Talk:Children of Men/Archive 3

message: From the Themes section: "According to Cuarón, the title of P.D. James' book (The Children of Men) is a Catholic allegory derived from a bible quote". 
The citation appears int he reference section as #33. However, that appears to be empty (the cite simply refering to 'Metroactive'). Maybe this refers to a source I could not find. In all of the references listed (and some of them appear to be dead or unrelated), I could not find a single reference to the word 'allegory' in any of them. Maybe I missed it. If someone could point it out, that would be great. I wouldn't presume to remove the word until the link issue is squared away.Arcayne 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the "Metroactive" link.  The original reference was earlier in the Themes section a few dozen revisions ago, but it was replaced with something else.  I've brought it back in.  Please point out anything that seems dead or nonworking, and I'll see if I can fix them. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed. Excellent, expeditious work! I will check through the references today whilst at work.Arcayne 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Citation Problem

message: There used to be a section that listed the principal cast members, but it seems to be gone now.  I was merely wondering if there was a reason for its removal, or if it will be reinstated?  Just curious; I wanted to check on a certain minor actor, but was too lazy to nip over to IMDb.  That'll show me, heh. María: (habla ~ cosas)  15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the removal because the primary characters were already embedded in the Plot section.  Most FA-class film articles don't really have a cast list, with the exception of franchise films (whose characters have their own articles) and something like Dog Day Afternoon.  It didn't seem necessary to list all the minor characters, as it has little encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like a list either, but we have enough cast content in the production section to move it to its own prose section. —Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a likely solution.  I was looking for a reference to Charlie Hunnam, who plays Patric, and although he's not a major character, I think those who have seen the film would agree that he plays a very important part in the story as a whole.  However, he isn't mentioned in the plot or production section --which makes sense for space constraint.  I'm sure there are others in the cast who fall into the same category and deserve at least a mention.  PS: good to see you're still fighting the good fight, Viriditas. :) María: (habla ~ cosas)  13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Children of Men/Temp could be used to develop the cast section.  I will import the content. —Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a cast section and it has been reverted. I believe a cast section should be added undoubtedly. melding all the info into production balloons the Production section up instead of keeping it into multiple concise categories, especially on a large article such as this. for a smaller article/film i would regularly have no qualms about merging cast in production. I would like to hear more arguments for for/against its removal. thanks. --Beanssnaeb 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the addition of your cast section.  Arcayne reverted your addition, but myself and another editor added it back.  So far, Arcayne has not explained the reasons behind his edits. —Viriditas | Talk 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section removal

message: I'd like to get a consensus for this article regarding something.  With the Cite news and Cite web templates, the author can be filled out in two ways.  One is with the author= attribute.  The other is with the first= and last= attributes.  The latter will format it to be "Smith, John", where author= formats it as "John Smith".  I'd like to standardize the templates for the references in this article, and I would prefer to use the author= attribute.  I say this because when it comes to using the coauthors= attribute, the format seems confusing.  For example, first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe will produce Smith, John, Jane Doe, and formatting it as first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Doe, Jane will produce Smith, John, Doe, Jane, which is too confusing.  (By the way, first= and last= attributes can be used interchangeably and still produce "last, first".)  Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still learning about scripting and templates, so I yield to your superior knowledge on the subject.Arcayne 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's just that author=John Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe produces John Smith, Jane Doe, which is more easily read than what I mentioned before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to see last names first, as that is helpful when doing research, looking at sources, and using standard citation guidelines. I don't think the coauthor format is confusing, and is rarely used in film articles due to the nature of reviews and commentary. —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite template question 

message: I have ported over an uncited post that I removed from the article (placed in the Themes section). It doesn't appear to be nonsense or vandalism, and I thought it would be okay to put it here, until User:Ppayne can properly cite the reference. I am not as familiar with this Clarke work.
::Added by User:Ppayne)
::The story has strong simitarities to Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, a novel about mankind going on to a higher plane of evolution, resulting in the end of fertility in the current generation of humans.
-Arcayne 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Googled briefly for a connection between the two, but couldn't find any sources outside of comparisons made in forums.  Maybe someone else would have better luck. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i did, too. No luck. Of course, Ppayne might have something more than observation to back up his post, so I figured we'd give the lad/lass a chance to square it away, proper-like. (he said, feeling all piratey).Arcayne 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Childhood's End Reference

message: Wasn't there a section about the difference between the two works?  Why was it removed? --72.202.150.92 17:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences have been worked into other sections, such as the first paragraph of the Themes section.  Seeing as the director did not intend to adapt anything but the premise from the novel, it's needless to create a section to compare the two sources.  Hope that's understandable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between movie and film? 

message: Viriditas, surely you don't want to exclude themes from the lead paragraphs.  What is the problem with the wording?  It summarizes the Themes section, addressing the spiritual and metaphorical aspects.  How do you think themes should be addressed in the lead? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I think needs to be done is separate the notings of the themes and the praise, because the praise has yet to be covered in the Reception section.  I think that some copy-editing could be done to describe neutrally the cinematography and the themes of the film, and when we develop the Reception section, we can say whether the majority of critics liked it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. How about using noted in place of praised?Arcayne 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes in the lead

message: This has been going back and forth for a bit, with a lot of new users changing it back to plot, I am thinking that it might be advisable to perhaps change it to plot synopsis, which it was at one point. Arcayne 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the FA-class film articles, their sections are labeled either Synopsis or Plot.  I personally would prefer "Synopsis" because the definition is more one of a summary than "Plot" is.  I wouldn't fight hard over which one to have, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason.  I admit I wasn't clear on what "synopsis" meant in my early days of Wikipedia, so "Plot" would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will change it to plot. I wouldn't be opposed to the synthesis of both words, ie. plot synopsis. It denotes clearly that what is being synopsized is the plot. Whichever way is agreeable to all.Arcayne 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the change.  Synopsis is more elegant and more accurate regarding the nature of a summary.  If users want to change it to plot, they can come here and discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have already expressed confusion by changing it to plot at least twice. This says that, at first blush, they aren't making the connection even if the word is "elegant". Clarity beats elegance every time. As well, the word synopsis seems more inclusive of information than it has been interpreted here. By specifying that it is a synopsis of only the plot, we are able to avoid the confusion. Arcayne 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no big deal in leaving it as Plot.  It's not going to be a point raised in FA nomination -- I've checked all FA-class film articles, and they use either Plot or Synopsis.  Simplicity works; the content should immediately show that it's about what happens in the film.  I really don't want to waste my breath over nitpicking this... there's more relevant concerns in improving the article, like the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis v. Plot

message: I just noticed that the arbeit macht frei comparison was removed from the article for lack of citation. Granted, while History is something of an interest to me, I thought it fairly common knowledge that the phrase was utilized frequently in nazi concentration camps, here, here and here. It was part of the normaized cruelty of the nazis, and it is quite likely that the use of the image int he film would impact a European audience far more than a US one.Arcayne 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and the wiki-link to the phrase mentions that fact.  If you can provide a citation that directly ties the internment camp to the Nazi concentration camps through a reviewer's observation, that would be great and tie it more closely to the dystopian themes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an earlier used citation addresses that, in the phrasing "well on the way to fascism" (which nazism is pretty much the poster child for). However, it might not. In either case, mentioning that a song by the Libertines plays seems redundant, as the song and the artist appears in the Music section.Arcayne 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean... the Libertines aren't mentioned in the Music section.  I think the redundancy is fine because the phrase ties into the thematic elements. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Erik.  This isn't redundant like the shantih was in the synopsis.  This is more of an overlap that deals directly with the holocaust theme, while the music section and soundtrack article do not. —Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think that the nod to the Holocaust theme was simply not there. Without a visial linkup to the concentration camps (at least, not w/out using OR) or having familiarity with the song (and one has to listen very, very carefully) to even hear the words 'arbeit macht frei,' the reference doesn't even belong. We aren't talking about the Shantih, Viriditas - that has already been determined in prior posts here. That being said, at least there was a clearly observational component to it. The arbeit macht frie reference is nowhere near as clear. A pity that Cuaron didn't have it spray-painted inside of Bexhill or something; simply having a song wherein the words are barely audible after the third listening doesn't seem to arise to the standards necessary for inclusion. I think it should be purged altogether as it cannot be referenced outside of one reviewer's reference that it is playing subtly in the background.Arcayne 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a fair argument.  The "Shantih" and Animals references use only one citation; surely you don't want to remove these.  While I think the existing citation could be replaced with something that observes the song more closely, I don't think it should be removed if there's no replacement to be found. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the comparisons is that the citations can be easily seen or heard observationally, whereas the arbeit macht frei reference is based almost solely upon the reviewer's knowledge of song titles by the Libertines. Do I think it should really be cut? No. Do I think a better reference be provided, to clean up the relationship between what is observed and what it means? Yes.Arcayne 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple reliable sources opine on this topic, whereas one, barely reliable source mentions the shantih allusion.  Shouldn't you be looking for better sources to support your own edits, first?  And just exactly what is your issue with the sources cited? Don't bring this up again if you can't answer that question. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbeit Macht Frei

message: Erik, you reverted a more accurate and ordered lead paragraph in favor of a poorly written, uncited and unsourced version.  Why you or anyone would do that is quite strange.   The statement you included, "while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film" is not unique to this film, nor is the statement supported.  All films maintain themes.  The lead should specify the theme ("hope") and not make general statements.  And where is the source for "from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film"? Furthermore, the material added to the theme section to provide support for this material was not cited correctly. The source actually said: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope". —Viriditas | Talk 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the writing was perfect, but I think we need to decide how the lead paragraphs should be addressed overall.  Read below and share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can decide all day, but please don't revert more accurate and concise  writing in favor of poorly written, unsourced  claims. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm not sure what your disagreement is.  What he said was an overall emphasis about children.  He didn't describe Children of Men as "a film about hope" separately from what he had said about children.  It isn't a separate kind of hope he mentions in this context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a disagreement.  I'm simply observing that Arcayne's recent additions to the theme and lead section don't match up with sources.  Arcayne writes: "To emphasize the theme of hope, Cuarón included children as an element, considering them "important in my own notions of hope"."  No, the source says: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope"."  There I nothing about Cuaron including children in the film.  It's very important that we maintain high standards here, or the article will degenerate into more of this. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I get it now.  I was reading it in a different manner.  I see what you're saying now, and I agree that the particular citation doesn't fit in that context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to ask you to remain civil again, Viriditas. Please stop making trollish attacks.Arcayne 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? —Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop addressing my edits in a derogatory fashion. If you disagree with the edits, you should do so, but in a fashion that allows for a conducive working environment, and not one that creates friction and foments edit wars. We both want to avoid that, right? Simply add constructive suggestions on how to add to the edits already in place, and not simply belittle edits already made in good faith.Arcayne 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but you must learn to separate the edits from the editor.  I will most certainly address bad edits that do not meet basic Wikipedia standards in a derogatory (look up the word) fashion. —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of lead 

message: Whenever the discussion slows down here, perhaps we might think about archiving this talk page? It's reached 235 kilobytes now. Just a suggestion. Disinclination 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  That was a lot of discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Arcayne, why did you change, "Cuarón did not attempt to use the dystopian, futuristic setting of the film as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present" back to "Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting presented by Children of Men as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present."   As explained above, needless words and qualifiers that don't appear in the source text make the prose less accurate and concise.  —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because my edit used the language a bit more elegantly. It also had the virtue of being more accurate.Arcayne 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that possible when your edit was less concise and inserted a qualifier that changed the meaning and did not appear in the original source?  —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ask one last time, Viriditas - do you wish to offer a statement to help us finish this article, or not?Arcayne 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked you a question, and you ignored it by changing the subject.  I removed the statement from the article as another piece of OR.  When you are ready to discuss why you feel it is necessary to make the text less concise, introduce needless words, and add original research, you are free to respond. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you feel that way.  I've never had an edit war or major disagreement with Erik in this article, so I don't understand your POV.  If you can't answer questions about your edits, or support your edits when asked, then you probably shouldn't be editing this article.  I'm sorry you feel this is personal when it's not.  One thing that did concern me in this regard, however, was what appeared to be your overly aggressive attempts to intimidate editors who found fault with your edits on their talk pages, namely myself, User:Disinclination, User:Bazketballr, and a number of others.  In fact, I banned you from my talk page for making threats, and for your generally impolite behavior, which you admit to above.  So, if anyone has "chased" editors off this article, or attempted to do so, it is you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for revert requested 

message: I prefer the synopsis heading as we are discussing a summary of the plot, not the plot itself.  Why was this changed? —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the conversation above where this was discussed. There was no strong preference either way, and it was argued that most FA articles have either plot or synopsis/ As plot is a more accurate description than synopsis, it was changed. I still thank that plot synopsis would be more accurate still, as it would overview the plot, and not the entire article. It was one of the main reasons that thematic elements aren't included, as they would in a synopsis. I hope that recaps matters.Arcayne 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik and I have both expressed our preference for "synopsis", and "plot synopsis" is redundant.  So, why was the header changed to "plot"? —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read "Synopsis vs. Plot" -- "While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason. I admit I wasn't clear on what 'synopsis' meant in my early days of Wikipedia, so 'Plot' would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it and don't see the rationale.  "Synopsis" implies "a  brief outline of a plot, setting, or important points of a work" whereas "Plot" does not.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But I'm not going to waste my time debating a fucking single word.  The debate over a single "Shantih" sentence was bad enough.  You ladies do what you like.  I'm done with contributing to this article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear that.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis heading 

message: Moved unsourced trivia to Talk:Children of Men/Temp.  Some items already appear sourced in the production and theme sections. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Between 2006 and 2027 

message: I would like to see the Theme's and Music headings in this section ammended to note that John Taverner's work is USED in the film, rather than a soundtrack COMPOSED FOR the film. There is an important difference. Eternity's Sunrise was composed and indeed performed some time before this film was made.
I have no connection with the composer, simply a love of his work and a desire to see it represented correctly.
Dr. L. Higgs
24/2/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.37.137 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read a little bit more carefully.  "Fragments of a Prayer" was composed for the film, and Taverner scored the rest with previous compositions and the addition of three non-Taverner pieces. —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music in the film