Talk:Soylent Green

message: At the end I said: Thorn is then taken away shouting "Soylent Green is people!" It´spart of the movie and it is still under 700 words.
P.S:: Edit warring? I only put my idea in the plot, which only differs from Griffith´s. It was the first time I introduced it. Why is that edit warring?Arderich (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the edit history, what I see is you making edits,  or  reverting your edits, and then you reinserting your edits. Per WP:BRD it would have been best if you had come here after the first time your edits were undone, especially given your track record. Are they also edit-warring? Possibly. The lack of clear edit summaries is certainly unhelpful. But now we're here and I'll wait to hear from them before forming any further opinions on the matter. DonIago (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

text: As I told you at my Talk page, WP:FILMPLOT has nothing to do with edit-warring, and a shorter summary isn't necessarily better (for instance, you could be introducing grammatical errors or other issues). I don't know that Gareth realized they were pushing the article beyond the recommended word count, either. All good reasons why you could have initiated this discussion before I essentially forced the issue. Now let's wait to hear from them. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome your timely intervention,,I really feel that I have been wasting my time in attempting to copy-edit this article. The culprit has a history of disruption and needs mentoring. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for speaking up here Gareth. For those just coming into this dispute, like myself, could you provide a bit more information as to which of Arderich's specific changes here you considered disruptive? They make a good point that the plot summary should typically be under 700 words. I'm asking because Arderich clearly doesn't feel their edits were disruptive, so it seems prudent to take a closer look at the actual changes; perhaps retain at least some of them if nobody involved in this discussion finds an issue with them. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: "he reports also reveal that "Soylent Green" is being produced from the remains of the dead and the imprisoned, obtained from heavily guarded waste disposal plants outside the city. The Books further reveal that Simonson's murder was ordered by his fellow Soylent Corporation board members, knowing he was increasingly troubled by the truth, and the fear that he might talk."
I'm going to have to watch the movie again. I don't remember the Central Library Books saying any of this to Sol directly. Wouldn't this ruin the scene where Thorn sees the bodies dumped into the vat and as he moves further down the processing line he sees the Soylent Green wafers emerge? Why would he try to go back to the Central Books if he has the knowledge, why not go to the Council of Nations building, for example?
I'm going to have to watch it again and see if I missed this whole reveal...Aspenguy2 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot reveal not accurate... 

message: the article says the oceanographic  report stated that bodies were recycled....
this is NOT correct, it was the investigation that surmised this fact......
the oceans were DEAD where did the food come from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.92.236.2 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  flawed analysis