Talk:No Country for Old Men/Archive 3

Transponder Question
I've tried to research to no avail the question of the names of the devices carried by Chigurh and the money. They communicate with each other, but I'm unclear if both are transponders, or only one. Is one a transmitter and the other a transponder? Experts who have seen the movie: a response would be useful, along with your reasoning. Ring Cinema (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Chigurh refers to the device he carries as a "receiver." Wells refers to the device Chigurh carries as a "transponder." If we assume they are reliable, this difference should be incorporated.Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Transponders are basically receivers, it's just a synonym they used in the movie.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not accurate. Transponders (according to Wikipedia) both transmit and respond. Hence the name.Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Which still makes it synonymous with "receiver", it just also transmits. Regardless, the term is irrelevant. The point isn't to say "the movie says 'receiver' one minute and 'transponder' another". The point is to let the reader know how the bag is being tracked. If you feel that "transponder" would be better, then use that. If you feel "transmitter" and "receiver" is better then use that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Receivers don't transmit, so that's not a synonym (synonymy implies substitution without change of meaning). Please when I correct you and you are wrong, admit it as quickly as possible. I'll return the favor. It will really speed our work. Thank you. Ring Cinema (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the same difference, you understand what I'm telling you about what the article needs. Please do not be rude.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This question is still open. If we misuse a term, we should do it consciously, i.e. with attribution, scare quotes, whatever. Again, if there is an expert out there who has seen the movie and knows which devices are in use, please weigh in with your expert advice. If there is someone who can source an answer, also much appreciated. Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In summarizing the plot, it is more appropriate to call this a tracking device. It's also more accurate since the term transponder implies two-way transmissions. --75.68.49.211 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm with you that the question should be one of accuracy. If it's a transponder, I would suggest we just call it a transponder. 'Tracking device' is the functional term and more general, so it includes transponders and non-transponders. Is there any basis for believing that the device in the satchel isn't a transponder? I'm going to anticipate that your answer will be that there's no need for the satchel's device to receive transmissions, but I'm prepared to believe that's an assumption on your part, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A transponder is a device which, when 'interrogated' (that's the technical term often used) by an incoming signal, responds with a signal of its own. They are most commonly found used with radar; e.g. airplanes carry transponders which respond to the pulses from air traffic control radar. (In other words, in a system with a tranponder, both devices are both transmitters and receivers.) The device in the bag could be either a plain transmitter (i.e. sends a signal without being told to by an incoming signal), or a transponder; not enough detail is given in the movie to tell exactly which it is - it's not clear that Bardem is enough of a geek to know whether his device is really just a receiver, or a 'transponder activator and detector'. I'd suggest use of 'tracking device'. Noel (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is some evidence that it's a transponder. Note that when Chigurh is in range of the device, he gets a signal. That seems to imply that it is responding, since otherwise the timing of the response would be more random. Do you agree? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that could just mean that if the unit in the money is a plain transmitter, it has limited strength (which seems likely, it's pretty small when Moss finally finds it, which implies it doesn't have a lot of room for a big power source). If so, and the unit Chigurh has is thus a plain receiver, it would only be able to 'hear' the (low-power) transmitter when it was close to it.
 * The best argument for it being a transponder, now that I think about it, is the size of the unit hidden in the money - in something that small, the battery would have to be so small it might run down before the money is found (since signal strength, i.e. 'audible' range, is proportional to power usage rate, and a plain transmitter would have to be on all the time). If, on the other hand, it was a transponder, it would only transmit when told to by Chigurh's unit (listening for an incoming signal takes a lot less power than transmitting a reply), much prolonging the battery life.
 * There's also a second-order thing where, because the unit Chigurh has is rather large (and thus could contain a relatively powerful transmitter), a transponder system would allow it to detect the unit in the money at a greater range (the unit in the money could 'hear' Chigurh's unit at a great range; and since it would only transmit infrequently, it could use more power to transmit back, making it 'audible' at a greater range).
 * But as far as I can recall (it's been a couple of weeks since I saw the movie last), there's nothing in the movie which definitively states whether the units are a plain transmitter & receiver, or a transponder & trigger/detector. From a technical standpoint, it could be either. (And apologies if this is a lot more technical detail than you cared about - once an engineer, etc, etc!) Noel (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I really appreciate it. Thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to mention one other piece of evidence that I think comes in on the transponder side: isn't there a change in the rhythm of bleeps as Chigurh gets closer? Doesn't that indicate that it is responding? In other words, the more frequent "you're warmer" bleeps are because it is responding more often to requests. Otherwise, the bleeps would not increase their tempo. But then it's been a while since I saw the movie; is there a change in tempo as Chigurh gets closer? I think so but I'm not sure. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, glad to help. About the beep rythm: alas, this doesn't say anything one way or the other, either. If the system is a plain transmitter/receiver, the receiver could be designed to change the beep speed depending on the signal strength - that way, you could tell if you were moving away from the source, or getting closer to it. (A useful attribute for a tracking system, obviously.)
 * If I ever see it again, I'll keep an eye out to see if there are any clues. However, since scriptwriters aren't usually engineers, don't be surprised if they didn't know the difference between the two (and thus didn't say anything which would make ir certain which it was)! Like I said, the activator/transponder system would have superior performance, so it would make sense for the system to be that, but... that's not definitive. Noel (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Existentialism
"No Country For Old Men" is clearly Existential yet the article glosses over the type of cinema. It is an Existential Hollywood movie and how many of those have ever been made? 67.121.225.43 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds fascinating. What do you mean? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Carla Jean "reminding" Chigurh
Regarding the scene were Carla Jean is offered to call the coin toss for her life: I changed the following from "She refuses to play, instead reminding him that the choice is his alone." to "She refuses to play, insisting that the choice is his alone." This was reverted by Ring Cinema with the comment "I believe Chigurh knows the choice is his alone".

What is the basis for this belief? For Carla to be "reminding" Chigurh would imply that he's forgotten something, instead of just having a different point of view. Chigurh is portrayed throughout the film as an odd character with peculiar beliefs. Wells calls him a man of principles. In his response to Carla, Chigurh does not agree with Carla's argument. What is the positive evidence from the film to the contrary, keeping in mind "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability"?

216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's self-evident that Chigurh knows that it's his choice. 'Remind' doesn't only mean 'help to remember', it also means 'put in mind of' especially to help someone avoid a mistake. I think it's the correct word, especially given the context of Carla Jean's words. Thanks for the thoughts, anonymous editor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any evidence that Chigurh believes as you think, and I have provided contrary evidence. As for the definition you are using, it's a loaded term. It's like a prosecutor saying "let me remind the witness he is under oath", implying the witness is lying. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The definitions I'm using are standard, not obscure. I don't feel like Wikipedia should limit itself to an abridged dictionary. I also don't think there's anything magical about the current verbiage. I think it's more neutral, since it does not introduce anything that is not obvious. I'm not sure what evidence is contrary to this view, since I think there's agreement that Chigurh chooses, whether that choice = following a principle or not following a principle. If the argument is that 'remind' implies that Chigurh agrees with Carla Jean, I would mention that it's not the case that everyone reminded of X agrees that X is also true. Thanks for the interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say your definition was obscure, I said it was loaded. The word is being used as a rhetorical trick, for example: "The Christian reminded the atheist that Jesus died for his sins." This has a completely different connotation than "The Christian insisted that Jesus died for his sins."


 * And no, within the context of the movie, it is not obvious Chigurh chooses. Chigurh just has a completely different philosophy on the matter, and we, the viewers, are invited to entertain it.


 * 216.195.28.24 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Carla Jean is doing the reminding, right? Let's not overlook that the remindee does not have to accept the views of the reminder. So there's plenty of room for a different philosophy if that's what you want. Not only that, it seems to overstate the matter to say she "insists" on anything. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring my point about the biased connotation. A debater cannot "remind" another debater about a point under dispute. It's a biased, rhetorical device, and in this case shows that the commentator is taking sides. As for "insists" overstating, this girl is arguing for her life. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this to be a fairly minor point but I do agree that "insisting" is less controversial than "reminding". "Insisting" carries absolutely no additional connotations whereas "reminding" can. It certainly is plausible for a reader to see "reminding" and try to find a previous instance to which this refers, such an instance, of course, being non-existent. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a minor point, it's true. The idea that "insisting" carries no connotations is false, though. Not only that, it's not what happens in the movie. I would be prepared to give up on 'remind' if it could be enunciated what idea Carla Jean presents to Chigurh that she thinks he would not have heard before. In that case, she's not reminding him, she's presenting him with new material that she would not have believed is a reminder. However, the facts are different: she is actually appealing to what she thinks is his previous decision to keep the promise he made to her husband; he can keep the promise or not, she thinks. Again, what matters is her belief that he decided something. Acting on that belief, she reminds him that the choice is his alone. If she doesn't have that belief, why is she mentioning it? It doesn't come up randomly, after all. Whether he receives it as a reminder in either sense is beside the point to describing the action of the movie correctly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * About "insisting", note Big Bird said it carries no additional connotations. It's a straightforward use of the word. Considering how she rejects his command to "Call it" twice, giving up a 50% chance to live, I don't see how you can argue that "insisting" is overstating the case. Now compare that with the contortions you're going through to defend "remind". I'll note that you've shifted from your original argument "I believe Chigurh knows the choice is his alone". Now you are saying she is "reminding" him about what they were talking about in the past minute.


 * The "new material" in question is the coin. Also, for her to state her belief twice is in favor of the word "insist". 216.195.28.24 (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. Big Bird's views on "insisting" are incorrect. You should be as critical of your own idea as you are of others. Your take about the coin is too vague and unformed to comment on.
 * Again, to show that she's not "reminding" you have to explain this: what does Carla Jean present to Chigurh that she believes is not a reminder of an earlier state of mind when Chigurh knew it was his choice alone? I'd rather not dumb down the summary any further than is necessary and I really haven't heard anything that contradicts the view that Carla Jean believes she's reminding Chigurh that it's his choice alone. In other words, she wants to put in front of his mind that he chooses. I am consonant with the view that Chigurh's thinking is different, but that doesn't prevent her from reminding. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's incorrect to state that "reminding" is the null hypothesis and that this needs to be proven incorrect before an alternate hypothesis is introduced. I also think that it's incorrect to state that insisting is "not what happens in the movie" because the above arguments about reminding seem to be based on our knowledge of what beliefs Carla Jean and Chigurh held of each other and this is not directly presented on screen. I'll admit that it's plausible for "remind" to be correct but "insist" is a lower denominator that doesn't stray in its meaning and, realistically, it shouldn't be seen as incorrect. Could we agree on a altogether different solution if neither of these two suffice? Something like:
 * She refuses to play, instead stating that the choice is his alone.
 * She refuses to play and says that the choice is his alone.
 * She refuses to play, instead leaving the choice up to him. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The crux of the problem is that your use of remind is a rhetorical trick. It tries to lend an air of fact about a debatable point. It's akin to using weasel words. Here's a condensed version of the dialog in question:


 * A. Carla Jean: You don't have to do this.
 * B. Chigurh: This is the best I can do. Call it.
 * C. Carla Jean: The coin don't have no say. It's just you.


 * You're summary reads as "She refuses to play, instead reminding him A." That's just a completely biased summary.


 * As for "insists", I reject that it is "incorrect", though there are two definitions and I'm using the first http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/insist: 1. To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield: insisted on giving me a second helping. 2. To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently: We insist that you accept these gifts. That said, I'm not wed to insists and would accept either of the first two of Big Bird's alternatives.


 * 216.195.28.24 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the anonymous editor to refrain from characterizing my editing as "trickery." It's worse than wrong. Big Bird: Null Hypothesis. I'm not putting forward The null hypothesis as much as some staring place on My null hypothesis; I'm simply stating honestly what would cause me to abandon my view, since there's no point discussing if we're not willing to change our minds. Not sure I'm seeing the same willingness elsewhere and I'm going to put that forward as the strength of my position. Insisting. Is 'insist' a lower denominator of 'remind'? I'm not sure, but I hope there's agreement that, since there's little enough that we can say, we should say what can be said. Is the above discussion evidence that Carla Jean "insists"? I'm afraid I don't see the connection quite the same as you, Big Bird. Someone is insisting on her behalf but it seems that 'insist' could be wrong, i.e. can we honestly say she makes a firm demand? Despite what you say above, we don't have to enter into Chigurh's mind to understand if she's 'reminding'. We merely have to note that she believes something like this: "Chigurh knows he doesn't have to keep his word or let a coin flip decide because it's up to him what he does." I think that's an uncontroversial summary of her state of mind. I hope you find it reasonably persuasive. Many thanks for your interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't agree that the summary of her state of mind as described is uncontroversial. I believe that insisting is a lower denominator, yes, but I'm willing to concede that not everyone will see it that way. That's the reason why I offered the alternate solutions if "reminds" and "insists" seem to be too suggestive of something that's not blatantly obvious. What do you think about the options I presented above? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to dumb it down. Which part is controversial? She explicitly says it's not up to the coin, so that part is right. So then how is it possible that she is not referring to Chigurh's decision to follow the path he started on when he offered her husband the chance to save her life? That's expressly what she's responding to. What else could Carla Jean be thinking? I'm trying to find a copy of the text online to reference. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what she was thinking and it's really not within the guidelines contained in WP:FILMPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source") for us to make such a statement. I would qualify as analytic, interpretive and evaluative the explanation that she reminds him of something of which they are both mentally aware but which remains unspoken. Do you think we can find a common ground if neither side agrees to "remind" or "insist"? Could you maybe offer another suggestion? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break
Summary of the discussion, please? Is there not a way to write the particular scene on a higher level to avoid specifics of the exchange? Erik (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As of this version, the plot section describes the exchange between Carla Jean and Chigurh as (contentious wording italicized) "She refuses to play, instead reminding him that the choice is his alone." This was changed to "She refuses to play, insisting that the choice is his alone." This change was reverted and a discussion ensued about the merits of each of those wording choices being based on what was actually presented on screen versus the alternate wording being based on something being implied.
 * The above is the summary. My opinion is that it is possible to rewrite it as Erik suggests hence my request for further input for suggestions of how to achieve this. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral as possible, I say-- she "insisting" it's his decision is OK. "Replying" or something on that order might be better. "Reminding" is inappropriate-- It implies Chigurh knew it was his choice earlier, an awareness on Chigurh's part of which, as far as I recall, we have no evidence. Dekkappai (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this topic is extremely trivial. There are much bigger problems on Wikipedia. That said, the real problem is that both versions emphasize unimportant dialog rather than action. What's really important is that she forces him to decide. The text should say something like "insisting that he make the choice himself" or "forcing him to make the choice himself". It could also say nothing at all, since that's pretty much implied by "she refuses to play". If you're trying to emphasize specifically what she says, I wouldn't waste the reader's time with it. Unless it has some effect on the action independent of her refusal, it's just dramatic dialog. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Too much detail, and bordering on interpretation-- just scrap it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So the agreement is that the sentence states "She refuses to play" or "She refuses to choose" and end the sentence there? If that's the case, I'm in agreement with that solution as well. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be as simple as, "Carla Jean comes home, where Chigurh confronts her about Moss's money. Chigurh leaves the house alone" or a similar variation? Erik (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That configuration might be a bit too simplified but I think you're on the right track. How about merging the sentence in question with the preceding sentence (also simplified) to state "He offers her a coin toss for her life and she refuses to play." Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think why she refuses is important. This whole scene is about a life and death philosphical debate about choice between the two characters. It is NOT about action. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The plot summary is only supposed to be a basic description of the film. We can argue thematic importance to all scenes in the film.  If the summary cannot have this level of detail without this kind of debating, then perhaps we should make it even smaller and less disputable -- say, around 200-300 words? Erik (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to be summarizing philosophical debates without secondary sources. The film is a primary source and it's used in the plot section only as such. Per WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The consensus seems to be that "reminding" is too interpretive per this definition but it doesn't necessarily stop there. The further we can get from any interpretation of what was presented on screen the better. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to make judgments about what to include in the plot. At some point if you cut out too much you aren't representing the film. Personally, I don't see any support for "remind" outside of Ring Cinema, so I think going with Big Bird's first alternative of "She refuses to play, instead stating that the choice is his alone." is the best choice. I don't get "insist", and Ring Cinema doesn't get "remind", but the nature of the scene is left intact. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it IS about action: His accident seems to be caused by his conscience finally distracting him.  I would say "He offers to let her live if she correctly calls a toss of a coin, but she refuses" and then maybe " as a matter of principal." or ", forcing him to take full responsibility for her death."  The details of the dialog are unimportant though.  &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's a YouTube video of the scene in question for those who want a refresher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZT29UP_3o8 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I like Big Bird's solution above. I agree with 216.195.28.24 that the philosophy behind the scene, and the entire film in fact, is important. However, discussion of that belongs in a section on interpretation, not a plot description. And the interpretation needs to be from reliable film scholars, critics, etc. not from us. If the dialogue comes up in a discussion of interpretation later on, fine. [post ce]-- Yes, personally I like very short, bare-bones synopses, (except for films that are either very difficult to find, or totally lost.) Dekkappai (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors coming in late was very unhelpful. Someone actually asked for a summary, which is kind of funny except that it drives the quality straight to the dregs. If you don't have the patience for careful thinking, don't want to do the reading, admit that to yourself and leave that to those of us who do. I don't believe we're working on deadline. Thanks Big Bird, I appreciated the give and take. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because editors were not here at the start of the discussion doesn't mean that their feedback isn't helpful. Nobody's closing up this discussion right away, and the article can be further improved with more eyes on it. Its seems to me that the alternatives proposed by Big Bird seem to sum up the sequence well enough, allowing readers to follow the details. Any analysis or interpretation on the events in the final scene should be covered outside the plot section within its own section. Has anyone found any reviews or journal articles that cover this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Big Bird's ideas were welcome. He took the time to get up to speed before he offered his thoughts. Superficial discussions yield a superficial product. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, a lot of editors' time was wasted unnecessarily because of one editor's stubborn and arrogant stupidity. That this editor now insults the input from others which forced him to budge seems to be no surprise to anyone. Dekkappai (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if editors came to this discussion, they are interested in improving it, and are entitled to agree with those that offered alternatives. I read the entire discussion, have seen the film, and read the plot summary, so I think that I can (and others) join the discussion to determine the best alternative. Instead of focusing on the editors, let's focus on the content of the article, so that this discussion doesn't need to stretch on. Since you have contributed to this page quite a bit, I'm asking if you have come across any helpful sources that could be used in expanding an analysis/interpretations section? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that I focused on the editors instead of the article, but I actually was calling for focus on the content as you just did. So thanks for agreeing with me, even though you didn't know it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the original editor who started this discussion, I note that Ring Cinema changed the article to an agreed alternative, and as such I am satisfied with the outcome. I do think the one editor who asked for a summary instead of reading the discussion shows a lack of consideration, but I also think the late editor opinions did add value. My confidence in the Wikipedia process, however messy it may be, is re-affirmed. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see more evidence here on one entrenched editor ('Ring Cinema') dismissing and insulting others. Why has this been allowed to go on for so long? 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is not fair. I am completely open to improvements. Of course I have paid a lot of attention to this article the last couple years. I know the many disputes that have arisen. But I am totally open to changes that improve the article and my record bears this out.

Reception
No Country for Old Men received universal acclaim...(95%) critics gave the film a positive review...91%...etc

somebody needs to look up the word 'universal'67.171.186.12 (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - and it appears to be you.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * i could be missing the joke, but it's inaccurate to say that it was universally acclaimed when it wasn't; various critics disliked it, reviewed it negatively, etc, as indicated by the sources cited. 67.171.186.12 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"No Country for Old Men received few negative reviews."

that has a wrong complexion. the word "negative" should not figure into describing a reception which was overwhelmingly positive. with those unusually high numbers (95%, 91%), you can (just) plausibly say "No Country for Old Men received near-universal acclaim...". at a minimum it should say "...received mostly positive reviews". 67.171.186.12 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's perfectly good English and expresses the main idea accurately without resort to peacock language or inaccuracies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the main idea (that its reception was mostly positive) is more accurately expressed by wording that articulates that its reception was mostly positive.67.171.186.12 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. Mostly is only 51%. There are any number of ways to express ideas in English and nothing is gained by eliminating some for no reason. So far, this form is the smallest problem. It is neutral and factual, which is what we want there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the issue is best use of language. from the current wording, that n.c.f.o.m. received mostly positive reviews can be gathered only by inference; the mind is required to reverse-reason. the thought process on reading it is: "n.c.f.o.m. received few negative reviews... - oh, so it received mostly positive reviews", etc. better to directly say that it received mostly positive reviews and eliminate the necessity of the backward mental step.67.171.186.12 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The inverse of 'few' is not 'mostly'. Mostly is only 51%, but its reception was better than that. I am sure it is widely understood that saying there are few X's means that X's are not large in number. (My search found no counterexamples.) Given the degree of good reception here -- many movies have better, for whatever reason -- I think ordinary English is fine and that's what we should use. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * as of now, it reads "...received very positive reviews." if you made that change, i'm confused; i thought you liked "received few negative reviews". there must be somebody else looking at this. but the current wording connotes that it received generally positive reviews, and that's accurate. 67.171.186.12 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

you're back: "No Country for Old Men received few negative reviews."

the issue is best use of language. from that wording, that n.c.f.o.m. received almost all positive reviews can be gathered only by inference; the mind is required to reverse-reason. the thought process on reading it is: "n.c.f.o.m. received few negative reviews... - oh, so it received almost all positive reviews", etc. better to directly say that it received almost all positive reviews and eliminate the necessity of the backward mental step. 24.20.121.172 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ^^I agree to the fullest!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.64.37 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is accurate and avoids the other problems we had in that section. There are many examples of this construction, so it is not hard to understand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * it is harder to understand than a direct, equally neutral statement that it received mostly positive reviews. 24.20.121.172 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it did better than that. It was more than a majority and the negatives were few in number. I don't think it's at all hard to understand, either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I understand the different points being made above. And I also see disagreement about style, which is subjective, not so much about proper English. "Mostly" is a vague term and can mean more than 51%, all the way up to 99% (or to put a fine point on it, it could be 100% minus one) but "universal" (which is what the article says now) means 100% which is technically incorrect but probably not worth fighting about. I also do not like the construction "few negative" but I do like the "nearly universal" suggestion. More importantly, though, I think User:RC you need to cut out the patronizing jabs and focus on being collaborative. I've read other threads above and, while I can see that perhaps you don't realize the effect your particular style of disagreement has on others, it comes off as terribly nitpicky and off-putting. Obviously you have contributed to making this a good article. But I suggest you review WP:Civility e.g. "Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are 'superior'; nobody likes a bully." As someone else said, we are all here to improve the article. El duderino (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: nearly 2 weeks later and he's still condescending to other editors while refusing to collaborate. Maybe time for an RfC. 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

nearly universal
I like this phrasing as suggested by an IP editor above and used at other articles for top films. I think "few negative" is nearly a double negative and too close to "a few negative" -- and more importantly, as another editor said in recent edit summary, why ponder the negatives when it received overwhelmingly positive reviews? Yes, "few negative" is correct English -- no one's arguing that so please stop repeating it -- but it is somewhat awkward in this context and I've never seen it used in another film article, so it is not the best choice for an encyclopedic summary style. And by the way, the recent back and forth argument in edit summaries     should be hashed out here instead. El duderino (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No thanks. There is nothing awkward about a perfectly ordinary English sentence. 5% dissenters is actually very substantial. If you'd like, do as I did and look at where that ranks it among all films that year. Many films do better. I think Star and I are both comfortable with it as it is and this way is completely accurate, excellent English construction, and completely comprehensible. I appreciate you trying, though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 'No thanks'? Please don't condescend to other editors. In addition to issues of WP:civility you appear to be trying to WP:Own the article. Please stop the edit warring -- this is your 3rd revert in 6 hours. I believe that User:StarofAmman was trying to compromise with you, since his first change  in the above-mentioned warring was against your "few negative" insistence. I'm not sure exactly why you're clinging to the awkward & misleading construction, but you're the only one arguing for it and yes we consider the IP editors' comments. El duderino (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Star and I have already agreed to "very few," So I think for the moment, I would rather discuss it with you here. Did you look at the RT site to see what I said? This film is 26th in just the year of its release. And 5% is a significant dissent. Would you say living outside the US is "almost universal" for the world's population? Of course not! 5% of the world lives in the US. So the critical approval for this film is not almost universal either. Sorry, but that's a fact. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine. I'm not particularly attached to "nearly universal" so we can choose another positive summary, like "highly acclaimed" (or "widespread" but the next sentence in that section uses 'wide' already). Anything but "few negative" or any similar construction, which Yes is awkward in this context, as I said above. And I'm not going to debate about what 5% or 95% means here since it's merely Rotten Tomatoes' aggregation, and I'm more concerned with summarizing the overall praise not a sloppy ranking. Let's see what the wikipedia articles say about other recent Oscar winners:
 * The_Artist_(film) "near-universal acclaim" 98%
 * The_King%27s_Speech "widespread critical acclaim" 95%
 * Hurt_Locker "near universal acclaim" 95%
 * Slumdog_Millionaire "highly acclaimed" 94%
 * The_Departed "universal acclaim" 93%
 * And with this you've now violated WP:3RR. I suggest you self-revert until we can reach a compromise. El duderino (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly good English that says exactly the facts of the matter in a neutral way. That's what we're aiming for and I have no idea why you would object to that. Also, I don't think it's such a good idea to want to change the subject once you realize the facts are not that good for your position. This film received good notices, but many films receive better. The number of negative reviews is 14 out of 226. 14 is also the number of countries that border China out of the 207 in the world. Do you think that number is "few" or "very few"? Would you agree that almost no countries border China? I don't think so. It's a substantial amount of dissent, those 14, and we should be accurate about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeating "perfectly good English" doesn't make it so. I've already said it's correct grammar, but that doesn't make it good copy for this encyclopedia article and certainly not in this context. 95% is overwhelmingly positive. I thought you like this film -- so why do you insist on focusing on the 'few negative'? (Which is what happens when you start the section that way.) And what subject am I changing? If you mean my attempt to reach compromise with "highly acclaimed" that's what we do in a collaborative project. Conflating other stats (size of US in one of your edit summaries, now countries bordering China?!) detracts from your argument and it certainly does not lead to a conclusion like "the facts are not that good for your position."  I think you are too entrenched in this article and need a break. El duderino (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See, you are getting into the wp:peacock language again. It is a good critical reception. No one can say it's not positive, but it's not overwhelming. I'm not even whelmed when I see the 25 films that RT scored better in 2007. (Did you go take a look as I suggested?) Now, why is it that you don't want to make a simple comparison with another statistic? I have to say I believe it is because it very obviously contradicts your wish to puff up this article. When you realize that 5% of the world's population lives in the US, you know there's no way you can say it's only a few or very few, or that the number of people who live outside the US is overwhelming. Clearly that is wrong, and once you realize that is wrong, then you know you're wrong about this critical reception matter. So, you can change the article, but you'll still be wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

95% positive is IMHO, is overwhelmingly positive, but in terms of reaching a consensus, why not record that "top critics" (typically meaning accredited or professional media) give it a 91% positive rating, removing it from iffy "tomatometer" aggregate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC).


 * A little research might be required to put this in context since, actually, 95% positive is not uncommon for Rotten Tomatoes. As I've mentioned, it's only 26th best for 2007. Many films score better. This is one of those cases that tempts a film's devotees to inflate the language, as Duderino wants to do. And he changes the terms of the discussion when his arguments are refuted. If he was serious, he would bend over backwards to be sure he's not using peacock language. I haven't seen that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh get off your high horse. Your tiresome 'peacock' reference is misplaced. You don't know if I am a devotee, how serious I am, or anything else about me. And you don't own this article. You didn't refute my arguments nor did I change the terms. You've edit warred against 3 editors, at least, just on this issue alone. And probably countless others judging by your attitude in previous threads. As well as at other articles like Godfather. What does it take to get through to you? I attempted to reason with you early on yet you just dug in your heels. I don't really expect you to actually read this or understand it, because I'm done trying to collaborate with you. El duderino (abides) 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As you know, I've made reasoned arguments and been willing to compromise. When your reasoning failed in the face the evidence, you attempted to change the subject. Did I miss your compromise proposal? I don't think there was one. So, in what way were you ever "collaborating"? If I were you, I would take it seriously that peacock language should be avoided. My perception is that you didn't. Can you point out where you took it seriously and modified your thinking as a result? That would be evidence on your side. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: repeating what you've said before doesn't make it any more right. Anyone can see how you're misrepresenting your own involvement in the dispute. 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume that is ElDuderino or JTBX on a sock puppet. Looks like they can't find an example of their own compromise so are trying to accuse me of dishonesty. That doesn't wash. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That's not me, could be Eldude. JTBX (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My edits to article
I cleared up the plot from 717 words to 688, getting rid of unneeded details while adding those missing. I clarified the Themes section and will begin editing the Reception section because I think it is kind of ridiculous to see a Reception section full of listed quotes. Also I suggest a paragraph in the introduction detailing the making of the film and its themes. --JTBX (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This GA article has a longstanding consensus on the plot summary. Thanks for your interest. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what status it is, I've edited FA articles the same way which were accepted (see American Beauty (film)). Also, where is the consensus? If you could point me there to see what was decided and what improvements were needed. Thanks. JTBX (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the consensus? So you don't know what a consensus is? Okay, I take note of that. Among the many things you don't know, that is one more. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I said where is it, in terms of the actual discussion which specifically agreed to the plot remaining the way it is. JTBX (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything rather than agreeing to cut down unnnecessary information and improving the word count per guidelines. Which is what I am trying to do. JTBX (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that work is complete. Thanks, anyway, but you are marring the plot summary. I think it's obvious that you decided to edit here because your personal attacks against me almost led to your sanction by EdJohnston. Instead of trying to improve, you now choose to mar this plot summary, too. That is your choice. You can be productive, or you can make a nuisance of yourself. Right now, you are a nuisance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What? I watch all these films. It is true that I came across this as a result of what happened, but when I see a plot summary above 700 I try my best to edit it, which is what I have done. Look through my recent contribs and you will see I edited a lot of plots today. I don't care what articles you choose to edit, because they are not yours. I want to edit a lot on this article as I mentioned in my first post. I am not attacking you personally either. I consider myself a productive member with ideas, maybe all won't be accepted but editors usually provide sound reasoning (see Talk:Predators (film) last section). And of course, while EJ may have nearly sanctioned me I don't think he has seen you call me a nuisance either. JTBX (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your changes lack consensus and you are continuing your personal attacks in another form. Since you claim you want to be productive, let's see if you can actually do it. When you have a consensus for your changes, then we can make them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to retreat to neutral corners, as neither side is about to concede. If you need an objective or uninvolved editor to look at the edits, that can be arranged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Can you please do so? that would be great. The current plot summary I put forward is on the article I believe.--JTBX (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, both versions are fine, yet both have some stylistic issues that include punctuation, word choice, use of sentence and paragraph structure, as well as the intrinsic "flow". My only advice is to work collaboratively on a passage at a time and come to some personal resolutions on word useage and choice of stylistic devices. As an author and sometime editor in the virtual as well as the "real" world, the following paragraph edit is illustrative of what I would "wordsmith" as an editor:
 * Version One: West Texas in June 1980 is desolate, wide open country, and Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) laments the increasing violence in a region where he, like his father and grandfather before him, has risen to the office of sheriff. Word count: 39
 * Version two: In desolate West Texas, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) in June 1980, laments the increasing violence in a region where he, like his father and grandfather before him, has risen to the office of sheriff. Word count: 38


 * My version: In June 1980, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), like his father and grandfather, patrols desolate West Texas; lamenting the increasing violence in a region where he is the law. Word count: 26

As you can see, I am even more stringent in "pruning". Calling me in may not be what either of you would want ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Nice job, definitely liking your version there. Though I'm not sure word count is issue as it already is under 700. Any ideas for flow? JTBX (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bzuk's draft meets with my approval as well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, he's only proposed one sentence so far. But the main concerns are the other details, like how Moss constructs the pole hanger and son, which are left out. JTBX (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For disclosure, earlier today, I* invited Bzuk to participate more as it seems you both agree that he has something to offer and would be a good neutral source of ideas. Whether or not he will, I have no idea, but I hope so as he seems like a quality editor with good ideas. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary
This plot summary has a longstanding consensus that dates back two years. Occasionally it is tweaked, but it doesn't need a makeover. I find the proposed changes almost uniformly inferior. The only thing that can be said for them is that the section is shorter, but many editors over the last two years have agreed that this is about as spare as we want to make it. At one time, this summary was about 900 words, and as a summary of the action is was better. So the judgement of the editors has been that this is about right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You would like to have the plot summaries a bundle of sentences regardless if they violate WP:PLOT or not, having seen your work with Annie Hall. Sadly, it appears you belong to a Fan wiki for films rather than Wikipedia. "Long standing consensus" does not justify not improving the article. "Long standing consensus" can stop this GA article from becoming an FA one. Besides, I do not know why you have created a new section. I ahev brought my changes to the talk page. Reply above please. JTBX (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated at the ANI, WP:DRN is the best solution if you can't reach a consensus here. I would ask that everyone take extra care to be civil, and try to work it out here first. It is obvious that you both are acting in good faith, but we all need to just keep a level head and try to patiently and calmly discuss the issue. Getting personal with the comments isn't helpful, no matter who is doing it. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As a casual observer I'll note that user Ring Cinema's contributions to the page and the forum in general appear to be related to a need for an adversarial interaction rather than a constructive one. There are other places on the internet for this sort of "passion", but such an approach doesn't improve the quality of the article. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Too Long!
The article on this film is considerably longer than that on World War 2. Too much information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably too long for now, but it's good material. The article on the war has many linked and related articles, making the main article the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps there is a better comparison to consider. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If the material in the film article is all good then most of it should be in (or deferred to) hyperlinks and/or references, not reproduced in the main article. No article about a film should be as long as that about a world war fought in living memory. Putting more detailed stuff in the hyperlinks or references restores the validity of the comparison with the WW2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no basis for that in policy, which is all that matters. Your opinion that an article about a film should not be as long as an article about a world war is just that: your opinion.  And it is utterly irrelevant. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  22:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be *consistent* with Wikipedia policy, but your assertion that Wikipedia policy is all that matters is false. Wikipedia is embedded in the culture of its writers and readers, and that culture contains many conventions that are not in the rules but are understood within that culture. People come here with a reasonable expectation of learning about something in a length of time that reflects the importance of the subject. That is why better-known people generally have longer Wikipedia biogs than less well-known people, which is how it should be. It would be a pity if Wikipedia introduced a rule rather than relied on the commonsense of contributors, but forgive me if I regard World War 2 as a more important event than the release of a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. WP policy is all that matters, not your cockamamie notions of "the culture of its writers and readers," whatever that means.  As you were told above, in addition to the main article on World War Two, there are hundreds of articles on more specific topics, be they battles, vehicles, people, and other subjects relating directly to the war.  So, altogether, there are thousands more words on WP about World War Two than there are about this film. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Your abusive tone does not reflect well on you; please reconsider how you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one certainly do not understand what you are (attempting) to say. I suggest two things:
 * Re-read your copy and maybe then you will understand our point of view that you are making no sense. Perhaps you then may wish to write it again.
 * Get into the habit of signing/dating your posts!
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Gareth: Where nobody is discourteous enough to walk on the grass there is no need for a sign saying "Do not walk on the grass." There are a great many conventions regarding the writing of items for Wikipedia (and indeed all informative writing) that have not been made explicit in Wikipedia's rules. Of course, any writing for Wikipedia should conform to the rules that Wikipedia has chosen to make explicit. Article length IS an issue, as can be demonstrated by asking oneself the question: How long would this article have to be before it was too long? In fact I see that there are Wikipedia guidelines on length. I haven't flagged this article as Too Long, which it deserves, because that would take a Wikipedia account and I prefer not to have one. So I am commenting here. As a non-account-holder my comments get auto-signed with my IP address, which (in the absence of my real name) is more meaningful than a pseudonym. (I prefer not to give my real name and Wikipedia does not require me to do so.)


 * ... Aaah? But the 'bot hasn't, has it ... or below in Split or Trim? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk to the bot about that, I didn't hack it! I remain, Sir, 86.53.69.150. Getting back to the subject, comparison with entries for even the most famous films shows that the present entry is anomalously long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that this article is long, primarily because of its analysis section, but is that a virtue of completeness or an incompetence of prolixity? Most films don't engage so much intellectual gravity with a similar attempt to explain it. Although there's not a limit on article size any longer, my reading of the guide is that we should be considerate of readers who might not be able to load this page in reasonable time. That said, I don't see a clear method to trim the analysis without doing damage to it. I think the first place to cut would be incoherent, redundant, gratuitous, arbitrary, or onanistic selections; we don't seem to have that. Perhaps others don't agree with that assessment or standard, but I offer it nonetheless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just address the real issue, shall we? To the outside observer, it appears that this particular entry and been hijacked by obsessional fanboys who are trying to use it as literary penis-enlargement for their personal egos.  The entire entry has become nothing but a masturbatory wank-fest for rabid fanboys, and that's not a good thing.  It's fairly obvious just from reading the comments on this page that there's a handful of lunatic-fringe obsessionals who couldn't care less about anything other than ramming their personal fixation with this movie down WikiPedia's throat. 174.23.178.76 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That elephant was at least alluded to above under "onanistic". But I don't see the basis for your crudely stated accusation. What is it that you find original, onanistic, obsessional, oblivious, otiose, or otherwise outside a normal good faith effort to cover the subject at hand? This is exactly what we're discussing here, but I don't see how you clarify anything except your own form of onanism. Would you care to take another shot at it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Split or Trim?
Split - I think that the "Reception" section is long, and can be split off to reduce the length of this article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of splitting this off into a subsection, in which we can discuss the length and ways of dealing with it.
 * I think the problem lies in the "themes and analysis" section, which is 24,798 words long (that is a word processor word count, which means all the citations are counted as well, but it is still a fairly accurate count). I think that much of this section, including the numerous sub and sub-subsections, can be removed or trimmed.  I removed one paragraph that was analysis of the novel, not the film.  How much of it is even necessary or encyclopedic? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of change is contemplated by the Split proposal? Is reception and analysis of a single film a proper subject for its own article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so, no. That is why I suggest a significant trim of the "themes and analysis" section, rather than a split. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  13:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the standard you are suggesting? You say it is not encyclopedic to include analysis to this extent, but perhaps this film is different from others. The summaries as written are apparently accurate and it's drawn from diverse sources. It's not OR, either. I am loathe to remove something because it's intelligent and interesting. Although it is obvious that this article is longer than other film articles, that is only a prima facie reason to shorten it. What are we trying to accomplish? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear RingCinema: Do you think this film is different from others, please; if so, why?
 * Please sign your posts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ 86.53.69.150 (talk) After more than 4 years and one month of repeated requests from other users, you are still not signing your posts.
 * That tells me much about your nature. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me all about my nature.
 * See above. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gareth, maybe if you were less worried about him "signing his posts" and more worried about answering his question, you wouldn't come off as such a petulant child. Just saying.  The fact that you put "Gareth Griffith-Jones" beside your post hardly makes you a superior human being.  I could sign my posts "Gareth Griffith-Jones-Kennedy-Bush III", and it wouldn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things, now would it? 74.120.34.2 (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you write the unsigned posts above? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear RingCinema: This is 86.53.69.150. Of any unsigned posts above, I wrote only the ones beginning "Dear Gareth: Where nobody is discourteous enough...", "Dear RingCinema: Do you think this film is different from others, please; if so, why?" and "Please tell me all about my nature." I do not know why the bot did not auto-sign these for me; as I told Gareth, I did not hack it. It would be great if you were willing to answer the question I addressed to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing from just a cursory glance of the article. Why does the Reception section use direct lifts from EIGHT Reviews?  and the "Criticism" section isn't an actual section.  It's just a spot where a ton of Negative snippets were taken from several reviews and just plopped in there.  That should ALL be removed and replaced with a couple of consolidated paragraphs that just explain what they're going for.  The actual reviews themselves should be in the references if someone wants to read them, but nobody really needs them simply reproduced here.  Also, since it's already been split into its own topic, the page can be severaly decreased in size by simply removing the "Themes And Analysis" section entirely and replacing it with a paragraph explaining that the film has been analyzed quite extensively and linking to the actual article for more information.  I mean seriously, this page is longer than some short books.  There is no reason for it to be this long other than someone who wrote it REALLY digging this movie.DemonRin (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is, this page is overlong. Unnecessarily long.  So long that it's become a laughing stock on other websites (cracked.com listed it as 5th most needlessly-long Wikipedia page).  And just skimming through it, I see a large amount of fat that could be trimmed.  (Ex. unneeded snippits from reviews throughout the article when they should be kept in the reception area, a painfully long "Style" section full of unnecessary info, a page-long "Genre" section that doesn't need to be more than a paragraph, let alone exist, the entire "Themes and Alalysis" section being bloated and over-detailed, way too much detail in the release section, etc.  And that's all just in a quick skimming, without reading the whole thing)  I would love to edit this, but I don't feel like putting the effort into editing it down, because it's clear that a lot of over-dedicated fans/fanboys built this page, and will do away with any revisions or trimming.  This page is just too bloated and has too much unneeded information.  I did a quick copy-and-paste of this article in Word, and it's nearly 30 pages of size-10 font.  (Or nearly 40 pages at size 12 font)  Come on, that's too long.  It's just common sense.  This article could be halved easily and still be a competent, compelling, informative read.  As it is now, it smells of fanboy-itis.  I hate to say it, but it's clearly a passion project for an obsessive group of fans.  Nobody wants to read a 40-page entry on a film.  MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That the page is too long is not a new contribution to the discussion. There is a question about what to do about it without losing something of value. I'm not sure I agree that analysis or criticism or reception ought to be superficial or smack of original research, and I don't think readers come to a reference to read an article in its entirety anyway. There is a proposal to split the article into two that has some merit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Losing something of value"? Holy crap, why don't we just include the Constitution and the Magna Carta in it to, along with the Bible and the Quran.  After all, we wouldn't want to "lose anything of value".  Seriously, the people in this thread need to get over themselves.  It's a movie.  It's not the friggin' Bill of Rights.  Somehow, other movies manage to get along just fine without having 30,000 word entries.  Were this article being managed by an editor, instead of an obsessive child, it could easily be trimmed down to a reasonable length, and with great benefit to the entry itself.  That the thing that you people just aren't getting.  We're not suggesting that it be edited because we think the Internet is running out of room.  We're suggesting it be edited because it's a widely accepted fact that an article that's TOO long ceases to have any value.  It just becomes a huge masturbatory exercise in silliness.174.23.178.76 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, trim the article, this is insane...
I trimmed some of the fat from this article, and as expected, it was immediately reverted. I undid the revision, but I expect it to go back to it's original bloated state within hours. I copied and pasted this article into a Word document, and it was nearly 40 pages of size-12 font. (Plus the linked "Themes and Analysis" page, which is just as long.)

Guys, this article is ridiculous. It is loaded with unneeded information, redundant overuse of critical reactions strewn throughout (why not just post them in the "reception" section?), flowery-and-overly-wordy text throughout, a link to another just-as-long article on the film as mentioned above plus a second link to an article on accolades, overlong quotes, over-detailed descriptions, etc.

I know this will be endlessly debated, because things technically follow Wikipedia policy, but there's something to be said for common-sense. This article, by common sense standards, it too long, too detailed, and feels too much like a self-indulgent group of fanboys gone out of control. If your article is being made fun of on other websites for how needlessly-overlong it is (which is happening with this), then there's a problem. Nobody who uses wikipedia, other than obsessive fans who edit articles, wants to read 100 pages split up between several articles on a film like this. I tried to read through this page before, and I could barely find the information I wanted because it was so long. (This was before I realized how out-of-hand it was when it was referenced on Cracked.com.)

Guys, be realistic. Stop hiding behind wikipedia policies to justify this article. It's too long by any stretch of the imagination. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think RepublicanJacobite is a fanboy, though. He has a different perspective. What do you think of splitting it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously, the Reception and Criticism sections need a serious trim as well. There is no reason for either of those sections to reproduce quotes from EIGHT DIFFERENT reviews.  Some of these are full paragraphs.  Those should ALL Be removed and replaced with one Paragraph summing up what those reviewers said.DemonRin (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear 'Maximum Madness' and 'Demon': You have drawn my attention to other ridiculously long film articles on Wiki. Check out this (drum rolls) the Wikipage for 2001: A Space Odyssey ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film), is 25,000 words long plus an unneeded three sub-articles about 'differences from the novel (who cares!)', 'interpretations (I'm starting to yawn!)' and 'score (it's currently in the top 10!)'. These three articles amount to about 9,000 words. So the total is 34,000 words (thirty four thousand words!). That amounts in Word software to just short of 70 pages (seventy!) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: THIS IS INSANE. Imagine the following: (Honey, can you please tell me what awards 2001 won?, Sure Sweetie just give me six hours because I have to spend 5 minutes reading each of the 70 pages) Is this what Wiki should be? Shouldn't it be the most info with as few words as possible. We need to start trimming '2001' as soon as we finish trimming 'No Country for Old Men'. Wiki is being hijacked. It's our job to put that to an end. --NewtonSt (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think is being hijacked? More complicated subjects have more complicated articles. Sounds normal to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comments and those of RepublicanJacobite make sense. It's a matter of perspective. I think the Wiki administration did not set rules for how long an article should be and whether articles should be to the point or not. But maybe they don't have to set all the rules. They set some, and leave space for freedom. They block against vandalism/racism and edit wars. Wiki is by the people and for the people. WE set the rules by consensus, for remaining matters that Wiki adminsitration doesn't want to interfere in. Answering your question, I guess what could have been hijacked is the freedom that Wiki provides us with. Therefore, I have decided not to do any trimming until a consensus is reached, if any, stating that trimming is necessary. NewtonSt (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

MMS, your claim that other editors are "hiding behind Wikipedia policies" is just proof, though none is needed, that your edits have nothing to do with policy. I will say again, the opinion of other websites, like cracked.com, that some Wikipedia articles are too long, is absolutely irrelevant. Until you can make a reasoned argument, based on policy, about the length of these articles, and not merely your opinion that they are too long, stop editing the article. And, per WP:BRD, when you make a bold edit, and are reverted, you are not supposed to revert back, you are supposed to use the talk page to build a consensus, which you certainly have not done. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * RepublicanJacobite, you're proving my point about hiding behind policy by using it to justify reverting edits and then blaming me. (What choice do I have, you're going to whine and cower behind policy?)  The fact of the matter is, as I stated before, I myself had trouble locating information in this article in the past.  It's extremely crowded and full of unneeded quotes and content that makes it near impossible to locate specific info.  I let go of it, but then was reminded when I saw it referenced elsewhere (such as in the Cracked article).  Hence, I decided it wasn't just me that was having problems with the fact that there about 100 pages of info on this film, it was a larger group.  Hide behind policies and ignore common sense all you want, the fact of the matter is, this is a poor article that's darned-near impossible to navigate when looking for information, and a significant amount of the information is unneeded and adds nothing.   It's all fluff.  Plain and simple.  This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's an obsessive love letter to the film.  I don't understand why some of the fat couldn't be trimmed.  Ex. Why there needs to be 8 pages on the Themes and Analysis in this article, when there is an entire other page worth of material on the Themes/Analysis that is close to 40 pages long?  Or why there has to be countless excerts from critical reviews messily thrown throughout the article under just about every section, when they could just be in the Reception section?  Stuff like that makes this page extremely difficult to navigate and basically impossible find specific information.MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This article like me most certainly needs to lose a few pounds. I can't speak for the rest of it, but in the "In popular culture" section almost certainly could do with a trim. It provides FULL details of the references, which should be reserved for the articles they link to. Pages I have seen just give a brief overview of what happens and don't provide "Stars this person playing this role etc etc etc" but just a link to the relevant page/article and then the reader can read on if they so please. I for one will now edit this section down to size. If you disagree then please let us discuss. MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 20:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shiney, if you check the bottom conversation there is a more in-depth discussion about improving the article. We've already made some extensive improvements and gotten the article under 60kb at least which is the limit, but there is a lot of stuff which is just over the top that can still go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that. :) Will take a further look. Cheers :) MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Improvements to the article are, of course, welcome, but I would mention that others have pointed out that at its current length it does not run afoul of any guidelines or policies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes
Reading this article, I've noticed that there are whole paragraphs of just people being quoted. I'd wager this almost borders on copyvio, where it's simply a copy and paste job of numerous other people's comments. The encyclopedic thing to do (and what would help in cutting this article down) is to summarize and paraphrase. A lot of the quotes are superfluous. One also has to consider whether absolutely everything that has ever been said about this film, really needs to be reproduced here. Kusonaga (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, half the article needs to be trimmed. This article is about 40 pages long in Word, plus there are links to two other articles about the film (Analysis, Accolades, etc) that bring the total amount to about 100 pages in Word worth of material.  But it's not going to happen.  The obsessive users who maintain this page have repeatedly reverted any positive editing and trimming, even though this article is laughable, bloated, impossible to navigate and barely recognizable as an encyclopedia entry.  And technically, it's supported by policy (as there seems to be no policy against unnecessarily long and difficult-to-navigate pages), so they can get away with making it a dreadful page, even though common sense would dictate that this is a foul article.  MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a different take on it. The excessive quotations are a phase the article will pass through as summaries are substituted for the longer selections. This is going to take some effort. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But changes of the sort you advocate get reverted. As the Cracked critique points out, the entries for Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia combined do not sum to the length of this entry. MMS is entirely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that any trimming gets reverted within hours, despite the fact that this article is a complete chore to read, and contains a lot of unneeded info. (Ex. pages and pages of critical quotes in every single section, when they should be in the reception section.)  MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is Too Long
Congratulations Wikipedia Editors and contributors to this page, we got featured on Cracked. http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-6-most-needlessly-detailed-wikipedia-entries/?wa_ibsrc=fanpage

It's certainly something I noticed and wanted to get around too, the themes section in particular is so long, and the reception section which is excessively laden with quotes.--JTBX (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The amount of words in this article is too damn high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues A page of about 30kB to 50kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb". Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%.

There is no rational reason why this article needs to be so long.

--Khimaris (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * in order to be fair, please judge the length of '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Why some film articles are allowed to be long and some don't. Plus, if a cracked.com biased editor tells us that we need to kill ourselves, then we should go ahead and jump in front of a train? The question is: how many words are allowed per film article, and by Wiki administration rules? The answer should be applied on ALL articles. --NewtonSt (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you're comparing this film to "2001: A Space Odyssey" explains everything that needs to be explained about what's wrong with the people editing this article.174.23.178.76 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we need to reach consensus on how great this film is compared to 2001, say nine times less and then trim the page to be nine times less than what it is now. The Wiki administration is not telling us how many words are allowed per film per importance per legacy per excellence then we need to agree on a limit of words per article. And by the way, 2001 is not even a featured Wiki page yet, so before anybody complains about lengthy Wiki pages find a lengthy wiki page for a significant film like 2001 and being a featured article and set it as standard. Otherwise, all what we are talking about are theories and personal taste statements, including myself. So I'll zip it for now and go out and search for a reliable standard to compare against. --NewtonSt (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I FOUND IT! Casablanca is featured article and is less than half size of No Country. And wait, No Country is 15 times less important than Casablanca so we need to trim No Country by 30 times ... So we're left with probably the film title and the name of the leading actor, if you need to know who produced the film then go ahead and check the film's official page. But I'm not gonna trim it, I need to get over my anger that my talk page colleagues are punishing themselves with guilt because of a biased editor at cracked.com (voted as the most reliable web page since Wikipedia). --NewtonSt (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole debate is infantile. The fact of the matter is, there is an extreme amount of text in this article, included a lot of unneeded information.  And it's poorly organized.  It's near impossible to find any specific information without spending an hour digging through each section with a fine-tooth comb.  It should be trimmed, because it doesn't read like an Encyclopedia entry, it reads like a thesis written by an obsessive fan.  (And in fact, this article could easily be halved by just eliminating the flowery words, unneeded snippets of reviews split up throughout, etc) I have no problems with long articles, the problem is when an article is unnecessarily long and it's confusing and hard to read, which is what's happened here. Unfortunately, there are some obsessed editors who are going to make it very hard to resolve this issue, because they let Wikipedia policy blind their common sense, and revert any trimming.  This article is too long. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear MaximumMadness, I feel that you have all the true intentions to make this article better. But when it comes to "extreme amount of text" and "near impossible to find any specific information without spending an hour digging through each section with a fine-tooth comb" please visit the Wiki page of Michael Jackson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson, and test these two rules you just mentioned above. And MJ's page is a FEATURED ARTICLE! His page has 225 kb and No Country has 187 kb (83%). His page has 14 sub-articles with 650 kb while No Country has 2 sub-articles with 200kb. TOTALS: MJ=875 kb, No Country=378 kb. SO No Country is 43% the size of MJ. And please don't tell me that "you can't compare" MJ to NC. "You can't compare" NC (which won the Oscars and a BAFTA but is a 'sick, violent' film made by filmmakers with 'obsessive fans' following) to MJ (who is a legend but also happens by some perspectives to be a 'sick possible-child molester (not proved)' and has 'obsessive fans' who contributed to make his page this LONG). Unless the Wiki administration doesn't establish a supreme-court type of decision making, then we can go forever, unloading our egos and POVs. --NewtonSt (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is not a crisis here, just an article that is getting attention. That's how this site operates, I believe. Nothing infantile about it, so far. I don't agree that the article is confusing; the section headings are accurate; the selections are basically germane to the heading. If editors are able to reduce the length by use of summary, that is likely to be a good change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said. I'll go with that. --NewtonSt (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why has this article become someone's English lit. thesis? It is completely out of bounds. Never mind that the content strays off into all sorts arguable territory based around subjective opinions by numerous reviewers on race and ethnicity and what not. This should be an encyclopedia, not a research essay or a full blown literature review. If someone has written a paper on this then they can source it; but the wikipedia page needs to be within a useful and graspable size. The debate that is going on here in the talk page over the article's length is raging now 2012 - however this movie was released in 2007! It is about time a normal article existed. Please delete most of the article, or better simply delete the whole darn thing and create a new one based on a standard wiki film entry format, please. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lexxus, go ahead and reduce the length by the use of summary, as has already been recommended, but be mindful that your criticism of the content does not seem to be accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

why is there a separate massive article of themes and analysis and then still a huge chunk of text on this article page concerning teh same stuff? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

From a neutral 3rd party...Trim this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

This article is three to six times larger than it should be. According to guidelines articles greater than 60k "probably should be" divided and articles greater than 100k "almost certainly should be divided.". This article is 180k !!!

... It does not matter what size articles other films have, the guidelines are determinant, not other bad editing elsewhere.

... Someone is very proud of this movie and especially proud of their ability to write about film. But this article is inaccessible to the average reader because its size is well beyond guidelines and useful (desired) information is lost in what looks like an undergraduate's unedited term paper. I hope someone who both is knowledgeable about film and disciplined by Wikipedia guidelines will do some trimming. Specifically by section I suggest:

...Intro above TOC should be one medium paragraph only. Not 4.

...Plot is probably ok if you really can't make it a little tighter.

...Wow, Someone is very smitten with Javier Bardem! Reduce each Cast summary to one line, like Tommy Lee Jones.

...Reduce remaing sections to one (at most 2) medium paragraphs

...Differences from the novel, musical score can be minmised to short paragraphs

...Cut style section dramatically to 1-2 paragraphs

...Remove depicted violence section into 1-3 sentences of style sectiom

...genre and themes should be one paragraph only, suitable to a casual reader

...eliminate Anton Chigurgh section as well as coin toss scene section, characterization section, cultural perceptions section, metaphor for America section

...Reduce to one paragraph each: theatrical release and box officec, home media, reception, criticism and popular culture

...top ten lists: edit to include only 1st place awards

... This article is badly damaging to a fine film. It looks like a 19 year old's first big college essay, not an encylopedia article. Please cut it drastically.

Lexxus, You seem able to balance an appreciation for the film with Wikipedia length guidelines...Be bold, trim away... Jasoncward (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jason is not familiar with film articles and unfortunately gets some things wrong. He repeats points that have been made in the past. For example, the article is too long. I'll quickly go over his points below:

[My comments in brackets.] ... It does not matter what size articles other films have, the guidelines are determinant...

[I want a citation on that guide since my reading is that the limiting principle is download time. This has been covered before.]

... Someone is very proud of this movie and especially proud of their ability to write about film. [Speculation] ...Specifically by section I suggest:

...Intro above TOC should be one medium paragraph only. Not 4.

[False.] ...Plot is probably ok if you really can't make it a little tighter.

[He doesn't know the guideline, I think.] ...Wow, Someone is very smitten with Javier Bardem! Reduce each Cast summary to one line, like Tommy Lee Jones.

[Incorrect. He hasn't read the guideline.]

...Reduce remaing sections to one (at most 2) medium paragraphs

[Incorrect.]

...Differences from the novel, musical score can be minmised to short paragraphs

[Reducing in this way holds some promise but he didn't do it.]

...Cut style section dramatically to 1-2 paragraphs

[The section is too long but the hard part is cutting it, which he doesn't do.]

...Remove depicted violence section into 1-3 sentences of style sectiom

[A good suggestion but it's not easy to do it.]

...genre and themes should be one paragraph only, suitable to a casual reader

[For what reason?]

...eliminate Anton Chigurgh section as well as coin toss scene section, characterization section, cultural perceptions section, metaphor for America section

[Let's not since they are interesting.]

...Reduce to one paragraph each: theatrical release and box officec, home media, reception, criticism and popular culture

[I'm not sure where this came from. Most good films don't have this kind of limit and for good reason.]

...top ten lists: edit to include only 1st place awards

[A good suggestion but he didn't do it.]

In sum, I think Jason has some good ideas. As has been mentioned before, this article would benefit from reducing the longer quotations to summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I too think the article is too long. The chief issue, to me, is neither download speed (although the size is an issue for users on mobile devices), nor browser issues - it is, rather, what is reasonable for our average reader. This is an encyclopaedia, not a respository. People expect to get, from an encyclopaedia, an introduction to a subject, not complete, in-depth, coverage - for which one rightfully expects to go to a specialist book on the subject, or something like that. 100K characters is like a forty-page article (if printed)! Somehow I don't see any serious encyclopaedia (even if cost wasn't an issue) having a 40-page article on any movie, no matter how good. Noel (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with building a great article is one edItor
Ring, My young friend, you have asked for a citation on length guidelines, but it has been given to you 3 times already. Try reading it instead of emotionally arguing for verbatim inclusion of a precious undergrad film studies essay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

After the edits I just made the article is about 110k in size, when the guideline states articles above 100k "should almost certainly" be split into separate articles. This article is still MUCH too long and still needs to be edited by about 25%.

Inline comments are hard to read and discouraged by WP policy, btw. Just write your response without trying to argue with everyone point by point.

. I have put this article on the official 3rd opinion page, I hope Ring and Jacobite will refrain from adding more content until you get it confirmed from a third party that this article, almost alone on Wkipedia, needs to be above 100k in size. Jasoncward (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you are completely off base. In fact, laughably off base. I have always said the article is too long. That you are ignorant about film articles is about you, not me, so if you edit poorly, well, okay, that would be poor editing. Now, please quote the section of the guideline that you believe supports your idea of how long this article should be.
 * I notice you didn't split the article. That seems directly at odds with the guideline you are citing. What is the reason for this discrepancy? I'm in favor of shortening the article, but the right way. If you do it the wrong way, then we'll have to correct your mistakes. And be mindful of this:

'''3.1 No need for haste As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. If the discussion makes no progress consider adding one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors.'''
 * I would strongly suggest that you do this correctly. I respect the editors' interest in this article and wouldn't denigrate it as you seem ready to do. There is no crisis here and you can't invent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just call it a Ms. Lana situation and hope that everyone that insists on something can heal their hurt feelings if what is attempted is an improvement of the article only to be overridden by a prevailing force. But it does need to be pointed out that just because someone may seem to attack you is really not a good reason to vent rather unsettling words that just exacerbate the situation than temper it for continued cooperation. It is much too easy to be rude toward those that disagree. Count to ten and hopefully the disgruntled words will but. But if one wants to be a Ms. Lana I am not about to change someone. Mantra: Let it pass.76.170.88.72 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Dispute Resolution
The ridiculously gigantic length of this article and the recalcitrance of two editors to "allow" any editing of which they do not approve means dispute resolution is now available. All editors are invited to comment. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "No Country for Old Men". Thank you! Jasoncward (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I closed this DRN case as there is no proper discussion on how to condense this article, while most of editors agree it should be condensed. I hope that parties can work out the way this article should be shortened. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the way it should be shortened is by deleting irrelevant sections.  I will be bold and delete the fluff.

Pultusk (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have been bold and suggested a split instead of just deleting information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Post Premature Dispute Resolution
There is unanimity that this article is too long. But there is not a crisis. There is not an emergency. We should consider our options and offer reasons why one is better or worse than another. Not long ago there was a suggestion that we split the article. As I recall, that idea met with some resistance because of the question of notability for an article on the response to a film. On the other hand, the guideline on article length explicitly mentions splitting. One alternative is to summarize the lengthy quotes, and even that might be only a partial solution. Personally, I appreciate the work that StarOfAmman put into the article and I wouldn't want to destroy it. Still, we have to be practical. Another pair of alternatives come from Jason and Pultusk, who have each had a go at cutting sections, with varying results. I'd appreciate it if each of them would explain their methodology, so the rest of us can assess it. So in a sense I see four proposals. May I suggest we take one day for new proposals? Thanks for your patience. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't been heavily involved in the discussion here, but I peeked my head in a while back and gave my two cents, so when this dispute happened I got an invite to be involved, so I'm back. This is a third party here who has had NOTHING to do with ANY of the back and forth that's been going on in the past.  So being a Third party, I think I offer a different perspective here that isn't peppered by anyone's preconceived notions of each other.  So I'm gonna give this one girl's humble opinion of this article.  Bluntly, the length here is ridiculous.  I understand that someone put a lot of care and effort into this article, because someone CLEARLY loves this movie, but that's not a reason to clutter up this page with enough text for a small book.  I simply don't understand how a single film could warrant this much information on a Wikipedia entry.  I mean, explain to me why The Original Star Wars' article is HALF the size of this article.  NOT ONLY is that movie is over 30 years old, NOT ONLY has it spawned six other theatrical films (if you count the Clone Wars), TV shows, a Multitude of books, pretty much a complete media empire, NOT ONLY has Book upon Book upon book has been written about just that one film and how much of a cultural touchstone it is, but It has a Radio Drama based on it, It has the Special Editions with those modifications involved, it got theatrically re-released.  There is more content to discuss regarding just that film, but it doesn't have a long winded "Style" section, it doesn't have a separate section JUST for Darth Vader as this one has for Anton Chigurh, even though he has his own entry and all the information there could easily be moved to that, and Star Wars doesn't have a long winded "Genre" section either.  Speaking of Which, the ENTIRE Genre section could easily go, or at least be replaced by a few sentences.  It's not original writing, it's reproducing several entire quotes, sometimes whole paragraphs worth.  There is almost no original writing there, it's just "This guy said [Long Paragraph from some reviewer goes here], and this guy said [another long paragraph from another reviewer goes here].  That entire section should simply be removed and the point it's trying to make should be conveyed in one originally written paragraph that maybe includes all those direct quotes as a reference.
 * Bottom line, Someone DID put a lot of care into this information and it IS really impressive, but Wikipedia is not a place to read all this long winded prattle. I love an anime and Manga series called Hellsing.  I could, and have, written scores of material analyzing it.  But I don't stick this information here on Wikipedia, when I decided I wanted to say something about it, I got my own website and I do it there.  If someone wants to present this scholarly breakdown of this, they should make their own No Country website. This page needs desperately to be condensed to be more in-line with most other film pages. around 90-100k. DemonRin (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This film is written about more widely, it seems, in the way of interpretation. I think we can reflect that in our treatment of it on WP. Very good point about Chigurh and his page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that hacking away content isn't an appropriate resolution, although I do agree with the removal of some of the content. Secondly the size guidelines only apply to readable prose, not to references and wiki markup etc. As you can see here the size of the prose is 113k, so it's only slightly over the limit. The length isn't really the problem with the article, the length results from other problems. The two that jump out at me are:
 * 1) Listing all the bonus features in the home video section; generally we only list bonus features if they are unusual.
 * 2) Critical reception; this is terrible and looks like it has copyvio problems to me.
 * 3) Differences from the novel: as per MOSFILM we shouldn't document differences from the source material for the sake of listing such differences. We should only elaborate on differences if there is secondary coverage of the reasons for the deviation, or the perceived impact such alterations had.
 * If there is a focus on addressing these three issues the article may well be brought in under the 100k limit. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) EDIT: source differences bit. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If we can all agree on removing the listing of the bonus features and the differences between novel and film sections, I think that will be a significant step forward. Then, we might talk about spinning the critical reception section off into a separate article. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would generally support that. The last two paragraphs of the "differences" section should be retained though, since they present an analysis of the impact the alterations had. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked above but there is a separate themes article (itself 20000 words), why is there a bunch of theme stuff on this page? Seems like it is duplcating info, and losing that must easily drop 1000+ words from the article. Also the critical reception doesn't need splitting, it needs to not just be a big block of quotes with no analysis.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * D: 36000 characters? Wtchrist? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a question about sufficient notability for a themes article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if the content is sourcable to notable sources and someone bothered go through and scour it for that info, its hard to argue against it, but that article is 20,000 words and while I haven't seen it, 20,000 words sounds you're reading into every little thing to the point of "during one scene a hair blows in a characters face signifying death and rebirth and that he likes chocolate ice cream". Of course, I pity the brave soul who would read through that article and dissect what is notable and what isn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I was aware of a separate "themes" article, or maybe I simply forgot... I would be in favor of a separate article for "critical reception" article, if it was well-written and -sourced.  An article just on the "themes" sound dicey.  As you say, plenty of opportunity for trivial details and nonsense. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The tightened version by DWB and myself brings the article size in well under the limit at 82k. If the critical reception section can be given a more orthodox overhaul then I think all the major issues with the article will have been addressed—there certainly isn't a 'size' argument any more for cutting further content from the article. If the themes article doesn't meet notability, then we'll have to decide what needs to be merged into this article, but while the article exists it is better that the material stays there rather than being duplicated here. There should still be a brief overview of the themes though, with the themes article providing the more in-depth analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Genre section needs to go. Right now it's just a block of very long reproductions of other peoples' quotes.  It needs to be completely axed and replaced with maybe a short paragraph that sums up what those quotes were intended to convey.DemonRin (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the whole section needs to be axed. The long quotes might violate fair use, so they need to be reworded and paraphrased.  There is also a lot of repetition.  Honestly, the discussion of genre could be combined with the themes and other such interpretation, in a separate article. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Have any of you considered the option of creating "sub-articles" or making "daughter" articles of all the contentious sections? That is the common device used when articles "spin out" of control or get too unwieldy, or simply too large. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Splitting off some of the content into other articles has been suggested, yes. The Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) article already exists, but it has so much material it cannot be expanded.  Indeed, it needs to be trimmed. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The genre section needs to be two paragraphs at most, literally "these are the people who think its a western", "these are the people who don't" and "briefly why". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate articles? Yes great idea, one for every scene, after all this is the most important film ever made, forget about Kane. And more important than World War 2, which is where I came in some way above. Wouldn't it be great to ask the Coen Bros what they thought of these exchanges? Or would their opinions also be irrelevant if they did not fully conform to The Rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad absurdum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blockquotes
The discussion over article length seems to have petered out and during the GA review nobody took the bull by the horns, so I have removed or incorporated the worst of the blockquotes. As far as I can tell, plus as has been mentioned by others, the previous presentation of this material was a copyright issue. You can't just keep it there hoping someone else will fix the problem as was suggested by someone above. I left all the article sources so someone willing to paraphrase the reviews can still access the material. AIR corn (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work, although possibly still too respectful of those who bloated this article. There is now a separate article for Themes and Analysis of this film. That is obviously superfluous but is probably the least damaging way to deal with those who have been trying to force Wikipedia to host a badly written book about this film. In a separate article which is read by almost nobody else they can waste all the time they want. Now let's get this article in better shape so as to do justice to its subject matter. The "Musical score and sound" section would be better as a single short para, and there is no need to quote 8 lines of Yeats when stating where the title came from. Why not just shovel this material across to the Themes and Analysis article? Also, the section on home media releases is too detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Location reference
There isn't a problem with that reference, which uses the film as its source and explains why the summary is correct. What's the issue? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC) OJ has my support on the removal from the plot summary ... certainly the wrong place for it. With regard to the second bone of contention, my personal choice is to not include actors' names in this, or any, plot summary. I have never seen the need for it and removed them from The Road (2009 film) in July 2012. Best wishes to both of you. –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 08:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 17:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the plot does not need a reference. What use does it serve? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  03:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The plot does not need a reference"? Not sure what that means. Maybe you mean that the plot summary takes the film as its source. That is true, but that's what I just said. I assume the purpose of the note is self-evident and no one has questioned it in the many months it's been there. Better question: what's the problem with the note? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More than "many months", Ring. I have just checked it out. See this! My take on the issue is that PhilipR got away with it and amazingly has done for more than three & half years.
 * PhilipR "got away" with something? What did he get away with? He and I agreed to include that note to remind future editors about the evidence for the words in the summary. Are you aware, Gareth, that it is only visible when you are editing the summary? It's a comment, not a part of the summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I have to admit that I missed that –&#32;

You're all wrong
I'm a Hollywood industry insider and "No Country For Old Men" is a stolen script, based on an original screenplay called "Dust" which was written in 1984. Hollywood uses ruses of all sorts in script stealing, here they wrote a book and then a screenplay from the book (as a red herring). The Coen Bros. have a history of "appropriating" (ahem) other people's writings, as the Wiki article notes. Anyway, the genuine original screenplay was just Existentialism. That's all. It's as simple as that. No need for all this discussion. All this convoluted writing in this Wiki article underscores the basic weakness of Wikipedia--it defers only to published pedants. And then everybody fights over what somebody else said. And Wiki editors get caught up in their own petty rules and biases...lordy. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can only publish what has been published elsewhere. If what you said is truly the case, then the onus is on reliable sources to cover the matter. Wikipedia will then be happy to reference such sources. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's quite a claim to lay on Cormac McCarthy. I have no views on whether it is true or not; my fight was over the inordinate length of the article. But there is also such a thing as too short.
 * Sure the film is existentialism, but a summary of its themes which says only that is underdoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had to look it up as the word apparently has no concise meaning. OED gives this: a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. Hmmm ... Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones  &#124;The Welsh  Buzzard &#124; — 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to be an occurence of recent years, that as soon as any work of fiction comes into making money, there are popping up claims of plagiarism everywhere. As the movie is an adaptation of a novel, and therefore is the screenplay, the Coens do not have to stand for these allegations. These accusations, if at all justified by anything than drivel, would only pertain to the article about the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.82.13 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, is "a Hollywood industry insider" a grandiloquence? — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  08:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said!

Merger Proposal (Withdrawn)
I propose that Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) be merged into this article. That article is a very good one, but having it standalone, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literary journal, and I have never seen an encyclopedia have standalone articles that analyze literary works. And I know that someone spent a lot of time on the analysis article and it is wonderful work, but it is going to have to be heavily whittled down before it is put in this article. Wikipedia has standards that plot summaries should not be too long, and for that reason themes and analysis of literary work should not be too long, either. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed No, no no! We have exhausted this subject only several months ago. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 17:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's try to start this discussion out calmly and dispassionately, since passions in these kinds of discussions usually only increase, not decrease as the conversations (fixed typo) progress.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "conservations" or conversations? Which is it? — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 17:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So that's a "no" to calm dispassionate discussion then, I gather. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; both words could be employed in this topic. Which one? In the absence of a courtious courteous reply, I shall assume "conservations" as typed above. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough for you? By the way, if you're going to fixate on typos, best to be extra careful you don't make any yourself. Hope that was "courtious" enough for you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed I quite vigorously oppose this merger. The "themes and analysis" article was split off precisely because of its length, as can be seen in the long discussion above. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the previous splitting off of the analysis from the main article is probably going to be an issue for those previously involved, ie ("we already handled it"), so I will address that. I don't think that was the appropriate course of action, and at the time it was taken, it looks like there were still people who saw the material that was going to be split out as being overly lengthy. I think splitting the analyis out was a way to try to avoid the issue rather than addressing it. It would be like a general consensus that the Plot section for a film was too long, so rather than trimming it to meet the guidelines, someone just created a new article "Plot of (Film X)". I say this in a nice way because I am not trying to insult anyone, but that's kind of "cheating." I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, so what I am offering is a fresh set of eyes on this issue, but if my set of eyes alone are not going to be helpful, there are other things we can do. Tell me, was there ever an RfC created on this issue? I think getting community-wide input, not just people who are interested in the subject, could be immensely helpful. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose For the reasons The Old Jacobite states. If it were to be merged, the article would be 280,000+bytes long which is excessive. If anyone is enthused enough t read further about the themes of the movie then they can go to the sub-article which is adequately signposted without derailing the rest of the article.yorkshiresky (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * QuestionA thought just occurred to me. I am curious, how many here oppose the merger because they truly believe that Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) deserves to be a standalone article, versus how many here oppose the merger just because they want to keep "Themes and Analysis's" lengthy prose out of the main article to keep the main article from being so unwieldy? Mmyers1976 (talk)
 * That is a good question and was prominent in the debate last time. The article had become too long. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. I am sorry, I misjudged the reason for your alarm in your initial reply. I can definitely understand why you would be alarmed that even some of this stuff would be brought back into the article. I think the real question is whether or not the "Themes and Analysis" article meets WP:NOTE, so therefore if nobody has any objections (and I don't think you all will), I am going to withdraw the merger proposal. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 22:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That article has WP:QUOTEFARM written all over it, so I am going to approach it from that angle. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be a sound move (no pun intended) — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot length
I noticed a bit of "back and forth" on the lengthy plot section yesterday. Without naming names, one editor wants to increase the number of words in the plot section, while another editor is trying to trim the section. WP:FILMPLOT clearly states that plot sections should be between 400-700 words. Many well meaning editors tend to interpret this to mean that any can have up to 700 words, regardless of the films actual length, while some, myself included, interpret this to mean that shorter films should have sections closer to 400 words while longer films can be closer to 700. A two hour film such as this one, shouldn't have more than 600 words to describe the plot and not 699.

I suggested at MOS:FILM that we should modify this just a bit so that shirt film should be closer to 450 words while longer films of 3 hours or more can have up to 1100 words. JOJ Hutton  19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The intent of what you express is appropriate since plots should be represented by that which adequately reflects the film but unfortunately some people get fixated on particular points with extended text although it could be represented by the art to be found when alluding to something with the proper choice of words. It's the Ms. Lana syndrome that in a courteous world we sometimes just have to let it go. If Auntie Citsilana insists that the dress she wore on the first day of kindergarten was robin's egg blue then what are you to say although it is packed safely in the vault and is emerald green. Just make it a one big happy family and, as the Judge's wife says in State of the Union, just sit back and pass the time having plenty of Sazerac's.76.170.88.72 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

His Room and the Adjacent Room
He stays in Rm 138 at the time that the cash is left in the air duct. The case is pushed toward the duct elbow leading to the adjacent room. If the Mexicans are there to kill Moss, and Moss is now in the adjacent room, Rm 138 is not his because why would he be paying for the room of his intended killers? So to say that he has taken a second room is not very clear whereas if it is said that he has moved into an adjacent room would make clear that he is not paying for the room of his killers. The tracker never says that he believes the money is in Moss' room; only that the broadcasted signal is coming strongly from that area of the scene that is toward the shared left side wall of Rm 138. We never saw Moss in the adjacent room during any time up to when the money was being placed in the air duct; only when Moss was removing the money the following night from the vent in the adjacent room. So, as far as we know, he never had two rooms at one time; only that the room in which he stayed the first night now has his potential killers staying, and eventually being killed, he is in another room.76.170.88.72 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"on the road with the cash"
There is always the question about "is he with the cash on the road" or "is he on a road that has cash"? The cash is there but is it with him or is it with the road?76.170.88.72 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Vent or duct
I believe we have been correct using 'vent' the last few years instead of 'duct'. "An opening that allows air, gas, or liquid to pass out of or into a confined space." --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is common for those unfamiliar with the parts of systems with which they are unfamiliar to put names to parts of which they attempt with all good faith but with error to identify. By applying vent to the duct is understandable if you are unfamiliar with an HVAC system. I became familiar with HVAC systems when watching home renovation programs and when venting an attic space the hole through the roof is the vent with a device put upon it, such as one of those twirling ball shaped do-hickeys, to keep the such things as rain and animals from using the hole as an entry yet expel the air. Actually, the do-hickey is called a turbine. Also, medically, the mouth and nose are vents for the air and gases within parts of the body but the channels within the nose are the nostrils, not vents and of course with the mouth there is the throat which is that part of the body by which air is brought from the lungs to be exhaled. The throat is not the vent. A vent is the hole not the duct work

"Ventilation Ductwork Ductwork is not just a channel for moving air from the HVAC unit to different rooms. The ductwork is designed and installed to make sure there is even airflow (hot or cold) throughout the interior. This way all the air is not forced into the rooms closest to the HVAC unit while other rooms stay cold in winter and hot in summer. As ductwork moves away from the HVAC unit the open channel reduces in diameter. This produces a phenomenon known at the jet effect. Air has little pressure in larger ducts and flows slowly out of the vents. As the ductwork reduces in diameter the airflow accelerates. The ducts are designed to channel about the same volume of air to the rooms closest to the HVAC unit as to the rooms farthest away where the ductwork is smallest. Using this design results in every room being the desired temperature as opposed to fluctuations from room to room." www.ehow.com/list_6898204_parts-hvac-system.html

So you can see that the vent is the hole which commonly has a cover placed upon it to hide the unfinished and unsightly cuts that may be needed to open the room surface either in the floor, walls or ceiling and the system used to transport the air from the pump to the vent is by the duct work, or more commonly called a duct. So the case with the money is put into the duct, not the vent because, as science points out, two things cannot occupy the same space. But it is understanding that one may urge the use of an incorrect identification. When I point out these types of things and people just cannot comprehend the situation I call it the Ms. Lana (it's a long story about my father growing up in Ms. Turner's time) situation since I had a horse when younger that as so many people know may begrudgeonly be led to the water but not drink. But in the future, especially if you should be involved in a public event, especially those familiar with HVAC systems, to refer to parts of that system incorrectly and have others think that someone does not know of what it is that they are talking about. So, if you decide to not make the corrections we can all call if a Ms. Lana. But I do think that, especially for wp since it does purport to be a source of information, to at least acknowledge that what is correct is stated somewhere so that people references the articles know that some people are aware of the parts of the HVAC system.76.170.88.72 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. I just would not want someone to appear to be an idiot if it can at all be avoided. Life can be so complicated, much the same as how to express oneself in writing and not using English well as any properly educated and courteous person should. Just to point out in your explanation previously stated, it would appear that you do agree with the correct terms but just feel committed to those words that could better be expressed otherwise. Let's get call it a Ms. Lana situation. It just brings to mind the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that my grandfather has which has a wonderfully complicated pull out section on writing that today seems so archaic. So, in time it just very well may be that what we insist upon today is no longer functional in the future.76.170.88.72 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. Just caught myself. I should have qualified my statement by "perceived as" instead of just plain idiot. That would really not add to calming the situation.76.170.88.72 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As the person who made the initial edit yesterday, I believe the prose in the paragraph in question is now clearer, and I thank those involved in that process. Jus  da  fax   23:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, Call it a Ms. Lana. Misapplied terminology.76.170.88.72 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary is too detailed
"He has already strangled a sheriff's deputy to escape custody and stolen a car by using a captive bolt pistol to kill the driver."

This whole sentence could be suppressed and nothing would be lost plot-wise.

"Picking up the call and casually raising his feet to avoid the spreading blood, Chigurh promises [...]"

Really? The casual raising of the feet is crucial to the plot and therefore must be included in the summary? I'm dying to know, did he also bat his eyelashes? Did he not? How can I even keep on reading without knowing it?!

I rest my case.

Carlos Vieira (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, put simply: WP:BRD — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is easy to criticise whilst actually doing naught else. Put your self in the frame and wait for the reaction!


 * Carlos, your case is a poor one. The captive bolt pistol is quite distinctive, and mentioning briefly what we know of this character is the correct way to summarize not only the story but the nature of the man, in this case a violent one. Secondly, it is pretty obvious what is the significance of Chigurh's close attention to blood on his boots. This is how a story is often told -- in telling details -- so a proper summary includes them where appropriate. It's true, the entire plot of this film could be told in one sentence if that was the assignment, but that's not what we are doing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The advantage to printed matter is that some authors rack over their work for such extended periods of time as to make clear what it is that they intend to express so catch so many bit and pieces that may not fit the intended scenario or conclusion. But in cinema, you usually have one chance before you put out to the world that which is used by the public to judge a story, directorial success or appropriate editing. Most people in cinema want to put out a film that holds its own rather than have to recut. Forever, there will be "that" film that had to have additional production work to improve on its faults. We really cannot help but occasionally run into things that may become known after the fact and never intended by the makers of the film.76.170.88.72 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ring, the purpose of a plot summary is to describe what happens in the plot in brief, not to go over minute details of a particular scene or a character's behavior. I made the changes on 6 March because the original summary was too long and contained details that were not relevant to a reader's overall understanding of the plot. If you have a specific problem with my revisions or my justification for making them, I'm all ears.Hopesick (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Transponder
Where in the film does someone refer to the tracking device as a "transponder"? I am pretty sure that's inaccurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Surety usually is in regards to taxes and death and in all other areas can sometimes be misleading. WELLS: It's called a transponder.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

is Carla Jean dead? what happens to the money?05:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)120.89.102.73 (talk)