair question: are quotes from the movie that necessary to explain the plot of this film? The film, while based on time travel and having a few shifts of perceptive, is not overly complex. The quotes you are including are very obvious to the viewer and are not explaining any subtle detail essential to the plot. (eg the first quote you have "I just have to locate them because they have the virus in its pure form, before it mutates. When I locate them, they'll send a scientist back here; that scientist will study the virus, and then when he goes back to the present, he and the rest of the scientists will make a cure." is pretty straight-forward to understand, and unnecessary to support its paraphrasing.  Remember that we implicitly assume that the work itself is a source, and unless we were talking a several hours-long film, that itself is sufficient to help the reader. --M ASEM  (t) 13:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree with Masem. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  13:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of complexity (and again as I said before, this is not a hurdle the references need to pass) MOS says "key or complex plot points", and those are absolutely key plot points, as described by the sources in the article (Klosterman, 2009 which was removed I guess but it's a verifiable source, and James, 1996). So there are third-party sources that name these as key plot points, which satisfies MOS. And having references—properly-used reliable references to the primary source—is both supported by MOS and WP:V. And, since I'm already repeating myself, "it is not necessary" is not a reason to revert an edit. You should only remove the references and the information if it's in some way detrimental. Bright☀ 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The references in question are not really references; they make up a more convoluted way of doing the same thing, to write a description of the plot using the film itself. When the MOS talks about references, it is talking about referencing an independent source that states what happens in the film that a layperson viewer may not understand. While editors could come to a consensus on the talk page about a particular key detail, the fact that a consensus had to be sought implies that it needs to be evidenced. An independent source can do that and essentially take it out of the hands of editors trying to convince each other through quoting film dialogue. The summary in print by a review or a book chapter establishes the key detail beyond question. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually MOS explicitly talks about quotes from the primary source to explain the plot... The appropriate section has been quoted verbatim earlier in this discussion... Bright☀ 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, see WP:FILMPLOT then, as more directly applicable. I do see that MOS:PLOT supports secondary sourcing too, though. Why not just do that? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And as a note if you can use independent, secondary sources, they should cover the entire plot, not just setup (for example, most movie reviews do not cover the plot of the entire film, so it would be silly to use these to source the front end and have no similar sourcing on the back. But if you have works that can cover most of the entire plot, then let's add those). --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The plot section does not need inline citations. I don't understand why BrightR is insisting that MOS:PLOT supports the unnecessary inline citations BrightR has included. MOS:PLOT clearly states, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." It encourages editors to add sourcing; it does not state that sourcing must be included, except for the case of a direct quote. So regarding this revert that BrightR made, no, TheOldJacobite's edit was not "against policy and guideline." No policy nor guideline states that those two inline citations need to be there. And MOS:FILM, which is clear that inline citations are not needed in a case like this, is also a guideline. Looks like we need more WP:FILM editors weighing in on this dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I have to repeat everything again for every new person who joins the discussion? "Not needed" is not a reason to remove sources. Just because you don't need refs for the plot, doesn't mean refs are detrimental to the plot section. In fact too many articles have unref'd plots that are simply inaccurate and take vast liberties. In this case, key plot points were referenced to a primary source, per MOS, exactly in order to keep the plot section accurate, by using verbatim quotes. Reverting this change because "it's not needed" is against policy, which specifically cautions against reverting something just because it's "not needed" or "unnecessary". Bright☀ 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others. The reference are not needed. The specifics mentioned are too detailed for a summary. As to what exists in other article plot sections their relevance is minimal to this discussion per WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP:FILMPLOT exists for a reason. For the record you do not need to repeat everything again. File an official WP:RFC if you wish but the current WP:CONSENSUS seems clear. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, even if you disgree about the "not needed" reasoning, can you please take into account that five editors plus myself now six are arguing against them? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 03:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Summoned, I appear... Agree with the others...without even looking at the article (but having seen the film multiple times) I anticipate no issues with writing a plot summary for it that relies only on the material directly seen in the film. There's nothing in this film that's so intricate that we should need to rely on a secondary source to elaborate upon it, and we have no need to cite the film itself as a source, because that's the presumption by dint of it being a plot summary to begin with. If editors continue to disagree with this despite what reads to me as a fairly clear consensus, I would recommend that they pursue dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See, this type of thinking can be problematic. Yes, we allow the implicit use of the work itself as a primary source, that's fine, but thinking "There's nothing in this film that's so intricate that we should need to rely on a secondary source to elaborate upon it" is actually not really in line with WP:V. We should be trying to source to secondary sources if we can do it for the bulk of the plot to show that we're not making up the plot as WP editors; the allowance for the primary work to handle that should be seen more as Plan B rather than our primary resort against sourcing. If we have to take this plan B, then we should ask if we need to quote directly from the film to help with that. But we should not be ignoring secondary source sourcing if we have that available, that strengths the quality of the article in regards to WP:V and NOR. --M ASEM  (t) 12:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of film articles where this has been put into practice? The vast majority of film articles I've read here have no sourcing. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been in practice, that's the problem that I have seen expressed from editors that do not work in film or other entertainment media. Straddling both, I know the more experienced editors in this area know where and when the "work itself is the source" logic is best applied relative to WP:V as well as WP:NOR, but newer editors tend to be unaware of the subtlies of this and just assume that we can write volumes of info from the primary source (ending up with lists of character articles excessively long with no sources but the work itself). It's a change of thinking that grandfathers in all existing content but sets a higher bar going forward. --M ASEM  (t) 13:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per comment request on my talk page. In general practice, based on my years of Wikipedia editing, a primary source like the film itself, is sufficient for non-contentious and non-interpretive content like plot or cast lists that you'd normally find printed/fixed in a film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If making bold claims they need sourcing if it isn't explicitly stated in the source material. That said, if you want to build a QUALITY article, the plot should include sources. I used sources in the plot for Dishonored, Batman: Arkham Origins, Batman: Arkham Knight, Batman: Arkham City, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption, using a mix of web sources where possible (not hard at all for Films or TV shows with reviews) and direct quotes. It's not hard to reference them and it should be a standard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I've been saying. Instead of dragging the quality down, removing sources, and reverting cleanup, let the article improve. So what if other articles are bad and don't source their information? This one doesn't have to be dragged down because others aren't as good. Bright☀ 16:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Including citations to the work with quotes to source plot elements that seem otherwise obvious to the viewer is not necessarily an improvement, that could be seen as "over-citation", given that the work itself is presumed implicitly cited. I could argue (in a slippery slope manner) that each sentence of the plot should be cited in the same way, which of course is silly. The point being that there's nothing buried in the film's plot that a viewer watching the movie for the first time won't be able to understand, so deciding which few areas need primary source citation seems of questionable value. It would be different if we had third-party sources to cite the plot to, and only to fill in a few gaps to use a few primary source citations. Mind you, there is a resistance to use third-party sources which I don't agree with - if we have them we should absolutely use them. But lacking those and just using the primary source for a film like this is not really that helpful. --M ASEM  (t) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this issue isn't settled (four days without discussion, so maybe?), might I suggest that those concerned that sourcing should be provided give us specifics that we can discuss? As the concerns expressed here seem to revolve around whether we're regurgitating plot or adding interpretation or otherwise enhancing it (for lack of a better term), it would at least be helpful to me to have specific examples to analyze. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The specific examples are . For the sake of everybody, I'll repeat the reasons for my edit. MOS: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. The plot points referenced are perhaps the two biggest key plot points in the story: nobody can change the past, and Cole has traveled to the past to gather information. Each of these plot points is repeated around three times throughout the movie.
 * The first argument against this was ""; it doesn't need to be referenced, but that doesn't mean the references aren't an improvement, as specified by MOS. Combined with policy that says that "not needed" is not a reason to revert a change, then removing them was against MOS and policy.
 * After repeating this argument several times, the argument shifted to citing third-party sources instead of the primary source. For deciding which plot points are "key", I've provided third-party sources above. The two key plot points I've quoted are singled out as key plot points in those sources. Bright☀ 11:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Personally I don't see how the refs add anything in these particular instances. Unless someone is disputing these plot points (or saying they're unclear or such...), the quotations appear to be being added via referencing merely as a way of indirectly adding quotations to the plot summary. They also appear somewhat redundant in this case as they cite the film...but the film is already assumed to be the primary source for Plot. If I wanted to assume extremely bad faith, I might conclude that someone's trying to indirectly bloat the plot summary by adding "entertaining" or "interesting" quotations but hiding behind citations to do so. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous ending
I have restored the hidden comment at the end of the plot, asking that editors not offer an interpretation of the ending of the film. The ending was clearly left ambiguous and we should not be in the business of explaining what it means. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The references you removed are not "ersatz", they're refrences to a primary source. In the discussion above there is no consensus to remove them, and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support their use are outlined above. Bright☀ 07:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, per WP:ONUS, when material is disputed, "no consensus" would be a ruling against inclusion. DonIago (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:ONUS says. WP:ONUS is about removing information that has reliable sources, that is not the case here. The plot has reliable sources, and you want to remove two footnotes that you don't like because you think plot sections shouldn't have footnotes. You're wrong. To regurgitate the policies and guidelines for the third time:


 * To emphasize: editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research and using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
 * The argument for removing the citations is that they are merely "encouraged", and "not needed", and "other articles don't use citations". This argument reeks of article ownership and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or consensus. Reverts shouldn't be made because something is "not needed", they should only be made if something is detrimental: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
 * I have shown that the edits are encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines and that the revert is against policy, and then the argument shifted to "please provide third-party sources", which have been provided:


 * Third-party sources say these plot points are key plot points: "distinctive" according to Klosterman, and emphasized by James that (unlike other movies) this is not about changing the past. The quotes from the movie I used are succinct summaries of this key plot point, and the second quote is the same one that Klosterman chooses to illustrate it.
 * supports my assertion that people do not understand that in 12 Monkeys the past cannot be changed. That is why citing these key or complex plot points is beneficial. Instead of hidden text that only editors can see, use citations which everybody can see.
 * To summarize:
 * Wikipedia guidelines encourage sourcing plot summaries to discourage original research.
 * Wikipedia guidelines encourage sourcing plot summaries to illustrate key or complex plot points.
 * The added citations discourage original research and illustrate key or complex plot points.
 * Wikipedia policies oppose reverting an edit simply because it is "not needed".
 * Consensus is not mob rule, consensus is not a vote. Three editors (or more) oppose the addition of these reference, but their revert reason is against Wikipedia policy and their argument is against Wikipedia guidelines. Quoting WP:ONUS to remove citations shows a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Bright☀ 10:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You are the only one who wants to maintain the ersatz references. You have been reverted three times by the three different editors in the last day.  You clearly do not have a consensus in favor of your version, and you are now edit-warring. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that but you are wrong according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * You claim local consensus but there is a specific Wikipedia guideline that supports this edit, and local consensus does not override borader Wikipedia consensus.
 * You never actually say why that guideline doesn't apply here.
 * You never actually say why these references are detrimental to the article.
 * You don't understand WP:CONSENSUS, and attempt to establish consensus by mob rule. Consensus has to be backed by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * All you do is revert and point to other articles. I cite policies and guidelines. Bright☀ 13:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no need for an RfC when we already had a long discussion of this issue, with the majority of editors being against you. I think you selectively quote from policies and guidelines that support your position.  But, the truth is, you have not added references to the article.  All you have done is added quotes from the film in the form of references.  The policy you cite above says that if quotes are used, they should be sourced and sources are necessary to avoid OR, which is not a problem here.  I feel that the quotes are simply unnecessary, that they do not illuminate the plot, and that the points you regard as contentious are not so.  This has been a tempest in a teapot from the very beginning, as you alone demand that these ersatz references be allowed in the article for no good reason.  At some point, you simply have to let the matter rest. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

you selectively quote from policies and guidelines that support your position You say so but you don't actually show it, or show which policies contradict what I'm saying. Meanwhile, I've shown which policies and guidelines contradict what you're saying and doing. I feel that the quotes are simply unnecessary For the tenth time, being unnecessary is not a reason to remove something. that they do not illuminate the plot Funny, because reliable third-party sources use these exact quotes to illuminate the plot. So either you're wrong, or the reliable sources are wrong. And in that case, Wikipedia prefers reliable sources over an editor's opinion. the points you regard as contentious are not so and yet you feel it's necessary to touch upon those points with hidden text that tells people not to add speculation, instead of using the guideline-stated way to do it, with references. What's more, they need not be contentious, only key or complex plot points. Since reliable sources discuss them as key plot points, again it's you against reliable sources. You against reliable sources, you against Wikipedia guidelines, you against Wikipedia policies... ersatz references primary sources are valid referencs, your insistence to dispute them shows your disconnect from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you keep failing to follow. They are proper references in accordance to Wikipedia policies. At some point, you simply have to let the matter rest. This is the "consensus by bullying" or "consensus by mob" I was referring to. Instead of following the policies and guidelines, you demand that everybody else stop following them.

In short, nothing you said actually contradicts the guideline or supports your removal of the reference:

You are attempting to discourage original research with hidden text. I am discouraging original research with citations. You claim the references don't support "contentious" plot points. I (and third-party sources) claim they support key or complex plot points, per the guideline. Bright☀ 18:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem here is that points you are trying to cite - that the movie's plot is about learning what happened rather than to try to prevent it as seen by secondary sources - makes those themes of the movie to be sourced to secondary works, rather than necessary plot elements to selectively cite in the plot summary. There's certainly a possibility that one theme could be called to the nature of predestination and the like from these sources, but that does not require those plot elements to be sourced in the work. What also works against your argument is that you are only sourcing two points. Either you should source it all, or source nothing, and speaking from dealing with plot writing experience, there is no need for any primary sourcing here as the movie's plot is distinctly obvious. --M asem (t) 21:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument that implies I am analyzing the plot for themes. Let's look at the article:


 * There is zero analysis here. The sentence "Cole is selected to be trained and sent back in time to find the original virus in order to help scientists develop a cure" is referenced to a quote from the movie where Cole says this almost word for word, no analysis. The sentence "[Cole] tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it" is similarly referenced to a quote from the movie where Cole says this almost word for word. No themes, no analysis. Entirely in line with MOS:PLOT (quoted above) and WP:PRIMARY: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. Now the question is, why are so many editors "misreading" Wikipedia policies and guidelines and seeing things that aren't there? Perhaps what they feel should be in the article is making them ignore these policies and guidelines...The first argument for removing the references was not needed, which is classic WP:OWN. Then it changed into you need secondary sources, which is not true (see direct quote from WP:PRIMARY and WP:PLOT), but I provided secondary sources anyway, one of which uses the same quote to illustrate the key plot point that Cole can't save anyone and can't change anything. Then the argument changed to these quotes don't illuminate the plot, in which case the secondary source chose this quote to explain the plot even though it doesn't explain the plot... then the argument changed to you're dealing with themes, not plot summary implying it's analysis and doesn't belong in the plot section, but the quotes literally explain the plot, and do not touch upon any analysis of themes. And now we're back to there is no need for any primary sourcing here which, again, is WP:OWN, enforcing a certain version without saying that a different version is detrimental, just that it's "not needed"... and now, bizarrely, Either you should source it all, or source nothing, which goes directly against the guideline and policy:


 * TL;DR: none of your arguments say why you are exempt from following the quoted Wikipedia policy and guideline, only that it's "not needed" and you have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS... which doesn't override guidelines and policies... Bright☀ 14:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for length

 * WP policy and guideline presume that the work itself is normally sufficient as the implicit reference for a plot summary. Otherwise 1000s of film, tv, book, and other fictional works are violating that (which they aren't). Mind you, I am a proponent that where secondary sourcing can be used for summarizing the entire plot, then great, we should favor using that, but that's not strongly enshrined in policy or guideline. In lieu of that, where a plot is rather straightforward as it is for 12M, then adding only a couple of primary sources doesn't help - it's overlooking the work itself, and its inconsistent (you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not). --M asem (t) 16:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP policy and guideline presume that the work itself is normally sufficient as the implicit reference for a plot summary. I agree and I never said otherwise. adding only a couple of primary sources doesn't help Then why is it explicitly supported in the policy and guideline? Sigh. It shows the reader that the plot summary is faithful to the primary source, particularly for key or complex plot points per the guideline, and it quotes passages from the primary source per the policy. it's overlooking the work itself What? it's inconsistent (you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not). Which policy or guideline exactly states "you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not"? Because from where I'm sitting, the guideline says key or complex plot points. Maybe there's a man-in-the-middle attack on my Wikipedia connection and everybody is seeing a different guideline and policy?!?! Bright☀ 16:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite: You claim consensus but consensus is not mob rule:The discussion above provides no consensus for removing the references. There is a policy and a guideline that support the reference, and there are a bunch of people who WP:DON'TLIKEIT and engage in WP:OWN behavior: "the edit is not necessary so here's my preferred version." Bright☀ 10:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a case of I didn't hear that, as you just repeat the same thing over and over again, no matter how many editors refute your arguments. You pretend that all the policies and guidelines are on your side and all counter-arguments are simply ownership.  Frankly, I've tired of the debate, which continues only because you are continuing it. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No argument in favor of the policies and guidelines has been refuted. You are asked to behave according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but you claim your local consensus allows you to ignore them, which is invalid. You have provided no counter arguments on why you shouldn't follow the policies and guidelines. Not a single one. Bright☀ 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you have simply decided not to hear the arguments raised against you – in the discussion that took place here last year, the discussion that has been going here for the past month, and in the RfC that you started. Every argument that is raised, you simply ignore it and repeat yourself, ad infinitum.  The quotes you added are not references, you are simply quoting the primary-source, which is not what the policy you quote says to do.  And, in the RfC, this idea has been rejected in favor of using secondary sources for complex plot points – which are not an issue in this article, anyway.  I hope you're entertaining yourself with all this, because you are certainly not entertaining the rest of us.  It's really rather pathetic that you think you should have your way when not a singly other editor agrees with you.  You have achieved no consensus, not in any forum. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - there is zero interpretation. The policy and guideline are explicit:


 * So my edit is supported by policy and guideline, while your revert reason of "not needed" is article ownership and your attempt to ignore policies and guidelines through local consensus is, ahem, against Wikipedia policies and ArbCom decision. Bright☀ 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes you added are not references - this is your main point and it's simply wrong; read the policy: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. They are references to the primary source, and they offer no interpretation. You may also want to read the citing sources guideline: A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference.
 * And, in the RfC, this idea has been rejected in favor of using secondary sources for complex plot points - That's an outright lie as the RfC has not been concluded and the majority are in favor of the policy and guideline as it currently stands.
 * It's really rather pathetic that you think you should have your way when not a singly other editor agrees with you - But they do. The problem is that you and a little mob claim WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which is, again, against Wikipedia policies and ArbCom decision. Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you find it hard to keep track of all the arguments you raised: you just repeat the same thing over and over again - That's because you keep repeating all the five bad arguments above: What you're characterizing as "repeating the same thing over and over again" is giving you the policies and guidelines that support this edit, while you repeat your wrong reasons to remove it. You can't have local consensus against policies and guidelines. This is article ownership. You don't like this policy- and guideline-backed edit so you revert it on the basis of "not needed"... Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't accept that "not needed" is not a valid revert reason despite policy.
 * You don't accept that these are correct references despite the guideline.
 * You don't accept these are key or complex plot points despite reliable third-party sources supporting this.
 * You don't accept that there is no interpretation despite the referenced sentence being almost a direct quote from the movie.
 * You attempt.


 * Ignoring the RFC for the moment (as I see it, if it was to be closed now, it would close as no consensus, there are fair policy-based arguments from both sides), and what is exactly stated right now, the only justification to include the quote references to the film is stemming from this line in the WAF guideline: . There is no "must" in there. That means that whether to include the quote refs should be left to local consensus, and it has been determined here that the two points of concern that you want to add refs for are not hard to understand directly from watching the film. You seem to be pushing a requirement that just isn't there, presently. The RFC might change that but again, speaking as an admin here (though involved) the best that that RFC could likely close right now is "no consensus" meaning no change in policy or guideline. --M asem (t) 18:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "must" in there. That means that whether to include the quote refs should be left to local consensus My point was never that it must be included, my point was that its inclusion is supported by policy ("cite passages to describe the plot") and guideline ("using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful"), and your revert reasons and talk page arguments (as outlined in the handy-dandy table above) are not backed by policies or guidelines. "You don't have consensus" is not a reason in and of itself to remove material from Wikipedia. Consensus is the process and decision that is made by "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." None of your arguments had anything to do with Wikipedia policies or voiced any valid concerns over the issue. You have "consensus" by mob rule here, not by Wikipedia policies or guidelines or legitimate concerns. TheOldJacobite decided the references are "not needed" and everyone tagged along to that argument, straying here and there to the other four invalid arguments. That's not consensus. Bright☀ 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy and guideline do not require it, this is key. Policy uses "may", which means that the decision for how to do so is left to local consensus. Consensus is never going to satisfy every user involved, especially over how to handle material in an optional manner as prescribed by policy/guideline (as the case here); sometimes the two sides are an "either/or" choice without a middle ground. So at some point, we have to recognize one or more editors aren't going to get the way they desire. In this case, there's a clear majority to not include these references, and guidelines clearly support this, allowing plot summaries to be left unsourced (implicitly sourced to the work itself), so, speaking as an admin, I'd close this discussion in favor of that consensus if that were the case and I were not involved. --M asem (t) 14:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @BrightR, I think that WP:LISTEN would be worth reading at this point. You have made your argument here and at the RFC, but many other people have told you that they just do not interpret the policy the way that you do.  I think it might be much more productive move on to some other editing rather than continuing to push your argument here, when it does not seem likely you will gain consensus soon. Perhaps, after a while, you will be able to come back and find a different consensus. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * there's a clear majority to not include these references, and guidelines clearly support this There's a majority, but it's not backed by guidelines or policy, which makes it consensus by mob rule. Nobody expressed how this addition is detrimental, viewed through any policy or guideline. TheOldJacobite tried saying it's not a reference; that's wrong. You tried saying it's analysis or that plot points should only be cited if they are unclear to the average viewer; that's wrong. The main argument is "it's not required"; that's true, policies and guidelines do not require the improvement of articles, but they do require that if you assign priority between two versions, you need to have a policy- or guideline-backed reason. Here, we see you and other editors assign priority to a version without articulating in any way how it's better, other than "it's not required", which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 18:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The option of "do not include references" is backed by policy/guideline. Plot summaries are presumed sourced to the work and do not need to be sourced. 99% of the literary works on WP use this. And when multiple editors say the same thing, that's not OWNership unless you want to suggest that there's a cabal keeping the references out, which is a serious charge. --M asem (t) 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The option exists—yes. Did anyone here articulate why it's better not to have references? No. There's no cabal; it's just that nobody offered a valid reason, and the only reason offered is "not needed" or "not required" which is precisely WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And you've not offered a reason why it is better outside of appealing to policy/guidelines, which is the same as the other one. Neither side has a "policy" advantage here (at least, with arguments so far presented). At that point, it becomes a matter of personal preference, and thus determining consensus is likely based on majority opinions. --M asem (t) 18:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither side has a "policy" advantage here Using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. There is a guideline here that says it's helpful to source key or complex plot points to brief quotation citations. There's no "must" in the vast majority of policies of guidelines, but reverting a helpful change because it's "not needed" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If your entire argument here is that "it's not required" or "the guideline doesn't use the word must" then it's article ownership and consensus by mob rule. Bright☀ 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'd place the emphasis on can in the bit you quoted. "Can", as opposed to "should be provided", for instance. "Can", as opposed to "will help". To me, the intention there is that quotes should be used if you believe they will be helpful...but not necessarily if others disagree. Furthermore, I haven't seen any other editor agree that the points you provided citations for are either "key or complex", which voids the entire sentence. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any other editor agree that the points you provided citations for are either "key or complex", which voids the entire sentence. Whether they agree or not is irrelevant as I have provided third-party reliable sources that name these plot points as key or complex. quotes should be used if you believe they will be helpful...but not necessarily if others disagree. This is exactly WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If a policy and a guideline support something, you have to have a reason to edit against them. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason, it's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 08:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you can appreciate the irony that an editor who is so intent on their preferred version of an article that they had to be warned against edit-warring by an admin and felt compelled to open an RfC when nobody came forward to support their views, and is otherwise exhibiting WP:STICK behavior, is accusing everyone else of ownership. Perhaps the fault lies not in the stars, but in yourself. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the irony, but just because it's ironic (or not) doesn't mean it's wrong. The fact that still nobody has a valid reason to not follow the policy and guideline should demonstrate that this is consensus-by-mob and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 09:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * many other people have told you that they just do not interpret the policy the way that you do. That is not what they said. They argued against an interpretation of the policy and guideline that I never gave. See above, or I can repeat it for the nth time. Bright☀ 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BrightR: I don't think anyone is likely to make progress with a line of reasoning that they need to "repeat for the nth time". In any case, the article seems to be stable without the added citations, and so I think this discussion can come to a natural end.  There is always the possibility that consensus might change some time in the future, of course. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The line of reasoning is not that I have to repeat myself, the line of reasoning is that there's a guideline, and the addition of the references is beneficial according to the guideline (and because it helps the reader verify that the plot summary is accurate, per the cited policy) and people revert this policy- and guideline-backed edit because it's "not needed", which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. In addition, supporting a certain version because it's "stable" is also a form of article ownership. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is a huge problem on Wikipedia that drives away contributors, and if you want to end a discussion because the article is "stable" you're contributing to the consensus-by-mob that formed here through WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break for length

 * While I'm loath to present the appearance of speaking on behalf of other editors, what I'm getting from this is that you don't appear to understand is that, from "our" perspective, we're not not following policy/guidelines. We just appear to have a different interpretation of them than you do. Our interpretation is that if the plot points are "key or complex" then it may (or may not) be helpful to add citations. In this particular case, we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor do we feel that these citations are in fact helpful. For you to satisfy our concerns, you'd need to demonstrate not only that these plot points really are considered sufficiently key or complex that citations might be helpful (via third-party sources or other editors expressing such a concern) but also that the citations you're providing actually are helpful (which I think could only be satisfied by other editors saying as much). Simply stating that we're not providing valid reasons to not follow policy/guidelines isn't likely to be sufficient to sway anyone, because from our POV we are following them, just not the way you believe they're intended to be interpreted. However, I would note that even if we were blatantly ignoring policy/guidelines, WP:IAR might be considered a valid option given the number of editors who have weighed in on the matter. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex The first point has been raised and refuted with citations, and it's also ridiculous; it's not a key plot point that the past cannot be changed? Please. Either way there are third-party reliable sources that do name it as a key or complex plot point, so your opinion doesn't matter. nor do we feel that these citations are in fact helpful Again, "I don't think it's helpful" without specifying why is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As for WP:IAR, see this handy chart. There is a guideline on the matter, ignoring it without a reason is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has denied that's not a key plot point, but again, the wording on when to include such citations is "may", not "must". The film clearly explains this, it's not a buried line but established way early in the film. As such, given that the film serves implicitly as the source, no one else feels that we have to cite these. We're following the guideline which provides optional advice. --M asem (t) 14:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has denied that's not a key plot point DonIago just did: "we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor [...]" but as I said what anybody on Wikipedia feels about the plot points is no longer relevant because there are reliable secondary sources that name it as a key or complex plot point. no one else feels that we have to cite these Again this is not a have to or must case. Article ownership is about taking two versions and reverting to one without a valid reason. Your reasons (and by "your" I mean everybody in this talk page thread) amount to "it's optional", "it's not needed", "it's not required", "it's not a must", "we don't have to do it" and so on, all of which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. The versions aren't even equivalent; the version with the references is supported by the guideline, while removing the references is completely arbitrary and without any specified reason, i.e. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OWN would make sense if only one or two editors were trying to keep the sources out while multiple editors were suggesting that it should be added. This situation is reversed; multiple editors have suggested the sources are not needed, and you seem to be the only one wanting them included. Technically, that's OWNership the other way, towards you, trying to conform the article to what you want. We had a consensus discussion over whether we implement something that policy/guidelines says is optional. Consensus has decided not to include that. Continuing to argue against consensus falls under WP:TE. --M asem (t) 17:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, that's OWNership the other way, towards you, trying to conform the article to what you want No, this shows a deep misunderstanding of OWN. My edit is backed by policy and guideline. The revert is backed by "not needed". It doesn't matter how many people think it's not needed; if "not needed" is their sole reason (as reviewed above), that's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus has decided not to include that. Consensus is not mob rule. If consensus is not backed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's exactly the same as article ownership. Bright☀ 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep missing a key point: no policy or guideline requires the sources you want. It is an optional aspect. Both sides (you, and the rest of us) have a fair argument backed by policy and guideline. And given this is an either/or option, consensus is going to come down to looking like a democratic vote rather than a compromise. --M asem (t) 17:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before: there's hardly anything that Wikipedia policies or guidelines require. Most article-improving policies and guidelines are an "optional aspect". However, the policy says editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible and I have added sourcing. Which means, if you wish to remove it, you have to have a reason better than "not needed", "optional aspect", and so on. "It's not required" is not a policy- or guideline-backed argument, in fact (as I have already said again and again) it's against policy to revert an edit because it's "not needed". It's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Bright☀ 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not required" is a guideline-based argument - plot summaries are implicitly sourced to the work itself and do not require sourcing. And keep in mind, guidelines here are meant to be descriptive and subject to interpretation as needed, they are not rules as you are trying to force on us here. --M asem (t) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not required" is a guideline-based argument - no. You are taking two versions, one that is encouraged by policy and one that is merely sufficient, and you are assigning priority based on "not required". That is ownership, literally following the example given on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I am concerned that a Wikipedia administrator thinks that "not needed" is a reason to revert an edit that a policy deems "encouraged", and doesn't understand that reverting because something is "not needed" is article ownership. Bright☀ 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

you've made your point repeatedly (ad nauseum, even), and it's been rejected. It's time to drop the stick and stop making personal attacks in the form of accusations of article ownership. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another admin that's clueless about Wikipedia policies? Pointing out that a certain behavior is article ownership is nowhere near a personal attack, nor is pointing out that an administrator such as yourself is ignorant of Wikipedia policies such as WP:PERSONAL and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 20:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about ownership behavior that's indicated by reverting "unnecessary" changes without claiming they're detrimental. Perhaps later I'll start a discussion about what differentiates personal attacks from saying someone is acting against Wikipedia policy while quoting that policy and showing that there's a very good correlation between that person's behavior and the behavior described in the policy. Bright☀ 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC
You are invited to participate in the discussion on RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections. Since the main argument here is that there is "no consensus" for adding sources despite the guideline clearly stating that this is encouraged, I have started an RfC about the guideline itself to gauge whether there is consensus for it. Bright☀ 13:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I support excluding these primary-source inline citations because they are unnecessary and encroaching on secondary-source use in their attempt to resolve something that is not straightforward. If any inline citations are to be used here, they should be from secondary sources. It is circuitous to try to resolve a contentious understanding of the primary source by using the primary source itself. If we have to sort through the film's dialogue to figure out how to interpret it and go so far to cite it, then it's time to resort to secondary sources. Considering the perpetual contentiousness of the plot summary, perhaps it would be better to reference the plot in its entirety from a b:ook about the film or the director. That way we can lock in a fair description. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no interpretation, and there is no requirement for inline citations to be from secondary sources. Regardless, this is not what the RfC is about. Bright☀ 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

How does removing the references improve the article
The RfC was with the following summary:

Can anyone articulate why these references are "deemed inappropriate" with reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense? Reasons that are should not be raised. I'll start you off:
 * (1) The references are helpful as described in the guideline and policy because (2) they help the reader verify key or complex plot points (3) that are identified as such by reliable secondary sources, and for that reason (4) assigning priority between two versions of the article, one with the references and one without, should be made in accordance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and (5) assigning priority between two versions should not be because one is "not neeeded" according to local consensus.

All you have to do is refute any part of that argument. Or make your own! As long as you actually have a valid argument according to Wikipedia policies, sources, and common sense. My argument is, because adding the references is supported by the guideline, then the revert and subsequent consensus-by-mob is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) policy, guideline
 * 2) by having exact quotes and timecodes
 * 3) Klosterman, 2009
 * 4) WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:CONSENSUS
 * 5) WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
 * I think you missed the part of the third statement in the closing summary involving the phrase "deemed inappropriate". In this case, I would say that the references you have been inserting have been "deemed inappropriate" and encourage you to drop the stick before matters escalate further. I see no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate (regardless of the fact that failing to do so may weaken their arguments), and your repeated requests (bordering on demands) that editors provide reasoning they are not required to provide seems inappropriate. If you are asking simply to satisfy your own curiosity, I might advocate for a less confrontational approach. DonIago (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate That's because you're ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Read up. Willingly ignorant, I might add, since I quoted the relevant section above. Bright☀ 09:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)