Talk:Children of Men/Archive 1

message: After viewing the movie a second time and reviewing the scene on my computer, it's clear that Theo's wound comes from when Luke shoots at him right before he is killed by the tank blast. The summary here says that he "tries to shoot at Theo" and that Theo's wound comes from the general chaos. Is it worth making more specific mention of where the shot came from? Janors 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theo's wound

message: The Australian film review link should be cut - it is poorly written and misses the point of the film,as opposed to the well written prague review. can we find a better one?User:mangonorth
I've added a link to the review given by the New York Times. Geoffrey C Vargo 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I see the information box says Children of Men's budget is $116 million. Is there any reputable source confirming this? I saw the trailer before Miami Vice a few nights ago and I can't imagine this film, which seems to be a fairly low-key, effects-light sci-fi drama, costing such a MASSIVE amount of money. Gunslinger 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any mention of a specific $116 million budget for Children of Men, but I found an estimate of $150 million on the movie's IMDb business data. IMDb is not always verifiable, but I don't know if budgets can be user-submitted.  If they are, then it is probably best to remove the budget until a valid source shares the amount. Also, please sign your comments on the talk page using four tildes in a row (~). --Erik 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it says $175 million. Wow, the budget for this one keeps ballooning. Honestly, having read the director discuss how he used hand-held photography and pre-existing locations for this movie, I HIGHLY doubt this film cost that much. Gunslinger 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  I apologize for deleting what you wrote.  It's just that I've left warnings about not to use the talk page as a forum on other film articles, and it doesn't seem to deter future comments of a similar nature.  I've seen a few other editors clean up talk pages that had forum-type comments, but I'm not sure what the policy is.  A comparison of the book and the film would be a great addition to the article.  Feel free to outline the differences clearly.  My suggestion is to state facts from the book and facts from the film (for example, the protagonist met this person in the book, but he doesn't meet this person in the film), as opposed to having your own take about certain circumstances.  Please see WP:OR guidelines as well.  Good luck. --Erik 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: The release is wrong. While it may not be a worldwide release, September 22nd is the date in Ireland and the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.75.31 (talk • contribs) 13:16, September 5, 2006  (UTC)
:According to the U.S. official movie site, the release date is December 25, 2006.  According to the U.K. official movie site, the release date is September 22, 2006.  Both have been included in the Infobox Film template.  The U.S. release date was originally September 22, I believe, but was postponed for whatever reason -- better profit during the holiday season, Oscar contender, etc. --Erik 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um we shouldn't have two release dates, just the first release date. The US will get it three months later than the UK but Wikipedia is a geographically neutral encyclopaedia and if we include the US release date then we should include every other country as well. Ben W Bell talk 07:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Each and every release date should really be mentioned. Geoffrey C Vargo 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: Military equipment included a 1970's vintage Cheiftain Tank and Scorpion/Scimitar light tank.
Seem a bit unlikely for use in 2027.
The film is full of interesting religous symbology and understated suggestion, and even the odd red herring ('aliens' mentioned).
A main character called 'Theo' - check the Greek translation ? 
Lots of nods and wink to previous films (Even 'Milo' in Planet of the Apes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.255.198.101 (talk • contribs) 16:01, September 23, 2006  (UTC)
::I think you meant symbolism--75.176.185.207 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theo is named fully once as *Theolonius or Thelonius.--84.20.17.84 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently the British Army has adopted the G36 in certain areas. Btw, the uniforms, well, its the future dude =D Seriphyn 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film reflection 

message: I see the next editor discarded petition to join the page history. What's going on? -Ricksy 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't realise it was specifically a history merge, I thought it was just a general merge. I've re-added in the tag. Ben W Bell talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's done. Edits prior to 14 July 2006 are back (six months). -Ricksy 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix cut and paste moves 

message: Does anyone think that the plot summary is overly wiki-linked?  The wiki-links of simple words: autograph, bomb, refugees, brand name, ambushed, motorcycle, scientists, bank, boat, soldier -- to name a few of the words that really shouldn't be linked.  If no one disagrees, I'm going to remove most of them. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly wiki-linked?

message: I wonder why Julianne Moore is in the main cast due to her ad hoc old age. Does it contradict the novel? --Brand спойт 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: What is the name Kee initially wants to put the child?
Frolley?
:That's right. Evenfiel 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the DVD HAS been released, here in the UK anyway. It is a British film after all, and it's Froley Seriphyn 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the child 

message: Was I the only one who noticed that the mid-wife's name is Miriam? According to Jewish tradition Miriam (masquerading as either Shifra or Puah) was the mid-wife for the Hebrews, who tried to save their infant sons from the Egyptians.
Marika is the name of the contact in Bexhill. Is this supposed to be like Mary, which is another variant of Miriam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.122.245.102 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is chock full of symbolism.  I would like to work this into a new section along with the trivia. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of women characters 

message: The plot summary says, "After Kee explains how animals are abused by researchers seeking a means of reversing humanity's infertility". I saw the movie last night, and what I recall is Kee telling Theo that humans cut off two of a cow's 6 teats because their machines are only made to milk 4 teats. She questions why we don't just make machines milk 6 teats. I don't recall any exposition re animal abuse by researchers, or at least not in this scene. Can anyone else substantiate or contradict my memory? Louise Allana 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also didn't see it, Evenfiel 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe she was concerned with how she would be treated as a mother by people who wanted something from her.--Chinawhitecotton 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal abuse? 

message: This film used a large variety of music, some of which is used to produce a very striking effect. Maybe it would be nice to have a section about that in the article? I'm not very knowledgeable about music, so I didn't recognize much of it. Maybe somebody could fill the gap? Just two pieces I recognized:
a) In the scene with Kee at Jasper's place, one can hear one of Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder: "Nun will die Sonn' so hell aufgehen". 
b) In the refugee camp, when the protagonists are standing in front of the russian guy's door, (just before the outbreak of the battle) one can hear some bars of the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 10th symphony 
It would be nice if somebody could follow up on this.
--Malbi 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The song used as the main character is in a car and on his way to see his cousin at the "Ark of Arks "(ex-Battersea Power Station) is "In the Court of the Crimson King" by King Crimson. It features on their first album, also titled King Crimson. Pierremeg 16:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing of that  particular scene was absolutely superb.  The visuals matched the music and each one reinforced the other.  For some strange reason, I get the feeling that the film is paying homage to another film in this particular sequence, but I can't quite place it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film music 

message: "Michelangelo's damaged and repaired statue of David is seen in one scene, -- with its left shin replaced with a metal bar -- dramatically showing both that mobs have rampaged through the great museums of the world and that Britain has made great effort to salvage such artifacts, without any character ever mentioning the fact."
The last bit of that information is incorrect. Theo's cousin says that they were too late to save the Pietà, so he did mention that fact.Evenfiel 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set dressing 

message: Whoever wrote the bulk of this section is using the page as a platform for criticizing the movie. The purpose of a "Reception" section is to impartially note what critics have said about the film.
abraham 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you.  It's a long-winded rant.  I've hacked it into shape. Lontano 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Reception" section

message: The article fairly screams out for a section pointing out the vast differences between the film and the source novel (characters, background, plot are all different). I hesitate to do it myself as I have only read the article about the novel and not the book itself (and have only seen the film once).RoyBatty42 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Divergence from Novel

message: I live in the US, so I guess it's no surprise that I have finally seen a trailer for this on TV... I understand this film is old news for basically all the rest of the English-speaking world, but I still want to actually watch the bloody thing before I know every single aspect about it. Thanks. ;)--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you think "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." meant? — ceejayoz talk 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You guys are crazy

message: Can someone tell me why the title of the link isn't used as a hyperlink, while the URL is being shown instead?  How do I fix it?  Thanks. - MSTCrow 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hibbs Review 

message: The info box identifies this as "Country UK."
The film was financed and released by Universal Pictures, which is a French and American company. The director is a Mexican citizen. All but one of the credit screenwriters is an American (the other is the director). The cast is both British and English. It was shot in both England and Argentina. Post production was in California.
So how exactly is this a "British" film? 207.69.138.10 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a British/American co-production, for the reasons you mentioned -- but it was released in the U.K. before anywhere else. Lontano 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "User:207.69.138.10|207.69.138.10" makes some good points... Geoffrey C Vargo 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a British only film due to the fact that the company that actually produced it is British, Quietus Productions. That is the only criteria used to determine a films nationality, the production company, not the funding, not the director or actors but who actually makes it. Ben W Bell talk 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this identified as a British film?

message: A lot of background information is put into the article too early, I think. I mean, the stuff on Theo's child (we don't even know he was married, or had a kid, until well after his meeting with Julian), Syd's involvement and his connection with Jasper. If no one has a problem with it, I'm going to go through the article and add it in where it should properly be. Disinclination 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of information 

message: This popped up in the trivia section of the main article:
"In the scene where Miriam fakes religious fervour to destract the military guards from Kee's labor, she is beaten, covered with a hood and dragged out to an area with many other hooded "fugees" appearing to be tortured and hung by the military. Much of what is seen briefly here was made to resemble the photos from the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal."
I am unsure where the user thinks that the scene was "made to resemble" the Abu Ghraib abuses. While the similarities are crystal clear, I think it is an avoidance of neutrality and a failure to provide citable sources to state something like that unequivocally. If a reputable source can be found for the mention, it can be added again. Until then, I am going to alter it to reflect NPOV and citable sources. Arcayne 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   In an interview, Cuarón was asked what he was "trying to translate in creating such an older, ancient feel in a futuristic setting?"  He answered in part, "...It's the present...We were thinking Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and The Maze. And those were our visual references."  —Viriditas | Talk 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to eliminate the trivia section entirely, and merge content into new or existing sections. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I learned the other day, most National Park articles include information plagiarized from NPS websites; that doesn't make it right no matter how much time editors spent doing it.  Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, and whenever possible, trivia should be grouped with like information and merged into existing or new sections.  See also: WP:TRIV. —Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't believe we are talking about National Park articles here, and while I am familiar with the 'low bar criteria' inherent when lazy users limit themselves to adding trivia, sometimes info about he production (and I must stress that non-citable sources of trivia are frequently pulled almost as soon as they are added, especially when they are inflammatory comments or rumour-mongering), they are common, espcially when publicity or "The Making Of..." specials allow for the introduction of trivia. If you are advocating a new policy in regards to how films are treated, I would urge you to submit your personal opinion for consideration to WP: Village Pump, wherein new policy is born. Until then, there is a current standard in place for film which seems to be policed well by the membership.Arcayne 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I already explained it, but I'll try again.  Whenever important trivia entries can be grouped with related trivia entries, they can be merged into existing sections or new sections can be created and expanded.  In most cases, trivia sections can be entirely eliminated from an article when this process is followed.  Informative sections help the reader. —Viriditas | Talk 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, she only started chanting like that after the guard noticed Kee. Everything before that, Miriam does not display qualities that seem to make her ack like a religious maniac. She was willing to defend Kee from anything and everything. Plus, Gabriel isn't apart of voodooism (if such a word exists). Disinclination 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC
Agreed. While Miriam was spiritual, her speaking in tongues (or whatever) was specifically timed to shift the attention of the guard from Kee's agonized contraction pains to Miriam as a possible troublemaker. I think that was clear. :) Arcayne 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Its because it originally said that Children of Men should have made more than Night at the Museum, because NatM was released I suppose 'world wide', while Children was only released in select theatres, until the next week. Children of Men should have made more (it makes sense, really), but those parts were deleted out, I suppose, for PoV. Disinclination 07:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: What do people make of the reference to William Blake in the title of track two on  the original score? Or is this supposed to mean something else? —Viriditas | Talk 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference to the track listing section.  I've also discovered that the director is familiar with Blake, and get this, they share the same birthdate.   I'm wondering just how much of William Blake's mythology we will find in the film, and if any critics will pick up on it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternity's Sunrise 

message: Jasper, the character played by Michael Caine is the spitting image of British indie games developer Jeff Minter, cardigan and all. Their dogs are even of the same breed. Silly coincidence, but it amused me. 84.230.137.1 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG Jeff Minter! 

message: Maybe its just me (as a part ofthe vast "political inversion" conspiracy), but am I the only person who is noticing that the User formerly posting as AgentCooper is claiming that he/she is done posting on CoM, and then continues to post commentary under other IDs? Just a short time ago, User: Yllosubmarine blanked all of AgentCoopers comments on CoM, which cannot be done unless Yllosubmarine is actually Agent Cooper, and then we have ourselves a shell game going on. Adding to this is the further commentary by User:71.34.82.127 speaking as if it were AgentCooper. Three separate accounts (dissimilar to each other), all three blank any detracting commentary on their talk pages, and all three are disruptive. Can we bring an editor in here? I think we have a problem.Arcayne 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agent Cooper removed his comments from the talk page in a Pontius Pilate deal (washing his hands clean of the matter), and I think Yllosubmarine rightfully restored the comments.  Without Cooper's comments, our responses to his comments would not make sense.  I'm not sure about the anonymous IP, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have misread the history page, Arcayne, and there is certainly no problem with me.  As I said to you in reply on my own talk page, I did not remove Agent Cooper's edits.  I restored them because I believed his edit to be the work of vandalism, as I stated in my edit summary: "Large sections wrongly removed -- Undo revision 102253260 by Agent Cooper."  Furthermore, it's ridiculus to claim that I am not only "disruptive" but I also "blank any detracting commentary on [my] talk page," when I do no such thing.  Did you even look at my talk page history?  Please do your homework first before you go around making outlandish claims.  María: (habla ~ cosas)  23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AgentCooper/71.34.82.127

message: :precipitated by the death by leukemia of their young son, Dylan
It was leukemia?! I thought Jasper explained while Theo was eavesdropping that Dylan died in a flu pandemic. The Wednesday Island 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jasper describes Dylan as having "little lungs" and then suggests that's why he died in the 2008 'flu pandemic. I think a lot of the confusion in the article is just because people haven't seen the film all that recently, now the DVD's out these things shouldn't be a problem. Driller thriller 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Okay. When I first came to the article, I had moved all mention of Dylan to where he and his dead was (and should be) properly mentioned. Obviously, someone must have mistakenly put that in afterwards. Disinclination 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What killed Dylan 

message: I am not sure who is removing the word 'loosely' from the first paragraph of the article, but before you do so again, please explain why you feel it needs to go. The movie is not like the book, and since that is the case, a movie based on the book in title and main plot but not in particulars is considered a loose adaptation.Arcayne 12:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."  Whether you're going to say that Children of Men is "faithfully" or "loosely" adapted from the original source, that claim should be backed in the article.  This should be done by reviews of movie critics who have compared the book to the film, like, say, Cooper's citation.  (I'd like to point out that the FA-class V for Vendetta has a section of Comments from political sources that includes the so-called "biased" perspectives.  The article also has a "Difference between the film and graphic novel" section.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loose Adaptation

message: If anyone else is seeing the clues, reply here. —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bardo Thodol 

message: I am a little concerned that the entire paragraph seems unsupported by citation. It also seems to be putting Christian religious significance to the movie that I don't see. Granted, all films are seen through the lens of the viewer, but I am not sure that the particular lens of Christianity is necessarily appropriate here in WP. Arcayne 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag it as unreferenced.  If there's no improvement after a week or two, smite it.  Wikipedia doesn't permit "drawing connections" -- I see too much dab-editing on historically based films like Saving Private Ryan based on what editors "know". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being edited as we speak. I'd like to congradualate Verditas for their work. Disinclination 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the Themes section, as the edit prior to mine added a political statement.  This is crossing the line.  If anyone wants to retrieve encyclopedic information from the section I've removed and support it with citation to make it verifiable, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious symbolism

message: I think I understand now what the reasoning was behind removing Sacramone's review from the context it was in originally, since it was a very strongly worded negative review. If one regarded it as a source of factual information about the differences between the book and the film and what motivated them, it would appear to be a biased source for those kinds of facts. Fair enough. (I think it altogether *accurate*, but that would just be to say that I share his bias--the differences are patent and the motivation from them not hard to discern). What I still don't understand is why it is not to be available as a *review* in the links section, especially since "Spill.com," which didn't exactly strike me as prominent, mainstream, dignified or useful, is retained. First, reviews are by definition value judgments--all reviews--unless they are being used to support factual claims about a film's content about which reasonable people can differ, i.e., the ways in which the film can be interpreted. If we say that the most obvious useful purpose of posting reviews (to inform readers a la Consumer Reports) is inappropriate to the purpose of an encyclopedia, then the only conceivable purpose of reviews is to report the facts about the character of the reception, the fact that various reviewers had a particular response. If that is the purpose of including reviews (and otherwise, it seems to me that ALL reviews would have to be removed for "bias" because they all represent points of view about the film of some kind or other), then it seems to me that the only criterion for exclusion would be lack of *prominence*. We wouldn't want to post links to Joe Nobody's Blog in which he reports about the freshness of the popcorn at his local multiplex while seeing the film, fact though it may be. But by *this* criterion, the inclusion of, say, Spill.com and the exclusion of First Things is still completely puzzling to me. First Things is one of the most prominent and well-respected cultural criticism journals for religious conservatives (both Jewish and Christian, though most of the latter commentators are Catholic intellectuals). It is the go-to place for what neocons think about culture, basically. Given the size of the Catholic community, the prominence of the venue, and (at least in my judgment) the representativeness of the response to that community, (and I'm going to try to tread very carefully here lest I be misunderstood) the exclusion of the review is difficult to make sense of via WP policy and not in terms of bias. Since I will apply the Davidsonian principle of charity and *assume* that there is no bias, I want to ask if there are some possible misunderstandings/disagreements as to fact or policy that generate this. One possible misunderstanding as to policy is that to report the fact of a strongly held normative point of view is to violate NPOV. However, this explcitly contradicts the explicit wording of NPOV. It does not violate NPOV to state that "The KKK throughout its history has been opposed to the interests of African-Americans, characterizing them as [insert racist quote from KKK literature, end with cite to KKK-authored text]." To say that the claim or the cite is inadmissible because the source is racist and hence violates NPOV would make no sense, as far as I can tell. If you had to cite to a "mainstream" source, then you would get the New York Times saying that the KKK was racist, and then someone would jump in claiming *that* was biased. And if you then went searching high and low for some reputable source that was truly indifferent to the question of whether or not the KKK was racist, I doubt you could find any, or that one would be accurate if you did. The result would be that the relationship between the KKK and racism would be undiscussable. That is surely an odd result. And it's not just from a Political Consumer Reports goal-perspective that that would be unfortunate. My over-the-top comments about suppression and concealment were directed this way: the inevitable result of such an interpretation of NPOV will be well-intentioned suppression of important facts, which is contrary to the purpose of WP. That was all I was trying to say, if one peels away the sarcastic *way* that I said it.
The second thought is "well isn't First Things some marginal, obscure, weirdo venue? I mean, just look at what these guys are saying! They, like, support the Iraq War! They're, like, against abortion! Yipes!" This, I must stress emphatically, is a huge *factual* error. There are such things as religious conservatives. The effects of their voting behavior speaks for itself--just look around. Check who sits in the White House. There are such things as Catholics. They have existed throughout the world in stupefying numbers for two thousand years. And FT is one of the most highly respected, high profile venues for this kind of thing (Catholic cultural commentary), no matter what one thinks of it. I mentioned that it is invariably present at venues like Borders, where 2-3 dozen "intellectual" journals are available as a part of the periodical kiosks (i.e., it is shelved near "Harper's" and "Atlantic Monthy"). At Powells, which is a well-known though not national chain bookstore, but a "high-falutin" one (catering to the intelligensia), at many of their outlets they will put periodicals with the books in the same topic category, so that a prestigious science journal will be shelved near the science books, etc. In that setting, I've seen FT shelved as "respectable, of broad interest, about religion, so it goes here in the religion books section." (In ventilating on this to a friend in e-mail recently, who teaches political theory at the University of Michigan, he replied that there must be some sort of ignorance involved because he has often used an anthology of FT articles as a text in classes on normative political theory, to serve as the "this is how the smart religious conservatives think").
So I can see how reasonable, unbiased people can differ about things like "Reception" (I think I've seen quite a few other WP articles that allow a freer discussion of what reviews are like in such a section than the Joe Friday approach we've adopted here--see WP's "Atlas Shrugged" article and tell me if that violates NPOV--some of the Randians might wish it did, but the consensus of the editors of which I was one was that it didn't, as harsh sounding as it is--the critics hated the book, so we said "the critics hated the book") and especially about things like "Themes" (where the danger, methinks, is more an OR issue than an NPOV issue--if I said in a Themes section "the film deletes much of the Christian symbolism that the book contains" well as true as that is, it looks like OR, but that's not an NPOV issue if it's phrased correctly), I still am completely clueless about why the FT review link would be deleted from a list of linked reviews on the basis of an appeal to NPOV. It makes no sense unless you assume, falsely, that NPOV requires never informing the reader about the fact of a prominent someone's value judgment, or unless you assume, falsely, that a prominent Catholic-ish intellectual journal must be marginal because it is Catholic-ish. 
In the testy phase of this discussion earlier, I suggested that unconscious bias may be at work here (I never meant to suggest willful bias--I think that a lot of people with secular backgrounds and commitments are kinda clueless about all sorts of things related to religion, based on inexperience, just as inexperience is the father of cluelessness in so many areas of life--think about the kinds of things people think they "just know" about gays fifty years ago--consider Arcayne's comment that seeing Christian symbolism in the film at all is a bit of a stretch--doesn't the protagonist look upon the pregnant innocent who carries humantity's salvation in her womb exclaim "Jesus Christ!" OK, for some people, the first thing those two words bring to mind is a carpenter from Nazareth, and for others the first thing that comes to mind is exclamation itself). I retract *any* suggestion of bias. All I want is an explanation of how people understand the relevant policies here and what factual assumptions they are making in applying them. My point is not that every possible viewpoint must be represented. My point is that the fact of prominent viewpoints must be represented if the fact of any viewpoint is represented at all AS A FACT about how people are thinking and acting, and that NPOV does not require (and indeed explicitly says as much) that the fact that a viewpoint exists need not be suppressed because a viewpoint is involved, if one is reporting but not endorsing the viewpoint. One can report the existence of a bias without being complicit in it. Otherwise there could never be a statement in WP like "Many Catholics oppose abortion because it is offical Church doctrine to do so" because it evinces an anti-abortion bias merely to mention it!
I think it is fair to say that the history of the discussion provides a lot of evidence for the two interpretations canvassed above (that people hereabouts believe that NPOV requires eschewing reporting the fact of any viewpoint about anything because reporting is endorsing, and that FT is a loopy, marginal venue) and that both of these assumptions are, as best as I can tell, quite false.
That's pretty much all I have to say about this. To be honest, I left because I thought that if people were taking things down because they were written by Catholics, that means that there is no hope for WP on much of anything but science and engineering topics. I hope that doesn't offend people. But the more charitable interpretation is that this is a disagreement about what NPOV *means* and what FT *is*. Though I have essentially lost all interest in the film and article, I still have a larger (if dwindling) interest in WP that seems relevant here: I would not want to see the practice spread of suppressing factual reporting about topics like religion and politics merely because such topics are invariably controversy-ridden, since that could mutate into the practice of thinking that NPOV is really the old advice to never talk about sex, religion or politics, lest you offend someone. [BTW, if people feel that this issue is too big for this context and is better placed in a policy-discussion area, fair enough. I though it should go here not just because it arose here, but because my possibly mistaken impression was that it is this article which is the anomaly].
Just to head off a possible problem. If the response is "oh, you're just a newbie; NPOV is quite clear--maybe you should read it?" I'm not and I have. Agent Cooper 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Spill.com, as it qualifies as linkspam.  I thought it was removed, but I'll have to see who re-added it, and follow the trail of bread crumbs.  Also, to support your argument, FA-class V for Vendetta has criticism from movie reviewers of a specific political stance: "Don Feder, a conservative columnist from Frontpage Magazine has called V for Vendetta 'the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date' that 'combines all of the celluloid left’s paranoid fantasies'".  It's impossible for a movie reviewer to be totally neutral -- if a reviewer bashes Bush or something in one review, does this disqualify all the rest? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of NPOV 

message: The set dressing section has been tagged as original research for some time.  I've removed it as it is completely unsourced.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set dressing section removed 

message: Just noticed there was no genre(s) listed for this film.
Aye, I would think it would be classified as science fiction. Xorgthezombie 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Genre listed