Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 3

What happened?
Was the page deleted?


 * It was archived Axeman89 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Protection was a good move! --67.170.168.68 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Phone Spam
I think that we should put something in about the spam being sent to people's phones. I've received a message with Jackson talking about his movie. Several of my friend have gotten these and we're all annoyed, especially because where I live in California it's not legal to call a phone and play a recorded commerical advertisement. Apparently the call is coming from New York but when I called the number I got a fast busy signal. This is similar to weird partial messages in Spanish I have been getting from New York about once a month for the last few months as well. Maybe the spammer was gearing up to advertise this movie? --Mperry 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The message was almost certainly initiated by someone you know. See http://snakesonaplane.varitalk.com/ . &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been told that. However, no one I know claims to have sent it.  We're also old enough not to participate in teenage hijinks and practical jokes (like sending the message and lying about it).  I went to the site you linked to and tried to send a test message to my home but it wouldn't let me (says it's outside the right hours).  It looks ripe for abuse.  Does this call the "from" number to get verification to send the message and limit the number of messages to send?  If not then anyone can send messages to any quantity of numbers.  Or the movie company can use it to send to a list of numbers and dismiss any complaints as "The message was almost certainly initiated by someone you know."  I wonder if anyone else has had this experience.  --Mperry 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The person sending the message has to enter in a whole mess of info before it sends. Also, movie companies don't want to antagonize people by sending them random ads.  If the message is personalized, the receiver will actually listen to it, instead of hanging up as with a generic message.  =D   Jumping cheese  Contact 11:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How many tails in the poster?
I had posted the trivia item about the apparent goof by the graphic designer when creating the official poster (actually, the "B" poster, the current poster is the "C" poster with images of the cast). It was deleted by another user along the way.

To anyone who doubts me, look at the poster. Try tracing each snake's head down to its tail.

Minor quibble, but thought I'd offer something to distract from arguments about the box office, projections, and the famous line. PabSungenis 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous line


The caption of one of the pictures says "Samuel L. Jackson delivering the famous line of the film." I couldn't find anything in the article that states what the famous line is. If it's famous, should it be in Wikiquote and we can link to it so that people can know what it is? Also I'd like to make a POV objection that the line, whatever it is, can't be famous as the movie has only just been released. There hasn't been enough time for anything from the movie to gain enough fame. --Mperry 06:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no basis for claiming that the Sam Jackson one-liner in the movie is famous. A year from now the movie could be forgotten. So far the movie is being called a financial disappointment. Again, fans of this film are in love with that one-liner. So the fans of the film that are hijacking the SOAP Wiki article want to promote this movie (and that one-liner) rather than respecting wiki standards about original research. If allowed, then I or another person should delete famous line caption. JAWS is famous... TERMINATOR 2 is famous... calling this film famous before it is even out of theaters is grossly exaggerating, intentionally so. Guerillafilm 07:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the line was: "Enough is enough! I have had it with these MF snakes on this MF plane!"  It on YouTube.  ^_^   Jumping cheese  Contact 11:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While referring to the line as "famous" may be pushing it since the film has not yet finished its theatrical run, it's fairly important to the article considering that it was added to the film at the request of the fans and has been mentioned/referred to obliquely in almost every media article reporting on or previewing the film. The line is also clearly mentioned in the article, so the caption should only be rephrased and not deleted entirely. InTheFlesh? 12:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article needs to stand on its own from other media sources. We can't expect that a reader had heard of this film or know what the line is.  In my case I hadn't heard of this film until I saw a TV ad about two weeks ago.  I also didn't know what the line was until I read Jumping Cheese's comment above.  I see that the line is mentioned before the picture caption but there's not much to tie them together.  How about we change the sentence that states the line to read (addition in italics): ...Among the additions is a now famous line that originated...  I think that would help clarify things.  --Mperry 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The caption's fine:


 * Finally getting to hear him utter the already-famous line... - MTV Movies


 * Jackson himself shows up to bellow his already-famous line... - Entertainment Weekly


 * And, of course, Jackson has the already famous line, "I want these motherfuckin' snakes off this motherfuckin' plane!" - The Hollywood Reporter


 * That already-famous line from the film... - Chicago Sun-Times


 * &c.
 * chocolateboy 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Stacking the deck = fallacy.

I know you are a big fan of this movie chocolateboy. So am I. But I'm not going to condone turning Wikipedia into the official Snakea on a Plane fanpage.

THose citations are reporting on the opinions that fans, critics and people share about the movie, not the facts on it. Similarly, I could find several citations of Republicans that say, "Bill Clinton is the worst President ever!" That doesn't mean that we should put a caption under Bill Clinton's picture that reads: Bill Clinton, the worst President ever.

If you going to mention something about this popular one-liner, then you need to do in a neutral way. You can't keep stating this as a matter of fact. BTW... Samuel Jackson in that picture wasn't uttering that oneliner in the movie. In that picture, he is saying "These Snakes are on Crack!" I looked up that picture and found the appropriate caption. So it isn't even accurate.

AGain, you can't state these things are a matter of fact.

If you want to report what fans or critics are saying about the movie, then fine. But any mention of the oneliner has to mention: several critics and fans were excited and amused by an one-liner in the film. or something like that. Calling the one-liner FAMOUS is a gross exaggeration.

But, sorry, but those sources are all POVs, not FACTs about some alleged LEGENDARY status of the line. Again, if you want to include a mention in the critical reactions' sections of this article that this oneliner is popular, then that is fine. But stating in a picture caption that this oneliner is famous as a matter of fact is beyond ridiculous. For instance, alot of critics really LIKED Titanic and think it is the best movie ever. That doesn't mean we should include in a caption next to Leonardo DeCaprio the saying. "Leo is smiling in the best movie ever." Just because you found a bunch of critics who like this popular line doesn't mean that as a matter of fact that the line is "already-famous." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillafilm (talk • contribs)


 * What you or I think of the movie is irrelevant. This isn't a blog. I marvel at the fact that you feel the need to constantly bring it up.


 * You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Here's a refresher course:


 * No original research
 * Neutral Point of View
 * Cite sources
 * Reliable sources
 * Verifiability
 * Check your facts


 * And let's not forget:


 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Sockpuppets
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
 * Three-revert rule
 * No legal threats


 * If you have a reliable source that disputes the "fame" of the line, then bring it. Disgruntled Wikipedians, however, are not reliable or notable sources:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts - Jimbo Wales


 * If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up on the Neutral point of view talk page. Good luck with that.


 * Your comments show that you have absolutely no intention of working constructively to get the page unprotected.


 * chocolateboy 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, pure speculation on your part. No matter how many opinions you cite doesn't make it suddenly a fact. Leaky bucket fallacy. Also I have yet to see a source/citation that says this line is part of the culture lexicon.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You have the burden to prove your statement right. You are committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy. For instance, If someone states that Elvis is still alive, then that doesn't mean that I have to prove him wrong. Clearly, the individual making the claim has to prove their outrageous claim, Until you find a better, direct source about this so called famous line, then you are inferring. This much I do know. That violates WK:OR. You are passing off a speculation/inference as fact. Can't do that.

Like I said, I'm not against stating that this one-liner is popular amongst critics and fans. But to suggest that this one-liner is FAMOUS is utterly ridiculous. This is no "I'll be Back." It is no, "May the force be with you." Why don't you give this movie sometime before you declare the movie an instant classic.Guerillafilm 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am firmly opposed to letting zealous fanboys turn a Wiki article into their own personal fanpage. I'm perfectly in line with wiki's neutral point of view policy. Thanks. Have a good day. :) Oh, and your rude and sarcastic remarks against me demonstrate your willing to work with me? I am backing up my assertions with sound reason and, when necessary, citations. Can't do better than that.Guerillafilm 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Try citing sources instead of sockpuppeteering and repeating all-caps-laden "arguments". In case you haven't noticed, we're all waiting for you and dposse to reach consensus so that we can edit the page again. Try working towards that (and considering Lovelac7's points below) instead of doing the "you are all fanboys!" thing. You've confessed repeatedly and offtopically (however unconvincingly) to being a Snakes on a Plane fanboy yourself, so that accusation isn't convincing anyone, least of all you.


 * chocolateboy 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? As long as you continue with the personal attacks, then you are not helping but hurting consensus on this board. I told you with reasons and examples why I don't support your positions. You need more than speculation and inference to suggest that the Sam Jackson ONE LINER is in the same league of other one liners like "I'll be back." or "May the Force be with you." You also need time since the movie is proving not to be the hit that you are making it out to be because of the poor box office. Last I checked, movies that flop at the boxoffice usually don't resonate with culture outside of cult film circles. Maybe SOAP is a cult film. But it is no Terminator 2, which does have famous oneliners. I've read about the sockpuppet thing on WIKI. Making accusation here about it aren't appropriate. You are using it as a personal attack, just like you are using the ALL CAPS THING as personal attack. Trying to hide behind WIKI policy in an effort to mock other users still is a personal attack. And, yes, "convincingly" you are proving yourself to be an obsessed Snakes on a Plane fan who wants to turn this article into his own personal Snakes on a Plane fan page. In fact, I make a proposition right now out of respect for the other users on this forum who are probably sick of listening to me defend myself against your childish antics. Here is my proposal: don't talk to me anymore. Obviously we need to agree to disagree from this point further. If we reach a consensus on this forum, then it won't be because of our current dialogue. You don't talk to me. and I promise not to talk to you. If you keep harrassing me, then I will report you to the admin with the help of other users on this forum if possible. We are not going to convince each other of our position here. It is probably best to go into mediation about some of these points if we can't resolve it. Case closed. Guerillafilm 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Try citing sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.


 * chocolateboy 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple solution. The caption should read "Jackson reciting the movie's most well-known line. " There is no doubt that this is the movie's most well-known line, and if you back it up with a footnote, it's properly cited. Lovelac7 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The fact that one person (with multiple accounts) is kicking up a fuss is not sufficient reason to fly in the face of cited sources. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that we don't report what's "true" (or, in this case, what one sockpuppet claims is "true"); we report what other reliable sources have reported; and we favour the most common usage:


 * Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth.


 * If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect.


 * "famous line (901)" vs "known line (16 going on 0)".


 * chocolateboy 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling the line "classic" is certainly premature, but I think that describing it as a "famous" line is reasonable and supported by numerous sources. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "I respectfully disagree. The fact that one person (with multiple accounts) is kicking up a fuss is not sufficient reason to fly in the face of cited sources. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that we don't report what's 'true' (or, in this case, what one sockpuppet claims is 'true'); we report what other reliable sources have reported; and we favour the most common usage chocolateboy 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

That's a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy. You are completely out of line to make those comments in a discussion that didn't involve me (Guerillafilm) in any way, shape, or form. Clearly the other user wasn't using me as a source. That individual was offering their own thoughts on the matter. You are not respectually disagreeing with others when you make an unnecessary potshot at me in this thread since your insult against me doesn't counter the valid point he is saying, it's called a red herring. And clearly your desire to make digs against other peoples in this forum while hiding behind the rules whilst you browbeat them with the rules in a sneaky attempt to advance your own egocentric agenda violates the spirit of consensus, mutual respect and cooperation required by users at Wikipedia. Don't pretend to be cooperative while you engage in instigation and then hide behind the rules of Wikipedia to mock others. Guerillafilm 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before, your comments are doing nothing to get the article unprotected (and have nothing whatsoever to do with the caption). It was your edit war with dposse that got it protected. If you really care about Wikipedia (rather than simply blindly hating on Snakes on a Plane and Slither as your edit histories show ), you'll take a Wikibreak as promised or work towards the obvious consensus.


 * chocolateboy 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. oh, I see now. So my behavior on this board grants you the license to make digs and personal attacks against other users? Whatever... Last I checked there is no WK:Retribution rule that lets you trash other users simply because they are not following the rules. So, according to your reasoning, if I break the rules, then it is okay for you to break the rules. You are a hypocrite. You are acting like the official Wiki vigilante who can go after people that you feel aren't following the rules here. I broke the rules. But now YOU broke the rules too. So I guess we are both guilty of doing nothing to get the article unprotected. If you want to help build consensus on this forum then you are not helping matters by engaging in personal attacks. You are not fooling anyone. Here is a typical chocolateboy dialogue: (A) You accuse someone of not following a rule, then (B) you sneak in some cowardly gutter talk against them, and then (C) you run for the high ground by claiming that you are doing this in the interest of Wikipedia, all while hoping to pass yourself off as civilized. Too bad the smell from the gutter followed you back. If you feel like someone is not showing respect on this board, that doesn't give you the right to show them disrespect back. '''And I find it telling that you don't deny that you are engaging in personal attacks. Simply evading the charge isn't the same thing as not being guilty of it.''' And as YOUR EDIT HISTORIES go, you have a habit of imperialistically bullying other people into excepting your contributions, deleting whole sections of articles, and picking on people you don't like, not to mention using that sockpuppet charge of yours as an excuse to mock the other user and slip in digs against people you don't like. If I'm a sockpuppet, then you are a cyber-bullying addict. Guerillafilm 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Topic? If I can't persuade you to follow my advice, perhaps I can persuade you to follow your own. If you really are a sixteen year old newbie, unschooled in the ways of Wiki, and genuinely trying to improve yourself, then act like one, rather than like a POV-pushing sockpuppet hellbent on turning the Slither and Snakes on a Plane articles into apoplectic indictments.


 * Incidentally, the topic is the use of the word "famous". Take a look at the multitude of links above, and try to bear them in mind when replying. (I mention this as you explicitly asked for help and guidance in the post linked above.)
 * chocolateboy 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki Vigilante is at it again. Again he's using a redherring to evade the discussion. This argument isn't about me. It is about your personal attacks. Again, you evaded this point. You are guilty of personal attacks. And your silence on the matter suggests you feel justified in your personal attacks. In other words, it's okay for you to break the rules, not others. If you really are such a righteous follower of Wikipedia rules, schooled in the ways of Wiki, and geniunely trying to promote civility, then act like it, rather than the wikipedia cyber-bullying addict, hellbent on attacking anyone who won't let your turn the Snakes on a Plane article into your own personal Snakes on a Plane fan page.

Again, personal attack number #2 from you--> You wrote: "'You've confessed repeatedly and offtopically (however unconvincingly) to being a Snakes on a Plane fanboy yourself, so that accusation isn't convincing anyone, least of all you.' :chocolateboy 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

That's a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy. You are completely out of line to make those comments in a discussion that didn't involve sockpuppetry in any way, shape, or form. Clearly my tastes in film has nothing to do with my objection to your personal attacks which you feel self-righteous about. You make an unnecessary potshot at me in this thread since your insult against me doesn't counter the valid point I'm saying, it's called a red herring. And clearly your desire to make digs against other peoples in this forum while hiding behind the rules whilst you browbeat them with the rules in a sneaky attempt to advance your own egocentric agenda violates the spirit of consensus, mutual respect and cooperation required by users at Wikipedia. Don't pretend to be cooperative while you engage in instigation and then hide behind the rules of Wikipedia to mock others.

Incidentally, the topic (before you changed it to include a personal attack on me) WAS about the use of the word famous. So, using my semi-special powers as a Wiki user I will change this topic back to the topic at hand. And, for the record, I don't mind using the word famous as long as a proper context is included for it. Clearly, the movie hasn't been out long enough to make this detirmination. The famous line could be here today, and then gone tomorrow a year from now. So if we include the word famous then it should be in THIS context: that it is being reported upon as famous by critics and fans. It's too earlier to know if that oneliner is part of the cultural lexicon yet. And simply slapping a cheesy, self-serving caption under a picture of Samuel Jackson is sloppy. It comes off as promotion for the movie. And as a matter of fact, it is not THAT famous that we can simply slap it on as a caption. The Samuel Jackson oneliner is not part of the cultural oneliner. But another point that you evaded, chocolateboy, is that the famous picture actually IS NOT the picture of when Samuel Jackson said this line. Can you prove it to me?

In fact, this is another key point in this argument. It is not accurate to place a quote from a film under a picture, claiming that it is the picture when the character says the oneliner, when there is no proof of it. I've seen the movie. That isn't the picture of Samuel Jackson saying the famous line. So how about you find an accurate picture FIRST before arguing for the merit of including a quote under it. It's misleading and DOES violate the rule of Verifiability.

WIKI: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."

Last I checked, there is no reputable publisher claiming that this picture is the one that he says the famous line in. Prove it.



Guerillafilm 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So the net result of this discussion is that "famous" is fine. Coulda sworn that was established many, many posts ago. Any chance you could sprinkle those same "semi-special powers as a Wiki user" on the box office section?


 * chocolateboy 21:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

"Samuel Jackson reciting the popular one-liner from the movie"

Again, famous isn't neutral enough.

And get the right picture to match it. Guerillafilm 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Famous" is fine for the reasons listed ad nauseam above (including your own: "I don't mind using the word famous as long as a proper context is included for it"). I think those four quotes from reliable sources have the context pretty much cornered. You might be right about the picture not matching the line. If you weren't so hellbent on turning the article into an indictment of Snakes on a Plane you might notice that I haven't made a single partisan edit, and actually care more about the integrity of Wikipedia than the box office or "fame" of that line. Also, normally, I would welcome an editor like you as a necessary corrective given that this Internet phenomenon of a movie is bound to tease out that pesky Wikipedia systemic bias. The only problem in this case is that your reasonable campaign against bias has unreasonably got the article protected.


 * chocolateboy 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would much rather be friends if that is still possible. Just please stop making false accusations about the sockpuppet thing. The closest you are to being right about it is that sometimes I accidently forget to sign in and my IP address is shown. Plus one of my friends DID in fact use my computer to punk me by vandalizing my page. That's it. I told my other buddies to beat it, the other users you are accusing me of being. We are part of our school newspaper film society. I want to be a film critic at least. :)

Anyhow, can you give me a more appropriate context for that famous line? Saying it is famous without more context makes it sound like WIKIpedia is condoning the popularity of the line. It sounds too promotional to me. Can you give me an alternate edit? Then we can work from there. sound good. :) Guerillafilm 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Guerillafilm and Chocolateboy -- How about taking this to private email? --Mperry 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the image is of the line exactly as stated. As the information page says, it was captured from The Daily Show. The specific episode is 15 August 2006. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BZijbpxNXII &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! You are right, I was wrong :) I think it is the angle of his head in the picture tha threw me off. Sorry for that.

Well, now that THAT is settled. Then, next, is the caption itself. I'd still like a neutral wording on this. Saying that the line is famous is too strong. Can someone suggest a context for this? I'll accept "famous" if it can be given a context. I don't want it to sound like it is famous according to wikipedia.Guerillafilm 23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal
The first way to clean up this page is to stop blaming other editors. I don't care if Hitler, Saddam, and Satan all team up to get the page to their POV, we will not get anything done on this page as long as users keep blaming each other. By the way, I am not singling out anyone. That would violate my own rule. It all comes down to choice: you can continue pointing fingers and angering other editors, or you can think of constructive way to get this page on the long road to Featured Article status. For this purpose, I propose the following solution: Hope this helps. — Lovelac7 08:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) We start with a cease fire in the recent edit war. That means no reverts. In fact, let's take it one step further — rule 2.
 * 2) If you have been in an edit war — stay away from the section that's got you all riled up. It's that simple. If you're arguing over box office results, switch to editing the plot summary, or work on character analyses, or whatever.
 * 3) Users who attack other users on this page or related talk pages should be reported to the admins and blocked for a short while. Not long, a day at most. Hopefully that will cool off tempers.
 * 4) Hinting at rudeness is the same as being outwardly rude. If I say, "F*** you", the meaning is the same even if I don't spell it out. It's not about censoring Wikipedia for minors; it's about respect.
 * 5) The page is going to be vandalized by random anons and new users. We'll revert them when necessary, but let's not confuse vandalism with honest edits.
 * Amen. Yank  sox  17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Film Earnings
There's a mention of them being dissapointing, but it should be clarified that the film will still draw even and likely make a profit. The budget was only 36,000,000 so there wont be trouble reaching that number. Gregmitch 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is premature and reeks of spinning. How about we wait until the film leaves theaters before we draw on such conclusions? This is speculation and violates WP:OR standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillafilm (talk • contribs)


 * To be fair, the article only mentions that the opening weekend earnings were disappointing. I agree that we don't need to add more about its earnings until it has left the theatres.  It might end up making a lot of money during the full run but the film hasn't even been out for a full week yet.  Let's just wait and see what happens.  --Mperry 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The famous line: Snakes on a muthafu**in plane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.105 (talk • contribs)

Kraitler
The villain Kraitler is probably named after a venomous snake, the Krait. This should probably go in the trivia section. I can't put it there at the moment because the page is protected, but anyone else should feel free. Zargulon 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would need an independent source; otherwise it's original research and speculative at that. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence that should go in the trivia section is "The first part of the villain Kraitler's name, Krait, is a species of venomous snake", which doesn't speculate about whether or the feature is intentional; I assume that was Darcy's only objection to my previous comment. Zargulon 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOR. There are no exceptions listed and as such, even Trivia must meet the three content guidelines. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Bobblehead 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence I just posted is purely factual and contains no original research.. that objection seems to be frivolous. You are entitled to your opinion that it is indiscriminate information, I disagree. Zargulon 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Python
The large constrictor in the movie is a Burmese python, not a Boa Constrictor. http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/blsnakesonaplanepicsx.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.199.125.10 (talk • contribs)
 * You know, we should probably put up a list of the snakes shown in the film, and link them to the snakes' articles. That seems like something that this article would benefit from, and keep the snakes clear. We could call it something like "Snakes Featured" or "Snakes on the plane". JQF 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's start this all over again
Alright, it appears that we are heading into one heckofa ugly mess right here. So, let's try to settle the issue right here, right now. Let's talk, calmfuly and as peacefully as he can about certain sections of text that we disagree upon. Yank sox  17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First thought.. Does it really matter if it opened #1 or #2 in its opening weekend box office? I'd focus more on New Line being disappointed in the opening weekend box office ($15.25 million including late night Thursday showings, $13.85 million without). If the ranking has to be mentioned, focus more on the confusion of whether or not the Thursday showings are counted and include links to the differing ranks that resulted in.--Bobblehead 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But isn't that exactly what the current version does (both in the intro and the box office section)?

chocolateboy 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Because that version of that sentence engages in corporate spin and uses weasel words to make it sound like the movie isn't a disappointment. The statement is flawed because it makes it sound like there are two sides to the story. There is not. The movie had a disappointment weekend, period. That, and the sentence itself is convulted. Plus, there no longer is controversy over the status of the film. The weekend actuals are in and SOAP is now #1. There is no longer any dispute. It won according to a photo finish. but the boxoffice is still very disappointment.Guerillafilm 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it focuses too much on whether it was #1 or #2. No one is going to care in a year how much money the movie pulled in during its opening weekend, much less what place it opened in. At most the entire opening weekend should get 2 or 3 sentences. Something like:
 * After the amount of internet buzz around the movie, New Line Cinemas expected the movie's opening box office to bring in between US$20 million and US$30 million, but were disappointed when Snakes on a Plane brought in only US$15.25 million, when including US$1.4 million from late night Thursday showings. The confusion of whether or not the Thursday night showings were included in the weekend box office numbers caused some media outlets to say the movie finished #1 ahead of Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby's US$14.1 million[http://foo various links to sites saying #1] or #2 behind Talladega Nights.[http://foo various links to sites saying #2]
 * Granted, that's totally choppy paragraph structure, but you get the idea, hopefully.--Bobblehead 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, finally, I like the direction of this better! But I think it important to note that the disappointment was not limited to Newline. The industry overall was disappointed.

Here is what I suggest-->

"Snakes on a Plane made a disappointing US $15.25 million in its opening weekend, despite the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the movie. Industry analysts originally expected the movie's opening box office to bring in between around US$30 million and US$35 million. Though the movie opened #1 at the boxoffice, there was initial confusion of whether or not the totals from the Thursday night showings should be included in the weekend box office totals, causing some media outlets to say the movie finished #2 behind Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby."

I'm willing to work with this. Just a start. Let's keep it going! :)Guerillafilm 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, GuerrillaFilm. That's good enough. now let's try to make it more NPOV, with deletions in strikethrough, changes in bold, and insertions in italic:
 * Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of Industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to did not meet these industry estimates, grossing a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days. according to New Line Cinema and other movie industry insiders.
 * This is what I did, I removed extraneous words, such as descriptive adjects and prepositional phrases. These are the cause of most POV. The amended paragraph reads:
 * Industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it did not meet industry estimates, grossing US$15.25 million in its opening days. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/movies/21box.html?ex=1313812800&en=ddffb8b2c0395003&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
 * Like they said on Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'am." &mdash; Lovelac7 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to drop in, but finishing first or second regardless of total gross earnings, is nothing to scoff at. Yank  sox  20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No scoffing here. My point is that it is irrelevant to the overall context of the discussion. THough it should be mentioned, it shouldn't be mentioned in a way that twists the facts. Sure, the movie was #1. But it is nothing to brag about either.

The movie made less than half of what was projected by the industry. it represents a huge disappointment for a film so highly anticipated. and I backed up my contention with sources/citations. I can find you more sources easily if you like. there are very few articles that are not negatively commenting on this weekend box office. the consensus of media at this point is that the movie disappointed in its opening week and disappointed surprisingly so. I mean, it was almost beaten by Talledga Night! That's nothing to brag about. Read this again if you have any doubt.


 * What is the reason for discussing the initial uncertainty regarding #1/#2? Is it that rare that two films place so closely in one weekend? Additionally, wouldn't it be clearer to say that New Line and others in Hollywood were disappointed by the result? I doubt anyone else outside was troubled to hear about it. How about this:


 * "Snakes on a Plane grossed US$15.25 million in its opening weekend, despite the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the movie. New Line and others in Hollywood found this disappointing, as industry analysts originally expected the movie's opening box office to bring in from $20 million to $30 million or more. The movie opened #1 at the boxoffice, narrowly beating Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby."


 * don't like this one as much:(Guerillafilm 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Both the NY Times source and the EW source say the expected gross was from 20m to 30m or more, so I don't see how they can be used to support "30m to 35m". &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to start with the industry analysts so:
 * Due to the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the movie, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days.
 * Nice and short, gets the point across. --Bobblehead 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So this is a keeper! Let's do it!Guerillafilm 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * YES! I like this MUCH better. I want to keep this! Woo! Hoo!! And you are right about that. Sorry, I got the numbers confused.


 * Okay, great. First let's make damn sure the flame war has stopped and then request unprotection, shall we? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Due to the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the movie, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days.


 * So we agree? This is the one we are keeping, right? Can we also add the EW quote in the first sentence. Look for my addition.Guerillafilm 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to unprotect this, but the word disappointing is POV, The last sentence should read, "While reaching #1 for it's opening weekend, Snakes on a Plane failed to reach this estimated goal as it grossed US$15.25 million in its opening days." Yank  sox  22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I do think it's better to say who was disappointed, especially as the NYT article names New Line specifically and Hollywood generally as being disappointed by the results. To describe it as an unqualified "disappointing $15.25m" is vague; disappointment is something people feel, not something that is or isn't, right? Other than that I think it's fine. Let's make sure to attach the boxofficemojo reference at the end, though, as it's our most up-to-date reference at the moment for #1/#2. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... more bickering? Okay... how about this: ''Due to the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the movie, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days according to industry analysts.''

We don't need to list everyone and their grandma disppointed about this. Clearly, the consensus in the media is that NO ONE IS HAPPY about this box office. I can't find a single article that doesn't comment on the disppointing nature of this box office weekend.Guerillafilm 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC) --- it's necessary to include the word disappointing since disappointing is how it was received by the industry.Guerillafilm 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bickering? Can we be nice, please? ;) Seriously, though, the edits you are suggesting are POV, and would fuel more fire for protection. We need to balanced for both sides in our wording, we need to be the silent, and neutral observer. Yank  sox  22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not necessary to say disapointing, since that is unbalanced. You can use a quote from someone involved expressing disappointment. Yank  sox  22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, no, describing it as "a disappointing $15.25m" means the wikipedia article is issuing a judgement on whether the results where satisfactory. The disappointment absolutely must be attributed to someone if it's included. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to work with your edits here. But Sorry for the tone. I'm still jaded by the personal attacks against. I'm sorry for letting my frustration spill out like that.

I agree that we shouldn't say disappointment in a vague sense. But saying that it was a disppointment for industry analysts IS okay. we are simply reporting on how the industry analysts reported on it.

How is this:

"Due to the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the film, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days according to industry analysts and Newline Studios.''

I think this is a fair balance. I really don't see what is wrong with this revision.Guerillafilm 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.. IMHO, the word disappointing is not POV in this case because there is no serious dispute about the opening numbers being a disappointment, so it's inclusion is not a violation of NPOV as it is a statement of fact. It's the equivalent of saying "The earth is a spheroid" without having to add "except some believe it is flat". Granted, you could argue that the figures themselves make the use of the word redundant. On the other hand, it is important to note that New Line found the numbers disappointing, so something could be added to that effect. --Bobblehead 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to work with your edits here. But Sorry for the tone. I'm still jaded by the personal attacks against me. I'm sorry for letting my frustration spill out like that. You both have been nice to me. I appreciate it. ;)

I agree that we shouldn't say disappointment in a vague sense. But saying that it was a disppointment for industry analysts IS okay. we are simply reporting on how the industry analysts reported on it.

How is this:

"Due to the tremendous amount of internet hype surrounding the film, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days according to industry analysts and Newline Studios.''

I think this is a fair balance. I really don't see what is wrong with this revision. Guerillafilm 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove "a disappointing"? I think the numbers alone show that the film definitely didn't live up to expectations economically.  Srose   (talk)  22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Since the all the perceived hype for the film all but guaranteed a big hit in the mind of the public and the industry, then it is important to the note the disppointment from the hype as part of the history of this movie. This wasn't just a sequel to Final Destination OR Halloween. This was hyped as one of the biggest movies of the year. The studios were bragging about the hype for this movie. Most major articles have reported on disappointment of this movie. No one is saying we should call this movie a failure. Simply, that it is a disappoint. Again, because hype of the film's preordained success is part of the history for this film, then so is the disappointment over the box office reality failing to meet up with the hype.Guerillafilm 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this, to attribute the disappointment exactly where the source says it is?

"'Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, some industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, disappointing New Line Cinema and other movie industry insiders.''"
 * Schi 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That actually looks very good, Schi.  Srose  (talk)  23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds too much like spin.

(A) The consensus in this industry was that this movie was going to do gangbusters. Hence all that hype. Citations back that up.

(B) Your wording is too narrow. It wasn't disappointing to a small niche/elite. the disappointment was generally felt all across Hollywood and the public 'proper.' REad the articles used for citations carefully if you have any doubt about this.

But I liked some of your word fixes and the overall spirit of neutrality embraced by your direction in this.

So how about-->

''Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days according to New Line Cinema and other movie industry insiders.''

Guerillafilm 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So how about getting rid of 'some' from "...some industry analysts estimated..." in Schi's suggestion? Would that be acceptable to everyone? At this point, that's really the only difference I'm seeing between the two versions. --Bobblehead 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you take the word "disappointing" out of Guerillafilm's suggestion above, it would be sufficiently accurate and NPOV to include. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just inserting a section break
Hi, guys :)

Okay, how about this revision:

''Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and, according to New Line Cinema and other movie industry insiders, grossed a disappointing US$15.25 million in its opening days.''

Sound good? :)


 * Not quite. I still would prefer to say who it disappointed if we say it disappointed someone &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And if that doesn't work, then I accept Mr. Darcy's compromise.

Mr. Darcy suggests: ''Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed US$15.25 million in its opening days according to New Line Cinema and other movie industry insiders.''

So do you like door #1

Or what's behind door #2? I'm good either way. ;)

Guerillafilm 23:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support without reservation. I think it communicates the basic facts, tells whose estimates weren't met, and avoids any unneeded commentary. Well, done Mr. Darcy. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I'd rather see "the consensus of" removed since that wording isn't used in any of the sources provided, but at this point, that's just nitpicking. So MrDarcy's version works for me. --Bobblehead 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question/comment Wait, why is it $15.25 million... according to New Line & co.? Is that really where that number comes from? Also, it seems that the industry's disappointment is notable (newsworthy enough to be reported by the NYT?) so I don't think it's necessary to cut it as long as it's properly attributed. Schi 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes. New Line is the source of the $15.25 million. New Line is also the source that it failed to meet the estimates. As for dropping disappointment, I'd say it is an arbitrary decision to get consensus. --Bobblehead 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your points now.

So how about this...-->

Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema.

This SHOULD work, I hope. LOL. I think the problem I had initially was the words, hollywood insiders. this wasn't a disappointment for a niche. it was a disappointment for the industry. but leaving out hollywood insiders makes more sense to me.

Will this work for everyone now? Boy, I sure hope so. Guerillafilm 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong endorse this is the best it can get, I think. Well done. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm game! Let's roll with this. Everyone okay with this? I tried to create a comprehensive statement that gives everyone what they want BUT still maintains the integrity of the matter.Guerillafilm 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not going to get dogmatic over that one word. Can someone who's good with tags make sure that the citations in that graf meet the new standard? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can make the ref tags happen. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, this link will only work for a few more days, but Boxofficemojo.com gets high marks for the accuracy of its forecasts, and they had SoaP forecasted to earn $24.4 million over the weekend. Just another datum in favor of this falling short of expectations. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Great job. Schi 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Works for me. --Bobblehead 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the code you would want to insert to get the proper cite.php references:
 * Comment I would really, really, really, like this to be reworded. Partically the begining of each sentence. I want to unprotect this article and will do so if it appears we can be cool with it. Yank  sox  03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would really, really, really, like this to be reworded. Partically the begining of each sentence. I want to unprotect this article and will do so if it appears we can be cool with it. Yank  sox  03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yanksox, what do you think of this one?
 * Sincerely, Lovelac7 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that one personally. I think the dispute is over and I'll unprotect in around 10 minutes unless there are objections. Yank  sox  03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that one personally. I think the dispute is over and I'll unprotect in around 10 minutes unless there are objections. Yank  sox  03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly OPPOSE this statement. Guerillafilm 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this revision. It neuters the statement unnecessarily. The original statement meets wikipedia standards. There is no reason to change it. The original statement respects NPOV. You seem to suggest that it doesn't.

So sir, with all due respect, I sticking with this. I worked REALLY hard to create a neutral statement that respects NPOV and satisfies/respects the contributions of everyone here. I understand your concern, but any tweaking at the point would damage the integrity of this for me and possibly others. In the spirit of compromise, this statement I think is working best for everyone here. Plus I respect the integrity and balance of it. I don't want to violate the spirit of consensus.

I'm standing by this statement: Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema.

I've spent the last couple of hours trying to brush up on wikipedia rules. I've compared this statement to other statements out there on subjects similar to this. This statement meets ALL the necessary wikipedia standards. It's truthful. Backed with sources. And fun to read.

Guerillafilm 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

STRONG ENDORSE of this statement: Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema.

I find the other NEUTERED statement completely unacceptable. And the neutered statement doesn't have the endorsement of others.

Guerillafilm 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by neutered? The whole point of NPOV is that it has to be neutered or the sentence will act crazy and attack the neighbor's pets. Yank  sox  03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The other users on this forum, experienced users I might add, don't have a problem with that original statement. The statement is NOT crazy. The statement is already neutered. you want to declaw the statement as well. Again, the other users don't seem to have a problem with it. they have also pointed out, accurately, that the statement meets all the standards of WIKI and the statement adheres with the protocol of NPOV.

I do NOT support the other DECLAWED statement.

I stand by this one: Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema.

Guerillafilm 03:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty experienced too, eh? Seriously, we can be bold, but the way you are refering to this, it sounds like you want it to blast everything out of the water. I want to unprotect this page, immedially, but I really do reassurance that we won't get into a crazy revert war. Yank  sox  03:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I deeply respect your concern. And I respect your experience. However, personally I feel like several users have worked hard all evening trying to come up with a statement that respects the Wiki rules and the ideals of integrity/truthfulness. Then, after everyone leaves, you come in here and arbitrarily decide that you don't like our revisions, edit a bunch of stuff out, and then say, "Fine then. Let's unlock the page." I don't think your edits are respecting the contributions of the consensus on this forum at the moment. This is precisely WHY we initially had the edit war in the first place.

I stand by the neutrality of that statement.

So,sgain, I respect your experience. But nothing in that statement violates NPOV standards or WK:OR. It's perfectly fine according to wiki rules and the statement is historically accurate thus far.

I want this page to be unlocked to. But if you have already decided that you are going to throw out our contribution and then arbitrarily choose your reworded statement, then I don't understand what the point of unlocking the page will be. Several users (myself included) will be unhappy. And our work will be for nothing. My 2 cents. Guerillafilm 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not declaring ownership of this page and have never intended to do so. I acknowledged that I wa s willing to unprotect before despite of my concerns. I'm just presenting my side of the argument. I'm trying to assist this situation so we can keep editing. Thanks, Yank  sox  03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we try to use that statement (the one built out of consensus) and see what happens? My fear is that we are declawing the statement out of FEAR of what may happen to it. And that is never a good reason to edit down a statement. If there is another revert way we can always point to the consensus on this page as a way of countering it. Despite HOW we word this sentence at this point, there is very little to stop certain people from coming here to start edit wars. The problem is the NATURE of the article. Not any one user in particular. Unfortunately, SNAKES ON A PLANE is a hotly debated film. It's not like this argument is happening over at the Final Destination 3 page.

Again, can we try to use that statement and see if it sticks? You have my assurance that if we use that original statement built out of consensus, then I won't go back on my word and change it.

Again, I strongly ENDORSE this statement along with the consensus of users on this forum:

''Due to the tremendous amount of Internet hype surrounding the film, the consensus of industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million to US$30 million. While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for #1 its opening weekend, it failed to meet these estimates and grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema.''

And thank U for your time and patience in this matter. I deeply appreciate your experience and hard work on this article. Take care. Guerillafilm 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving on a jet plane
I should've mentioned this earlier, but I'm leaving wikipedia for a while. I have a family member under going surgery so I need to help out since she is developmentally disabled. Her home doesn't have internet access so I don't see how I can meaningfully participate on this article for the next couple of months at least. So good luck. Please keep it real even though there are two rude Snakes on a Plane fans on this forum that won't stop at twisting this page into their own personal SOAP fan page. Please be good to each other. And try to work things out. Sorry for my own temper and my own negativity on this forum. I noticed on the adminboard that one of users who was engaging in the edit war has been officially censured. Out of the respect for that person I won't mention them by name. But try to keep that individual honest so he/she doesn't engage in more destructive page ownership. And that also means preventing him from using other users on this forum by proxy to revert other individual's edits. Take care and god bless and remember, only the facts!Guerillafilm 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be included
...when this is unlocked. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5277238.stm HornetMike 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * HAHA. That's great. Yeah, DEFINITELY use that in the article. I didn't realize how crazy people got over this movie! LOL.Guerillafilm 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, the question I have is how many times prior to this have they found snakes in or near movie theaters in Arizona. It's not like rattlesnakes are uncommon in AZ so I'd wager it's happened a number of times before, just those went unreported. --Bobblehead 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, but what I've realised the BBC article doesn't mention is that it was done deliberately. Here - http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-08-22T223648Z_01_N22280791_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-USA-SNAKES.xml&archived=False HornetMike 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a reference at home that states that the police said the snakes were brought in in backpacks. I'm about to leave work, I'll post it once i get home. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also in the HISTORY section, we need this bit edited: ''The film's title and premise generated a lot of pre-release interest on the Internet. One journalist even wrote that Snakes on a Plane is "perhaps the most internet-hyped [sic] film of all time."[7]'' <-- clearly someone who has no idea what [sic] means has added this. I fail to see how 'internet-hyped' is in any way a spelling or grammatical mistake, faithfully reproduced: the '[sic]' should be removed. --TheoGB 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably a reference to the case: "internet" rather than "Internet". See Internet capitalization conventions.


 * chocolateboy 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Can y'all please take this somewhere else? I don't care in the least who insulted whom. If someone makes a personal attack here, remove it under WP:RPA and argue about it on your own talk pages. If you think it's a repeated pattern, take it to WP:ANI. But this is not the place and it's just making it more difficult to get this stuff worked out so the page can get unprotected and updated.

Thanks. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Time to focus on the content of the article, not past transgressions.--Bobblehead 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I plan to report Chocolateboy if he doesn't stop stalking me/attacking me.Guerillafilm 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously still locked six days after the movie was released?
Wow, this Internet-phenomenon-turned-box-office-bomb isn't attracting the attention of many administrators, is it? This is pathetic. BabuBhatt 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Babu. Yanksox (an administrator) is largely keeping tabs on this article.  If you look at the discussion above, and that in the archives (specifically archive 2), you'll see that there was something of a dispute, which is why Yanksox chose to protect the page.  It's still protected because the dispute is not entirely resolved.  Srose   (talk)  22:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The situation is VERY pathetic. Both sides seem to be on a power trip at the moment. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Snakes on a Plane} 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I mean it's pathetic that editors cannot work on an article about a brand-new movie, because a nut admin has locked it instead of just blocking the two users in question. Simply pathetic. BabuBhatt 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See, I'm actually close to unprotecting this, and I just can't block two users out of the blue. I believe in being nice to people, not calling others names, and trying to move forward peacefully. I hope you can do the same. Yank  sox  03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ya

Unprotection
I'm unprotecting this page to give it another chance, if it gets crazy, protection may come (from any admin). Also, we need to keep cool heads. Let's hope we all can work well together. Yank sox  03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)