Talk:The Golden Compass (film)/Archive 1

message: the movie apparently lacks d(ae)mnos
read the books summary towards the end to find out the pivital problem with this, it almost makes it an entirely different story, which will undoubtively make some fans mad. 
Unfortunately, I've seen the trailors and the d(ae)mons are indeed there.
* See some mad fans at the world premiere in London
:"Apparently" is not encyclopedic -- only established, reliably sourced statements can be added to the article.  Also, according to the movie trailer, daemons are included in the movie.  María (críticame) 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  easy difference to see 

message: I read today on Yahoo! News that this is its main focus after recent failures.  shouldn't that also be metioned, especially the packet New Line produced for itGot118115147 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Line 

message: Is this title likely to be used in Britain, or will it be retitled Northern Lights in the UK to reflect the British book title, as with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philospoher's Stone? Loganberry 23:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main His Dark Materials page says it will be released as Northern Lights in the UK. MC MasterChef 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: According to an interview with Philip Pullman on BBC Radio Oxford, the title of the film will be "His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass" in all territories.  See http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2007/01/24/phillp_pullman.shtml Rueful Rabbit 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Proposed by who? If this is in reference to this, I think it should be removed as fan speculation. MC MasterChef 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proposed actors" 

message: The information on this page is out of date, according to , Chris Weitz has apparently changed his mind and is directing... again. Unfortunately I'm out of time now to change it; so can anyone beat me to it? - Estel (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old information 

message: Merge - the information should be synchronised, only the name will be different (between the UK and the USA versions). Pydos 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: I made a table with the confirmed cast on it but I haven't got the sources yet. I suck at making things on wiki so now it is at the bottom, if someone would be able to make it to that it is under Cast, I would appreciate it.
:I think the link for Dakota Blue Richards should either have some should go to a seperate page or a section within the main page for the movie talking about the contest in which she got the role rather than its current behavior of just redirecting back to the top of the movie page. Info From IMDBchazchaz101
== Title ==
There isn't a whole lot of debate here, and after checking Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (which is referenced in an earlier post to this talk page), I didn't see any debate there.  But I think it is improper to use the Northern Lights title for the US-produced film which will be distributed by its original producer under the title The Golden Compass, in the same way the novel should be the opposite (published in the UK by its original publisher under the title Northern Lights).  I reject the "novel is more well-known" (possibly paraphrased) argument because this is not about the novel.  The movie is based upon the novel, yes, but it is a separate work in its own right and should be evaluated exclusive of the novel.  That's my two cents, anyhow.—Kbolino 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't true. Northern Lights was the original name. Golden Compass is actually a MISTAKEN reference to Pullman's interest in Milton's Golden CompassES. It was used against Pullman's wishes: apparantly he didnt have enough 'clout' to persuade the publishers and they liked it cos the aleithometer looks like a compass (though it isnt). Golden Compass actually makes no sense in the books' context, and is never used to describe the alethiometer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lallante (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The kicker for me is the original publisher/producer.  What is the name on the script in Nicole Kidman's hands?  It's almost definitely His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass, because that's how New Line is billing the film.  Yes, the original publishing of the book used Northern Lights, and I certainly agree that's the most appropriate title for the article on the novel.  But the basis—and the participants—are not what is under evaluation, in my opinion.  I think that Philosopher's Stone in that respect is the more complicated decision, though I would still lean Philosopher's Stone for the novel and Sorcerer's Stone for the film(as that's how WB billed it).  As for my personal thoughts, I think it's condescending to say that an (ostensibly) American film can't stand on its own right apart from the British novel upon which it was based—which is not to argue with you per se, but merely the feeling I get from the wording in the article.—Kbolino 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I made a cast table

message: I think we should move the page back to His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass. According to a recent talk with Philip Pullman, he said that the title is going to be under the American version which is "The Golden Compass", even when it is released in the UK and other territories that received the "Northern Lights" version. He even said that "The Golden Compass" is the more popular title. I hardly even see any websites or media referring to this movie as "Northern Lights". So, shall we? DivineLady 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with such a move, though you should place the citation for Pullman's mention of the "popular title" as evidence toward the proposed move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: Can we get a source for the budget estimate please? JayKeaton 13:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is that estimate for "His Dark Materials: Northern Lights", or for the whole "His Dark Materials" trilogy? JayKeaton 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget source

message: *
*
:Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set visit 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that some of the backgrounds in the movie will be created digitally instead of filmed in actual locations (sorry, I don't have a link, I just read it in the news a while ago)? 193.217.193.45 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming techniques

message: Daniel Craig is playing Lord Asriel in the film adaptation. Timothy Dalton played the same character for a bit in the stage version a couple years ago. Both men have played James Bond (and similarly at that). Is this worthy of mention anywhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.204.246 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so... we're supposed to avoid trivia articles because the content is not very encyclopedic.  Maybe you could submit that information to the film's IMDb page for their trivia page? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought I was the only one who had picked up on this super cool piece of trivia, and was just about to add it when I thought to check the talk page... :(  -  Phyte 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly Interesting Trivia?

message: I'm sure Derek Jacobi is seen in the trailer for the film but there's no mention of him at all in this article, nor in his own article.  Can someone confirm his casting or do my eyes deceive me?  59.101.164.46 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: According to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385752/faq
Iofur's name has been changed to Ragnar Sturlusson to prevent confusion between him and Iorek.  Just to let you know before I change the name on the chart.  Also, please forgive me because I don't know how to cite sources.  If someone could do that for me that would be great. Blahmaster 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iofur's name change

message: I'm pretty sure that the UK title for this film is going to be "The Golden Compass" still. I saw a the trailer on a movie show, and they showed the name as "The Golden Compass" 90.197.137.79 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB and Yahoo! Movies both have it listed as Northern Lights for the UK.  I'm not sure why it would be called The Golden Compass in the UK seeing as how that's not the book's title there. Marketing people generally aren't ones to miss a trick, and it would be odd to give the film adaptation a different title than the book. The existence (and wide readership) of the book is one of the main things promoting the film. Then again, maybe there's as much confusion at IMDB and Yahoo! surrounding this as there is here! :-) Martin 01:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The posters on display here in the UK that I've seen resemble the one shown at the head of this article, but "His Dark Materials: Northern Lights" is overlaid across the top, as two lines in place of the cast billing, at a similar type size to "The Golden Compass". Not as ornate though. The cast billing was moved to just below "The Golden Compass", if I recall correctly. I've added a line to the article. The film is still primarily being marketed as "The Golden Compass". --KJBracey 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So just a marketing banner then, rather than a change to the title. Makes sense, but there's no reason to mention it in the article I would think. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that there's no reason to mention it, but agree that we've no citation. Can't find any images of the posters in question online at the moment. --KJBracey 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If all it appears to be is a couple of lines on a poster letting UK audiences know this is an adaptation of Northern Lights, rather than an actual change to the title, then why is there any reason to mention it? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 14:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because as it stands the article suggests that in the UK the Northern Lights title has been totally abandoned, which is not the case.  Which then prompts folks like 82.152.206.11 to come in insisting that they've definitely seen it advertised as Northern Lights. It seems sensible to me explain the situation, which is that the Northern Lights name is being used in the marketing alongside the The Golden Compass. And I also find it interesting that they're using His Dark Materials too, unlike in the US. --KJBracey 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just going to expand on that a little. I haven't had a close look at the posters, but I don't think they're saying "based on HDM:NL" — the "HDM:NL" is just added as an extra or alternate title, as prominent as TGC, much as one might overlay a translation of a foreign-language title if retaining the original poster artwork. If the distributors had gone one step further and marketed it solely as Northern Lights, then HDM:NL would be its UK title, whatever the actual film print said (one analogous case that springs to mind was Point of No Return which was marketed solely as The Assassin in the UK, and appears as such in the BBFC database, despite the prints retaining the US title). But the BBFC database and the main marketing uses "The Golden Compass". So I'd say it's somewhere between a marketing note that it's based on the book of the name, and actually being the local title. It's something like an local alternative title. --KJBracey 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK film title

message: *Kidman denies film is anti-church —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the offending material has now been removed by another editor. For future reference, all information in the references section is gleaned from elsewhere in the article, wherever you see anything within the "ref" tags. The "reflist|2" tag merely tells the page where to group them. For further information, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support I'm not even sure the present form disambiguates successfully from the novel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I clicked to find out more about this movie but instead I was side tarcked to find out who are the Catholic League and what's their problem with the movie. But since it has nothing to do with the director's deliberate motifs of offending them, why include their opinion? Who ever put this must have the intention of advertising this group. I mean, why dont we just list every single group of people who want to boycott movies then. Please remove it, noone cares/
:It's there because, whether one likes it or not, the boycott is receiving some coverage. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem though. Pullman doesn't merely criticize the loonies, he thinks it's ALL religion. When I read The Golden Compass I thought he was only pulling the legs of dogmatic catholics, but as time goes on the message seems more clear: atheism or nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I'm going to read the book and watch the movie to verify this for myself. -Yancyfry (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is The Catholic League's boycott relevant? 

message: I won't revert, because I think I might already have removed it three times, but I'm not sure the Snopes link adds anything useful to the party; the External links section is primarily for information which can't be worked into the main article, or further reading, but that merely summarises information already contained therein. If I've missed something, and it does have information we're not currently using, we should instead work it into the prose somewhere, citing Snopes accordingly. Thoughts? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs* I removed it earlier today because it was added by a vandal whose previous edits had already been reverted.  Although I don't necessarily think Snopes is all that relevant, I don't exactly object to its addition to the article. María (críticame) 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only saw María's removal and thought she might've seen it as a religious site because of the way it was labeled.  I restored it on that basis, but if it truly does not have any content to add to the topic, then it can be removed on that grounds after all.  Should I do so? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno. I've made a series of rash and clumsy edits these last couple of days, so I'm seriously calling into question my own judgement at the mo'. But no-one else seems bothered by it, so it might as well stay for now I guess. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the link again.  It does not add anything not already in the article and is unnecessary. AnmaFinotera 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes 

message: *New York Times cast listing - Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Liquidfinale, thanks for catching that about the IMDB. I didn't realize that their information was user-generated. Do you have any sense about the NYT list and its veracity? I'm hesitant to unpack it just yet. You sound like you know what you're doing here. Thanks! Anthony Krupp (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I'd say "go for it" considering it's the NYT. However, they still have Nonso Anozie listed as voicing Iorek, so the veracity of their information in this case is definitely in doubt. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They also still have Adam Godley listed for Pantalaimon too, so yes, use caution. --Whamilton42 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT cast list 

message: Certain religions are boycotting the movie on the grounds that they believe it is atheist. Atheist is defined as "one who denies the existence of God" but The Golden Compass does NOT deny God, but instead portrays him in a negative way. And even then the moviemakers are diluting it quite a bit. Thabookwyrm (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See talk page, passim. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you Thabookwyrm.  The books only say that the character called the "Authority" is a fraud, and was never a god in the first place, just a very powerful entity that claimed to be.  The books' argument seems to be against a dogmatic, anthropomorphic conception of God as a walking, talking mythological character out of the Bible.  As for an actual God that coincides with nature and transcends human religions and philosophies, I don't think the books or the author claim to know whether there is one or not.  I might be wrong, but I thought I read recently that Pullman was quoted as saying he doesn't know if there is a real God and that nobody else does either (militant agnostic).VatoFirme (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist? I think not! 

message: Yahoo are now listing the runtime as 1hr 54 mins, so I've added that to the movie infobox. The information is on a page that's just for video clips though, so I wasn't entirely sure how to reference it. If anyone knows better or can find somewhere else (reliable) that gives the runtime, that'd be great. --Whamilton42 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runtime 

message: I've learned from clicking on an internal link in this (semi-protected) Wikipedia article that the character Roger Parslow, a 12 year old boy, is being played  by Ben Walker, a 31 year old Australian rugby player. Where else could I possibly discover such an astonishing fact? They certainly don't give out this information at IMDb! Thanks, Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.200.108 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for the catch; sorted now. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold Casting 

message: I moved the following to the Controversies section, but it may duplicate information already there, per Liquidfinale's edit summary. Question: should the lede be a summary of the article? If so, I don't think this boycott belongs in the lede. Certainly it belongs in the article. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having actually read WP:Lead section now, I see that notable controversies can also be included there. I suppose this counts, if other editors think so. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Yes, in an ideal world the lead section should provide a run-down of the article's content (though that's not its only function; it's also a good place to put short snippets of information which have no other home). In addition, I've reverted your last edits to the article. Allow me to explain: the story is that the Catholic League are using a statement of Pullman's (yes, sans context) to help justify their boycott of the film. However, it is not our place to provide justification for Pullman's words, or indeed give it context, by including the qualifying remarks also contained within that interview. This is because he was not responding to criticism of the film, but the books; it was before the film had even been made. Had he been specifically defending this production, I would happily see its inclusion. The only other circumstances in which it could be included is if a notable third party uses the comments to defend the film in some way. Otherwise it's interpretation on our part, and therefore original research. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think you are likely correct under the synthesis rule (a rule I don't really agree with, but that's for another day), I would argue that if we cannot include context, we shouldn't include the CL's sans-context quote, either. To include a quote taken out of context without providing context would violate WP:Undue weight, I think.  Less formally, given the propensity of many Christians to associate anti-Christianity with Satanism, anti-life and evil in general, I think the quote in isolation is overly inflammatory and non-encyclopedic.  I propose that WP:Ignore all rules be invoked and the quote with context be left in; failing that, I would (reluctantly) support the removal of the quote entirely, leaving simply the CL's objection without an explanation. --Lode Runner (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what tipped the scale for me was the nature of the quoting; it seemed like we were trying too hard, in fact saying, "No, he's not the Devil, honest!" I'm not completely closed to the idea, however, if presented with some sensible wording. Can you suggest anything? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but I am interested in being encyclopedic, and I think the single quote sitting there alone isn't that. No time tonight, maybe I can try again tomorrow. If Lode Runner can give it a shot, I'd be glad. I'm sure we can figure something out together. Cheers, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede / Controversies 

message: *A Director Confronts Some Dark Material (Newsweek) Alientraveller (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I'll try and incorporate some of that tomorrow, if no-one else has done by then. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Now incorporated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite(s) for use 

message: I used Benjiboi's material, recently reverted, over here: William A. Donohue#The Golden Compass (film). What do you all think? It's incendiary, but relevant to the controversy, I think. Whether or how it belongs in this article I'm not sure. I might want to see it go back in, but will mull it over. Or invite others to do so. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's relevant. If it were someone related to the production making such incendiary remarks, then it would merit inclusion. Secondly, it doesn't really add anything new. The Donahue article is the best place for it, if indeed it merits inclusion at all. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that Johnson isn't related to the production, but neither is Donahue. And she does reference the film itself, as he does, so I'm not sure what criterion you might suggest to distinguish their relative suitability for inclusion in the article. The argument about 'newness' is another matter, of course. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, someone doesn't have to be related to the production to be cited defending it; I phrased that clumsily. Still, what I should have said is that the full quote is an irrelevance. If you want to include something on it, I would suggest nothing more than a "the film has also been defended by whatsherface of the thingymabob group" - the incendiary language is irrelevant (incidentally, it is also notably not present in the cited article). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reworded and re-added. I only heard of the film through the interview of the two of them on the show. I also added a clarfy tag as the two-month boycott seems odd and out of character for Donohue, he seems to get whatever media attention he can and then claims some victory as proof of his success in a follow-up press release. Benjiboi 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the needlessly divisive quote, especially since it doesn't appear in the cited article. It also seems a bit POV and WP:POINT-y to wikilink to the Catholic priest molestation article, considering it's not entirely relevant to this movie. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi. I'll have to chalk some up to verifiability not truth as the quote has been edited out. The article is now here and has plenty more material to use. When the video shows up on Youtube or elsewhere quote can be re-used. I believe she purposely used the priests molesting children barb to contrast the outrageousness of the Catholic League's position. Benjiboi 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Eek. My apologies to all for pasting and copying without checking the link. Won't do that again. Thanks to all for subsequent work.Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *In any event, edited out or not, the molestation comment has absolutely no relevance to this article. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to agree to disagree about the relevancy of her molestation comment. Here is the original quote which is not in the latest online version, "the movie teaches children to question authority and maybe if more children were taught to question authority we wouldn't have priests molesting them." My link to the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases seems the most appropriate one for those wondering where the "priests molesting" children idea came from. As stated above I think she was using the statement to contrast the outrageousness of the Donohue's actions and statements. If I see a full transcript or video I'll try to post it here as well. Benjiboi 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think she was using the statement to..." isn't good enough, as you well know. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't assuming anything, I was pointing out that assigning motives to her words is interpretation on your part. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus my assumptions were written as "I think she was using the statement"  and presented as my opinion here on the talk page and not in the article itself. I let her quote speak for itself thus avoiding original research. Benjiboi 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then; as we were discussing whether the quote should be included, it looked as if you were using your interpretation of her "molestation" comment as a justification for its inclusion, but fair enough. My own take is to apply Occam's razor; it sounded like a deliberate barb, so it likely was one. Either way, there's no reason to include it. So, moving on... are we happy with the current version of the Controversies section? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm not as it really seems like we're portraying Donohue's characterizations as valid. Give Donohue (which essentially is the Catholic League) credit as he is a seasoned p.r. and talk show veteran and seems to know what hot buttons to push and how. However if we are going to give him a platform I would feel better if we broke down the section into the major points with balancing statements so the readers can easily see the issues dissected and addressed. To me the section feels like a several-headed beast each adding a sentence onto the next with the net result of confusion. I suggest sections including one devoted to just the League's issues (if it's just them) so we don't infer because the League said X then Y happened. In my opinion Donohue speaks as if he's representing Catholics and is actually seen by many Catholics as an extremist (I'm not sure if right-wing is accurate) who's actually feeding anti-Catholicism by perpetuating stereotypes in pop culture arenas while ignoring concerns of mainstream Catholics. I may not be wording this in the best way but I think the gist is there. Benjiboi 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree that we're presenting his arguments as valid (or invalid for that matter), though to be honest, the Pullman "nitwits" quote pretty much ridicules the man (Donahue). As for breaking it into sections, do you mean just have one detailing the League's position, then a separate one with the rebuttals? Or do you mean breaking it into sections which address each point one-by-one with a point/counterpoint? If it's the latter, I think, to be blunt, that would be giving too much prominence to this controversy based upon the coverage. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Update. I added a ref of Donohue quoting the original source. It would still be wise to balance it out with other quotes from the same source. Benjiboi 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the controversy 

message: "He cited author Phillip Pullman as saying that he is "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."article link here. 
Pullman did state that but it's a gross mischaracterization of an eloquent article that says a lot more than that and is about the book trilogy. It also doesn't say that Donohue quoted this although I have little doubt he did. The source is lovely and speaks to the undercurrent themes but needs to be complemented with a source stating that Donohue quoted this and then balance with other views that Donohue chose to omit like another Pullman quote  or, interestingly, an endorsement from a vicar - "He says he recently received a review in the mail from a vicar who found the books' "moral base" to be secure. "What he meant," Pullman explains, "is that the qualities and the actions which the story seems to be saying are good -- such as courage, love, kindness, compassion and so on -- are ones that we can all agree on. . . . It's saying things that we generally agree on, so what is there to disagree with?"" Benjiboi 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. I added a ref of Donohue quoting the original source. It would still be wise to balance it out with other quotes from the same source. Benjiboi 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wonky sentence/cite

message: While I don't disagree with a controversy being mentioned in the lede it should clarify the main issue(s) of the controversy otherwise it gives undue weight that just because the Catholic League is protesting that the issue is valid or of greater importance. In my (somewhat) limited research the Catholic League seems to gravitate toward media-friendly controversies often fueling an issue. Benjiboi 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. How is my latest attempt?Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've amended to anti-Catholic with wikilink otherwise seems more accurate. Benjiboi 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good call, that emendation makes sense.Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede mention of Catholic League

message: *Golden Compass author hits back: Warning: This story contains plot spoilers By Julian Joyce, BBC News. Benjiboi 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article source 

message: All of the controversy is currently being endlessly repeated (with odd variations) on several individual pages. Any parts or comments that apply specifically to The Film Itself can stay here but everything else should move to the Philip Pullman page or the His Dark Materials page (with an appropriate reference on this page). Dfmclean (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, but please remember that the film, a much more accessible medium, is the source of controversy itself and the article would not be complete without at least something here. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was exactly what I meant - movie specific stuff stays, everything else goes and we leave a reference to the main discussion on the author page. Dfmclean 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And these recent criticisms are a result of the film, not the books. Pullman himself said that he was surprised that his books have avoided controversy up until now JayKeaton 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Move controversy to Pullman page 

message: I'm new here so I can't edit protected pages yet, but this sentence just needs an extra word I think: "He later indicated that HE had envisioned the possibility of being denounced by both the book's fans and its detractors, as well as a studio hoping for another Lord of the Rings."VatoFirme (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: very minor error

message: Does anyone know if they are even using this word in the film anymore?  In the trailers they now refer to the device only as the golden compass.VatoFirme 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the trailers I've seen here (in Britain) have used the word. It's possible that it's not used in the US version though, similar to how the phrase 'Philosopher's Stone' was replaced with 'Sorcerer's Stone' in the US release of the first Harry Potter movie. (Obviously, this is speculation, so don't add it to the article unless you can actually find a source.) Terraxos 20:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An American trailer I've seen uses *both* terms. For what it's worth,Anthony Krupp 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an early preview of the film this weekend and yes, they use both terms, but mostly "alethiometer."  María (habla conmigo) 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alethiometer? 

message: :Pullman: “Good things have been done in the name of religion and so have bad things; both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.”
:Weitz: “It’s a shame people are reacting to a movie they haven’t seen by attacking a book they haven’t understood.” The latter seems particularly apt. 
:Craig Detweiler: “For the church to be criticizing a book that suggests religious organizations can harm young people is particularly ill-timed. Here in Southern California the Roman Catholic Church is facing $1 billion in judgments in sexual abuse cases. So I don’t think these protests are coming from a position of strength.”
:Here's the link:  Anthony Krupp 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another news item and quotes one might want to use 

message: Note that the movie is the subject of much discussion and so forth, and I am not meaning to cause trouble. I added the sentences in the opening paragraph because I could not get an idea of what the movie was about. Someone, please put a short synopsis of the plot in the article. Some of it is in there, but it gets lost easily if you are not familiar with the material. Thanks, Group29 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph