Talk:Children of Men/Archive 2

Book Vs. Movie
I keep noticing edits popping up comparing the movie to the book. I've suggested it before, without response. I will ask again: in order to avoid comparisons showing up in jarring places, should there be a specific header entitled Departures from the Novel, or some such thing? Please explain why or why not.Arcayne 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this would be a good idea. It is kind of confusing to have the comparisons in the plot synopsis, because it makes the reader feel like it is referencing a novel in the movie. Xorgthezombie 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparison edits should definitely be placed outside of the Plot section, but I'm wary of implications of original research -- one can go too far to point out even the most minor differences between film and novel. I would highly suggest depending on using reliable sources, most likely reviewers' observations, for the sake of verifiability.  Film adaptations obviously never perfectly match their sources, so it's sort of taken for granted that there are always differences.  Thus, only the major differences should be emphasized, especially on a plot-driven level.  Not stuff like, the main character's hair color is different in the two versions, or that someone's name is spelled slightly differently. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Before Action
Maybe it would be nice to discuss proposed removals before they are removed.. Large chunks of trivia have been removed as unsourced, such as the weapons used, or the translation of foreign writing on the wall. I understand that the idea to be bold in edits is a Wiki battle cry, but it usually leads to edit warring. If there are edits that are unsourced, call attention to them here before deleting them en masse. I am going to replace these edits and we can deal with them individually. -As far as the weapon used by the military, it sure looked like that weapon identified as the now-cancelled H&K XM8. -I took a friend of mine who understands Arabic to the movie, and they pointed out to me the word antifada on the wall at Bexhill. they arlso thought it was specifically a word of Palestinian usage (but take that last part with a grain of salt, as my friend is a Palestinian). I don't consider that sort of observation to be original research. What do other folk think?Arcayne 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue with leaving the bits about the weapon and the symbol is that they are not immediately verifiable by all. You say that the weapon looked like the H&K XM8 -- how do we know you are right?  It's best to support these sentences with citation so that people who read the article can see the reliable source that backs the claim.  I've noticed that historical film articles such as Saving Private Ryan have an edit history that is a cycle of disputed information claims, such as the type of weapon or tank that was used in the film.  I think that the best course of action would be to directly copy the trivia bits to the talk page and leave a request for citation.  That way, if somebody comes by and has a citation, they can re-insert the information with the backing.  Or, you could actively seek out a reliable source that backs the information in question.  Ideally, though, trivia sections should be discouraged per WP:AVTRIV, and instead integrated into the rest of the article.  No film article of GA or FA status, to my knowledge, has a trivia section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation request
I originally tagged these with a fact tag twice, but someone removed them, so I have deleted the trivia. I am in the process of partially integrating the intifada trivia into the theme section, but I am still doing research. If the weapon info can be verified, it can be merged into the production section. In any case, both need to be verified with reliable sources. Trivia follows: &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The British Homeland Security personnel, seen throughout the first half of the movie wearing black military fatigues, carry the developmental Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle.
 * During the Bexhill camp uprising, the mob chants the Arabic takbir, 'Allahu Akbar', which is odd, considering that the phrase is usually associated with happiness or joy, and not unrest or anger. Earlier, the word uprising was written in white paint paint upon the wall, while later, the word Intifada, which also means 'uprising' in Arabic, is seen written in black upon a wall.

Well, I could upload stills from the movie that show clearly what I am talking about. I think that might fulfill the criteria of verifiability. Nothing more verifiable than the proof of one's own eyes. (err, how do I upload them?)Arcayne 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR and WP:V. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Read 'em, know 'em, love 'em. Pulling raw images/stills from a released film is not considered manipulation of the image, nor is it considered original research. Now, as I was asking before, might I inquire as to how to upload the images that visually confirm the trivia points? I'll even post them here so that everyone can confirm their non-suckiness before re-posting to the article.Arcayne 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of visible proof. If I saw a picture of the weapon in question, I wouldn't recognize it as a H&K XM8 rifle.  I'd just see it as a rifle.  If the article tells me the model, I'd ask, "Says who?" and the article should have a reference other than an editor's perspective for an answer.  Regarding your argument about the plot, there are films that are open to interpretation where an editor can't surmise a certain interpretation to be general knowledge.  Also, for adding images in the future (as I advise against doing that here for this particular content), visit Images and also click on "Upload file" in the toolbox in the left column.  Fair use is a worthwhile read as well regarding copyrighted images such as screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are talking about when you refr to my 'argument about the plot', Erik. Perhaps I was adding myself into the trivia point by remarking the oddity of the chant, but the chant would still be there whether I interjected myself or not. As well, perhaps you are right as to stating that the rifle used is absolutely an H&K XM8; it might only be an extraordinarily similar mock-up.

Image:XM8_CoM.jpg


 * Disregard what I said about the plot. You had said that you thought that such observations were acceptable, and I had the plot in my mind as an example of what you were talking about, since plot summaries are based on editors' observations of the film.  In some cases, these observations can be disputable, as you can see from the above discussion about Theo being dead or not.  There is a difference between general observations and educated observations.  If an editor can add his or her educated observation about a film without verifiability, then what's the point of citing anything?  Citation allows for clear objectivity (which, however, can be tricky with controversial topics) so information is fairly indisputable.  In addition, I don't think that the addition of an image to help the trivia is appropriate.  Under the fair use policy, pictures should contribute to the content in a significant way.  It's not helpful to add an image to support one sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I was not considering adding any images in support of the trivia points. I considered their inclusion in our discussions here so as to bring to a close the possibility that the trivia points were somehow all subjective. The words, "the uprising" in English is hardly debatable, having been right there on the screen, any more than the same words in Arabic. The same goes for the still of the guard wielding the rifle. If one looks at the picture, then at the linked photo of the XM8, they are similar enough in appearance as to be indistinguishable. If the rivia can somehow be absorbed into the main body of the plot, so be it. I know your feelings on even the existence of trivia in movies. However, sometimes it is unavoidable and often educational and entertaining. If the uploading of a few pictures here helps to put to rest the idea that the trivia points were somehow manufactured for a political agenda, then that should considered a good thing, right?Arcayne 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the future, I'd suggest using another site for hosting images that are not to be used in articles. I recommend TinyPic.com.  You will probably receive a bot warning about your uploaded image, as it is not licensed correctly or placed in any particular article.  You can use the link method I showed you to show future pictures on Wikipedia.  Also, subjectivity doesn't necessarily have to be tied to political agendas.  If I see an uncited piece of information, I can't tell if the person who added it was absolutely certain that the information was correct.  The person who added it would know, but nobody else does for sure, hence the need for verifiability.  As for graffiti, the film is an English production, and this particular article is on the English Wikipedia, so it can't be surmised that people will grasp the meaning of Arabic writing.  It could be the same thing as the English graffiti, or it could be addressing another point entirely.  I can't tell, and to be honest, it's not comforting that someone would add information and say, "Trust me on this, I know what I'm talking about." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs a reliable source: "Shanti", which is repeated three times as the last line of the credits, is the Hindi word for peace. "Shanti Shanti Shanti" is also the last line of T.S. Eliot's poem The Waste Land.

Done. I provided two referential links to the actual poem where it appears.Arcayne 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Strawberry Cough trivia
I've sourced this piece of trivia on my own, and while not exactly advancing a position, it is somewhat of a synthesis, as I seem to be the only editor who has made this observation. Some of it might find its way into other sections. Trivia removed below. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Strawberry Cough", the cannabis strain grown by Palmer, is a real form of medical cannabis, cultivated for its anti-anxiety properties.

Actually, i think that trivia point was well-sourced, containing a link to an actual Amsterdam manufacturing company that actually sells the stuff (pretty expensive stuff, too). It should be replaced back into the article as a trivia point. It came up in the film a few times without being a major plot point.Arcayne 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote the trivia point, however, I made the mistake of synthesizing two statements, that as a whole, cannot be verified anywhere outside my own head. We agree that "Strawberry Cough" appears in the film; That is verified by a link to an article in High Times.  We can also agree and verify that a seed company sells a product by the same name.  But, unless we find a reliable source making this whole claim, it's trivial original research.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could contact me on my talk page and explain that to me a little better.I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what you mean, Viri.Arcayne 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One could argue that the Strawberry Cough trivia is a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", perhaps that of a cannabis activist. Unless we can cite a RS showing a relationship between the fictional drug in the film and the real one in RL, it is bordering on original research. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing data
I have just re-read the article, and it appears tha Viriditas has completely prged a great deal of the data that was in there before, I will work to restore the data. Perhaps it is time for an editor to step in and maybe revisit the definition of edit by concensus.Arcayne 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. What information do you see that has been removed? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It would take just as long to detail them here as it would be to simply re-edit it. Since you advised Viri on your talk pages to trim the plot articles in your aim to make the article closer to an FA, he seems to have slashed and burned. I will replant. I dislike this backchannel nonsense.Arcayne 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my discussion with Viriditas. It was after the plot had been reduced, and I was asking him to tie sentences together for fuller paragraphs.  He simply addressed the issue that was marked by the  tag. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik has nothing to do with your complaint, Arcayne. I attempted to merge some of the backstory into the lead, and dispensed with the rest.  Some of it might be salvaged and added to the theme section, which can be split if it grows longer.  The plot is already too long.  I also removed a lot of repetitive content. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

 * (see influence in question: Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (see influence in question: Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (see influence in question: Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (see influence in question: Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (same article, different source)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article. Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I spy with my little eye...someone who blew off their Finance homework! Great job, Erik. That was awesome! :DArcayne 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, alright... you called me out. I'll explain my technique for getting these headlines.  For a while now, I've had a Google Alert set up to capture headlines that had the keywords "children of men" "alfonso cuarón" in it, and I set it to capture news headlines only, not typical Google results.  Since Google News only keeps 30 days' worth of headlines, they go away soon enough, but the Google Alert e-mails the link to me, so I had an archive of CoM-related movie news.  The only difficulty is dealing with a smorgasbord of reviews around the UK release date and the US release date.  I use Google Alerts for other films, too.  If anyone's curious about setting this up, feel free to contact me on my talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reception

 * Citation for the Reception section, which could be fleshed out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation for the Reception section, which could be fleshed out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

 * Citation for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Loosely 2: The Citations get wacky
Um, the Dark Rain OL episode is in fact based upon the novel. It was stated thus in the DVD extras from the Outer Limits DVD commentary. They called it "inspired by" which means they took the vasic premise and created something for budget tv. As well, the reference for the Wastelands link was not original research, but an interview. The original statement made clear the connection between the use in both TS Eliot's poem and the film. The link that you removed was an actual link to the poem, not original work (ie, not an interpretation or transliteration of the poem). I am not sure of the reasoning behind the revertArcayne 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is Dark Rain really necessary to mention for the film article? It seems better suited for the article about the novel. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was important to add other examples/interpretations of the novel that were similar to the movie's adaptation. Erik, some trivia points are going to remain, and the article does not suffer because of it being there. I've pointed this out before, and I think it is important that they remain. While some can - and have - been incorporated into the plot (making it ever heavier, in my estimation), some are going to defy categorization. Children of Men has a number of post production notes that bear mentioning, just like DVD releases of films. Let's not try to squeeze out what are most certainly not extraneous pieces of information in order to "clean up" the article.Arcayne 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against maintaining a trivia section, and I plan on permanently eliminating it from this article in the next 72 hours. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, 2 persons versus one does not a concensus make. I would ask that you seek a larger concensus before making alterations which might prove detrimental to the scope of the article. If I feel the edits remove information, I will correct them to restore information.Arcayne 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just two editors determining the consensus. The WP:AVTRIV guideline clearly reflects that the trivia section should be discouraged, which has been done successfully on higher-class film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, and whikle I agree with the principle, I think it is being misinterpreted in this instance. If a way can be found to integrate all of the pertinent trivia into say, plot synopsis, I am all for it. If it cannot be addressed there, it is unacceptable to simply purge the data.Arcayne 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack
You should probably move that soundtrack section to its own page and just write a nice prose about each of the albums. Most featured articles (as I assume most editors for this page are striding to bring this article to that status) don't have soundtrack infoboxes, and lists of songs.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move complete. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The prose needs to be expanded, it can't be one line. I'm not that familiar with the page and all the information, otherwise I would do it myself.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interim, I added more text from the main article. I'll work on expanding both, but I removed the tag from the Music section. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast
I'd like to suggest removing the Cast section, as the information is already redundant in the Plot section. I've noticed that FA-class articles that are not franchises generally do not have a wikitable for the cast. It seems unnecessary to present the information again in a listy form. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article
For the sake of communication, I'd like to recommend ideas for how the article could be improved: Feel free to add your own ideas or responses to mine here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Replacing the "Owen and Moore" image with something more engaging and/or up-close of the main characters
 * Detailing image captions to describe the context in each shot (like what's going on with Theo and Kee in that one picture)
 * Moving Production above Themes, and a timeline developed for actual production, like when/where it took place
 * Develop the Reception section -- state that it opened in the UK, how it fared in the box office, then the limited release in the US that eventually became a wide release, with US box office figures as well

I think that Production should remain below, as it is of tertiary importance to the film's themes (and plot synopsis) itself. I have come around somewhat on the idea that the trivia section should be considered but a clearinghouse for data to be incorporated into other areas, so long as we aren't deleting information which will not fit in other places.Arcayne 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not place the trivia on the talk page until it can be determined where the information can go? You can start a Talk:Children of Men/Scratchpad as a dumping ground for miscellaneous bits of information that can be imported into the article when the opportunity arises.  I think that's the reason why trivia sections are discouraged -- people find something interesting and want to include it in the article, but not finding a place for it, just dump it into that section.  It's not "bad", but it can get sloppy with sporadic additions.  As a result, the section can get unnecessarily weighty. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also fine with leaving the Themes/Production section as they are. I don't think there's ever really been a solid consensus regarding how a film article should be structured.  I've seen lots of ways to do it, but I think you're right about the importance level.  This film is more heavily thematic than other films (such as, say, The Departed), and it makes sense to have Themes before Production. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Departed is heavily thematic, as much or more so than Children of Men, but more overtly, as the theme is supported by more dialogue than imagery alone. I'm surprised you would recommend replacing the Owen/Moore photo with "something more engaging and/or up-close".  Have you seen the film?  There are very few "up-close" shots, if any, (Cuaron purposefully chose not to take them)  and the photo in question is a good example of how the film appears, not to mention the thematic use of womb-like tunnels, that in this shot, is symbolic of the beginning of Theo's spirtual rebirth, as this is the shot right before he gets into Luke's car to begin the Hero's Journey; It's an important scene.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe The Departed was a bad choice. How about something like Wild Hogs?  I haven't had the chance to see Children of Men yet.  What I was trying to suggest regarding images for the plot was something more "active", such as the explosion that causes Theo to spill his beverage at the beginning -- something to reflect the carnage or the militarization of the film's universe.  If there is a theme behind going through the tunnel that could be cited, then we could put the image in the Themes section to support that.  For the plot section, we would have just images that help describe the film at face value (the carnage/militarization I mentioned earlier). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At face value, the image represents the beginning of Theo's journey, and shows that he is about to follow in the footsteps of his ex-wife, who is about to be killed. The image also resonates with the end of Theo's journey, at which point he emerges (with Kee) in a boat from a tunnel-like, grated gate-like opening from the Bexhill water dept. into the open sea, except the camera captures this from the opposite angle. The Hero's journey has several references to this imagery, including that of caves, gates, and thresholds. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Trivia should be moved to the scratchpad or TalkPage because, while it is still trivia, it still has value to the casual consumer of the article. I also think that the tendency to 'forget' to place it back in the article is strong. Obviously, trivia of no real connection to the production should be discussed ont he talk page, but info of value should remain out in the relative open for non-editors (ie, non-contributors who simply read and explore articles) to see.

On a side note, what happened to the end notes? I was trying to fix the two sources for the Wastelands (it kept showing up as a single reference as opposed to two separate ones) and it wouldn't take. Obviously, i am missing some procedural clue here. :)Arcayne 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The same tendency applies to trivia in the actual article. There's a tendency to 'forget' to integrate it somewhere or not cite the information.  The section is a blight on an otherwise encyclopedic entry.  If there is information of value, then it should be able to be inserted somewhere other than that section.  I've noticed that the complete removal of Trivia sections from film articles on which I've worked has actually ceased the tendency to dump stuff there -- sort of forces an editor's hand to determine where else the information could be placed.  I think, though, that we're arguing something that's not quite verifiable.  The fact is, there is a guideline that discourages trivia sections, and no FA-class or GA-class film article has them.


 * Also, I fixed your references. This was your coding:  "Shantih Shantih Shantih" is also the last line of T.S. Eliot's poem .   First of all, an embedded link is something like Super Bowl, which creates this:Super Bowl.  Without any text to follow the link, a number will be inserted.  If it's the first embedded link, it will be [1].  If it's the second, [2], and so forth.  Now, references are separate from embedded links.  When you do something like , it will create a footnote, and the link will appear under the Notes section.  As Bignole mentioned to you, you can use templates to provide more detail about the link in a structured way -- the Cite news template is one that I frequently use.  Hope that helps. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It sure does. Thaks to the both of you. I might as well get started on a low-level movie. Any recommendations?Arcayne 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a link repository of film articles that I generally keep an eye on, so take your pick. An upcoming film article might be best, since the information is more focused on production news and not reception (box office performance, reviews, etc).  It's up to you, though.  Do you have any genre preferences?  I can throw some titles at you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

XM8 original research removed again
See WP:NOR. Unless you can provide WP:RS that addresses the weaponry and the film, we can't add it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I am not understanding your reasoning, Viri. There was a citation (an interview, I think) where they discussed it, but someone wanted a citation regarding the weapon, so I provided that. Drawing attention to the fact that the weapon in the film resembles a real weapon does not constitute OR. Perhaps you can explain what the issue is here.Arcayne 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any reliable source regarding the film and the weapon. If there is one, cite it, and the issue will be close to resolved.  What you call "drawing attention" is most definitely OR if a RS doesn't do it first.  I could easily write 75,000 words drawing your attention to fictional images in the film that resemble real images. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will also find a better source early this next week. Please leave the statement be for a bit, Viri, and afford me the opportunity to check a few more places for citation. I am sure I can find something; if I can't find anything by say, Teusday or Wednesday, I will pull the statement and picture myself.Arcayne 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your polite response and admire your tenacity, but remember, this trivia point was in the article for some time, and even with a cite request tag, no source was ever found. I hope you find one, but I feel we must be rigorous in weeding the good from the bad, and this unsourced content has already been in the article for too long.  It is incumbent upon the editor, when asked, to source any material they add, and this process has aready occurred.  Please leave the content out of the article until you find a good source.  Thanks.  I also want to say, that I've followed your comments in this regard, and I personally believe you are correct, as you seem to have experience with weapons.  Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Other citations needed
The following has been sitting in the article for about 2 weeks without citation:

"Because the US release of the film was 4 months after the international release, film makers decided to keep the use of CGI a secret until after the film had played in the US."

Since no one has addressed this, it should probably get cut. Two weeks without fixing a citation is long enough to wait, I think. Anyone else have feelings about this?

Also, a newbie just posted a trivia point about the cars. I realize that the first instinct is to simply cut it, but I sent the person a note telling them that they need to cite their sources, and that statements get pulled without it. As it was just put up tonight, and the person is a newbie, I suggest we give them a day or so to find a cite. If nothing happens then, it's gone. Who knows - there might be something out there addressing it. :) Arcayne 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's been there for two weeks, it can probably be removed now. We have the sentence here on the talk page, so if someone recalls a citation or something, it can be restored with the reference.  In regard to the trivia point about cars, I think there was some kind of mention in one of the citations I listed above about the director talking about the look of technology in the film, including cars, since innovative technology stopped coming out years before the film's timeline. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe let the new user know, since I am not sure if they are awre how the discussion page works as of yet (although I mentioned it.)Arcayne 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You left an appropriate message with the user. Hopefully he/she will be able to find the citation for the trivia point.  Here's what I found, though:
 * "London is such a fantastic city that it's easy to get carried away by landmarks and beauty. I wanted to show a London that you could recognise. The pain of the design was making London look like today, but also to make people believe that it's 2027. For instance, the cars had to look like cars you see today. But if you focus on them closely, you think: yes, it could be 2027."
 * Cuaron said that while the film was futuristic, he deliberately planted the images firmly in 2006. "I wanted to do a film that was about today," explains the director, whose previous work includes Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and the acclaimed Y tu Mama Tambien.  The whole idea was to bring the themes and subject matter that is crafting the first part of the 21st Century globally, and bring those subjects to the microcosm of Britain.  We wanted the audiences not to feel alienated from today.  Very early on when we were preparing the film, I went to the art department and said we are going to do a film set in 2027 and they got out all this futuristic stuff.  I said, 'No guys, we are not going to need all of that stuff.' I got photographs from Iraq, Palestine, from Bosnia, from Somalia, from Northern Ireland and said, 'This is the film we are doing.'"
 * Rather, the filmmaker wanted the future to look much like today, just worse — technology, in Cuarón's framing of the movie, stopped evolving in 2014. Besides saving a bundle on set and costume design, the choice meant the movie would seem more realistic, more possible. "We didn't want to be distracted by the future," Cuarón says. "We didn't want to transport the audience into another reality."
 * "On the one hand, how to create a reality that if you are watching and you know that the convention is that the film takes place in the future, how you accept that that is the future without alienating the sense of today. And that was the biggest challenge. How not to create supersonic cars that will transport you emotionally and in terms of your imagination, but to make cars that if you look closely that they feel like today. But if you look closely, you say, ‘Oh, I’ve never seen that car.’ And that was the toughest balance, but it’s not only about the cars, it’s about how far you push the billboards."
 * Just some things I found regarding technology. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we add the citation, adjusting the statement, or does that approach OR? Also noticed the following statement under the Production header:

"...there is some suspicion that this is incorrect. According to unofficial sources, the battle scene was captured in five separate takes over two locations and then seamlessly stitched together in order to give the appearance of a single take.[23]"

The sole citation for this is: ''Bielik, Alain. "Children of Men: Invisible VFX for a Future in Decay" (Registration required), VFXWorld, 2006-12-27. Retrieved on 2007-01-24''. As the link suggests, Registration is required to even verify the source of the statement. Clearly, a better citation is needed from a source that is verifiable. Since citations are turning out to be rather important to this article, it should probably be pulled until a citable, verifiable and reliable source can be found to substantiate the statements.Arcayne 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From my skimming of the articles that address the particular long shot, it seems valid. Might be worth looking into, as I don't see why they would try to cover something like that up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look into it. I verified the link myself. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can provide the quote that implied that it wasn't really a continuous shot? I guess it just seems that with the repeated mention of the long shot in interviews, this would be something fairly important to address. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it appears suspect. I'll look right now and copy it below. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Even more complex was a shot in which the camera follows Theo in the middle of an urban battlefield and inside a building. At one point, in a remarkable cinematic sleight of hand, the camera actually becomes the character's point of view. The shot was captured in five separate takes over two locations. The exterior section of the shot was split into only two takes and the interior split into three. On top of the already demanding transition effects, Double Negative also had to deal with a huge amount of set and action enhancements. Some buildings were painted out, others were extended with extra stories, new structures were added in; hundreds of bullet hits were also composited in, using practical elements."  The article goes into technical detail.  It's a great read. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And in response to adjusting the citation, I think that if the Production section was developed further, we could insert it appropriately and also be a little more broad with the information that the trivia point was presenting and cover technology in general to reflect Cuaron's goal for making the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I will wait for that. However, the link for the statement contesting the continuous shot requires registration. I am sorry, but that doesn't seem to be acceptable. It might be a reliable source, but if it requires membership to view, it isn't readily verifiable, is it?Arcayne 07:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability doesn't mean that you have to be able to click a link and see with your own eyes in 30 seconds whether the information is correct or not. Many articles use print sources or news articles that can't be quickly seen with the click of a URL. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but you don't have to go out and sign up or buy access to print sources to verify their content. It is a bad link; surely one that does not require the user to sign up for a host of junk mail can be found. Because it cannot be accessed - not as a matter of availability but as a matter of specifically limited access - the relevent information is not privy to the rigours of outside confirmation. If I say I have a box with a three-headed rat within, but you must sign up to get my newsletter to see, you might sign up, but the people who can authoritatively verify the authenticity of the aforementioned rat may not. This allows the claim of the three-headed rat to endure outside of authentication by the world at large. The claim that the uncut shot is fake is rather significant and explosive (as Cuaron has stated - through RS - that it is in fact one uninterrupted shot); we should have a source that is easily verifiable. Surely, a news story like that can be found somewhere - I am sure there is at least one other online source that can be found to support the allegation. I am not going to undo the reinstatement, but unless a better source can be found, it should be removed.Arcayne 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the link's been replaced with something more accessible. However, it is not always realistic to have accessible links all the time -- not all print sources are readily available at your local Borders, and there will be news articles that publishers protect with subscription fees. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuous shot dispute
I found the article through Google and was able to access it without registration. (See article.) I'll try to cross-reference the citation with what Cuaron has said in the interviews. I will also replace the citation in the article with apparently this accessible one. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. :)Arcayne 07:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find where Cuaron said that it was an uninterrupted shot? Maybe he was misunderstood, 'cause the VFXWorld article is extremely detailed about these shots, definitely not a disputable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Waste Land theme
The information about The Waste Land is integral to the theme section, not the plot. Furthermore, we do not add interpretations like "repeated three times is often a prayer in the Hindu religion, which features prominently in the movie" to the plot section. Clearly, that goes in the religious theme section. Also, I doubt it is accurate to state that the Hindu religion "features prominently" in the film, when there are just as many references to Christianity (Nativity story), Taoism (I Ching book, Jasper's lecture on fate and chance), Buddhism (jewel chant), Islam (takbir, uprising etc...), and of course, world mythology. The theme of the Waste Land belongs in the theme section. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I can see that it fits the theme better, but it should be noted at the conclusion of the synopsis that the words appear. Doing so allows for the exploration (cited of course) of what it means in the Themes header
 * I don't see the Nativity thing at all, Viri, except as the joke that was shared in the film between Kee and Theo in the barn. There is no virgin birth, but it is miraculous; perhaps that is what you are referring to. Frankly, it would be more convincing to reference Jurassic Park than Christianity (ie, the 'Nature finds a way to explain the spontaneous' pregnancies of the cloned dinosaurs). I consider it prominent in that the hindi chanting and viewpoint came up consistently with many of the Fishes (including Miriam), and the chanting occurred at least 4 times (two more than the Strawberry Cough references). I think 'prominent' is observational, and not subjective here.Arcayne 07:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Nativity theme is referenced by the director himself and multiple critics, and the statement about Hinduism is just plain wrong. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could be so good as to point out how the statement "about Hnduism (sic) is just plain wrong", I would appreciate it. While the nativity theme migh have been mentioned by the director, it didn't really show up that much in the resulting film. Of course, you may disagree, and I would expect that you could provide citable examples of such.Arcayne 08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement about Hinduism as it wasn't even sourced. I encourage you to do some research (use the links Erik supplied as a start) and add it to the theme section.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the information, as it is important to retain in the article. I realize you are interested in trimming the article down, but I think it is important not to do that at the detriment of the article itself. If you are going to remove an important part, arguing that it belongs elsewhere, you should put it there yourself; you removed it because you felt it belonged somewhere else for a reason - you should use that reasoning to put it in that place. If you are finding it hard to do so, maybe you should take a step back for a little while. You seem to be making edits without bothing to consult people, and when asked for reasons, you are not taking the time to explain them properly, if at all.Arcayne 15:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A question about themes, especially in relation to production... I noticed in a lot of interviews that the director applied so-and-so ideologies to the filmmaking process, so it seems that the line between production and theme is blurred. How can both remain separate?  Should the Production section be solely based on technical detail, like when they filmed, where they filmed, and the techniques used? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Theme is essentially meaning, and when the director talks about cross-referencing images in the theme section, he is talking about the thematic narrative. The technical aspects of producing the shots behind the narrative are most often concerned with process, and hence production.  I suppose you could look at thematic development as production, but in the context of film, we are talking about the actual nuts and bolts. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. It would appear that theme should be the area where what the director intended intangibly, like mood or cinematographically (is that even a word?). Production should be the area where the specific physical changes were wrought to enhance the vision that the director had, like trash on the streets, car interiors...or even slightly futuristic weaponry. ;)
 * I think it is clear that Theme precede Production, though; perhaps one after the other without intervening headers. this maintains the flow from thought to action.Arcayne 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bignole, for correcting my muck-up of the references. I will remember to use that '/' at the end of the reference scripting bookend.Arcayne 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Novel

 * Book compared with film

Film
&mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Small dog in coffee shop (intro)
 * Immigrants rounded up and caged like animals
 * Jasper (wise old medicine man of the forest) and his dog, Malatesta (anarchist Errico Malatesta)
 * Police dogs
 * Refusal of the call to adventure: Luke puts an index card into Theo’s pocket: "LOST DOG, Black & White Shelty, answers to Scottie." (script)
 * London Mall: People walking dogs, women riding ponies, lady strolls with a chimp. (script) Zoo animals are exotic pets for some (Hyde Park)
 * Two Irish Wolfhounds guarding Art Ark. Pink Floyd's inflatable pig fies over Battersea.  Nigel's son, Alex (an Omega) is "domesticated against his will." (script)
 * Dog racing track. Theo's dog  wins (chance)
 * Fishes choose their new leader on a farm (Animal Farm)
 * Threshold: Theo steps into barn where Kee is surrounded by cows, revealing her pregnancy. (script)
 * Animals seem to "trust" Theo instinctively (kitten crawls on his leg, fugee member of the Fishes remarks about his dog liking Theo)
 * Alusion to religious figures like Buddha, Moses
 * Jasper gives Theo the password for Syd's assisance:"You're a fascist pig"
 * Jasper's cat and rats
 * Dead cattle, burned in fields, dead dogs lying in dirty ditch (disease?)
 * Maritchka (old crone) and her dog, Santo
 * Deer living in abandoned school
 * Bexhill internment camp entrance resembles cattle being led to slaughter
 * Underworld


 * There wasn't anyone walking a chimp in the film. I guess the script has yet another inaccuracy. I guess I am not seeing the point of adding a header for animals, unless it is a theme that has been figured out by a reviewer. While I agree that there are allusions to the interesting parts of the animals seeming to like Theo, OR regarding some of the other stuff listed above is a real stretch. Drawing comparisons to an animal theme from someone calling someone else a fascist pig is a bit like calling someone a mofo, and considering it a relevant thematic point for discussing mothers. Let's stick to work that we can cite, and avoid the OR.Arcayne 12:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a list of themes from the script and film, and doesn't appear in the main article but on talk, and serves as development for the animal theme content, which will eventually be sourced.  It's not "inaccurate" in any way  to attribute the chimp bit to the "script", which is exactly what I did.  If this informal list bothers you, please ignore it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "What is it about that scene that made you want to reference Pink Floyd there?"
 * "It’s the whole creative process, which from the script it was suggested that the location was going to be Battersea Station, which was a reference to the Tate Modern. When we decided it was going to be Battersea, when we were writing the script we were listening to King Crimson, the music we were going to play there. The thing is when we were framing Battersea Station, I looked at the frame and I said, ‘Wait a minute, something is wrong. Something is missing.’ And what was missing was the pig! That’s when we decided to add the pig to the whole thing." Not very insightful, but that's what I recall coming across. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, none of that addresses how the scene in the Ark or Arts matched the album cover almost perfectly. Why was the original material (with citations) removed for something that aludes to the set dressing even less?
 * As well, it appears that the bit about Shantih was removed from the plot synopsis was removed without reinstatement in themes. It belongs in the article.Arcayne 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The album art for the Pink Floyd album Animals is clearly referenced in the "Ark of Arts" scene. The building housing the depository is Battersea Power Station, the same factory pictured on the cover, and an inflatable pig is visible outside the window of the dining room. "
 * What was the source that refereced CoM and the Wastelands?
 * Please identify yourself.Arcayne 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Loathe as I am to respond to anonymous posts, I will answer your concerns in good faith. The citations connecting the TS Eliot poem with CoM are all over the place, and it was a simple matter to separate the blogs from the reviews (okay, sometimes not so simple ;) ) The citations have been put in place, and because someone has helped me fix them, you can now see the citations. If you have issue with them, let's talk about them here, or to my talk page.
 * And while you or I (or any Pink Floyd fan) will know that the album cover of Animals was the basis for the set dressing in the Ark of Arts scene, not many other people do (their last studio album was made before the current generation was likely born). Since it was in fact Cuaron's intention to replicate a piece of art (ie, the album cover), as he had stated in more than one interview, then it quite simply belongs as something both noteworthy and interesting, wiki-ly speaking. Speaking personally, the re-creation alone is worth the price of a ticket, as recreating any sort of art in a real-life setting without CGI is pretty awe-inspiring. It cannot have been at all easy to accomplish.Arcayne 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to yourself? You added "What was the source that refereced [sic] CoM and the Wastelands?"  See diff here.  If you're trying to address the anonymous IP who made this edit, his/her history reflects nearly no edits and no talk page usage.  He/she probably doesn't know how that you're trying to address him/her on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not see that. I thought I was talking to Big, and he was giving us a break from his trippy, Stanford-lovin' sig line. :) Do you think it was a sock-puppet, or just an anon user posting a question?Arcayne 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia header needs to be put back in place, because the subject of the Pink Floyd Animals cover re-creation is an important piece of the article. Perhaps whoever removed it could rewrite it under another header. Until we have a place to put it, though, the part should remain active in the article.Arcayne 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, you mentioned a couple of links that referred to the recreation of the Animals album cover, as well as an interview where Cuaron was discussing the changing of auto interiors so as to add the slightly futuristic feel to current objects. I cannot recall where they were, but they would serve to cite the trivia points. I expect that they can be integrated into the other headers relatively soon, once we decide where they should go. I put the trivia back up, because both points are still noteworthy and interesting, and should remain active until we are able to integrate them elsewhereArcayne 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bignole and I have integrated the sentences into the article. The trivia point about cars can be cited by using one of those that I mentioned above.  Hope this eliminates the need to restore the trivia section now. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken the trivia point about futuristic cars and developed it to reflect the technological approach the director took for the film. It's under Production; check it out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned before, I know understand what you are aiming at by removing Trivia sections, but I think it important not to simply remove trivia without effectively integrating it elsewhere. I don't see where the auto thing was addressed in production, and it bears mentioning as one of the little things, like Theo's sweatshirt that references the London Olympics, etc. My point is, if you cut from one place with the intent tointegrate elsewhere, the integration needs to happen, too.Arcayne 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also moved the "Shantih" reference to the end of Themes, using one reference for the sake of conciseness. It was moved because the information is an interpretation of the film, which doesn't belong in the straightforward description of the plot.  The source text does not need to be linked to for verifiability purposes; if readers are interested in reading the poem, they can go to the Wikipedia article for The Waste Land, then go to Wikisource from there. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the changes, and they seem okay (did you remove a citation or two from the Shantih statements?) I understand that WP is not a collection of links; that said, I think that a link to the original poem from a RS is appropriate, as opposed to the article on the subject, since Cuaron likely referred to the original poem and not the wiki article while crafting the film. The car thing is actually quite nicely done, though, albeit short.Arcayne 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no point in linking to the original poem. All that's needed is the intermediary citation that makes the connection between the two, and the reader can explore The Waste Land to determine the relevance, at least until there's further emphasis of the connection down the run. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will concede the point, due to your greater experience in this matter. WP is not a collection of links, after all.Arcayne 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Further edits
The shantih part is not just thematic, but also - as Viri himself described it, part of the nuts and bolts. It wasn't an implied idea in the movie, it is actually IN the movie. It was on the actual reel, so it bears mentioning in the plot synopsis. To further explain WHY it was in the movie bears upon the thematic choices made. Please present opposing viewpoints here before reverting.Arcayne 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With your logic, we should mention what credits appear at the beginning and the end of the film, as well as the studio showcase clips. The words "Shantih Shantih Shantih" shows after the credits roll, meaning that the story is past, and the director is leaving a parting message in the thematic sense.  It's also suitable for just the Themes section, because it's an "educated" observation/interpretation, not a conventional film description. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am not sure i am in agreement with you here, Erik. You suggest that the director is leaving a parting message in the thrice Shantih message, independent of the movie itself and after the story is concluded. I submit that in numerous other movies, the same method for adding a final bit to the movie is used, be they additional scenes or simply text. For example, the film Young Sherlock Holmes runs the credits whilst a scene plays out in the background, resulting in a twist ending. In CoM, the children's laughter continues all through the credits, through the theme music until the shantih. If your issue is with the non-visual scene (ie, simply text), I would argue that there are an abundance of occurrences where text after or during the credits adds to the story presented by the movie itself. The Indiana Jones series as well as the Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens series all use text in this way effectively. Event he cult classic Buckaroo Banzai does this, albeit less effectively. It is significantly different than stating that the cast and crew credits is also part of the story, because they are part of the production, and not the story. Shymalan adds a bit of his own messages to his films, as did Hitchcock, and both contain these messages as part of the story. Shantih is not a cast or crew reference, but a bit of the story, like, The End (or in the case of some movies, "The End?".)
 * So, the idea of quoting a Hindi prayer of Shantih (repeated in the film at least twice, setting up a recurrent theme) not only places it as part of the story, but as part of the theme as well. Nuts and bolts as well as a reasoning for the nuts and bolts. This is my postion in this matter, and I am a little disappointed that while you are not the only one making edits and reverts, you are the only one bothering to discuss the matter. We don't think that is necessarily civil, do we? Arcayne 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No one's saying there aren't screen gems that come up at the end. However, the "Shantih" mention has no direct relation to the plot -- it's tied to it in a thematic sense.  In the cut-and-dry sense of explaining the plot, this detail is minor.  However, when in Themes, the reference has a life of its own through the observations and interpretations of the director, reviewers, whoever else. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I think I disagree with your assumption, Erik. If, at the end of the film the words, "smoke more pot" or "down with Whitey" appeared, they would be considered jarring, and out of context for the film that preceded it, although thematically correct. That this film uses a phrase repeated often in the story, and reiterated at the conclusion of that movie implies more than a simple thematic device.
 * In a very simple sense, it should be noted in the plot synopsis because it is an objective (as opposed to subjective or interpretive) part of the film. That the words appear is not a matter for interpretation, as a theme would be. A person going to a movie would view the movie and objectively watch the plot proceed apace until the end. Usually, that is when the credits roll. However, in this film, as in others mentioned earlier, the story continues. As it is part of the objective (and not subjective) experience, it belongs in the plot synopsis. I am presuming you obtained the term 'plot synopsis' from a template?Arcayne 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-inserted it per consideration of other films that don't have a clear-cut ending, like the procession in Schindler's List. I would save the thematic interpretation for the Themes section, though, and it's also not necessary to say, "As mentioned before", which is just casual writing. Sections should be as independent of each other as possible, without needing to look one place or another. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration (ooh, Schindler's List is another one...).Arcayne 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I diagree with adding it back in based on that example, as the plot section in that article is already tagged as too long. I also question whether the continuity is similar, and whether this sets a dangerous precedent to include outtakes, dedications, and even DVD extras in the plot section.   As far as I can tell, the director is paying homage to Eliot, and that occurs after the film has already concluded.  The plot section should stick with the plot, not thematic homage. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the thematic nature of the detail makes for a slippery slope. I wouldn't include a dedication mention at the end of the film, but I would include the "final" final scene such as the one from X-Men: The Last Stand, as it is relevant to the plot.  This seems more of a message to the audience than a bunch of blooper clips at the end, so the relevance is a little stronger there.  Additionally, I've aimed for brevity, which is better than a detailed explanation of something that's not a major plot point. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain the 'plot tag' as beign too long? I know the article was long, but successive edits have dramatically improved that, haven't they? If the tag is placed by someone evaluating the length of an article, perhaps it can be reevaluated for length. After all, basing edits primarily on length and secondarily on completeness seems to be defeating the purpose. I agree with Erik that the shantih at the end of the movie is indeed relevent to the plot (as well as being an objective part of it). A blooper reel or DVD extras is a separate category, as it is not actually part of the story (bloopers or deleted scenes are apart of production, as are Making Of DVD extras).Arcayne 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Erik said that. Thematic homage to Eliot isn't relevant to plot, but to theme.  The use of this allusion after the credits have rolled is the very definition of theme, in this case, a recurring idea that pervades the film.  Plot, on the other hand, refers to the consequences of the story, and is held together by structure, but conveyed through character, purpose, opposition, and conclusion.  The statement that the director makes after the film has concluded, which is a reference to Eliot's Waste Land, is pure theme.  While it is true that the theme also emerges from the characters using subplots, we don't use the plot section for making an explicit interpretation of theme. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But we aren't arguing that the shantih's connection to Eliot's Wastelands isn't thematic. We are saying that the inclusion of the words at the conclusion of the story are - as you put it - a nuts and bolts part of the movie. It was not an unspoken component of the movie, as theme almost always is. The shantih is subjective, and as far as the viewers in the theater interpret those last three words of the story (or whether Theo is alive or dead in the boat), is thematic.
 * The audience, after watching this stirring last part of the movie, along with the soundtrack of music and children laughing and playing is probably not mulling over the director's affection with Eliot until later. It is almost certainly not what they are taking with them as they leave the theater. A lot of them are tying the entire movie together with these last three words of the story, and deriving their own subjective evaluation of the last words. From this a theme (that you will recall having said was not a theme at all) develops and ties together with the others to become more than the dialogue. This movie is not a two-dimensional event that simply ends as the scene fades to black with Kee waiting in a small rowboat for the unsmiling faces aboard the Tomorrow to rescue her and her child.
 * But - and this is the distinguishing point for me - the difference between these last few words of the movie and the themes that have either been identified or alluded to (Theo's Campbellian mythic journey, the dytopia, the depression, etc.) is quite simple. None of the themes in the movie are stated. There is no part of the film where we see folk tearing at their hair and crying out, 'oh, the dystopic futility of it all' or whatever; yet, the dystopic elements are still in place without having been said. The prayer for a peace is actually spoken, and the words were strong enough to be all by themselves at the very end of the movie. Were it a theme alone, it would have been present throughout the movie. it is the last line of the movie, and yet these last words serve to focus on the theme it presents retroactively.
 * Hoo, how I do go on. :) Arcayne 05:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nuts and bolts" refers to production not theme. If you've ever been to a movie theatre or watched a film on DVD with a group of people, then you would know that most viewers, contrary to what you claim, are not watching or thinking about the "shantih" after the credits roll, because the movie for them is over and they never saw it.  Your speculations do not hold up to any scrutiny. The thematic homage to shantih  does not belong in the plot section, because it has nothing to do with plot. The allusion to the Waste Land is stated after the film has finished, not before.  This couldn't be more obvious.  Show me a featured film article that mentions post-credit content. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the most appropriate challenge to make, as it's not commonplace for films to end that way, especially with the limited number of film articles with Featured Article status. I did find, though, that November (FA-class, BTW) had a director's interpretation of the film at the end of the Plot section. I don't think that "Shantih Shantih Shantih" would be contested if we did reach the stage of becoming a candidate for FA status. (If it did, we could move the reference to the second point and delete the final sentence in the Plot section.) What I suggest now, if this is really still a pressing concern, is getting some independent opinions from those who have worked on FA-class film articles, such as The Filmaker or Hal Raglan. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the page history, I can't tell if the director's interpretation was added before or after it became FA. It might work in the plot synopsis of that film or not: It's official and addresses the synopsis of the film directly, and is not a thematic homage that occurs after the credits have rolled.    However, the interpretation added to the synopsis of this film is unofficial, and  sourced to a webzine that is barely RS, and I haven't seen a single reliable source menton the post-credit reference in a synopsis of this film.  So, at present, we have an unofficial source commenting on the thematic homage that appears after the film has concluded in the current synopsis section.  When we are talking about plot and synopsis, we aren't talking about a thematic teaser added after the credits roll, and if we are, I would like to see a RS that makes reference to this teaser in the synopsis.  There isn't one. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I take back the November argument -- I went to its talk page, and they had the old version of it, which lacks the outside-of-the-plot detail. Also, I'm wondering (as I haven't seen the film), does the "Shantih Shantih Shantih" phrase actually appear at the end of the credits?  I was re-reviewing the RevolutionSF citation, and it mentioned the "repeated lines" of "Shantih! Shantih! Shantih!", which doesn't sound like it was in an end-of-credits context.  This citation says, "The context-less chant of 'Shantih, Shantih, Shantih' is the best the film can do in the way of a response to the alienated state of mankind."  Again, do the words really appear at the end of the film? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out to dinner...
 * I did in fact see the last line right after the credits after the movie the first time (quite by accident, as I was wanting to see the counties of England it was filmed in - I used to live in some parts that seemed familar). The words appear by themselves, white text on black background: ""Shantih Shantih Shantih", no italicization or punctuation whatsoever, and in larger type than any of the credits. In the film, people were chanting those words, most notably by Miriam and Kee.
 * I think you misinterpreted what I said. I consider the shantih's to be a part of the movie (ie, part of the story and in the movie) and not like outtakes or blooper reels or whatever. Is that what you were thinking? I am sorry if it had been unclear.
 * One of the things that ties the shantih at the end to the story is that the sounds of children's laughter and playing is heard while the credits roll (and while end title music plays). After the title music ends, close to the end of the credits, the children sounds are still heard, which fade at the same time the shantih fades. then there are 4 more seconds of silence until the film flickers the way it does before the lights go up.Arcayne 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the plot section, along with the reference to children laughing, both of which are considered non-diegetic. The reference to shantih already appears in the theme section, and could possibly be expanded to include the reference to children laughing. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Two last points; the first is that shantih apparently means the same in not just Hindi but Sanskrit as well. As Sanskrit is the base for the Hindi language, might it be more appropriate to change to word from Hindi to Sanskrit? Another thing that occurred to me (after reading Viri's exposition of Theo's hero saga) is that all the animals in the film seemed drawn to Theo. Did that pop up in any of the interviews?Arcayne 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that only one of the two citations addressed "shantih" as Hindi, I'd probably say no. It would be OR for us to interpret the meaning on our own.  Also, I'm sure Viri's on the lookout for more thematic approaches.  This is a heck of a lot more thematic film than I initially thought it was. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of these things are hidden in plain sight throughout the film. I can list dozens.   For example, Kee is really Ki, or Ninhursag, the Sumerian goddess of the Earth, whose female child renews the wasteland.  Of course, not a single critic has picked up on this. Basically, you have an art film pretending to be a manstream movie. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I am not seeing the same things you are, Viri. I don't see the Sumerian mythotic undertones of the film, anymore than I subscribe to your shifted explanation that the Shantih is now a diegetic source. After having read the article you supplied, I didn't find a definition of diegetic content that serves to either explain or dismiss the presence at the end of the story for the shantih. It is in the movie. It is part of the plot. It isn't really all that ephemeral a concept to grasp. Perhaps you might want to step back from the article for a bit, and gain a bit of perspective.Arcayne 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment to Erik regarding the symbolic nature of Kee is supported by the mythic structure of the hero's journey in the form of a symbol. That observation has nothing to do with your repeated addition of non-narrative information to the plot section, which by the way, the edit history shows was added as original research to suppot an interpretation of the conclusion.  I'm sorry, but the plot section is not used or this purpose.  Some of the information removed from the plot section already appears in the theme section, and more can be added to it.  Non-narrative interpretations are not appropriate. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons sound
This is in the Production section: "Children of Men is the first major motion picture known to legally use a Creative Commons-licensed sample from Freesound in its production. In the credits, the film attributes user thanvannispen for the use of "male_Thijs_loud_scream.aiff". " Is this really something notable to include? It feels kind of tacked on and marketed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes, it is notable, as the site claims this is the first major film to use cc-licensed sample with user attribution. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Viri here.Arcayne 05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep it, but I'm going to work the embedded links out of the article and keep it to wiki-links and the reference tag. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Images
I'd like to suggest a couple of images for the article:
 * to reflect the hostility of the film's universe
 * to indicate the Animals reference visually
 * Thoughts? Any other images that could be used? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All are pretty okay to me. I presume bc they are from Yahoo that they are free to use, right?Arcayne 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These are production stills that were released for promotional purposes, so we can use them here as long as it significantly contributes to the content (with fair use rationale written in for the images). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right on then.Arcayne 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: the Animals reference is to Orwellian totalitarianism more than hostility, and the film's "universe" is essentially that of the wasteland (mythology) which the hero attempts to redeem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm having second thoughts on the Animals reference unless we can develop on that particular reference further -- it's only a sentence, not really significant content for inserting a fair use image. Viri, you were talking about how the shot of Owen and Moore walking through the tunnel was symbolic -- is there any citation of this that appears (or could appear) in the Themes section, and have this tunnel image alongside it?  Then the shot of the opening terrorist attack could set the path of the Plot section with the act of violence. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The terrorist attack is really inconsequential, however it does introduce us to Theo's world. Its role is to disturb or wake the hero up out of his self-absorbed life and get him back on track. The image of Owen and Moore is extremely important, as it represents the end of Act I and the "crossing of the threshold" of the hero into Act II, where the hero has accepted the call to adventure.  Citations are still pretty hard to find, but I did find a few hero's journey refs that I will be adding to the theme section later today.  Again, I think the Owen and Moore image should stay in the article somewhere.  I admit, the image of Owen leaning forward with his cup of joe while a bomb is exploding behind him would work in order to introduce the setting. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Shantih
Might I ask why the Shantih reference was removed yet again from the plot synopsis? I ask because I I would prefer to discuss this than simply rv the change.Arcayne 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Prior to your comment, a descriptive edit summary was provided and a comment was placed on talk in the appropriate section explaining why it was removed. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read the reasoning Viri provided for the edits, and rm the reference to the credits sequence. As the Shantih and the sounds of children laughing and playing is part of the story as well, it is inappropriate to move it. One of the parts of an FA article is the lack of editorial change occurring within the article; implying that consensus is achieved with the majority of contributors. As I would happen to be one of those contributors, I am seeking consensus, but this part of the plot is necessary, and would prefer to have it preserved.Arcayne 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not part of the story, and does not appear in the official script released by Universal. Furthermore, it is your interpretation of events that you keep trying to add, and an innacurate one regarding the fade to black.  This thematic interpretaton of sound and titles belongs in the theme section. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is probably going to go on, I'm going to fetch a couple of independent opinions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would helpful if reverts to the statements in dispute be left alone until the independents weigh in. It otherwise comes across as attempting to incite an edit war, which we don't think is in the best interest of the article.Arcayne 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or we could leave the statements in dispute out of it. :) Could go either way.  Do whatever either of you want -- revert, report each other, call each other trolls... I'm done with this stalemate for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most telling is the history of this content in the plot section. Arcayne (and possibly others) originally used it to convey original research regarding the fate of the world at the end. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

KEE (cont'd) Theo... Theo... Theo... Kee looks at Theo. He’s slumped over, dead. The launch drifting. No direction. Drifting... Drifting... Kee is still, silent... The baby begins to CRY... A light flickers, piercing the fog -- Kee looks up -- KEE (cont’d) Theo, the boat. The boat. The Tomorrow. (to baby) Shhh, it's OK. Kee begins to sing a lullaby to the baby. KEE (cont’d) They are here now. The fog gives way, revealing purple sky... Cutting through the water toward them, A LIGHT, A BOAT. The wooden vessel approaching, nets and gear -- A FISHING BOAT. The name painted on the stern. “THE TOMORROW.” FADE OUT

Could you perhaps find a posting of mine where I suggested that the statements were about the 'end of the world'? I do not recall ever having conveyed that this content regarded the "fate of the world", or original research regarding that anywhere in the article, but then, this matter has been going back and forth for a bit. As well, could you please source the authoritative source for the script? Even then, I am still unsure as to how this excerpt from a version of the script would somehow prove that the shantih is not part of the story. While I do not work in Hollywood, I imagine that scripts are very much like the action plans used in both the military and disaster management (though it would be OR to state that - lol) there is always something to add that was forgotten in the initial or even secondary planning.Arcayne 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page history shows that the material was original research used to speculate about the fate of humanity. When the fleshy substance of that OR interpretation was removed, the skeleton was left behind.  As it stands, you are attempting to argue that the audio in the credits and the title at the end of the credits is still relevant to this faulty conclusion.  Perhaps you don't see how silly this looks.  Neither the audio or the title has any direct bearing on the plot structure, but merely serves as a thematic apertif. Those who choose to think the laughter of children in the credts is relevant to the plot, which has now all but concuded, are welcome to think so, and are perhaps encouraged by the haunting silence of children's voices in the school scene.  Some may even think that we are being given notice that the Human Project was a success, even while the credits roll, while others see the audio as merely a pleasant reminder of what was missing, and still others may interpret it as a studio add-on, perhaps to avoid alienating audience members who have just experienced a trip through hell.  And we can also speculate that the reference to the Waste Land at the end of the film is entirely deliberate, in case anyone missed the clues sprinkled in every scene.  Nevertheless, the plot synopsis doesn't cover non-narrative, thematic homage and sound clips that occur after the film has concluded. You are of course, free to expand the theme section. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Disengage
Viriditas, Arcayne, you both need to think about disengaging for a bit. This constant reverting (which borders, if it hasn't already past, violation of the 3RR) is leading to nothing. Edit warring can result in blocks for both parties, and I'd rather not see that (as I'm sure neither of you would). I don't know if Erik has contacted a third party yet (I saw he mentioned it on a talk page), but one should be brought in. This war has gone on long enough, and it is reflecting poorly on both editors. Please take a break from this issue, until heads can cool, and allow some outside editors to come in and reflect on the issue. Thank you.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am all for allowing the matter to rest until the outside editors have had a chance to take a look at it. I am only preserving the article's content in question until it has had the opportunity to be evaluated. I am not the one removing the content to be evaluated and avoiding finding the middle ground.Arcayne 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page history of the article will preserve your changes. Any revision can be re-visited.  There's nothing in the rulebook that says content should stay or go before an evaluation is done.  Please tell me it's just a coincidence that "preserving" it would be in your favor. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are asking me if I think the part should stay, then the answer is yes. As well, yes, the outside eval you asked for is likely quite busy, and is going to evaluate the article based on what they see, and not spending all the time poring over the versions. I say leave the contested statements in, and allow the independent reviewers to make up their own minds regarding the statements, and not from prior-version statements that have been removed. It is just as easy for them to look back over versions that do not have the statements in question as well.Arcayne 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The non-narrative thematic interpretations that you added back into the article were part of the vestigial remains of original research that had also been previously removed. They are not found in the official script released to the Academy (link above) and may be referenced in thematic analyses of the film by reviewers, as well as in the theme section of this article, where some of the information has been preserved and could be easily expanded. They are, however, not part of the plot. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to preserve civility, but you are testing that restraint. Are you aware of the definition of the word disengage or not? You argue points that have already been considered and rejected. You have been asked to leave the comments alone until independent folk could evaluate whether they belong or not, and you have failed to do so. As you are fond of blanking comments you do not agree with on your talk page, perhaps all of this is a strong indication that you need to sit down and show a little patience, please.Arcayne 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please directly address my points on the article talk page and refrain from commenting about editors. What supporting evidence do you offer for including a non-narrative, thematic interpretation (hosted by a barely RS) in a section about plot, when the official script released by the studio does not include it, and when we have separate sections for discussing theme (including symbols and motifs) and sound? The audio that appears at the start of the credits does indeed sound like children laughing and playing, but that is not up to us to decide, and originally, you and/or others used this material to speculate about the conclusion of the film.  Several mundane explanations can be offered for that audio, none of which reflects directly upon the structure of the plot or its conclusion.  Likewise, the allusion to Eliot with the use of titles at the end of the credits is described in the appropriate theme section.  You say you have countered these points, but I don't see it.  Perhaps you could summarize them for me in a brief reply.  Thanks for your patience. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you decided not to take the opportunity to disengage for a while. I believe that were Cuaron actually posting comments here himself on the nature of the Shantih inclusion, you would simply disrupt that process as well. I am not going to revisit reasons you are well aware of and have been provided before; I am sure you have the ability to search them out to remind yourself and – to coin a phrase – I am not here to hold your hand. However, for the sake of my fellow ‘pedians, I will reiterate my points for them.

I disagree with your assertions that the Shantih Shantih Shantih at the end of the film are “non-narrative, thematic interpretations” (and I think it fair to expect you to cite referential material to support that claim, if you can). I have stated on several occasions that it is part of the story, and is part of the plot as final piece of the story, tied together by the sounds of children playing and laughter. These sounds continue in the background, while the music plays, while the credits run their course. The sounds stop after the Shantih is displayed.

Indeed, the “official script” you finally cited makes no mention of the Shantih prayer at the end of the movie, nor to the sounds of laughter and playing at the end, nor to the looks on the faces of the people on the ship. In fact, there isn’t a mention of anyone on the ship at all in the script. Now granted, it could just simply a typo or an oversight. We’ll address that thought in a moment.

Let’s take a good look at this supposedly “official” script. In this case, I am interpreting official to mean that if it isn’t in the script, it isn’t in the movie. That quality is what makes it worth citing. If there are discrepancies, it throws the entire source into dispute.

Simply from a quick read, it is apparent that there are a number of discrepancies between the so-called “official” script and the movie. Here are just a few excerpted from the downloadable script that Viriditas repeatedly cites:


 * (pg2, Scene2): “KA-BOOM! A BOMB EXPLODES inside the cafe, blowing out the windows, shaking the ground. Theo’s knocked off his feet.”

(actually, Theo keeps his footing in the actual movie, unless the picture displayed in this article is in fact a forgery)


 * (pg4, Scene3): "Omitted"

(I guess some things don’t actually get released even in an “official” script Scenes 7.8.9 and 10 and others are similarly omitted)

It goes on much like this for all 102 pages, with dialogue in the script that wasn’t in the film, and actions in the movie that weren’t in the script. This is not to say that the script doesn’t follow the movie at all. It does, for the most part, and ‘for the most part’ is not good enough when citing something as a source.

The only way in which this cited script is official is that Universal Pictures officially released it. It is not complete by any definition of the word. There are too many gaps in it to be considered reliable. There were people on the boat, as Theo was seen keeping on his feet after the café explosion, and the thrice-repeated words Shantih and the laughter of children were a physical part of the movie. All of which were omitted, or missed in the doubtfully official version

Simply put, the Shantih is part of the plot because it occurs during the sustained past of the film, tied to it by the sounds of children laughing and playing throughout the credits and musical accompaniment. It is stated, like dialogue or graffiti on a wall, and not purely thematic (like the presence of pets, or the fact that Theo never touches a gun). That the Shantih is also thematic is not disputed. However, it is a part of the plot as well.

I am not going to spend more than a moment to address the rather silly claim that the sound of children laughing may not even be that, and is not up for us to decide, because if that were true, then nothing we can observe throughout the entire movie is up to us to interpret, and a plot synopsis itself in an invalid concept. Nor am I going to address the prior claims that the sounds or the words were diegetic in nature, as it simply doesn’t meet the definition of such.

And I think it would be unfair to address the claims that the laughter and sounds of children does not “reflect directly upon the structure of the plot or its conclusion” - in a movie about a possible future without children at all. It would be vastly unfair to drive the Choo-Choo Train of Sensibility through the hole in that reasoning.

Lastly it has been suggested that the Shantih shouldn’t be compared to TS Eliot’s poem The Wastelands, because a “barely reliable source” supports it. Perhaps here Viriditas has something of a point; reliable sources are important in Wikipedia. It is why, for example, a so-called “official” movie script cannot be utilized as reliable source material. I am sure that eventually, some reviewer will stumble across the fact that both the poem and the film end with precisely the same words and that, as Cuaron is a Catholic and not a Hindu, and realize he is making the same point that Eliot was, and included it as a major plot point. Alas, until that day, I am not sure we can say it in the article.

However, because it is part of the plot of the movie, the so-called “nuts and bolts” of the movie, comparisons can be drawn between the film’s last line and the Upanishads, where the words are from. We might not even need a reviewer who is familiar with Hindu culture or Sanskrit to reference it.

I would like to suggest that perhaps actually seeing the film once or twice would actually assist some of the odd reverting (and 3RR violations) from occurring. I can understand how addressing the article based solely upon the grammar and structure is helpful, but sometimes, I think it is best for the person writing or contributing to an article has to actually get out and see the movie once or twice. Ultimately, it makes for stronger, more sensible edits.Arcayne 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say that it seems both camps have hunkered down and are unwilling to deter from your stance. Both of you have thrown enough points at each other; I don't think that you two are going to convince each other anytime in the near future.  I have no idea what to suggest, especially over a single sentence.  Just want to remind you that this is Wikipedia -- it's not your life (at least, I hope it's not).  How much of your time do you really want to waste with this issue?  (I'm asking both of you.)  Of course, it'd be nice for one of you to fold, as I'm not really concerned of the outcome either way at this time, but there seems to be too much pride at stake. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, there is a big difference between a script and a film. And, the script makes it clear that the "sounds of children" in the credits is not part of the plot. Your suggestion that it is the "final piece of the story, tied together by the sounds of children playing and laughter" is a wonderful interpretation and should be sourced and expanded in the theme section along with the Waste Land motif. I'm open minded enough to be convinced by what you have to offer, but as far as we know, these elements are not connected to the plot. You need to draw a line between the story world and our interpretation of that world. Obviously, the sound of children laughing in the credits isn't enough to keep it in the story world, and what we assume is a reference to Eliot at the end, is of course a reference to a real poem that exists outside the story world of the film. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a "big" difference between the script and the movie, which is precisely why it cannot be utilized as a reference, Scenes and actions appear in the movie that do not appear in the script, and vice versa. We do not get to pick and choose what elements that appear in the movie but not in the script we wish to denounce. The script is a terrible source, which I am guessing you agree with, as you have never made a point of citing anywhere in the article. Let us agree to stop using it as a defense, as it is at best an incomplete source.
 * Our fundamental difference (aside from editorial approach, that is) here is that we define differently what the plotline of a movie consists of. I think that if we see it on the screen during the watching, it is part of the movie, especially if it is in keeping with the storyline (or, to use your phrase 'storyworld') presented within the traditional borders of the fade-in and fade-out that we are all accustomed to. As the sounds of children playing (that begins as the screen fades from the boat scene and continues until after the Shantih fades) continues the plotline forward, and we actually see words on the screen, it is part of the plot. While you have argued that it is a host of other things - from solely thematic to imaginary or diegetic, anything but plot - it is inescapable that thematic components are, almost by definition, unspoken and in the background. Clearly, the childrens' sounds (which essentially tells us that the world of the movie does see children in numbers again) and the Shantih is nothing like that.
 * In the final analysis, the practical truth here is that people who read the plot synopsis (or simply synopsis, as it has been renamed) are going to wonder why a visible component of the film that they saw in theaters isn't in the synopsis. That its occurrence makes an appearance in themes is appropriate, as it has major thematic connotations. However, it does not remove it as a plot device. I would ask that you consider that your viewpoint may not be shared by the actual viewer of the movie, and consider that viewers might have a right to know all of the movie's contents, and not just what one editor arbitrarily feels should belong.
 * I feel the content belongs, and when it is appropriate to do so, I intend to add it back in, as I feel the average viewer has the right to know everything that was on the screen, and not just what one editor determines doesn't belong in the synopsis of that movie. I ask you to please consider that your viewpoint may be missing the bigger picture, and allow it to remain.Arcayne 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A script is most certainly different than a film, but the synopsis remains the same. The elements you argue for inclusion are not part of the script nor the film, but appear during the credits as an audio sample and a title, both of which exist independently of the narrative. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to understand that I am not unclear as to what you think about this subject. I am simply disagreeing as its merit. Let us dispense entirely with referring to the script again, as it has been shown to have inaccuracies and is therefore unsuitable for citation. If you are going to again shift your argument to insist that the laughter and shantih is now an audio sample and a title, you certainly need to defend that conclusion with citation. The observable fact that the items aforementioned are actually in the movie, and a continuation of the storyworld are inescapable and honest. To deny they exist is silly, as the proof of one's own eyes from viewing the movie clearly shows.Arcayne 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The synopsis of the script has not been shown to be inaccurate in any way, as the synopsis is the same for the film. A script is not a film, and it is the interpretation of the script that the director and actors bring to life.  Your belief that the audio and title homage in the credits are a "continuation of the storyworld" that are "inescapable and honest" is not supported, and merely represents your  interpretation of the story.  The plot synopsis remains free of such interpretations, whereas the theme section remains the perfect place to explore these ideas. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to revisit my earlier comments regarding the discrepancies bwtween te script and the actual film. I am not disagreeing that the synopsis of the article (including the Shantih occurence, of course) is inaccurate. To be clear, I am referring to the so-called "official" script that you have been referring to in previous posts. I would posit that your interpretation that the items do not belong is simply that, your interpretation. As of yet, you have not been able to support that interpretation with citable fact that it is not in fact part of the story, except to suggest that a) the sounds and words did not exist, b) if they did, they must diegetic in nature, and c) they are some allusion by the director to TS Eliot which you also state cannot be supported.
 * I am not saying - and it might be helpful if you acknowledge this - I am not suggesting that the comment doesn't have thematic weight. You seem to think I am disregarding this, somehow. I am not. Without rehashing, the points I think should be included are observable phenomenae in the film, and not unspoken thematic components. As they are such, and because I feel the average user will come to the article and read the synopsis, I feel it is important to include something that occurred as an objective, observable fact (as opposed to something that was implied by a thematic and therefore subjective element). That is the crux of the issue to me, Viriditas. It is an objective, observational part of the film and as such is part of the storyworld. It is not an interpretation. It is not sopposition. It is an observed fact. On a side note, may I ask if you have seen the movie? I am not trying to be rude here; Erik had mentioned that he had not seen the film as of yet. I have mentioned before that seeing the movie might make the editing process that much more manageable.Arcayne 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen the film several times, taken copious notes, and read the script twice. You refuted yourself when you wrote, "thematic components are, almost by definition, unspoken and in the background." And, there are no "discrepancies" between the synopsis of the script and that of the plot. What you describe as "objective, observable fact" does not apply to the synopsis, as it did occur as part of the script, the plot structure, or even in the film itself, but as an audio track during the credits, and as a subtitle at the end of the credits. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see my comments as "refuting myself," Viriditas. The comments I intend on reinserting into the synopsis are neither unspoken nor in the background. As for the discrepancies betweent he so-called "official" script you continue to mention, I have enumerated but a few of the. As you calim to have read the script "twice" and seen the movie "several" times, I guess I am mystified as to why you have not noticed some of the discrepancies yourself. It doesn't matter how many different ways you choose to classify the statements in question; the very fact that you yourself are continually seeking a new increasingly bizarre definition for them (thematic, diegetic, extraneous, non-existent and now just an audio track and subtitle) suggests to me that you yourself are not sure. I would suggest that since you are unable to find a proper definition for these statements, that you allow others to arrive at a cohesive definition. And please, begin citing your differing assertions as to the nature of the statements in question. That seems fair, as you claim to want them removed.Arcayne 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All of my comments regarding your material is consistent and supports itself, and you have decided to attack me instead of supporting your assertions. It is incumbent upon the editor wishing to add controversial or disputed content to support his additions when questioned, which you have failed to do.  You provided a refutation of your own argument by defining the audio and titles as thematic.  One could easily apply the material which appears unspoken and in the background (credits) to the theme in the article:  "Children of Men explores the theme of hope and faith (children laughing, hope for the future, Jasper explains Theo's child was a product of faith) in the face of overwhelming futility and despair (The Waste Land, alluded to by title in the credits)." &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but material doesn't "support itself" in Wikipedia; we hold to a slightly higher standard here. If you have objections, provide empirical evidence in the form of citable references to do so. I do not beleive that is much to ask of an editor. As well, it is best if you do not misrepresent my words: I said that the children's laughter and shantih (not "audio and titles") had thematic components, not that they were solely thematic. It is not a one-or-other transaction, Viriditas. Again, I ask you to consider that since you have been unable to sustain any citable support for your point of view that you consider that your edits in this particular matter are more personal than professional. This is not an attack; this is a suggestion that you withdraw. You have a good history as an editor, and yet you have violated 3RR on at least two occasions specifically in regards to the statements regarding the Shantih plot points. You are the only one arguing for its exclusion; this suggests a more personal investment with the article than is probably professional. I have reverted it as well, but I am relatively new, and haven't managed to break 3RR in doing so. I suggest, respectfully, that you stand down in regards to this argument and allow for its inclusion without referencing anything thematic.Arcayne 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to be having dificulty understanding or purposefuly distorting the difference between the consistency of my comments regarding your unsupported insertion of thematic material into the plot and your lack of evidence. You have the burden of proof to show why a thematic interpretation of the credits should appear in the synopsis of the film. As far as I can tell, you have tried to distract away from this state of affairs with trollish comments on my talk page, false accusations of 3RR violations, and attempts at intimidation.  Put all that aside and in 50 words or less state why a thematic interpretation of the credits should appear in the plot synopsis (when it already appears in the theme section) and provide relevant, reliable sources directly supporting your position. If you do this correctly, I will have no choice but to step aside. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
Wiki-newbie has nominated this film article as a Good Article. Personally, I don't think that the article is quite up to snuff; you can review the criteria here: WP:WIAGA. What I think needs to be improved:
 * Better lead paragraphs -- reduce plot summary sentences to one, explain the major points of production (long shots), the different themes, and how the film was received
 * Long shot dispute in Production (particularly third to last paragraph) needs to be figured out, as to whether there were authentic long shots, VFX-stitched long shots, or a combination of both
 * Reception could be expanded with reviewers' criticism, both positive and negative (lean toward positive, as it was more positively released)
 * Any other suggestions for improvement (nothing about "Shantih", please), share them here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All good suggestions, except I don't think there is a dispute about the long shot, but rather, a contradiction that needs to be resolved. As I see it, there were authentic long shots, but some parts were glued together or CGI was used to enhance the scene. It's really a non-issue, because most reviewers aren't going to be aware of the technical details, nor care. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1.This link might provide some good information in regards to production, and either clarify or resolve the long-shot discrepancy. It seems quite techically astute, and the reviewer seems to actually have seen the film more than once.
 * 2. I think it would be important to make sure that the reviews included had links to sites that were not subscription or fee-based, such as the NYTimes, to avoid some of the workaround issues we've encountered before.Arcayne 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That link is the one we are referring to and is the one you removed. The issue regarding subscription-based cites has already been discussed. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only link I have removed is one that was fee-based, which Erik replaced after finding an alternative. A link that is fee-or membership-based is difficult to verify.Arcayne 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same article you removed for the reasons you give above. I see now, that you had no way of knowing that. It appears the URL has been changed to bypass registration.  In the future, I would recommend finding a new link before removing the old one. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I seem to have heard something like that before...oh yes, it was here. Perhaps we both could benefit from that advice.Arcayne 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please realize, that the link you provide above refers to a discussion concerning the removal of original research that you added to the article, and has nothing to do with adding and removing links, links in this case that do not support the content you added. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And please realize that you decided to point out an error I made over a generation of edits ago. The lesson was learned then, and you revisiting it suggests a bit of a mean-spirited attack. If you want to take personal issue with my past edits, please feel free to address them on my talk page, as I don't blank them out of embarrassment.Arcayne 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. It was not my intention to make you feel bad about your learning curve.  I only blank talk page comments that are either already under discussion on another page, vandalism, personal attacks and trolls.  For now, I would prefer if you would not use my talk page for discussion concerning this article due to the trollishness of your past comments. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to address personal issues with you here when they could be addressed politely on your talk page. Blank them as you will.Arcayne 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "personal issues" with you. I am only interested in improving this article.  Please respect my wishes and avoid using my talk page to discuss your personal issues with me.  I am only interested in discussing the topic.  Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I had answered you on my talk page, agreeing to not attempt any further conflict resloution, I am wondering why you felt it important to reintroduce here. I am interested in improving the article as well; thus my efforts to include relevent material. I apologize for attempting to defuse what is clearly a personal issue. I won't mention it again. No need to comment on it, either.Arcayne 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a personal issue with me, take it through the appropriate conflict resolution channels. As far as I can tell, your edits to my talk page have been bordering on harassment, and have in no way sought to resolve conflict. In fact, your latest edits to your own talk page consist of personal attacks, as you have archived my comments under "difficult people".  I would suggest that if you want to diffuse conflict with others, you start with yourself.  Stick to the topic and avoid commenting on other editors.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cinematography and visual effects
I'm thinking about either stand-alone sections or subsections (of Production), since there seems to be a decent amount of information regarding the two topics. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly acceptable short term solution, but in the long term I would like to see long production sections summarized in the main article and split into longer new articles with subsections, and categorized as "film production" or some other name. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like the branch-off allusion articles from the FA-class Star Wars articles or themes with Blade Runner? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps Pre-Production and Post-Production.Arcayne 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shantih once more
I've removed the "Shantih" reference, not because I'm in agreement with Viriditas, but because I know that the cycle will resume needlessly. The 3RR time-out is not meant to space out your edit warring, but rather encourage other routes of resolution. In addition, the citation was inappropriate -- it is basically the lowest denominator of original research to back an observation with a citation that has no commentary on the film. It's like placing a picture of the Animals album next to this in the article. Arcayne, you know nothing's been resolved, so it's not going to help to re-add the content. I suggest both of you seek a third opinion (wasn't able to get a response from the two editors I had contacted). This debacle is getting in the way of potentially contributive edits either of you could make, here or elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of you have your points, and I don't disagree with either of you. I'm fine with it going either way, especially since the mention is already interpreted in the Themes section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I find disturbing is that while nothing else in the plot requires citation, I am being asked for citation when it appeared in the film just as surely as did the birth scene. However, while the birth scene is mentioned in the plot synopsis, they are also detailed in the production header as well as the themes header. The Shantih occurred in the scope of the movie (and anyone suggesting otherwise - politeness aside - quite simply has not seen the movie), The running time of the movie is 114 minutes long. The Shantih appears at 103:22. It was an observable fact. and to conclude anything beyond this - and I refer to excluding it on the basis that it isn't plot - is OR. Or possibly, WP:OWN It is also included because it was mirrored by a keystone plot point in the film, wherein Jasper exclaimed that Kee was the miracle the world had been looking for, and shouting a prayer to the world. Of course, my definition of the character's motivations is OR there; it was included matter-of-factly. It's presence allows for the Shantih at the end, without citation. It was already there. I added the citatin as to what the Shantih was, which in retrospect I think was OR. It isn't for the plot to determine what something meant, but simply to relate what happened in the movie. Just mentioning that the Shantih occurred is enough, as it is part of the synopsis (no longer a plot synopsis, indicating more inclusivity). As for why we aren't including exclamations of Jesus Christ, or whatever, I would think the answer is obvious: the Lord's prayer from Christianity was not used at the end of the movie any more than the Kaddish from the Judaic faith. The words used were the same words already introduced to us in the movie by one of the main characters. The unsmiling faces of the people on the ship is also an observable fact. Is someone going to contest this observation (the same sort of observation that allows the synopsis to be written inthe first place)? It wasn't as if I said they were unsmiling because they had sinister plans, or whatever. If someone is unsmiling, it is an observable fact and worthy of inclusion, especially since that someone has no dialogue, but has been a source of intrigue as well as the ultimate destination for the female lead. I would ask anyone who has issue with this edit to please cite verifiably reliable source material as to why it is not part of the plot (and please, do not offer the released online script as reliable; it has been shown to be inaccurate). Not interpretations, mind you, as that is OR. Provide incontrovertible proof that the Shantih is neither part of the movie or the plot, and I will remove any challenge as to the comments' exclusion If this cannot be provided, there is no reason to keep it from being a part of the article, aside from personal preference.Arcayne 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There were lots of religious chants in the film, and none if them were important plot points necessary for a synopsis. You're being silly again, Arcayne.  We heard the Hindu shantih, the Buddhist jewel in the lotus, and Christian prayers and chants from Miriam and in the soundtrack throughout the film. None of these details are important plot points.  They do, however, pertain to the religious theme section, and should be expanded.  And again, the official script is not inaccurate, it is a script not a film.  If you want to include your interpretation of the credits in the plot synopsis, you have to find a reliable source that claims the story continues in the credits, like for example the movie Smoke (film).  I explained how to do this a few sections above.  Please do not continue to add detailed story points to the plot in order to support your pet theory about the credits.  Give this argument a break and try working constructively on other sections.   &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, and do not call me or my edits silly, Viriditas. the signigficant difference between "the Hindu shantih, the Buddhist jewel in the lotus, and Christian prayers and chants from Miriam" is that only the Shantih was the last word of the story. I do not have to prove that the shantih appears, or the sounds of children laughing. It is in the movie, not implied, like a diegetic source (that, btw, is how that term is used) of soundtrack music to reinforce a theme. It is my job as a contributor here to write edits that are supported by the rest of the article. Please tell me where, in my edits, I included even one thing that did not happen in the synopsis (no longer plot synopsis, it should be noted). It isn't a 'pet theory,' and I will again ask you to try and remain civil. I would also recommend that you partake of your own advice: give this argument a break and try working constructively on other sections. Independent editors will evaluate the strengths of the article with both edits. If this is not an WP:OWN issue, have faith in the process to address the situation correctly.Arcayne 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind is that the Shantih at the end of the credits is thought to be a thematic homage to Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, which is certainly a central motif of the film, but does not pertain to a plot synopsis. The Shantih chant in the film resonantes with this allusion, and is perhaps also a thematic homage to The Waste Land but does not concern plot. Please use the theme section for this material.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you yourself have dismissed the citations connecting CoM to Eliot's poem as "barely RS," and have in fact used that quality as an excuse to revert the Shantih as synoptic point at least once. You have stated your pov, as I have mine. Since you are not willing to wait for more senior editors to evaluate the article with my edits in before reverting them out, it is reasonable to assume that nothing I can say will influence you enough to back away from your reverts until such time as those edits are evaluated.
 * In the interim, I would recommend that - since you have some interest in the thematic allusions to the synoptic points - you develop these theories of you in the Themes header. There, you can provide citable references that you have not been able to provide here, as I suggested that any reasonable discussion of this matter would entail. Perhaps you could revisit the definition of synopsis as a starting point.Arcayne 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Arcayne, why does he have to wait to remove the content? Why can't you wait for senior editors to come in to see whether it should be added or not? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I added it first. it was contributed to the article in good faith, Erik. I was going to add the synoptic points of the movie again, but I was allowing for the matter to cool down a bit. It also allowed Viriditas the opportunity to revert the text if he had a citable issue to contest it, as he had already reached his revert limit for the day (actually, he exceeded it, for the second time in as many days). As well, I was patiently awaiting the arrival of the two independents, and when they did not show by this morning, I entered the edits (which were different from that previously reverted). Frankly, I had considered the possibility that Viriditas would be able to find merit in the edits. Obviously, that was a hope in vain. I am not interested in an edit war, but so long as we are at loggerheads on this issue, we need to have someone evaluate the two versions. It is far easier for a reviewer to say, too much than to say not enough. I may be new, but I think I will probably always err on the side of inclusion when it comes to articles,so long as it doesn't break the rules. My edits aren't a 'pet theory'; they are a valid part of the synopsis of the movie. Suggesting that they aren't is in fact OR.Arcayne 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, let's say for the sake of discussion, that you are right and I am wrong. You're still left in the same position.  All you have to do, is provide a relevant, reliable source, not a review or interpretation, but a source saying "Cuaron intended for the laughing children on the audio in the credits to continue the story, along with the titles," or something to that effect.  You write below, "There is no chance to blink and miss the imagery. It is a part of the movie, a continuation of such."  There is no mention in the script of that story development, so one wonders how it could be connected to the plot.  Yes, the credits roll, and we hear children laughing, and we also hear soundtrack music.  Are those songs also as important?  Why not?    The thing is, Arcayne, if you read the statement Cuaron made at the end of the Theme section, the director takes the opposite view: he has explitictly stated that he wants the audience to make up their own mind about the film.  So, unless we have good evidence to the contrary, we don't go adding our interpretation of the film's conclusion to the plot section.  We can certainly explore it in the theme section using good interepretations and reviews. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my perspective. "Shantih" is addressed in the Themes section, along with many other types of imagery that are not addressed in the Plot section. The "Shantih" sentence already specifies where the phrase is visible in the film. WP:OR does not apply to this debacle about the reference. This is a structure dispute -- Viriditas has provided technical reason as to why it shouldn't be included -- it's not a plot point, not part of the storyline. Arcayne, you're arguing for inclusion of the "Shantih" reference because you consider it special as a specific ending given by the director. I haven't seen many reviews at all that refer to this, and the two reviews mentioning "Shantih" don't even seem to be referring to the ending. What is wrong with just having "Shantih" mentioned in the Themes section? It does not drive the film's plot in any sense; all the events in the film's universe are said and done. There are many symbols in the film that are explained in Themes because it would be extraneous to include specific imagery in the Plot section that does not necessarily drive the plot -- what do the German words on the gates of concentration camps matter to the main story, after all? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is addressed in the Themes section, because that is the only place where the Shantih can be explained, and its connotations explored through citable reference. I am not now, nor have I ever argued that the Themes section is not where that should be explored. However, I have provided equally apt technical reasons as to why it still remains in the synopsis (no longer plot synopsis, but synopsis). I have explained why both are plot points (as observable events not in the background but notable events occurring in the foreground on arguably equal footing with dialogue), and have done so repeatedly. It is not extraneous imagery, like a prison gate or a hooded prisoner; such are set dressing or production choices designed to have thematic elements. The Shantih and the children laughing are all by themselves. There is no confusion as their strength or purpose as a plot device. There is no chance to blink and miss the imagery. It is a part of the movie, a continuation of such.
 * In short, the sounds of children laughing and playing as well as the Shantih have thematic components. They are also technically a synoptic part of the movie, not as set dressing, not as lighting, not as background, but by themselves.
 * And I have said this before, but the practical aspect bears repeating: if a user comes here to get the synopsis of a movie before s/he goes out and sees it (trying to keep from plunking down dead presidents for a crappy movie), they deserve to know what happens in the movie - even the very end of it, so they don't leave before seeing it. They aren't going to focus on the other sections until after they've seen the movie, to see if their opinion is shared by the article. I am guessing that there isn't a lot of mention of the Shantih because the reviewers were probably not even aware that the story was going to continue after the credits (a la Young Sherlock Holmes and JFK), and likely left while the credits rolled. You will note that most of the reviewers noted the laughter of children, as that continued through the end music and credits. Most of the reviewers likely didn't stick around. But then, that is just a reasoned guess on my part.
 * I am just as interested in making this an FA article as you or Viriditas are; I am neither a troll nor a child, and it is uncivil to suggest such.I believe that my reverted edit has a value to the article, and that their exclusion hurts the article. It is okay to have a vision of how you want the article to turn out; however, that needs to be a shared vision.Arcayne 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of synopsis, in this case, is "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc". The previous definitions do not apply to it.  It seems judgmental of you to determine that the "Shantih" reference is more significant than the other kinds of imagery in the film.  Also, you profess to know how people will read the article, and I caution you not to do that -- these are very poor and inaccurate assumptions on which to rely.  Furthermore, it's inappropriate to say that the exclusion will hurt the article.  It is already included; you are seeking to make it redundant to, apparently, ensure that the viewers will stay afterward, despite not knowing how if/how these viewers will approach the article, or even before/after the viewing.  The Plot section is meant to be a bare-bones plot summary of the film.  This helps to provide background for the rest of the article, not to make sure viewers get off on the right foot in seeing it.  This is a documentation of the film and its production background, not a direct advertisement to enlighten viewers. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside Opinion Requested: Children of Men
I was asked twice on my talk page to provide my opinion on the discussion over the synopsis section of this article. The more detailed request can be viewed here. If any other points are not mentioned in that request, please post them on my talk page under that section as I am not going to be able to read the entire discussion that has taken place on this page and have not yet seen the film.
 * The definition of synopsis: "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc." In other words, the "Synopsis" may also be called "Plot" or "Plot Overview" however, the title is irrelevant. This section of a film article is provided for a comprehensive overview of the plot of the motion picture. From what I understand, these references to the phrase "Shantih, shantih shantih" are purely for thematic reasons. Therefore, statements on the subject should be confined to the "Themes" section. If they somehow signify sometime of event relevant to plot of the film, than they should be included. However, I do not get the impression that they are in fact relevant to the plot.
 * The information present in a "Synopsis" section should be based on the question of comprehensiveness, but also elegance and encyclopedic relevance. I don't believe that the addition of these references to the said phrase and sounds are relevant to the plot enough (if at all) and therefore should not be included in the section. I should also point out that these additions according the link provided, are written a rather overly dramatic (and therefore unencyclopedic) tone. The Filmaker 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing credits dispute
This is an interesting contradiction that might be worth adding into the article either now or down the run: Children of Men: Who Really Wrote the Script? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, along with the studio controversy over distribution, which should be added to the lead. In other news, the DVD release appears to have a lot about themes as well. Partial transcripts are online. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the studio controversy over distribution? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One source calls the fim's marketing strategy in the U.S. a failure and describes the film as a victim of the studio, comparing it to the release of The 12 Monkeys. More information about the release should go in the lead.  Was it a normal dist; was the limited U.S. release made to meet Academy deadlines?  Any signs of viral marketing online or elsewhere? I suspect posters appeared in American cities during the UK release.  What about other countries? I also read that the studio was upset with the gloomy conclusion. Who added the children's laughter to the end? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there more than one one review decrying the marketing strategy? I have noticed that while there aren't much in the way of bad reviews listed in reception; is that a bias issue? Lastly, is there a citable concern that the music at the end of the story is a recent addition?Arcayne 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a few: "...seems to have been some fear on the part of Universal to promote a film with such a dark political message. Despite the absence of marketing, Children of Men seems to be doing fairly well through word of mouth and some critical acclaim."  "Generally speaking, distributors don’t release their "A" titles in January. This first month of the year has always been a mix of quality Oscar caliber films expanding, tough to categorize films that studios don’t quite know what to do with and just plain awful pics. Today (1/5), there’s one fantastic film going wide (Children of Men from Universal on 1,200 screens)..."   The question regarding the addition of the sound of children laughing at the end was intended to spark the discovery of a source through research.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Theo Unarmed
I've noted that the discussion about Theo not carrying a gun was placed in the production header. Is there a reason why it wasn't discussed in Themes instead? It would seem to fit there better...Arcayne 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, don't use anonymous IP's to violate the 3RR, don't engage in edit wars, respect the consensus of active editors, and don't harass editors when they ask you to stop editing their talk page. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel I did some sock-puppetry, then report it. Simple. I don't violate 3RR (and i think we know who dodged a bullet on that, right, VIri?) Please revist what an edit war is. I can disagree with your edits without hurting the article, as I am actively editng the article also. You do not own it, Viri - plese stop acting as if you do. Lastly, please don't bring your personal issues and trolling to the article or the talk page, please. Unlike you, I don't mind you discussing your issues on my talk page, and won't blank your comments.Arcayne 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for violating the 3RR in the past, and you continue to use my talk page after I've asked you to stop, many times. Your record doesn't appear good. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for violating 3RR once, as have a great many contributors and editors here. I have also learned from the experience. Are you suggesting that you have never violated 3RR? You only recently escaped that bc it couldn't be dealt with in a timely manner. I only commented on your page after you decided to make my edits the basis of a personal attack with others here and here. I won't comment on your talk page any more to ask you to make an effort at civility. Do not use the article or talk pages to attack me. Be civil.Arcayne 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:CIV and WP:HA for good measure. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we might actually return to the question stated in the first post of the subject, as stated before another editor became disruptive. "I've noted that the discussion about Theo not carrying a gun was placed in the production header. Is there a reason why it wasn't discussed in Themes instead? It would seem to fit there better." Why or why not?Arcayne 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If disruption is defined by edit warring for weeks against consensus, then you might want to examine the edit history. Erik added the production info about Theo's lack of a physical weapon to the production section for good reason, as it discusses the character development during production.  If we want to discuss the theme of a weaponless hero in abstract, we would have to cite and source it in a thematic context, being careful to also observe Theo's hidden weapon, the mythic thunderbolt of knowledge and fertility, which also resonates with "what the thunder said".  You need to provide a resson for moving production content into the theme section, not me. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You and I have very different definitions of concensus, Viri. It went back and forth because you were not willing to listen to a viewpoint that differed from yours, leading more than just a few folk to wonder if you were taking the matter far too personal. There were two viewpoints as to the now-decided shantih statements. You will note that after The Filmaker weighed in with his opinion, I didn't try to offer the edit again (and I won't, unless a review or interview comes along that addresses the issue). You didn't bother waiting for the independent viewpoint, which reinforced the idea that you were a little too invested in the article.
 * As far as the unarmed thing goes, I wasn't arguing that it should be in one place or another as much as inquiring why it belonged in in Production instead of Theme (it seemed thematic to me). As the " Theo's hidden weapon (of) mythic thunderbolt of knowledge and fertility" seems pretty 'out there' and wholly uncitable, as OR (and bloody well odd). perhaps it is too difficult a task to think it addressable in Theme. It is reasonable to discuss in terms of character development. I don't recall Theo carrying a gun in the novel either, so it isn't so much character development as it is adaptation or recognition of character.Arcayne 10:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. You've been forcing your pet theories into this article, against consensus for weeks. There aren't different definitions of consensus in play here.  There's you, forcing your round opinion into this triangle-shaped article.  Stop it.  And if you think the hidden weapon of the thunderbolt of knowledge is odd, then you haven't been paying attention. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to allow myself to be drawn into your circular reasoning again, Viri. Just because my opinions differed from your doesn't make them "pet theories" - it just makes them theories that differ from yours. My arguments for inclusion were consistent, in contrast to yours for removing them. As well, there was no concensus as to the version; there was your view and mine. Actually, there were three - there other people who couldn't make up their minds either way, and simply wanted the back and forth to end. That isn't concensus, Viriditas. Surely, somewhere in the back of your mind, something must be telling you that you are not a concensus all by your lonesome. I've read the writer's guidelines and manual of style. I don't think I stepped outside them.
 * I didn't suggest that the hidden thunderbolt thing wasn't there, Viri; I was simply saying that it was odd and a stretch without lots and lots of supporting citation. As well, for someone who was arguing that the Shantih was completely thematic, we've noticed how little you've done to develop out that particular view. Stop the personal attacks; you are an editor, please start acting like it.Arcayne 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Requesting that you stop adding your pet theories to this article is not a personal attack. Asking you politely many times to stop using my talk page for the purposes of unambiguous WP:HA is not a personal attack.  Your arguments for including your personal, pet theories in this article are based on your own observations and interpretations, and not on any RS.  To address the shantih part of your comments, what is preventing you from doing research and expanding the theme yourself? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Neither of you are being particularly contributive to the article with this debate. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Erik sent us both a message asking us to stop. Why do you feel you don't need to listen to any suggestions or requests? Please, take a break and go for a walk or something.Arcayne 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The ending
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what some people wish the synopsis to be. Is it retelling the story of the film, or is it something else?Arcayne 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Arcayne, you asked on my talk page why I removed the "unsmiling people" sentence so I'll answer on the article talk page. I concur with the conclusions of the other editors who find it to be OR.  "Unsmiling people" seems to be a subjective interpretation that goes beyond objective synopsis.  I recall that last scene being rather dark and foggy, with faces barely visible, yes? -- M P er el ( talk 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the onscreen time is of each sailor on the boat. 1-3 seconds? How are we able to pull that they are all unsmiling up until the point in which they meet Kee? Disinclination 06:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi MPerell and Disinclination, so the characterization of unsmiling (suggesting that they should be smiling at finding the woman and baby they were looking for) is the objection, is that correct? Yes, it was pretty foggy in that scene, but I noticed somethin in the first viewing that kept getting noticed in the later viewings. These people weren't smiling or waving at finding the last fertile woman on earth and her baby, which seemed unusual for a movie with this sort of plot. Pointing something that is observable in the film doesn't constitute OR. And this occurs well before the credits roll. :) Arcayne 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thought I would point out that in order to upload the screenshot (even for here), I couldn't make the screenshot as hi-def as it appears int he film. the faces are a lot clearer. And I think that their relative screentime is not as important as they were the notable, ultimate destination of Kee.Arcayne 06:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the OR part is in attributing significance to the non-smiling (if indeed they aren't smiling, which is hard to discern for sure). They weren't dancing either, but it would be OR to present them as "non-dancing".  Do you see what I mean? -- M P er el ( talk 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand the distinction. As they are acting a bit oddly (which is significant in itself), how would that best be described? It isn't as if this sort of observation is not present in other FA articles, such as this and this. The synopsis relates what happens in the movie, and in all FA articles this is done descriptively without crossing the line of OR. I can see your point that attributing significance to the unsmiling could be OR, but when contrasted to the behavior that should be happening (ie smiling or waving at having found the last hope for mankind), I believe it to be significant.Arcayne 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a source (a published movie review or director interview) that perhaps describes it that we can cite? It seems to me the ending was intentionally vague and left to the viewer to wonder whether it was supposed to be a hopeful or dreadful ending (you saw it from a more negative perspective, as unsmiling people approaching her).  But then I really wasn't feeling well the day I saw the movie and was distracted so ... maybe that was why I personally didn't understand the ending at all ; )  I'm concerned that any further description of the ending will likely be a subjective editorial projection, so if something more is said, it probably should be said from the voice of a cited source.  What do you think? -- M P er el ( talk 06:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a citation source would be necessary if we weren't discussing matters outside of the objective experience of the movie. I think it was noted in the Themes header that Cuaron was aiming for some ambiguity in the ending, so the viewer could take with them what they wanted (which I think is damned brilliant as far as directing goes, and friggin' frustrating when it comes to discussing the film's plot objectively). When I saw the film I thought it odd that there was no cheerfulness of the ship (the Human project was talked about like such a hopeful bunch in the movie), but events after the screen faded caught my attention instead. Every time I've watched it with someone else, they have allcommented on how creepy it was that the 5 visible folk on the deckof the ship did not seem all that welcoming, and expressed concern for what was going to happen to her 20 minutes after the story ended. To speculate on that would be OR, of course. I am just opting to point out something that happened in the movie. And as descriptive terms are used in practically every FA film article, I think it might be better to emulate that. After all, none of us own the article, so there should be room for improvement, right?Arcayne 07:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some movies probably lend themselves more easily to an objective synopsis. Others, like this one, more aptly serve as a movie version of a Thematic Apperception Test.  Here's an apropos illustration of the difficulty of attempting to describe a scene objectively, particularly when we are purposely set up with an ambiguous setting.  How would a Wikipedia editor objectively describe this scene?  Is the woman crying because she just discovered her husband is dying of cancer?  Is she laughing because the man just told her a hilarious joke?  Is she blown away and in shock that she just walked in on a famous movie star?  Is she recovering from fright after discovering a strange man in her bed?  Is she exhausted, arising from bed after a night of incredible sex?  Is she relieved that she just discovered her brother has returned home safely from fighting in the war?  The perceived emotional reaction of the subject is all in the eye of the beholder. -- M P er el ( talk 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is why I wish we would use reliable sources for writing plot synopses, just like everything else. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's particularly important with a movie as ambiguous as this one to not leave the synopsis to our subjective editorial projections and simply cite sources instead. -- M P er el ( talk 08:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that CoM is kinda slippery, as it has a lot of things that many films do not in the way of design. I am not sure the TAT is appropriate here (as really interesting as that link was - thanks for letting me take a gander!), if one factors in the observations of one person against those of a wider group. All people tend to take from movies what they are looking for, and some provide it better than others.
 * That said, I think that it is appropriate to point out an incongruity in a story which does not fit the rest. Throughout the film, we are led to believe that the Human Project may not even exist, but if it does, it is working to save mankind from extinction. I tend to believe (as I think others would as well), that this makes the group the Good Guys, whereas the Fishes turn out to be opportunistic Bad Guys. We expect our Good Guys to be a bit more than expressionless as they save us fromt he Bad Guys. As far as all that goes, it is all conjecture upon what I took from the movie, but again, a great many FA film articles include descriptive passages in the synopses to better describe events; I think it would be reckless to consider them all riddles with OR descriptions.
 * Where is the fine line between the use of descriptive words in the synopsis which describe a character's motivations and inventing them? In examples, most taken from an FA article:


 * "After the club closes, Ilsa returns to try to explain all this, but he is drunk and bitterly refuses to listen".
 * "They hastily board the Millennium Falcon, make a speedy launch, and dodge attacks in space before escaping to lightspeed".
 * Theo smiles before slumping over in the boat as the 'Tomorrow emerges from the thick fog, a number of unsmiling people on her decks moving towards Kee and her child."
 * ...and chosen St. Patrick's Day to add insult to injury. Connor, Murphy, and the patrons get into a bar brawl with the Russians...
 * All of the aforementioned articles use descriptive words to allude to the perceived state of the characters in the film. Can you explain the difference to me a bit?Arcayne 08:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bad one to ask because I find many of the Wikipedia movie synopses are far too subjective and unencyclopedic and really should be sourced better... Your point is well taken, though I suppose the main difference I see with the examples you give has more to do with whether the observation being described is significant enough to be mentioned (again, should we mention the sailors are non-dancing as well?) See I'm not convinced the demeanors of the sailors aboard the Tomorrow stand out significantly from the rest of the movie to merit special mention, unless there's a citable source that finds it significant. Being that the whole movie is such a dystopia (and I don't recall there being any smiling at all...except perhaps when Michael Cain is smoking a doobie), I would find it more unusual and worthy of mention if we suddenly saw smiling sailors, not unsmiling ones. -- M P er el ( talk 09:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the previous posts are yours as well, but because of the indenting, I am going to respond as if they were.
 * The problems you (and Man in Black) have with the synopsis is an inherent one of observation vs. reference, I think. As most FA quality film article synopses are observational, with the meaning of the events observed described in other areas like Theme or Allegorical Qualities, it may be best to address changes in a more appropriate arena, such as the Village Pump. As it is the purpose of this editing process to proceed to GA and then FA status, it seems prudent to use other FA film articles as guides.
 * I appreciate your concession, MPerel. I have previously stated that perhaps my use of unsmiling is indicative of the audience's expectation of the Human Project, which has been talked about as a semi-mythical rumor throughout the film. When they do show up, they appear faceless and cold and very briefly. I am not taking exception to that, considering that Cuaron has stated in at least one interview that he wanted the ending to be vague. I think the crew's unusual reaction is significant enough to be mentioned because they do not react in the way that the story led us to believe, and that the audience is led to expect. We don't expect the crew to dance, but we do expect them to respond somewhat positively at finding the person they were looking for in the midst of a war-zone. As this is the only view of them in the entire film, noting something interesting seems appropriate. The synopsis notes the reactions to Kee and her baby by both soldiers and 'fugees alike (note that some of the noted reactions take place in less time than the 1-3 seconds the crew is seen) - and they weren't actively looking for her. The Human Project ship was. The reactions of the soldiers and fugees is reasonable; the crew members' lack of reactions (friendly or otherwise) weren't. It is that absence which I think makes it notable.
 * And, as nothing else in the synopsis requires citation (bc the story is observed, and not footnoted mid-film), this observation, as a part of the film shouldn't be made to fulfill criteria that the remainder of the plot synopsis (or any FA film synopsis) isn't made to fulfill.Arcayne 10:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries in film articles are not going to be perfect. They should be written to be as bare-bones as possible, reflecting what is extrinsically observed onscreen. Of course, this can pose a challenge for some films such as a David Lynch film. Sometimes "colorful" adjectives will stick around in the plot section, even when the article achieves FA status. However, since there is a conflict over whether the "unsmiling" expressions mean anything or not, it is best to have it removed. If there are observations about it, they can be expressed elsewhere in the article, depending on the meaningfulness of the content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your point of view. As MPerel pointed out, unsmiling does imply that smiling was expected, which seems a bit hinky. That said, I still think that their behavior stands out and is both noteworthy and interesting (which is what is supposed to be included in any article, FA or otherwise). As it appears to be the word 'unsmiling' in contention (for whatever reason), let's replace it with a more neutral word, so that the text would read as follows:


 * ...Theo smiles before slumping over in the boat as the Tomorrow emerges from the thick fog, her inscrutable crew on the decks as they move towards Kee and her child.


 * I prefer 'inexpressive' over 'inscrutable' (it just flows better without the word inscrutable), but tomayto, tomahto.Arcayne 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has occurred to me that there might be a different way to look at this. In one of the interviews mentioned in the Themes section, Cuaron said he meant for the end of the movie to be ambiguous and uncertain. While I personally think that he tells us that everything works out by using the sounds of children laughing and playing, it has proven (at least here) to be very ambiguous indeed. I also think that Cuaron made a point of making the Human Project, the supposed Sanctuary of the piece, seem a bit darker than originally thought. As they are in the boat, the Fishes long behind them, Theo, moments away from death, warns Kee:
 * "''Keep her close, Kee. Whatever happens.
 * Whatever they say. You keep her close."''
 * Now why, if they had escaped the Fishes, would there be a need to say something that paranoid at all? Add to that the perception of the inexpressive (or unsmiling, to use a different word) crew aboard the ship, and I think the director's intended ambiguity is served quite well. As it would seem that an uncertain ending is what the story intended (and who among us has not gained some respect for this director's skill at his craft?), it is therefore noteworthy and interesting to mention that twist of events. Granted, my words and reasoning are by themselves supposition and pov, but I think that a better, more accurate synopsis can be completed from taking into consideration some of these points.Arcayne 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, taking into consideration these points would make the synopsis more inaccurate because your interpretations are original research. You admit that yourself.  If the ending is up for various interpretations, then the implicating details for whatever stance should go into another part of the article.  I have no problem with exploring how reviewers have viewed the conclusion (and there's already something in the Themes section about the director saying how you interpret the ending is the kind of person you are), but it doesn't belong into the basic description of the plot. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Inscrutable" or "inexpressive" is an improvement as it connotes more ambiguity than "unsmiling", but better yet, I agree w/Erikster that it would be best to leave the sentence completely out of the synopsis. It's actually not necessary and I still think, while interesting, it's too much editorial projection. -- M P er el ( talk 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with Erik, but because two contributors have given reasonable and intelligent reasons for why the statements are not effective. I am withdrawing them at this time. I still feel like we are cheating the article by not mentioning noteworthy and interesting information, but as I've said before, until there are sufficient reasons to reintroduce these statements, I am willing to concede the point at this time. I thank both of you for being consistent and non-harassing in your language.Arcayne 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed an image
The fair use rationale of the image from the press kit was questionable. Explicit permission to reproduce freely may be required from the copyright owners in this case. i kan reed 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It was a production still distributed for promotional purposes.  The image can be found at Yahoo! and ComingSoon.net. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA
This article has passed it's GA. My suggestion is to add references where there aren't any. Otherwise, get a peer review for it.  Dooms Day349  00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the recognition. We hope to improve this article further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Problem
I noticed that the following statements from the Theme header:


 * The dystopian, futuristic setting of Children of Men was not intended by Cuarón as a cautionary tale, but rather as an allegory for reforming the present. (^ Kit, Borys. "Thinking 'Men'", The Hollywood Reporter, 2006-11-21.)

Seems to be either an inactive or incorrect citation. Is there another citation link that will allow the statements to remain?Arcayne 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you at least twice. Read WP:CITE. Not all citations are online or accessible. If this one is, I'll add the URL. If you have a question about the material, then ask it and I will quote it.  Please don't turn this into another 72 hour edit war just because you don't understand the policy. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that the citation doesn't point to anywhere, Viri. There is another citation from the Hollywood Reporter that connects up just fine (endnoted as #29). I understand the policy quite well, thank you. Perhaps you could explore my concern before acting like a troll, hmm?Arcayne 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't take my advice and read the citation policy. Citation 26 points directly to the article. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a correct citation to a print article. Hollywood Reporter doesn't publish all of their articles online. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, it's always good to ask for clarification. Here's the quote from the article:


 * While many talked of the film's dystopian future, Cuaron said that future is now. "In the '70s, it was great to do cautionary tales. The thing is, now we don't have time for cautionary tales. We have to reform. In the '70s, if I told you I wanted to do a movie about a massive influx of illegal immigration into developed countries, in which the U.S. has stepped out of the Geneva Convention, in which the U.S. accepts torture and spying on its citizens and is building a wall against Mexico, you'd say, 'C'mon, that cannot happen, that is science fiction.' This already is a dystopia."


 * Thank you for explaining that not all of HR's articles are online. It is best to have a source that is easily verifiable with a click of a button, though, isn't it? With the wealth of sources that we have available for CoM, it shouldn't be all that hard to find a 'convenience link' so as to avoid issues of verifiability. I am not arguing the veracity of the statement; I am wondering if a more accessible source can be cited.Arcayne 08:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone can alter the text that I've written to improve its accuracy, please do so.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do.Arcayne 08:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All done. :) Arcayne 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your hard work, but the previous version was more accurate, less wordy, and more elegant - however, you've given me some ideas for rearranging some things.  The correct word is allegory, not analog. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of thought you'd say that. Perhaps you could check the dictionary as for the definitions of analog and and allegory; you will find that my word choice is more effective. I think the edit is both more accurate and elegant than the previous statements. I think it is fine as is. Please don't start an edit war over help that you asked for, please.Arcayne 09:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Analog implies analogue (literature), when we are discussing allegory. You also violated NPOV by stating Cuaron's opinion as a fact. I asked for an improvement in the text, not a distortion and policy violation.  Please work towards agreement, and do not use this article as a battleground. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the word analog, Viri. The term does not apply solely to literature. It might be helpful to look outside WP for definitions instead of being churlish. That said, I did alter the statements so as to reflect what Cuaron had stated; there was no intention of NPOV mistakes. It was a sentnence structure error. I corrected it for you. As you seem to be very keen on propr citation, perhaps your time would be better spent finding a more accessible link for the statement instead of relying on an offline source exclusively. I am not sure what battleground you are referring to, Viri; you asked for help, and I am politely providing it.Arcayne 09:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE allows for what you call "offline" cites, and they are perfectly acceptable. This has been explained to you many times. Please provide a reliable source that uses the word "analog" in relation to this film and the allegorical context. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, CITE makes no reference whatsoever to the sort of link you are using, Viri. Despite that, I am not disputing the accuracy of the inormation cited. I hope I have made that clear, for the third time. I am asking - for the third time - if it is not possible to find a source more accessible. With the amouint of sources out there and that we are trying to create an FA level article, what would it hurt to look?
 * Also, there is no reference to the movie being allegorical, any more than the movie being an analogy. In fact, one reviewer definitively rejects the allegorical label altogether, favoring instead "cautionary tale". Of course, this means that using either the terms 'analogy' or 'allegory' amounts to original research. I will replace the word with something that Cuaron has actually said in an interview or has been stated in an appropriate review that can be cited.Arcayne 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have misinterpreted the citation policy. Many FA use sources that are offline and subscription-based: references to books and scientific journals are but two examples.  The film has been described as allegorical many times, so I don't know why you continue to claim that it's not.  In only one of many examples, the director himself said:"It's a cross between a religious allegory and an action film. Ultimately, it's a chase movie. But it's more 'Sugarland Express' than 'Blade Runner.'" (Source: Emerick, Laura. (Dec. 29, 2006). Los Tres Amigos: Mexico-born directors form a band of brothers. The Chicago Sun-Times. p.30)  There is nothing wrong with this source and it isn't original research. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem. You have just used a citation to support your position, and it is not immediately verifiable. Were I to do that, dogs in 3 different states would hear you crying foul. I made a point of checking a lot of reviews today (started with every one at Rotten Tomates, and then went to our own citaton list) and looking for when someone described Children of Men as an allegory. The closest I came was the instance where Cuaron says that the title of the film is a Christian allegory to the psalm the words occur in. And I can cite it in such a way that you can verify it immediately and have no doubt whatsoever that what I am quoting and interpreting the substance of that quote exactly.
 * This isn't a scientific article that requires access to a journal of specialized information. It's an article about a current film. As Erik has ably demonstrated earlier, we are at no loss for easily accessed information about this topic. The Manual of Style (specifically, External Sources) suggests that we avoid pay- or membership-based cites to draw our references from, simply because it is not easy for the user to check. The same applies to off-line citations. It isn't as if we are citing illuminated manuscripts or the original Federalist Papers. It's a movie. Surely, you can find citations that are online and easily accessible. And while you are correct that some FA articles have offline or fee-based citations, it is important to note that most do not. Sometimes they are unavoidable, but I don't think that CoM is one of those instances.Arcayne 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really not interested in reading about your misinterpretation of WP:CITE and WP:V. The cite is valid, and can be verified with the information provided.  If you can't figure out how to do that, or don't have any specific questions about the source or the content cited, there is nothing more to discuss on this topic.  You are free, of course, to pursue your alternative interpretation of the citation policy on the appropriate discussion policy pages. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I kinda knew you were going to argue this all day long, Viri. You have asked questions, and I have answered each of them politely and clearly, and yet you keep extending the argument. I am not misinterpreting either CITE or V. At all. As you might dimly recall, I did ask you to point out where in CITE it says you should opt for nonverifiable sources over easwily verifiable sources. You didn't answer. I guess you can't, so we'll bypass it. Let's end your disruptive bahavior here.
 * I must ask - once again - that you please extend me the same courtesy I presume you want to enjoy, and stop trolling and being disruptive. If you cite something that cannot be quickly verified, it will be removed until you provide a better source. Make the effort and do the work and stop whining about it. I think we're done here. Unless you still feel the need to have the last word...Arcayne 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have completely misunderstood Wikipedia policies concerning references and your position above is not supported by anything other than your misinterpretation of the term "verification". I suggest you ask an administrator for help in this matter, as several editors have already corrected your mistaken assumptions.  Do not use this page to discuss your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies, and do not attempt to enforce your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies on this page.  Reliable sources, accurately cited, do not need to be "immediately verified" via online links.  If you have the correct citation, there are many ways to verify it that do not include using URL's.  If you had bothered to read the policies and listen to what other, more experienced editors have told you, you wouldn't be having this much difficulty with such a simple concept.  Please take any further discussions regarding this topic to the correct policy discussion pages, where you will find the answer to your newbie questions. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you are Just Plain Wrong. You can cite sources that aren't available online, and they're just as valid as ones that are. Please knock off this legalistic nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't being clear before; allow me to do so, yet again: I am NOT saying that sources not immediately verifiable are not as valid as immediately verifiable ones are. I think I have said that before. In fact, I know I have. I am simply suggesting that, with the cornucopia of references available online, why add a layer of difficulty to checking that reference? If presented with a situation where a contributor introduces a reference stating new information that hasn't appeared before (that happens to support their arguments), is it unreasonable to want to make sure that reference says what the editor says it does? If it is, please simply say so, because I haven't seen that guideline anywhere on WP. I admit that I am fairly new to WP, but I don't think I am asking the wrong questions. If I am, please - tell me what questions should I be asking instead.Arcayne 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not go and check for yourself? Hollywood Reporter is widely distributed. Hit a library. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the citation in question, but sure. I can do that on my way home tomorrow. I'll post what I find tomorrow evening, especially if I am wrong.Arcayne 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote was accurate, although excerpted. It is the first and only instance in which the film has been referred to as an allegorical film. There exist two different citations wherein the allegory label is declined, and in one case, specifically denied. I think it would be better - in the face of dissent to keep the statement of the film being an allegory out. In the alternative, reviewers noting that the film is not in fact allegory should be stated to rebut the statements.Arcayne 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)