# Talk:Body of Lies (film)

Dubai rejects Scott's 'Lies'
Leonardo DiCaprio And Russell Crowe Will Be A Good 'Fit' In CIA Flick, Ridley Scott Hopes
Russell Crowe Says ‘Body Of Lies’ Probably Won’t Be Popular
Russell Crowe filming in Maryland
Yes, that was Russell Crowe in Annapolis
Headlines... ones used have been struck out, but the last one is no longer online. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The name of the movie has been changed to House of Lies, likely for marketing reassons, Body of Lies sounds like something starring Sharon Stone perhaps. 201.215.174.211 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that there is verifiability about a definite title change.  I did find this interview in which Ridley Scott said it was renamed to A House of Lies.  I'm not certain about the finality of this statement since recent press continues to call it Body of Lies.  I've redirected House of Lies and A House of Lies here, and if we can source a title change, we can request a move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
An article in The Kansas City Star on July 4, 2008 mentions the rename to House of Lies.  Trying to find further confirmation; they may have simply garnered that detail from IMDb, which can be inaccurate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The new trailer shows that it's Body of Lies, so that closes the discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki article says Crowe lost 30 pounds for the role. As heavy as he appears in the photos, I suspect the article should read that he gained 30 pounds for the role. Can someone research and verify this point?
Portia McCracken  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.234.251 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 

Yeah, I definitely think it's a mistake. Crowe gained weight for this movie, not lost.SchumiChamp (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The movie is also being pre-screened at the University of Kansas on October 7th. 129.237.169.101 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

--Keelz85 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)I would just lke to point out that in the description of the plot it is mentioned that a sikorsky Cypher UAV is used to track Ferris when in the end scene of the movie it is identified via digital writing that it is a KH-11 recon satallite.

"...set in context of the Middle East and the war on terror..."
I think it should say "war on terrorism"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.182.180 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Body of Lies (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: Found and fixed one.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
He meets Nizar, a member prepared to offer information in return for asylum in America. "a member" of what?
Hoffman, his superior in Washington, whom The New Yorker interpreted as "an American consumer of advanced technology and vast amounts of food", detached at home in Washington, D.C., and at the CIA in Virginia, is more machiavellian: he authorizes deceit, double-crossing and violence by telephone and without scruple. This sentence is over-long and convoluted. Break down and simplify.
By contrast, the Americans use sophisticated communication (Hoffman and Ferris speak regularly on the phone) The phone sophisticated?
I see your point here, but when you think about it one is at home at dawn in America, and the other is in the middle of dusty gun-fights in the middle east, and they can speak clearly to each other instantaneously. In terms of history, this is quite advanced. The point is clearly made in the film and picked up on my reviewers. I'll try and re-word.--Ktlynch (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, I get it. No problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The shoot lasted sixty-five days, from September to December 2007, and was filmed in the United States and Morocco, in which scenes set in ten different countries were filmed. Clumsy, please rephrase.
I made some minor copy-edits.[5]
Complies sufficiently with the MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well referenced to RS, no OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Good coverage without unnecessary minutiae
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Suitable FUR, licensing and captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On Hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a close reading. I've dealt with those apart from the phone one (explained above). Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the fixes, I am happy to list this as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ktlynch insists this go through the talk page, even though two editors (myself and User:Polisher of Cobwebs (who initiated the correction)) disagree with his interpretation of what is standard for Wikipedia film articles.  The section about Plot is currently listed as Plot synopsis ... ugh, this is silly ... to conform with the VAST MAJORITY of other film articles, we (Polisher of Cobwebs and I) form a De facto consensus and therefore deem it appropriate without further objection (besides Ktlynch) will change the section header in accordance with the rest of Wikipedia. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe many more articles use "Plot" than "Plot synopsis". There is a discussion at WikiProject Film's talk page about fixing these section headings, and everyone supported using "Plot". The discussion can be seen here. WP:FILMPLOT does say "Plot" or "Plot summary", but I think "Plot" is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There can't be consensus on something when it has not yet been discussed. Many articles on film do simply say "Plot", but there is no requirement that all articles use the same section titles. In fact, one of wikipedia's principles is that there are no hard and fast rules, your attempt to institutionalise something which is a poor practice is actually detrimental to the encyclopedia. I used "Plot synopsis" when writing the article because I believe that it is the most accurate description of what follows: a prose description of events depicted in the film. Simply writing "plot" could mean an analysis of the plot, or reference to its cinematic structure. You can prefer "Plot" if you wish, but you cannot say that "Plot synopsis" is incorrect. WP guidelines on plot summaries, in film or fiction generally, make no stipulation as to what such sections should be called, indeed "Plot summary" is listed as a one of the common headings (contradicting your claim of hegemony), and "synopsis" is just a synonym of "summary". Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter to me what heading this article uses. All the candidates are fairly interchangeable. I would not use "Plot synopsis" personally, though, because it indicates brevity to me. Studios release official synopses for films all the time, and these are conveyed in one paragraph for the most part. (Limitless (film) is one such example.) "Plot summary" does not indicate that kind of brevity, and "Plot" really is just understandable shorthand for that. (I can't ever recall seeing a section about analysis or cinematic structure using a "Plot" heading.) I pointed out the WT:FILM discussion as an indicator that editors prefer shorthand. None of the possible headings are detrimental, but the IP has a basis for his/her argument. It's just a matter of if anyone really cares that much. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The brevity or not of connotations of "synopsis" or "summary" is a moot point: both mean brief by definition and such a précis is supposed to be brief. Secondly, you are thinking like an experienced wikipedia editor, not a reader. The point still stands: "Plot synopsis" is a more accurate description of the contents of the section. It was not incorrect. There is not requirement for conformity with every other wikipedia article, in fact, by reducing the space for experimentation different practices such conformity institutionalises an inferior status quo. Ip 70.15.11.44 's insistence is a stylistic choice, normally edits such as that to established articles need a substantive reason. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"Plot synopsis" actually has a sense of redundancy, if we are to discuss pure definitions. "Synopsis" is defined as "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc." It is obvious that a "synopsis" will be of the plot, either in a Wikipedia article about the film or at the official site about the film. Studios write "Synopsis", not "Plot synopsis". In contrast, a "summary" is more ambiguous in whether or not it summarizes the plot. That's why "Plot summary" is acceptable. In addition, to reiterate my point about studios using the term, they provide a synopsis—a brief summary—of the film in one paragraph. In articles about upcoming films, it makes sense to reserve space for "Synopsis" when referencing what a studio provides, then when the film comes out, we can provide a not-as-brief summary titled "Plot" or "Plot summary". In general, it does not matter much because it will be obvious how long such a section will be, but I think there are good reasons to use the other options instead of "Plot synopsis". If you truly feel that editors who endorse renaming "Plot synopsis" to "Plot" are being destructive, please share your thoughts at the discussion linked above. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I will settle for "Synopsis". Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph: 'Frustrated by his elusiveness, differences in their approaches ...'
This is a dangling participle. Clearly, it cannot be the differences in their approaches that are frustrated. Who or what is frustrated is ambiguous at best. Furry Canary (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, Furry Canary. I made a slight change, let me know what you think. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Coelho is currently listed as one of the authors of the original book upon which this film was based. However, I've been unable to adduce any evidence via Google/Wiki search to support this claim; indeed, as far as I can tell, it's simply some sort of vandalism, unless there's something I'm missing.75.64.182.25 (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good spot. That's definitely vandalism. I think it has been removed now. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)