Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Opening paragraph in Plot Section

I'm wondering why this stuff is under "Plot":

DVDs of this film restore the blank screen musical prelude that appeared in the original road-show release though this was not seen in the wider theatrical release of the film or early VHS releases. The viewer sees a blank screen while the theme music "Atmospheres" plays (the same music played during the final StarGate sequence). After about three minutes the music dies out and the MGM logo appears.[8] The title sequence then begins with an image of the Earth rising over the Moon, while the Sun rises over the Earth, all in alignment. (This is the first of three occurrences in the film of the iconic "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" theme. See music section for further discussion of the use of music in the film.)

The "blank screen", "theme music", and logo stuff is definitely not part of the plot, nor is the description of the title sequence. Saying how dvds differ from the film belongs in a new section of its own just about various video release variations. But all that other stuff belongs somewhere else, like under "Production" for example. I thought we should talk about it before it gets deleted outright. Thoughts?Shirtwaist (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the DVDs stuff should go in a section on "alternate video releases". As for the title sequence WP:MOSFILM says "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail." so at most say "after a musical prelude without video and a famed title sequence of the sun, moon, and Earth in alignment...". You may regard even that as too much.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will start an "alternative video release" - plenty of material to work with - there were six different LaserDisc versions alone. Description of title sequence seems better placed in "Production" section though. We should probably keep the sentence establishing four sections.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the laborious description in the first place? "Certain video releases of 2001 contain the overture" would be sufficient.75.64.191.225 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what it refers to, about "the original road-show release". I saw it in several theaters, including in re-release, and the 3-minutes-or-so segment of "Atmospheres" was present every time. I think they used it during the intermission also. I expect the early VHS tapes didn't include it because they figured people didn't want to sit through 3 minutes of darkness before the film started. Less of a problem with the DVD, where you can skip ahead. However, I would agree this is not part of the plot, it's just a different approach to the opening credits segment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What is WP policy on film country of origin??

It is unclear to me what WP policy is re WP:MOSFILM as to whether the country or countries of origin of a film is the country of money supply or countries where the money is spent and if the latter is included is that just studio work with soundstage and sets excluding location shooting. All the financing for 2001: A Space Odyssey came from the States, but all the studio filming was at Shepperton Studios in England (the only studio with a soundstage able to accomodate these sets). Recently, the country of origin listing for this film was changed from USA and UK to just USA. It seems to me it should be both, but at the same time I see nothing in WP:MOSFILM that clarifies this, and various WP film articles seem to not be consistent on the matter. Or should I be looking at the guidelines regarding the opening sentences which says to state "the nationality of the film (based on its home studio)"? If this is the guideline, that means that when a home studio is filming away out in someone else's studio in another country, the country of the latter is not listed. Do I have this right?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked here first before I changed it:[1] -- "country - Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies." Is there another interpretation I'm missing? MGM wholly owned MGM British Studios as a subsidiary, which makes MGM, as the parent company, the film's main production company. All the money came from MGM, so Kubrick says.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the actual template. Hadn't thought to check that. Definitely says "production company" and does not at all say "studio". (I was concerned with Shepperton Studios not with MGM British studios- the latter of which did not own Shepperton where "Space Odyssey" was shot- Shepperton was owned by British Lion at the time.) OK, that clears that up. Thank you for your diligence.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know for sure, but it's likely MGM rented Shepperton just for the "TMA-1" set, then moved operations to Borehamwood, which was owned by MGM since 1947 I think. BTW - I'm trying to get a photo of the centrifuge set into Wikimedia commons so I can put it into the article, all are welcome to weigh in on the discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2001_CENTRIFUGE_SET.jpgShirtwaist (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The centrifuge set may very well have been at Shepperton, which is known for its enormous size.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Bizony, and he says the centrifuge was at Borehamwood, which apparently had at least one stage that was high enough to accommodate it.Shirtwaist (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article has been listed for peer review here:[2]. All editors are encouraged to contribute any input they may have to find out what needs improvement.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have somewhat belatedly chimed in on the peer review. In short, I mostly agree and give some suggestions for improvement, but two of the five challenged sources I defend for reasons seen there.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Abridged version of Peer Review.

See link above for full version. Abridgement by WickerGuy

What User:Jappalang said

I suggest withdrawing this peer review request, as this article is still some distance from FA quality; it has several issues that do not comply with policies and guidelines, which FAs are supposed to be exemplary of:

• many paragraphs and sentences lack citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources), the worst of which is the Interpretation section (to be detailed later).....
• possible original research: because statements are uncited, ...
• violations of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; fair use of copyrighted images are meant to be stricter than the assumed accepted practices of US law....
• incorrect interpretation of sources: [The specific complaint was fixed]
• copyright violations: [specific complaints fixed]
• sources of questionable reliability: Wikipedia defines "reliable" in a slightly different way. A source is reliable if it was heavily relied on by others (mostly because it is an expert on the subject and is often quoted). How are palantir.net, cinezik, Askville, starshipmodeler.com, avrev.com, and other assorted websites reliable? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged at FACs.

• several cleanup templates and tags are in the article. I only saw one cleanup template, which was fixed, working on tags.
• much of the prose are short paragraphs, coming across as stubs or items inserted haphazardly without a clear organization.

Comments by David Fuchs Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs

• Jappa hits the broad strokes. It might have been near-FA quality in 2005, but standards have risen since then. The article really needs a rewrite and reorganization. Much of the scope of the film is given short shrift, while other parts (the nukes in space) swallow up seven paragraphs. I suggest workshopping the entire article on the talk page, and inviting broader discussion at WT:FILM, because this article needs more work than a peer review setup can address. My final recommendation is to look at other (recent) film FAs for inspiration; ..... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My own reply. User:WickerGuy I reproduce in full what I said about sources.

I would say that the scientific accuracy section also is overly lacking in citations even though .... I am convinced of their correctness. ... However, I suspect that the "Interpretations" section that User:Jappalang has pegged as "the worst" vis-a-vis sourcing would actually be very easy to source given a bit of research. It seems the pics could be salvaged by expanding the captions on the pictures. ... Some of the short paragraphs strike me as justifiable, but many are not....

As for the sources, specifically. The Cinezik source is utterly dispensable- the same info (about SK's use of Blue Danube) can be easily found many other places. This is probably also true of the Askville reference about diffusion of light.

However, avrev is a standard online film review site which is focused on DVD and Blu-Ray reviews, cited in just over 50 Wikipedia articles. Much of their reviews are focused on the quality of the transfer since they only review DVDs and Blu-Rays. Publications that confine their reviews to DVDs and Blu-Rays are frequently entirely online. The author of the review for "2001" that is cited here is a Hollywood cameraman who won an Oscar for Technical Achievement "for refinement to a dual-screen, front-projection image-compositing system". Dang it, this is a reliable source!!

Palantir.net is a website devoted solely to 2001. It's main compiler has published also about 2001 in a publication called DFX (for Digital Effects). He did an honors undergrad thesis on 2001 (which counts for less). As I understand WP Policy, if a self-published source has also published in what are considered reliable sources, then we allow the self-published source. So I somewhat defend this one as well.

The use of Starship Modeler is IMO a gray area. They have one of the only photos in the world (very rare) of one of the actual models used for the earth-satellites that is not a screenshot. They are writing about an interesting subject which hardly anyone who fits WP criterion for reliability even discusses at all. There may be a case against their inclusion, but I would mourn their loss as I would not at all mourn the loss of Askville and Cinezik.

Just added

Retraction.

Cinezik is a website of a major French print magazine on the usage of music in film. Well-known in Europe if little-known in USA. Although the info cited from it is easily available from English language sources, it is absolutely a reliable source, no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. That only leaves askville.com as the source we must absolutely do away with.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Orbiting nuclear weapons

I was wondering why half the article is about the minutae surrounding the orbiting satellites/weapons? This was also pointed out in the peer review as a reason why the article did not qualify as a Featured Article.

Personally, I think a sentence or two on this subject is sufficient: "The satellites seen orbiting the Earth were originally intended to be orbiting nuclear weapons. Kubrick later moved away from this interpretation." We do not need an entire essay on the subject.

However, since some people are apparently obsessed with this, and since that part of the article reads more like an argument between the nuclear-weapon-vs-just-satellite camps, I won't change it without some discussion first.

Thoughts? Stian (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. It's actually only 5% of the entire article re word count, but ouch anyway. This was indeed the product of a intensely ferocious edit-war between Shirtwaist and myself in which the material on the Talk page (not accounting for indentation) went on at one point for 80 pages. Originally, the assertion they were meant to weapons was in the "plot summary" itself and in the present tense (it is a weapon), and it was rightly pointed out that this was really interpretation that not all viewers agreed upon. I initiated the new section myself, but we both got caught up in the minutiae of it, and it ballooned in size from originally (I think) 4 paragraphs to eight as we scrambled over minutiae. One reason the fight got contentious is that in the 6 edit-wars (some very mild) I've been in over the 3.5 years I've been editing WP, this is the only one where not only was my source challenged (which has happened 3 times), but the interpretation of my source was challenged. I read/parse Alex Walker's statements (and those of others) on this subject to mean something quite different than does my opponent (who is a master prose stylist by the way) and as such the whole issue got heavily micro-analyzed as if we were writing a doctoral thesis instead of an encyclopedia (to put it generously).

Thanks for the heads up that this was noted in peer review. I'll look it up. I have to go to work now, as I have a real job that I didn't have when all of this exploded like one of the proverbial nukes.

In the novel 2010, it is asserted that the Star Child absorbs the radiation of the nuclear explosion he caused at the end of 2001. We need to find some way to do the same with this bizness here.

Broadly, I think the section could use some rewording and trimming, but I would like to see more than the simple sentence you suggest.

PS. I have no idea how old my opponent is, but having seen the film in 1968, I can testify that although it is placed in 2001, it certainly had a Cold War context. 1968 seems like the distant past to people born 20 years ago, but not to people alive then. It's been often noted that every science-fiction (or historical) film has something in it that gives away the period in which it was actually made, and in this case one of them is the Cold War background of the film. But that's just my opinion.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stian and the peer reviewer that the "nature of orbiting satellites" section is severely bloated, and gives too much article space to the subject, as I pointed out early on in talk as the section length began to expand. But in respect to WickerGuy, I chose to clarify, rather than delete outright, the wealth of references provided by him. I also agree that a sentence or two on the subject is a good idea, and should appear in the article. However, I think that because the section contains much information that would interest the average reader, it should probably be made into a separate article, linked to from this one, just as was done with the "Interpretation" section. I'd hate to see all that effort go to waste.

BTW, I was lucky enough to see 2001 in 1968, and was fully aware of the Cold War at the time, but did not, then or now, assume the satellites were weapons of any kind.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess then it's now down to shorten, move, or a bit of both. I won't be able to work on it for a few days.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stian, and anyone else, is welcome to post any proposed "condensed" entry here, so it can be appraised before being put into the article. Something along the lines of the "Interpretation" section, that is, brief but gives the general gist of the main article.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered a suggestion above, but it may be too brief. I like the "separate article" idea, although I fear it will fall into WP:NOT for not being sufficiently notable to warrant its own article?

At any rate, I'd like to point out that Kubrick has refused to offer a "correct" interpretation, and Clarke has merely said that his interpretation in the novels is "one possible" interpretation (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) As such, debate on whether the satellites are orbiting weapon platforms or not is not a "right or wrong" question, but merely a question of multiple interpretations. Maybe we should note it as such? Stian (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this. I was originally a bit too literal in my sense that if an advisor and an actor involved with the film production said they were nukes, that just settled the matter and I over time became persuaded that this really was interpretation. I frankly think we can survive WP:Notability (WP:NOT is incorrect. That's what WP "is not")--WickerGuy (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't seem to warrant its own article, I propose it could be integrated into the "Interpretations" article, as it deals directly with viewer's interpretations, i.e.- the nature of the satellites. A brief synopsis could then be added to the "Interpretations" section of this article. Reasonable?Shirtwaist (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanded a few web citations

I have expanded the info on a few of the web citations in the article. The article footnotes now explicitly state stuff I mentioned above on the Talk page: that Cinezik is a well-known French magazine with a print edition on music in film, that avrev is a reputable online magazine on film technology and the author of the cited article is an Oscar-winning special effects technician! There were two citations from "palantir.net" one a reprint of an article that earlier appeared in a print journal DFX, and the other is a re-edited version of the author's honors undergrad thesis- the author having also published in DFX. Yes, it's self-published, but WP allows self-published sources by authors who have also published in reputable venues.

The leaves really only "Starship Modeller" as a problematic source by WP standards. Hopefully, if other material in the article is brought up to par, the article will NOT be denied GA (or FA) status because of these sources. Even if a source is not well-known, it can be reputable. "Starship Modeller" is quite a unique resource however.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Orbiting Weapellites Re-re-re-redux

A proposed revision of the "Are they nukes?" section of the article is here User_talk:WickerGuy/sandbox

To check on diffs with current version, see here [[3]]

A few notes.

Broad rearrangement of topical sequence. Now stuff is more arranged by topic rather than source. These means that Clarke references for example are more scattered. Topics in order now are : Kubrick's shift in intent- lack of clarity in film- satellite markings- production staff- scientists and modelers- how one reads film.

Dropped my prior footnote on Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 2003 issue. Isn't really clear what they are implying. States Werner von Braun thought of nukes in space and proposed something like Space Odyssey's orbiting space station and then mentions nukes in space are banned. Implies nothing about satellites in film

Added DVD reviews

Dropped all references to what anyone does NOT say. This makes the piece too obviously contentious. Changed "peaceful" to "serene". Production staff discussions in chronological order.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the nukes, they are a notable element in the book, but their nature is left unspoken in the movie. The man-apes' bone was the "ultimate weapon" at the Dawn of Man, and the orbiting nukes were the "ultimate weapon" in the space age. Knowing that fact, the cut from the bone to the orbiters makes total sense. But because Kubrick decided not to have the ending of the film look like "Son of Dr. Strangelove", the orbiting nukes become merely a subtlety. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The revision looks fine, except for the retention of the part about someone on a message board saying "so-and-so". If it was just some anonymous guy giving his opinion, that doesn't belong here. If it was somebody purporting to be an "authority" on the subject, how would you go about proving that? At any rate, I still think we should seriously consider moving the whole "sat/nuke" section to the "Interpretations of 2001" page, while keeping a very short synopsis of the topic in the article alongside the "Hal's breakdown" section. The section's length was one of the objections raised in the peer review, and not addressing that would most likely hurt the article's chances of getting to GA or FA status.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives of this article, there are quotes from the Agel book making all of this clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BB, the Agel quote is in both the old and new version of the essay, assuming you are referring to the photo caption. I don't think any other quote is in the archives. Personally, I think that if the satellites aren't nukes then the bone-as-weapon has evolved into....(drumroll)....HAL!!! That was my initial reading of the film. After seeing a talk by David Stork (author of "HAL's Legacy") asserting the satellites were weapons, I decided that they were still "merely a subtlety", a kind of background extra. ShiWai (above) thinks the Agel quote needs to be balanced against StaKub's increasing reticence on the subject, and I'm willing to concede that.

SW, the message board is indeed a stretch of the standards, but it's an anonymous so-and-so replying to other postings which are indeed expert opinion. (Bios of several of the posters are there somewhere.) It's there as supplementary/secondary opinion.

It has just occurred to me that "nuclear" is an anagram of "unclear".--WickerGuy (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if certain public figures pronounce it "unculear"? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A second objection in FA review was that the prose essay itself (not merely the Talk background) sounded contentious. I think the new version partially fixes that problem, up to a point.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It was absolutely clear, in the book, that these were nukes. When you know that fact, the jump from bone to satellite makes perfect sense. It's just that the concept was not taken anywhere in the film, nor even discussed. The book was essentially based on the early concept of the film, which was also an expansion of some earlier short stories of Kubrick's Clarke's. They made a number of changes for the film, not the least of which was a radical redesign of the monolith (in the book it was a pyramid or tetrahedron or something) and instead of going to Saturn they went to Jupiter because the special effects guys couldn't figure out how to make a convincing Saturn model. In the book, the Star-Child explodes the orbiting nukes, but as Agel explains, Kubrick didn't want audiences to connect this with the ending of his previous film, Dr. Strangelove: "We won't meet again." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely NOT familiar with the section of Jerome Agel where he talks about Stanley Kubrick backing away from the concept. If you can dig that up and post a page number, that would be nice. Long before I became a WP editor in July 2007, consensus was reached that this article should steer away from novel-specific interpretations, such as the name of the ape and what HAL was "really" thinking. I'm sure you mean earlier short stories by Clarke, not by Kubrick.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll see what I can find. Wading through that book can be a challenge. If there isn't already a section or an article, maybe a "differences between the book and the movie" would be more appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Agel book is a little hard to follow, because it doesn't flow like a typical "making of" book does. It has no table of contents, and worse, no index. Pages 73-168 are where the narrative of the movie is explained, mostly through actual frames from the film. P.72 says, "The captions on the following pages were prepared with the assistance of Messrs. Kubrick, Clarke, Trumbull and Pederson." The last illustration, naturally, is from the last shot of the film, the head-on view of the Star-Child. The caption reads: "Only ending that went to shooting script stage, and was eliminated, was having star-child detonate nuclear weapons orbiting the Earth, as in book version. Consensus: Ending would have been too similar to ending of previous Kubrick film, Dr. Strangelove. We won't meet again." (For anyone wondering about that last sentence, the sequence of atomic bombs stock footage that was used at the end of Strangelove was accompanied by the World War II era song, "We'll Meet Again" on the soundtrack.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading Wickerguy's new edit, I noticed this -"Jerome Agel's 1970 book, written ..." - appears in the "Production staff who continue to refer to "bombs"" paragraph. Since Agel was not part of the production staff, shouldn't this be mentioned in the previous paragraph? I know what Agel says about the captions, but he wrote them, and they aren't presented as quotes from any particular production staff, which is implied by mentioning them in the same paragraph as "production staff".

As for the quote from the ODEC board, it doesn't really matter what "Scotpens" was replying to - "expert opinion" or not. "Scotpens" is not a reliable source, as we have no idea who he is, therefore his opinion is irrelevant. WP:QS is quite clear about such sources as that.Shirtwaist (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

THere might be a better way to word this, but the paragraph as currently written reads "Jerome Agel's 1970 book, written with help from Kubrick and Clarke and production staff," which I thought made its relevance to this paragraph reasonably clear. Walker (subject of previous paragraph), as far as we know, consulted Kubrick alone, whereas Agel had extensive contact with the whole team. Perhaps a better way is "Several production staff helped Jerome Agel with his 1970 book which labels the satellites....". Improvement?

I'm pushing the envelope on Scotpens but (s)he is clearly only talking about his/her own limits and ignorance. I realize that this is not an article about Scotpens, and am as such skirting the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF (normally the exemption is that you can use self-published stuff as a source on itself in on article about that specific author- yes, I ain't doing that here.) However, the fellow/gal is simply saying, "I am not a scientist and therefore am not able to see the possible nuances that might or might not suggest to an aerospace pro that these might be weapons platforms." Surely, a self-declaration of ignorance cannot be construed as an appeal to "expert opinion". I would be willing to delete it on the grounds that including it is WP:OR, but not on the grounds of WP:NOTRELIABLE. Any assertion of the form "I am stupid and ignorant so I don't understand X" constitutes both an opinion about oneself and cannot be construed as "expert opinion". Yes, I'm shifting my defense a bit. Since it is in a forum to which some other folks who are experts contribute, I thought it WP:NOTABLE. May not strictly satisfy the requirements thereby.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The largely (and implicitly) self-referential nature of that quote isn't really clear from the exact wording, so I have supplemented it with what I think is a fair paraphrase.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A number of the comments about the ability to identify these orbitting objects as nukes depend on the ability to microscopically examine the frames. When the only way to see the movie was on the big screen, those items were only visible for fleeting seconds. So how could it be evident to the average viewer that those items are bombs? You can infer it from the bone cutting to the orbiters, or maybe via markings if you've got Superman vision. But there's nothing explicitly in the movie that identifies what those things are. The only primary source that does so is the book, but as we've seen, there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been 4 years since I saw SpaOd on the big screen, and I think the only thing any average Joe could see would be markings of various nationalities, or the resemblance of the top of the first one to some tank models. Each one appears on screen for about 15 seconds on average.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

BB - I agree completely with everything you said. The point I'm making is about the kind of source making that claim. I have no problem with James John Griffith saying basically the same thing Scotpens said because Griffith said it in a book he wrote about film adaptations, and we know who he is. That makes him a reliable source, and "Scotpens" not so. How do we determine "Scotpens'" expertise about what tech geeks and aerospace employees would or would not know about recognizing nuclear weapons? The fact that I agree with what "Scotpens" says has nothing to do with their lack of reliability in a WP article. The only way "Scotpens'" opinion could remain in the article is if their identity was known, and they had been published on the subject elsewhere. I say get rid of it.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The article as it is at the moment contains a great deal of information about the orbiting objects, and in my opinion leaves no doubt as to the evolution from bombs to simply orbiting objects in the film project. I have to say that when I first saw 2001, not having read the book at that point, I took it as simply a huge time leap - and a breathtaking one at that. Although the point about the "ultimate weapon" is left unexplained, the more generic jump in technological achievement is perfectly obvious, so it still works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted that Scotpens/ODEC passage. (S)he is really making a generalization about the human population, not just him/herself.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My point being that there is a generous amount of documentation on that subject now, so there's really no need for another source, especially if it's questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Parodies and homages

"Edward Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has a scene," shouldn't that be Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has a scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.128.232 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Parodies and homages Part 2

Wickerguy - How exactly does the inclusion of a film (2001: A Space Travesty) in a section about parodies of, and homages to 2001, that by all refs provided so far has very little or nothing to do with 2001 except the title, satisfy the WP criteria for "notability"? If the total extent of the film's "parody" or "homage" to 2001 is the film's title, state that (with refs) and remove all the other irrelevant statements.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to state more directly in the beginning of the intro - "A film occasionally miscontrued as a parody..." and set this off more overtly as an epilog to the rest of the section.

(BTW, Travesty has a FEW fleeting jokes at the expense of "Space Odyssey" sprinkled here and there. There is a lunar shuttle trip accompanied by the Blue Danube Waltz with some lame no-gravity jokes that you can see here on YouTube. [4] and the preview trailer [5] opens with Leslie Nielsen as the "Star-Child"- a floating fetus in space. Most reviewers don't mention this.)

It seems to me the relevance is that various sources mistakenly believe it to be a parody of 2001 due to Nielson's previous career (which in addition to the mentioned films also includes Dracula: Dead and Loving it and Spy Hard - which really DID specifically spoof James Bond). Nielsen's whole career for the previous 20 years sets up viewers to expect this will be a "Space Odyssey" spoof. Not only is it not so- at least one film bio reference and one cable station obit, say it IS so. (So also do a couple blogs with don't satisfy WP's criterion for reliability.) It seems to me one function of an encyclopedia is to note widespread misconceptions and note their falsity.

Good encyclopedias are often careful to note that Marie Antoinette did NOT say "Let them eat cake", that Abner Doubleday did NOT invent baseball, and that while Al Gore claimed to take "initiative in creating" the Internet, he never claimed to "invent" it, and that Obama was not born in Kenya. Previous contributions of my own to Wikipedia include noting that despite widespread claims to the contrary, only two Stanley Kubrick movies refer to CRM(or Serum)114 (see Stanley_Kubrick#CRM-114), and Roger Ebert did NOT call the standard North American version of Eyes Wide Shut the "Austin Powers" version. (See final paragraph of Eyes_Wide_Shut#American_censorship_and_classification.

If this lacks notability, it is due to the relatively unsuccessful nature of the film, and the relatively narrow spread of the false conception about it, although Leslie Nielsen's better film parodies are major classics. But I noticed the rumor resurfacing in the wake of Leslie Nielsen's death 2 to 3 weeks ago.

Out of respect for the dead (indeed recently deceased), I did not mention in the main article that Nielsen co-authored this business- his one and only writing credit!! His main contribution to film sci-fi remains his role in 1956' "Forbidden Planet" made 24 years before he re-invented him self as a comic actor.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with saying "A film occasionally misconstrued as a parody..." is that there is evidence that it is at least partly a parody, if, as you proved, the film includes some scenes that are obvious parodies of 2001. The opinions of sources who say it is and is not a parody are ultimately irrelevant; if the film is partially made up of parodies of 2001 (and after watching the Youtube videos, they definitely parody 2001), the film qualifies as a "parody" - making the statements from people who say it is not a parody incorrect. The statements from people saying it is a parody are therefore superfluous, as it rightly appears on a list of parodies and homages.

The intro sentence already states "sometimes extensively and other times briefly" - this film is one that briefly parodies. It makes much more sense to find a source that describes the relevant parodied scenes and leave it at that. Everything else is irrelevant. If a source is not available, the entry should be removed until one is found.Shirtwaist (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your second paragraph makes an excellent point about the intro sentence. It would be far more accurate to say a few viewers were expecting a good full parody, and got a bad fleeting parody. Unfortunately, this film is largely notable only because of Nielsen's previous (much better films). (I'm allowed POV on the talk page. IMO, had the film not starred Nielsen, it would have had even less exposure than even the little it has had.) Plus, my two sources still misrepresent it as a full parody, which still bothers me.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Understanding the undertaking of overseeing the usage of "overestimate" and "underestimate"

User:PRRfan is quite correct that the section of the sourced quote he first corrected (in spirit) and then deleted used "underestimate" when he should have said "overestimate". At least two writers on language have noted this incorrect usage is common, just as is the phrase "could care less" (meaning "couldn't care less") or "don't fail to miss". See [6] and [7]. The only phrase like this that has now become somewhat accepted English is "irregardless". --WickerGuy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is, indeed, impossible to overestimate the importance of good grammar, and to underestimate the value of an article with bad grammar and confusing quotes from sources.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Space Odyssey and Solaris

Just placed this on User talk:161.185.157.24

The material you keep trying to add to the Space Odyssey article at best belongs in the "Influences" section of the article, but Solaris is in no way a parody or homage to 2001. Even if placed in the "Influences" section, you must have an established source that states "Solaris" was specifically influenced by "Space Odyssey". If the connection is simply that critics have compared the two films (without one influencing the other), I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to put it in this article, if anywhere. It might better to put in the article on Solaris. As with influence, critical opinion comparing the two films must be sourced!!--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Distributors

Turner Entertainment's WP page states "Contractually, the MGM and Warner film libraries which Turner owned had been distributed by MGM/UA Home Video until their rights expired in 1999 at which point they were reassigned to Warner Home Video". Is there another source that contradicts this?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Your quote applies either way to home video distribtion. However, Warner acquired Turner in 1996. Between 1986 (when Turner acquired the MGM library) and 1996 (prior to the Turner-Warner acquisition-merger), the theatrical distribution of most MGM movies rested with Turner Entertainment. Thus prior to '96 if a revival house (such as the Castro Theatre in downtown San Francisco) wanted to show "Space Odyssey" (or most other MGM films) in celluloid on the silver screen they would have contacted Turner, not Warner Brothers. This doesn't contradict your quote which deals with Home Video. More anon re sources. Happy Holidays!--WickerGuy (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit more specifics. The quote you cite is in the section of the article entitled "Home Video". Earlier in the same article it says "Turner Entertainment self-distributed much of its library for the first decade of its existence. After the Time Warner merger, its distribution functions were largely absorbed into WB." This is in the section of the article entitled "The Library Itself". I hope that clarifies things.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Turner giving permission to someone to show their own print of a copyrighted film obtained through MGM's distribution system prior to 1986 (as opposed to obtaining a copy from Turner) constitutes "distribution" as I understand the term. I don't recall 2001 being "distributed" to theaters for exhibition between '86 and '96, do you?. I'm not sure if you can call Turner a "distributor" of 2001 if they never actually distributed it theatrically or through home video. Unless you have documentation that says Turner actually distributed it theatrically, or that "giving permission to exhibit", or merely owning the rights, is considered the same as "distribution", Turner should not be listed as one of the "distributors".Shirtwaist (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all there have been revival houses that showed "2001" on the silver screen at various times, since its first run. For example, the Castro Theatre in San Francisco showed it in 2006, and another theatre in Alameda, CA (a city on an island just off of Oakland, CA) showed it in 2009. The now defunct New Varsity Theatre in Palo Alto, CA (now a Borders Books) showed it at least once in the 1980s, so it certainly was "distributed" to theaters for exhibition, even if only on a one-shot/one-time basis. I am assuming (erroneously?) that this is what Template:Infobox film means by distribution. According to WP Film distributor,

A film distributor is a company or individual responsible for releasing films to the public either theatrically or for home viewing (DVD, Video-On-Demand, Download, Television etc). A distributor may do this directly (if the distributor owns the theaters or distribution networks) or through theatrical exhibitors and other sub-distributors.

That article is then divided into two sections "Theatrical Distribution" and "Home Distribution". The former states

If a distributor is working with a theatrical exhibitor, the distributor secures a written contract stipulating the amount of the gross ticket sales to be paid to the distributor by the exhibitor (usually a percentage of the gross) after first deducting a "floor", which is called a "house allowance" (also known as the "nut"), collects the amount due, audits the exhibitor's ticket sales as necessary to ensure the gross reported by the exhibitor is accurate, secures the distributor's share of these proceeds, and transmits the remainder to the production company (or to any other intermediary, such as a film release agent).

It seems to me that this applies regardless of whether the film is being shown at seven thousand theatres or just one.

Turner Entertainment owned the entire MGM library of films from 1986 to 1996. Turner owned MGM the company proper for a much shorter time. He bought that too in 1986, but after only 74 days of ownership, concern on the part of his stockholders over his depts forced Turner to resell MGM (the company) back to Kirk Kerkorian. (See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer). But after losing the company, Turner Entertainment retained the MGM film and television library!!!! Turner no longer had the company MGM, but he had their old films, including 2001 lock, stock, and barrel!!!! As noted earlier, Warner purchased Turner Entertainment 10 years later in 1996. So between '86 and '96, 2001's distribution to theatres and home video sales were controlled entirely by Turner Entertainment, not MGM or Warner Brothers. Again, the quote from the WP Turner Entertainment article.

Turner Entertainment self-distributed much of its library for the first decade of its existence. After the Time Warner merger, its distribution functions were largely absorbed into WB.

Of the five books in the bibliography for WP Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the one I'm familiar with is MGM: When the Lion Roars by Peter Hay (Turner, 1991) which is also fairly clear on this stuff--WickerGuy (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that Turner owned 2001 from '86 to '96, there's no question about that. But owning a film does not a "distributor" make. The article you cited goes on to say

The distributor must also ensure that enough film prints are struck to service all contracted exhibitors on the contract-based opening day, ensure their physical delivery to the theater by the opening day, monitor exhibitors to make sure the film is in fact shown in the particular theatre with the minimum number of seats and show times, and ensure the prints' return to the distributor's office or other storage resource also on the contract-based return date. In practical terms, this includes the physical production of film prints and their shipping around the world.

So the question now becomes - did Turner fulfill these requirements as a "distributor" of 2001 during the '86 to '96 time period? If not, that would make him the "copyright holder", not a "distributor", because he never actually "distributed" 2001. I believe the "Distributor" entry in the infobox to mean "distributor", not "copyright holder", which are two different things. Do you have any evidence that Turner actually distributed 2001 theatrically during that ten year period? I know that 2001 was distributed before 1986, because I went to all of those screenings, but I can't recall seeing it after that, until very recently.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If your question simply boils down to was 2001 ever shown in a movie theatre in the years 86 to 96, I don't know if it matters. There was definitely NOT any spread out general theatrical release during that period. If shown at all, it would be a college campus or an individual owner of a "revival" theater electing to show it. Should a theatre owner or college campus have hypothetically chosen to do so in that 10 year period, the go-to contactee would have been, I believe, Turner. (He had the actual prints, didn't he?) If there were absolutely zero theatre showings, it would probably mean Turner's distribution services never found a client, unless it was out of circulation at the time and not available for theatres, but I know of no source backing that either.

Also "distribution" technically covers both theatrical distribution and home video distribution, as well as showings on television. (It was certainly shown on Turner's network between the 86-96 period.) According to the book The permanence and care of color photographs by Henry Gilmer Wilhelm & Carol Brower "By purchasing MGM, such film classics as Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ben Hur became available to Turner for broadcast, sale on videocassette and videodisc, and worldwide syndication". (I take "syndication" to mean TV broadcast in this context, but sale on video & TV broadcast is, I believe, encompassed by the term "film distribution")

I realize the WP article on Turner cites no source for this statement, but they do say Turner self-distributed its library in the years prior to Warner's acquisition.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Going by the WP Turner article, including the part I originally quoted above, the book you mentioned is wrong about Turner being able to market videocassettes and videodiscs of 2001 after his 74 days of ownership of MGM, at which time we know home videos were being distributed by MGM/UA exclusively until 1999, when WB took over.

So as it stands now, we agree that: Turner owned the rights to 2001 from 1986 to present; there is no evidence of Turner distributing prints of 2001 for theatrical exhibition during that time; Turner was not able to sell home videos of 2001 from 1986 until Time Warner acquired Turner in '96 when WB began handling distribution; and Turner may or may not have had the right to "distribute" 2001 on television (which would seem unlikely since MGM/UA held the rights for home video distribution until after TW acquired Turner, but I'd still like to know if they did). Are you sure Turner broadcast 2001 on TV? I don't recall seeing it at all on TBS or elsewhere during that time; if it was, I'd remember watching it. If you have a source on that, I'd be interested to see it. Whether or not 2001 was shown in theaters from '86 to '96 is not as important as determining whether or not Turner qualifies to be listed as a "distributor" of 2001 in a WP article. I think it's very important to be accurate in all of our information, as WP requires.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed it from the main article some hours before you posted this replay, because I think you've convinced me there are too many assumptions. Indeed according to WP MGM Home Entertainment "After the library was acquired, MGM/UA signed a deal with Turner to continue distributing the pre-1986 MGM and the pre-1950 Warner Bros. libraries for video release" and "In 1991, after Pathé bought MGM, MGM/UA striked a deal with Warner Bros. to have them distribute MGM's titles exclusively on home video" and "In 1997, MGM/UA began releasing its titles on DVD, just like every other major studio. Some of the films MGM released on DVD were from the Turner catalog, which they were still allowed to keep after Turner merged into Time Warner some time before because of their distribution deal." and finally "In 1999, MGM gave up the home video rights to the MGM/UA films owned by Turner after they ended their distribution deal with Warner Bros.; as a result those films were distributed by Warner Home Video by themselves." (all cites from MGM Home Entertainment. See also the Odyssey "company credits" page on Imdb [8]. Turner is credited only with the 1999 VHS rerelease all others being MGM or Warner. Thank you for your persistence. As one would say in German translated a bit too literally into English "You have correctness".

As for theatrical showings, it remains unknown if they occurred, or could have occurred, so we'll just let that rest--WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah - never occurred to me to check the MGMHE page. Thanks! I'm still pissed about 2001 not being available on HD channels HBO, Showtime, etc., after all this time. WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?!? Shirtwaist (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I myself remain annoyed that the film had a wide theatrical re-release in the year 2001 in Japan, Germany, and another European country, but not here.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

The "Deleted scenes" section contains descriptions of the "lost footage" that was recently "found" by Trumbull. All recent sources I've found about the discovery refer to IMDb's "Alternate Versions" page (or to websites that do so)listing all the scenes that were cut from the film, apparently assuming that the new footage sitting in a salt mine corresponds to IMDb's list. As we know, IMDb is not a reliable source of this type of anonymous information, as it is unsourced. Unless a source is found listing the actual "lost footage" that exists, the IMDb list should be removed from the entry about Trumbull's "discovery". Shirtwaist (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw an article about this recently and will look for it in my browser history. Technically, once in a blue moon (as I noted in an edit a few days ago on this article), Imdb actually cites a source. But basically, you are correct.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm! The article I saw is the one cited in this articel from "The Wrap" which states that "presumably" the lost footage found by Trumbull is the stuff that is listed as cut from Imdb. Now I know that the original post-premiere cuts are precisely those listed in Imdb, because I've seen that in other sources, but those are cuts made from the premiere version that was actually released in theaters for roughly two weeks, prior to Kubrick recalling these prints and replacing them with the shorter version. However, there's a lot of stuff that Kubrick cut before the premiere version, so for "The Wrap" to say this lost footage is "presumably" what's listed on Imdb is really a stretch!!! "The Wrap" is being quite foolish, IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

According to [9] and [10] and [11] it definitely is 17 of the 19 minutes Kubrick cut from after the premiere. On the other hand, the AV Club [12] has also gone the route of "presuming" its the stuff cut after the premiere, and these folks just aren't sure [13].

Finally, these guys actually quote WB representatives as saying it is mostly post-premiere cuts [14], so I suggest these be used as a source, rather than "The Wire" article, I suggest going provisionally for now with Imdb's list, and then looking for another source that confirms the list, cos' I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere else.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PS- IMO the best way to find these sources is to Google "Space Odyssey" and "salt mine" simultaneously, each in quotes.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Imdb's source

[15] We can replace Imdb with this (with a few expansions).--WickerGuy (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The "/Film" article is a good source of the WB statement, which can be used to establish that what they have in the salt mine are the cuts made after the April 2 premiere, but that's it. I would rather not have anything from the unsourced IMDb list in the article because at least one of your sources has quoted directly from our article on the subject(not the list). Do we want somebody quoting IMDb's list because it appears in our article? I don't. We should limit ourselves to the Brown article from the Kubrick Site when listing actual scenes that were cut post-premiere - although even he does a lot of surmising and guesswork with firsthand accounts. When a credible source is found as to the actual existing deleted scenes in question, we can use that. I know for a fact that IMDb takes submissions from anyone with an IMDb account, which end up on it's site--who knows if they even check them for accuracy? They didn't check mine that I sent in for another film, and I'm just some schmuck in palookaville!Shirtwaist (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Thomas E. Brown"

All this sourcing of Mr. Brown from the Kubrick site about deleted scenes got me curious to find out who this guy is and how he knows all this info about the deleted scenes. There's no bio on the site, and a quick Google search brings up a noted ADD psychologist, an orthopedic surgeon, and assorted others. None seem to be our guy though. Who is this guy, and is he reliable enough for WP?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, nevermind. Here's the paper he and Phil Vendy wrote that appears on TheUnderview site:http://www.underview.com/bhpalltrims.html#tr01Shirtwaist (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work. One of my citations of him overtly states that while MOST stuff on Kubrick site gives bio and source, this fails to do so. The footnote might be expanded to include what you have discovered. Thanks!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to Release and Time

The revised release date of the film (citing Agel) is also what is in the Imdb- the old is clearly a typo (that's been around a long while). The old runtime for the longer version of 170 is clearly a typo for 160 (again around a long while). The runtimes for premiere and final release in Jerome Agel (now in the article) are both 1 minute longer than the recorded time in Imdb. Agel (and now we) say(s) 161-premiere 142-final release. Imdb says respectively 160 & 141. I am more than willing to let Jerome Agel trump the Imdb, but I think if we're differing from Imdb, there should be a citation from Agel and in the footnote a mention of this being diff from Imdb.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the citation, but don't see a justification for referring to IMDb at all, since IMDb's entries are not encyclopedic, reliable, or sourced. They should be referring to WP, not the other way round. Anyway, IMDb is already in external links. See the IMDb section below: WP:FILMRELEASE for more on IMDb.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to view Imdb as usually reliable (though incomplete) outside of the "trivia" and "goofs" sections, however it is indeed not sourced nor encyclopedic. I don't regard mentioning Imdb as especially essential or important.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right-IMDb has the length as 141 minutes. And I timed the dvd without intro and outro music - it's just over 141 minutes, the intro music with black screen is 2:56 and outro is 4:25--totaling 7:21 (Total program time: a little over 148.) I'm hoping we can find another source that says "160" and "141" that conforms more to the reality of the actual length, then use that instead of Agel?. Shirtwaist (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Maltin book has it as 139 minutes. I think they do their own timings of films. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Premiere (Imdb)

According to Imdb, the release pattern of the film is

USA 2 April 1968 (Washington, D.C.) (premiere)
USA 3 April 1968 (New York City, New York) (premiere)
USA 4 April 1968 (Los Angeles, California) (premiere)
USA 6 April 1968 [General]

Guess it depends on what you mean by a premiere.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They probably got that from p. 363 of Agel, but that page is problematic because it also says "KUBRICK CUTS 19 MINUTES FROM FILM - April 4-5, 1968" and "FINAL CUT SHOWN IN NEW YORK - April 6, 1968". Agel p. 170 and Brown say Kubrick made the cuts from Apr. 5-9. Since we have two sources that agree on when the cuts were made, it wouldn't make sense for the "final cut" to be shown on Apr. 6. That would lead me to believe that the premiere dates in Agel p. 363 might also be mistaken. On the other hand, "in70mm" says the schedule was - NY. on the 3rd, L.A. on the 4th, and general release was on the 10th, which agrees with Brown except for the NY release date...which jibes with Agel's NY release date! If we could find a good source that agrees with Brown's premiere schedule, we could nail this down.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean they managed to get all the release prints cut by 19 minutes, and distributed to theaters, within 2 days? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading Somewhere that Kubrick actually sent out precise instructions to distributors as to where to make cuts trusting them to do it on their own.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Times have changed since then. It's possible the "general" release was to a much smaller number of theaters at first. In those days they didn't necessarily release a film to every freakin' theater in America and hope to rake in some bucks in the first weekend before the critics and the public trashed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WG is right. Agel says Kubrick and Lovejoy finalized and carried out the actual edits in the basement of the MGM building in NY on April 9. Presumably, after Kubrick decided where all the cuts were to be made, he sent detailed instructions to all theaters currently showing - D.C.and L.A.- and simply substituted his personally edited print done in the MGM building with the one that was currently playing at Loew's in NY. He must've also sent editing instructions to all theaters scheduled to open the film on the 10th. That's my guess, anyway.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That raises the question of how many theaters it originally opened in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. This says 13, while this says 11. I don't think Agel says anything about how many theaters were part of the "original" release.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the number was small and presumably manageable. Also, wasn't the most significant cut that 20-minutes-or-so introduction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. that's all PRE-premiere cut, not POST-premiere cut.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Match cut image

I fixed the article link in the FUR for this image. But I am not entirely convinced by the rationale. The image seems to be included after a mention of it's existence, but there is no critical commentary. The FUR notes the purpose is "Illustrate most famous match cut in film history" but this is not mentioned in the article. Can this be addressed? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry in WP:FILMNFI-

"Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary."

- doesn't mention free images or PD images. Does this mean free images in plot summaries are allowed?Shirtwaist (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if the WP Doctor Strangelove article is any indication, then yessirree indeedy they are allowed.

BTW, I'm thinking of replacing the new Space Odyssey image in the Kubrick article with this one.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those DS stills are considered Public Domain apparently because they appeared in the original 1964 trailer. I've noticed this loophole used in a few other film articles. So, this must mean the Match-Cut images could've stayed in the plot section if they were in the original 1968 trailer, which unfortunately they weren't. Which raises the question: Why is the NFI criteria, ie: "critical commentary is supposed to be in the article near the image" and "Screenshots work best when they are used in a contextually significant manner, and the "Plot" section is just a description of the primary source" valid for non-free images, and not for identical images that are "free"? Seems a bit contradictory and arbitrary to me. I'm with you about replacing the current image for 2001 in Stanley Kubrick with the Match-Cut-- much more appropriate, IMO.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it all has to do with the legal issues around "fair use"--WickerGuy (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but legal issues are not part of the "supported by critical commentary" type of criteria which is concerned with encyclopedic matters only. I mean, how does a free image in a plot summary that is not supported by critical commentary somehow satisfy this criteria when an identical non-free image that is not supported by critical commentary does not? This makes no sense. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the criteria to both free and non-free images?Shirtwaist (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The section "Military nature of orbiting satellites" provides some critical commentary. Maybe the screenshot could be moved to that section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, for me that would address my concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it where it is, but attach a note explaining the cut's notoriety with links to refs explaining same. This may seem unusual, but the iconic nature of this particular cut in cinema history can't be overestimated.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot is located in the "Plot" section, which does not contain any critical commentary. Screenshots work best when they are used in a contextually significant manner, and the "Plot" section is just a description of the primary source. The screenshot would be better placed in the "Military nature" section because it would increase readers' understanding of the context discussed there. See Changeling (film)#Closing sequence or American Beauty (film)#Imprisonment and redemption where screenshots neighbor the relevant context. I'm not sure if just a caption saying "iconic cut" is compelling rationale for its current placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. It is my understanding the critical commentary is supposed to be in the article near the image and as a caption it is not reasonable NFCC usage. I think that comes under "just for decoration". --Errant ^(chat!) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point - WP:FILMNFI is very clear on this subject. Unfortunately, the other image in the plot section should also go. On the other hand, we could make this article...the exception to the rule? Maybe?Shirtwaist (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually I'm in favour of such things :) but the NFCC stuff comes down from the foundation and is agreed on by local consensus - plus it deals with a legal aspect, i.e. fair use could present legal problems if done wrong. Sadly I fear you are right on the matter of the other image. I's sad, but there you go :( --Errant ^(chat!) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think both images could have a place in this article or one of the sub-articles. The Star Child screenshot in particular is also located at Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, though there could be more context there about the Star Child. There are definitely a lot more interpretations left in general! Maybe the bone screenshot could be moved to the military section and the Star Child screenshot left to the interpretations article for now? Someday, we'll have the Featured article and sub-articles all together. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep seems reasonable. BTW we also have File:2001_match_cut.jpg, which is used in match cut, I think ideally we should use one of the other (and that file seems the cleanest/nicest) in both articles and delete the other. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That other image used to be in this article, but was not accurate as to the actual sequence of frames that appear in the cut itself. Ours corrects that by showing the two frames as they would appear on the film itself. Those two frames are also printed (inverted) on the cover of Jerome Agel's book "The Making Of Kubrick's 2001". It's the other image that probably should be deleted from the "Match Cut" article in favor of ours.Shirtwaist (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood :) I replaced the match cut image and CSD'd the original. Cheers for the help! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy ... missing adviser and reference

Indeed I. J. Good was consulted but MIT AI specialist Marvin Minsky had a larger part in advising about AI and HAL , on the film. The reference is HAL's Legacy ,2001's Computer as Dream and Reality, Edited by David G. Stork, MIT Press, February 1998 , ISBN-10:0-262-69211-2 ISBN-13:978-0-262-69211-3. This is never mentioned in the main article. Especially the interview with Minsky in that book aajacksoniv (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to integrate relevant info from this source into the appropriate section, with proper citations of course. Sounds interesting!Shirtwaist (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The depiction of the HAL 9000 (Heuristically programmed Algorithmic Computer) in 2001 remains one of the film's most eerie elements. For their description of artificial intelligence, Kubrick and Clarke only had the terminology of the mid-1960s. At that time, the prevailing concept was that Artificial Intelligence (AI) was expected to be a programmed computer. Thus, the term computer, with all its implications of it being a machine, occurs repeatedly. In the last 40 years, no true AI has emerged. Today's corresponding term would be 'strong AI. Kubrick and Clarke's use of mid-1960s terminology obscures the fact that the film and novel authors constructed an AI that is unmistakably strong-that is, capable of "general intelligent action." How this would have been achieved Kubrick and Clarke left as an extrapolation. Clarke provides a little extrapolation in the novel: "Probably no one would ever know this: it did not matter. In the 1980s Minsky and Good had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." (From: A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93.)aajacksoniv (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Note on Edit-Change from "Millions" to "Thousands"

Although it is true that Homo Sapiens emerged only thousands of years ago, many ancestors of same (generally referred to a 'proto-humans') go much further back, and are specifically known to have used tools which is the key motif in this film. Until 2010, the oldest known human ancestor was Homo habilis which emerged approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago and yes indeed, they did use stone tools including axes and knives. Finally, of course, the film dialogue is clear the moon monolith was buried millions of years ago, and it is loosely implied this corresponds to their visits to apes.

Homo Sapiens are specifically distinguished by language, erect body posture, and so forth, not tools per se

No need to change the interval from Dawn of Man to the satellite to "thousands"--WickerGuy (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely HOPE the apes in the movie are NOT Homo Sapiens! LOL - Although, they DO resemble certain relatives of mine!Shirtwaist (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Airplane II: The Sequel has an extended Spoof of 2001

The plot line of Airplane II includes an obvious, extended spoof of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

• The ship computer speaks with a voice and mannerism like the homicidal HAL.
• Some of the computer lines are clear takes of HAL lines: "What are you doing, Captain?" versus "Just what do you think you are doing, Dave?" and "It must be a human error!" versus "It always turned out to be a human error."
• The computer kills crew members who are attempting to shut it down.
• Strauss' Blue Denube, a major theme music in 2001, is played in one of the spoof scenes.

Mt hikes (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On Blue Danube, you are surely confusing/conflating Airplane II with 2001: A Space Travesty, two films which are superficially similar. I assure you, Strauss' BD appears nowhere in A2. Similarly, I would say that in A2 the spoof hardly qualifies as "extended". However, your other observations are correct, and have been noted in other sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of two new Citation tags

Statements in the lede of the article, which are amply documented subsequently in the body of the article do not need citations and should not be flagged with citation tags.

As for the tag in the title section, the Hughes reference for the second sentence, if memory serves, justifies both the first and second sentence of that section. This ought to be double-checked, but sometimes a citation is meant to justify two or three of the ideas preceding it, not just the last sentence.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. No need to cite info in lead which is cited elsewhere in the article.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Depiction of furnishings"?

What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film? Depiction of aliens, computers, spacecraft...and furniture?? This section has no relation to the other sections mentioned because it merely lists types of chairs and silverware appearing on screen without any mention of Kubrick's motivation, thought processes, intentions, etc., that make the other sections relevant to discussion and inclusion in the article. I suggest this relatively minor info be trimmed down to a short paragraph and moved to a more appropriate location in the "Filming" section of "Production". Shirtwaist (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick's intentions for his set designs were the same as they were for his spaceship and technology designs; to create the world of the year 2001 as he envisioned it appearing. Since all of this falls back to the film's "look", the set designs should not be excluded from the section that discusses the film's other props. In respect to their impact on popular culture, the furnishings were more influential then the spacecraft. Following the film's release sales of Djinn chairs skyrocketed, and the film was used to market other "modern" furniture styles. In this way the film helped create the conceptual environment it forecast, but in the 1960's, not the 21st century. By the 1970's this style had gone out of fashion, but in a curious turn of events it has again become fashionable in the 21st century, not as contemporary, but rather as "retro". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ShWa that the lack of knowledge of SK's motivation/process is a weakness (perhaps inevitable) but I think the impact of the film's furniture on culture is noteworthy, including re the stuff I added given that the AJ line is currently using the Odyssey connection in marketing its stuff (as of about 2008). SK looked for distinctive furniture designers whose work was striking and/or rare. I wonder if there is a better title for this section. I also think the use of "undoubtably" (with ref to Djinn charis) is WP:PEACOCK and should be excised. I removed it once, but it was put back in.

Remember the "house of the future" featured prominently in Disneyland in the late 1960s. It had all this 'futuristic' furniture and modular design. Some bits of it looked kinda sorta like Odyssey. Obviously, people (futurists) were thinking about it. It disappeared sometime in the 70s. Nothing dates so much as people's idea of the future.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. I note that the book Wolf at the Door which is mostly focused on Kubrick's The Shining overtly mentions the "Olivier Morgue" furniture in the Space Odyssey space station (p. 121). Clearly a subject of interest to some folk. Geoffrey Cocks mentions this in the context of red being a color of passion and violence.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

KK- Whatever Kubrick's intentions were, you still need refs for everything. As far as "sales skyrocketing" and other such info, it has nothing to do with the film itself. If mentioned at all, it should be in the "Influence" section.

WG - Do you really think "furnishings" that appear only briefly in one part of the film -"TMA-1" - are as notable as the other three elements that are far more integral to the film, and are featured in all parts of the film except "Dawn Of Man"? All the material presented about "furnishings" only rises to the level of a brief mention either in the "Filming" or "Influence" sections.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Everthing has been referenced, even more so than the preceeding and following paragraphs. In Jerome Angel's book he mentions an interview where Kubrick was personally selecting the glassware for the conference room while the interview was being conducted. The interviewer commented on Kubrick's fanatical control over all aspects of the film's "look". I'm digging out my copy to find the page #, but anyone familiar with the book will recall this passage.

With regard to the furnishings being notable, they are an essential part of the look of the film and have been referenced constantly since 1967. Are you trying to quantify their importance based on the number of frames they appear in? The significance of Kubrick's use of existing designs is significant for those who are interested in interior design, and they play an important role in researching the source material for the film, and Kubrick's intentions for the film's look. Ken keisel (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

KK- I've read the book several times and don't see that mentioned. Need a page number to back you up or will delete it again. Their "importance" is absolutely based on how they are featured in the film. The furnishings used in the film are equivalent in importance to the clothing worn by the actors in the TMA-1 part of the film. Should we also include a section on them? Without any refs to back you up, how do you know what Kubrick's intentions were for using the furniture? He could've simply sent someone out to get "futuristic-looking chairs" for all we know. Just because interior designers think chairs are important design features doesn't raise this relatively minor aspect of production to the level of the surrounding sections.Shirtwaist (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note, SW that Arne Jacobsen's cutlery definitely appears on Discovery (while Bowman and Poole are eating watching the BBC broadcast) as can be seen from photoes of it online, although I agree it is less integral to the film.

However, I think a much better title for this section if maintained seperately is "interior design" or some such, and I think it should be renamed as such.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dig out my copy. I know it's there because it came up during a discussion on the book as an example of Kubrick's fanatical concern over every detail of the film's look. Judging from Angel's book it's clear that nothing seen in the film was just bought by some guy who thought it looked futuristic. Kubrick allowed nothing to be in the film that he didn't personally approve, but is it really necessairy to go into that much detail on why Kubrick choose one set of silverware over another? His objective seems pretty clear to me. What should be listed is the articles he did choose to include. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the section be deleted for now, while a suitable use is found to present this information in an appropriate fashion that adds to the flow of the article, instead of dropping it in where it obviously (to me) doesn't belong. The surrounding sections speak of "depiction of ..." specific aspects of the narrative, the existing material simply refs people listing what appears, and telling us lots of people bought similar items or whatever, which says absolutely NOTHING about how they are depicted in the film, or why.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think SW's best point is that the surrounding sections on aliens, computers, and space actually DO explain Kubrick's motivations [Addendum: re narrative arc of the film] in some detail, whereas this section does not. I think this does belong somewhere in the article however. I suggest the section be relocated as a third subsection of "Imagining the Future" more or less as is, with perhaps a few tweaks. In fact, maybe I'll do that now.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent solution, WG. "Imagining the future" is a much more appropriate place for this. The section needs more work though, and could use more refs from production staff, or SK himself. Most importantly, this section needs to conform to the premise of "Imagining the future" by how successful (or not) the use of this furniture was in "actually imagining the future", as the other paragraphs point out.

BTW - Do you know which page in Agel KK is referring to concerning the "glasses" thing? I've been through that damn book three times now and can't find it. In fact, I've started to go through my material looking for mentions of the furnishings, and have found zilch. I did the same a while ago looking for the origins of the "hotel room" paintings, again zilch.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that like the orbiting sattellear nuclellites, info may be sparse, and I don't have Agel handy.

BTW, in addition to Geoffrey Cocks, Alexander Walker explicitly mentions the "Olivier Morgue" chairs. So that's two major Kubrick scholars who have "furnished" us with info on the designer of the furnishings (much as Tim Dirks supplies us with a "bare-bones" explanation of the "Dawn of Man" sequence- Quick, stop me before I sink further). Oh, yes. Walker notes that they also were using the Space Odyssey connection in advertising in the late 1990s (and apparently Walker informed Kubrick of this). So it does seem to notable info to which some folk were paying attention--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The section already has material which reads

The Action Office introduced the office "cubicle" that would become the standard office configuration by the late 1970s, making Kubrick's choice remarkably accurate.[186]The chairs in the Moonbase conference room are also Herman Miller products, though of the "modern" style popular in the 1960s.[187] Though Kubrick's future furnished in the "modern" style did not come to pass, many of these designs have made a comeback in the 21st century. The furniture designs of Arne Jacobsen, responsible for the egg-chairs seen in the film (originally designed for the Royal Radison hotel in Copenhagen), were re-introduced on the Internet in 2008,

so I think we are off to a good start re fitting it into this section.

I still haven't found my copy of Angel's book, but I did find a similar reference on p. 168 of Piers Bizony's book, where he refers to Kubrick personally selecting the fabric for the costumes and furnishings. I'm also noticing that this secttion is quickly becoming the most reference laden section in the whole article, largely due to one individual adding citation tags, even in mid-sentence, to sentences that are already tagged at the end. If the same standards were applied to other sections this article would have hundreds of citation tags for all the unreferenced material that is contained elsewhere. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Page 168 is the very last page of Bizony, and only has a sketch of Kubrick beside a camera on it. There is no mention at all in Bizony of furnishings that I can find. As for the tags, see WP:verifiability, it's one of the pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. This article underwent a peer review a while ago to find out what it needed to bring it to FA status, and one of the results of that review was that the article had too many unsourced statements. Your adding an entire unsourced section to it, then complaining that it was removed, does not help this situation. I suggest that in future, you become more familiar with your sources and cite them properly (such as providing page numbers so we know what you're referencing) before adding information to WP articles. Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist- If you have Angel's book handy, look for a b&w photo of Kubrick holding up one of the conference room glasses and studying it. I believe the text was with the photo. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such photo or text in Agel, as I told you before. I suggest you remove the info and ref in question until you find a source that supports it. If you don't, I will.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever check before making threats? I ammended the passage earlier, and announced the change two paragraphs up. Suggest you read more carefully. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I did, which is why I told you there is nothing in Bizony about furniture on p.168 or anywhere else. This kind of bad faith editing is frowned upon by the admins, and if it continues, you will be reported to them.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're a little late, I reported you about an hour ago. I can't help it if your copy of the book is abridged. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)? You were wrong about Agel, let's see if you're wrong about Bizony, shall we?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Furnishing refs in Bizony

Regarding this entry in the "Set design and furnishings " section: "Kubrick took great care selecting the furnishings seen throughout the film, to the extent that even the fabrics used for costumes and furnishings were selected personally by him", can anyone verify that that entry is supported by the ref provided - "2001 Filming the Future" by Piers Bizony (2001)? If so, please provide page number. Thanks.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't directly verify. However, Bizony's book was published in two editions. The February 2001 edition is in fact "Filled with material that came to light after the publication of the first edition in 1994, this updated edition includes interviews, new material from effects supervisor Doug Turnbull and additional illustrations."[http://www.amazon.com/2001-Filming-Future-Piers-Bizony/dp/1854107062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298819948&sr=1-1 Amazon page]. If Shirtwaist is using the 1994 edition and Keisel is using the 2001 edition (or vice-versa- SW cites the 2001 edition above), this could explain a bit.

Bizony's book is very rare- the cheapest copy on Amazon sells for $50 (last summer for over $100), and almost none of the University libraries in the Bay Area have it except for San Francisco State- and their copy is the 1994 edition, (almost all local college/University libraries carry copies of Agel and numerous other books on Space Odyssey). I have consulted Agel several times, but have not even once laid my eyes on a copy of Bizony.

I suggest you gentlemen check out the edition you are consulting. I strongly suspect two different editions are being used. Keisel, you could even scan the pages in question, upload the image to your Google photoes account and provide a link on the talk page. If you don't have such an account, my User page has an "e-mail this user feature" activated though it does not allow attachments. I'll reply, and then you can send it with attachment, and I'll upload it with a link here.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My copy is the 2000 edition, with 168 pages - 165 numbered, and 3 end pages unnumbered. I'm looking into those Amazon copies as we speak. The Amazon ad says that version has 176 pages, but responses from sellers say they are 168 pages long. Failing any proof from keisel, we'll have to wait and see. Keisel's credibility wasn't helped by him using Agel as a source for something that does not appear in Agel - suggests he doesn't check his material before he posts it, nor does he provide page numbers. Shirtwaist (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The insert with several dozen pages of photoes in Agel has no printed page numbering. The numbered pages skip from something in the 70s or 80s to something in the triple digits. Only by manually counting can you ascertain a page number for one of the photoes (which I was careful to do re the bomb-labeled photo.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing Bizony, but you're right, the page numbering in Agel sucks. That's why I went to the trouble of using stickers on those pages to make referencing them in citations easier. However, KK was indeed mistaken about Agel concerning the supposed photo and text. Not only was he incorrect, his own statements prove he wasn't even referring to the book when he made those edits! Very dishonest. Therefore, my reverts were indeed justified.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's I suppose remotely possible your copy of Agel is missing a page, but I'd rather bet on the Punto Banco tables at the San Pablo Casino.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Opinions

Shirtwaist, Excellent catch on my own personal flub on the Jacobsen furniture. I was misled by subtly worded self-promotional advertising material. You are quite right. Cutlery in the only Jacobsen stuff in the film, which his ads cleverly dance around. However, I think Keisel may be right that the mid-sentence citation tag might be excessive, if the source at the end supports the statement. I have in the past two weeks removed a couple of citation tags from other articles in which the citation in the following sentence clearly supported the assertion being made. Addendum: Also, I don't think it's appropriate to describe Keisel as engaging in "bad faith" editing. WP:Wikilove all, please.

Keisel, this article was recently rejected for "Good article" status, so things are a bit heated here. Bear with us.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keisel's adding unsourced material and using sources improperly didn't begin with this article. Looking at his talk page, it dates back to 2008, the most recent example of which occurred in the Saving Private Ryan article. He has also been involved in numerous edit wars. He's been warned repeatedly from admins and other editors about this behavior, apparently to no avail. Would you call that "good faith" editing?

The mid-sentence cite tag may have been premature, I'll double check keisel's book source to make sure. He was obviously unfamiliar with Agel when he used him improperly. Keeping this in mind, we'll have to check his other sources carefully to make sure he isn't misusing them as well.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2011

(UTC)

My copy is 192 pages. Here's how it reads;

1st Hardback Edition Aurum Press ISBN 1 85410 3652 1994 Printed in France

At the top of page 168 it reads "Kubrick isn't too concerned with the exact defination of his own role, either. Though nominally the director, he will happily,-indeed insistantly-throw himself into every aspect of production. He will edit the footage, adapt the soundtrack, select the music, pull focus on the camera, light a set, and choose the fabric for the actor's costumes." My concern at this point is Shirtwaist initial comment at the beginning of this discussion, "He could've simply sent someone out to get "futuristic-looking chairs" for all we know. Just because interior designers think chairs are important design features doesn't raise this relatively minor aspect of production to the level of the surrounding sections." Every book I've ever read on Kubrick (and I've read a lot of them) indicates that Shirtwaist comment would have been extremely out of character for him. Since Shirtwaist seems to have taken it upon himself to interject his POV into this article, I am of the opinion that he does not have a very good grasp of what kind of person Kubrick was, or he would never have reacted to the content of my contribution with such hostility. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey chill, gentlemen.

KK, I don't think SW is trying to interject his POV- he's trying to prevent other folks from putting in theirs. KK, you are correct about Kubrick's character, but SW wants to limit us to what can be clearly established rather than what can be extrapolated or reasonably guessed from SK's character. A good guess is still a guess. Frankly if this is the Bizoni citation, it doesn't amount at all to a reasonable citation. I'd like to see the source of the photo of Kubrick holding the glasses. Of course, it's very likely Kubrick chose the chairs with care, but we still need to know specifics. For example, I was recently surprised to learn that while Kubrick did the sound & music editing on Odyssey and Clockwork Orange, he did not do it on The Shining since he hired an editor whom he felt understood Kubrick's methods & intentions extremely well, and could be trusted to emulate the kind of effect Kubrick wanted quite accurately.

SW, I wouldn't call KK's edit-patterns "bad faith" but perhaps extremely stubborn. I still don't see evidence that KK is being deliberately disruptive (which I think "bad faith" implies)- he just doesn't quite get WP's standards of verification. While we see them as rigorous, he sees them as rigid and restrictive.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me get a few things clear here, and I'll be as calm as possible. First - My revert of the sentence "Kubrick took great care selecting the furnishings seen throughout the film, to the extent that even the fabrics used for costumes and furnishings were selected personally by him" was clearly justified for Agel, and it was also justified for Bizony (except for the mention of "costume fabrics") as we now see. By reading what he was actually referring to in Bizony, KK clearly misused the source. There is absolutely NOTHING in that part of Bizony (chapter 8) about "furnishings", therefore KK's removal of the cite tag, and reinstating the faulty sentence and ref without correcting his mistake is the very definition of disruption. We already know about his clear misuse of Agel, not to mention dropping an entire unsourced section into the wrong place in the article in the first place. So what does KK do then? He reports ME for edit warring for checking his sources for him, adding a legit cite tag, and making reverts that were absolutely JUSTIFIED! The result of which is that he gets the article edit blocked for 24 hours. This all fits in quite well with KK's previous history of disruption on other WP pages, but if nobody here sees them as an indication of "bad faith" editing, so be it. Thank you so much Ken. Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well. I still remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Shirtwaist (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think KK has failed to engage in consensus building, and has been overly stubborn on one point, and has initially entered stuff unsourced and subsequently misused his sources. Yes, he did violate trust by that last point, and most certainly should have known better to source his initial addition. The poor article location choice I think is more a case of amateurism. I was trying to credit him for his apparent sincerity, as so many people do to the films of Ed Wood. (I myself got in an edit-war a while back that got an article locked for a week {neither of us reported the other, but I was caught violating WP:3RR- I can't remember if he also did}, but when the other guy got caught as a sock-puppet with repeated vandalism, I kinda emerged as the the victor in a sort of default kinda way.) Had you gotten there first, the remedy would have been to file a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (See WP:DDE). I checked his history much later than you did.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like in KK's edit-war on Saving Private Ryan, they kept half his stuff and moved it to a different section. 'Bout the same as here, actually.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WG. Didn't mean to chew your ear off. Re: your last point- yes, but you'll notice that the edit war was started and perpetuated by KK!. I'm just sayin'.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am totally abandoning any attempt to work on this page

At this point it is clear that there are a couple of users associated with this arricle who have their own perspective on what this film is about, and have no intention on expanding the scope of the article to introduce new material. My reference was first removed as not being present in the text, then when I documented that it did indeed exist it was removed again. As such I am abandoning any further attempts to add new material to this article. I have been an editor on wikipedia since 2005, and I have never experienced a more hostile environment in an article. I would also note that such a hostile reaction to adding material that was totally missing, but important to the scope of this article, is exidence that this article has a long way to go before it can reflect the scope and quality of the subject matter. I do not want my name associated with this article in any way. I will also point out that when an article is submitted for "good article" status one of the first things they look at is the "discussion" page. If you plan on trying again you have your work cut out for you. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Encyclopedic, relevant, reliably sourced and well-written contributions that work to improve the article are always accepted. Disruptive editing, and adding unsourced, incorrect, or irrelevant information is not. Thank you for your contributions to the article - the properly sourced ones that belong in it, that is. But please keep this in mind: "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. If you do not want your writing to be edited, then do not submit it here." Shirtwaist (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the attitude you have displayed on this article violates most of the rules stated at the head of this page, namely "Be polite", "Assume good faith", "Avoid personal attacks", and "Be welcoming". I use for example your comment "OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)?", "Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well.", and "Re: your last point- yes, but you'll notice that the edit war was started and perpetuated by KK!." Your approach to editors on this article is callus and arrogent, and you are perhaps the most impolite editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that I engaged in an edit war on the "Saving Private Ryan" article is a gross overstatement ment to enflame this discussion, and continue a personal attack YOU started. If you read the article discussion you will see that the discussion was between myself and two editors who believed that no one would be interested in which P-51 Mustangs and pilots were used in the filming. Once I explaned to them that warbird enthusiasts do indeed follow such information with interest their objection ended. Your depiction of the issue, carried over to this page, was an attempt to misuse that discussion to your own gain, and is typical of the manner you have enployed in editing this article. I would alos point to your insistance that the section I created be title "Furnishings of the future" instead of simply "Set design and furnishings" as a perfect example of how this article has been edited from an "unencyclopedic" POV that you encourage, and indeed, insist upon, regardless of the suggestions of others. This article has a long way to go before it can be expected to cover all the topics the film touchs upon. Based on your reaction to the introduction of the topic of set furnishings, "What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film?", I'd say this article is destined to suffer from your attitude for a long time to come. That's why I want no part of it. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr, Keisel, since User:Shirtwaist and I seem to have played the bad-cop/good-cop role in policing your edits, allow me to say that while most of what is bugging you is on his end, I am solely responsible for specifically bringing up "Ryan" which perhaps may be better identified as a "mild skirmish" rather than a war. User:Shirtwaist has a 20/20-plus vision whose superb eagle eye occasionally takes on the aspect of a more vulturous bird of prey. While the heated tone of (more than one) persons is a legitimate issue to raise, I am concerned with a separate issue which is that you seem to seriously misunderstand and therefore misrepresent our specific reasons for wanting to modify your edits (which I went to some effort to actually salvage, BTW). I am always especially concerned with people who after getting reprimanded seem to misunderstand and misrepresent the reasons (justified or not). You state "I will also point out that when an article is submitted for "good article" status one of the first things they look at is the "discussion" page." Actually, BEFORE they look at that, they look for unsourced statements (of the kind you added!!!), and THEN the main reason for checking the "discussion" page is to check for still ongoing edit-wars in order to check the article's STABILITY, which after the declaration of retreat that you made would actually cause editors (I would surmise) to conclude the article is really quite stable.

Although I generally had a higher opinion of the value of the info you were adding, I think that when User:Shirtwaist said it seemed "like trivia", he wasn't commenting just on the info itself, but also the fact that it read like a disconnected bullet list of items, without context or flow re the surrounding discussion. This kind of material is supposed to be mentioned in the context of broader aspects of the production and critical perception. I attempted to salvage your material by both providing a bit of context (re current advertising of Mourgue furniture) and critic Alex Walker's comment on things Kubrick said about Mourgue's furniture, both of which helped justify inclusion of your material. And I further helped salvage your material by moving it to a different section of the article. User:Shirtwaist then had continued problems with questionable citations. When you finally produced the Bizoni passage that you claimed to support the sentence in question, the citation was as phoney as a three-dollar bill. (You went from a sweeping generalization to a specific conclusion which is somewhat likely but not even close to overtly affirmed beyond reasonable doubt by your source.) User:Shirtwaist's assertion about "For all we know Kubrick may..." is a rhetorical-hypothetical statement illustrating our rules of evidence, not intended as a probable statement about Kubrick's actions.

Whatever exaggerations of heated language may have been made, the legitimate point behind User:Shirtwaist's examination of your history is that you have clearly been "cited for not citing" (to coin a phrase) on several occasions in the past. That you did so again here reflects a stubborn inability to 'get' the rules of the road by which WP is run. I don't think the rule WP:Please do not bite the newcomers means we are allowed to bite long-time editors, but it looks like by this time you should have known better.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been my experience that there are two fundamentally different kinds of editors on wikipedia. One is the "expanders", who introduce new material to an article. The other is the "excluders", who remove material from articles. Editing an article as broad as this one does require the efforts of far more than one person, and that goes for adding references too. In my case I noticed that this article totally lacked any mention of the furniture that has become famous in their own right for their appearance in the film, and that have been brought up repeatedly in the past in connection with descriptions of the film's sets. By adding content to the article about this subject, along with the best references I could come up with at the time, I had hoped to introduce the other editors to the missing material. I always hope that other editors will pick up where I leave off with additional references, just as you did (and "thank you", BTW). On the other hand, you have people like User:Shirtwaist who fall under the category of "excluders". For whatever reason, the addition of new material to an article is cause to begin looking for any reason that they can find to eliminate it. In User:Shirtwaist's case, that reason was flawed references. If User:Shirtwaist really cared about this article he would have begun looking for additional references, just as you did. Instead he began attacking the validity of the topic being included in the article at all ("What exactly is the justification for including a separate section describing furnishings in the film?") Even after other editors began adding there own references, and trying to explain to him the importance of this previously overlooked topic he continued to oppose its presence in the article. This, along with impolite and threatening comments like "OK, which edition and year is YOUR copy of Bizony(if you even have one)?", and "Don't take it personally if I go through every one of your sources to make sure you're not egregiously misusing them as well.", is where I have a problem with User:Shirtwaist. I've found over the years that often the best way to introduce new material to an old article, and get good references, is to just introduce the material with the best references you have available, and trust that others will step in and help. It usually works out well for everyone. In my experience though, users like User:Shirtwaist have an aversion to change in general, and their over-the-top reaction to change in an article is part of a larger issue that goes beyond the scope of wikipedia. As for your comments about the placement of the information, you will note that I have never commented on the location of the information in the article. I initially placed it where I thought it should best be located, and when the suggestion was made to move it I remained silent, preferring to let you guys move it to wherever you felt it best belonged. As for User:Shirtwaist's assertion about "For all we know Kubrick may..." as a rhetorical-hypothetical statement, I couldn't disagree with you more. Based on his comments I have no doubt that he believes Kubrick had done just that. - Ken keisel (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, I don't believe that for a second. That was a hypothetical statement based in logic, re: if there is no source for a given fact, one or more other possibilities may exist that refute that fact(however unlikely they may seem).

What the heck are you whining about anyway? Virtually all the stuff you posted is STILL THERE! You are subject to exactly the same rules as anyone else. When you post unsourced statements, expect that they may be edited or deleted entirely, as yours was. When you supplied sources, the material was left up, and discussion was started in talk to determine consensus. Consensus was reached, and the material remained up, but was moved to a more appropriate place. Some of your sources were found to be clearly misrepresented by you, and are in the process of being examined, and corrected if need be. Your continued wailing and moaning about imagined mistreatment which you brought upon yourself is not doing anything to improve your character as perceived by others. I suggest you stop complaining, and start making contributions that both improve this article, and WP in general while conforming to the rules we all have to abide by.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, WP overall over the past 2 to 3 years has been getting a lot tighter about the inclusion of "rough draft" material. Generally, enforcement everywhere is stricter than it was in say summer of 2007 when I joined up. Lots of material that lay unchallenged for years is now being challenged in a broad stable-cleaning move. A solution I would have liked here would have been to move your initial contribution verbatim to the Talk page and we could have massaged it there. It's happened in a couple of other articles I've seen, and an approach I think WP editors ought to avail themselves of more frequently. It's water under the bridge at this point (and a tsunami at that!). I am convinced your final remark about SW is almost certainly entirely wrong. Often in debate, a very bad experience with one editor gets projected on another. There is malicious editing and there is sloppy editing. The rule to "Assume good faith" seems sometimes to more breached than observed. I was glad to know about the furniture, and think User:Shirtwaist was entirely correct in observing it had no bearing on the narrative arc of the movie in the way that the depiction of aliens, computers, and space travel did. All institutions have inclusion/exclusion debates. Even beekeepers debate about the placement of queen excluders and includers in their hives.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

EVE Online mention

It appears to be reliably sourced (the site cited has an editorial staff comparable to a magazine). It is WP:UNDUE weight, though, for it to have its own sentence. I'd recommend just adding in the reference to the previous sentence, and listing "such as SimEarth, Spore, and eve online." EVE online is currently more popular than SimEarth, and I'd believe more so than Spore currently is (I don't know whether or not Spore had a higher peak, but none of my friends are still talking about it). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:IPC. How, precisely, does it add to the understanding of the subject of this article? Yworo (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

... Well, we're talking popular culture, and more people are aware of Eve Online than SimEarth or Spore. Would we be better off replacing the SimEarth mention? Then it would still only be two mentions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you see, the behaviour on SimEarth and Spore actually appears in this movie, making the reference more than a mention. The behaviour in Eve Online does not occur in the movie. It's neither a homage to nor parody of this film. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an homage. The section we're speaking about is "Parody and homages - 2001 has been the frequent subject of both parody and homage, sometimes extensively and other times briefly, employing both its distinctive music and iconic imagery." Doesn't it stick to it? 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't intervene anymore on this. I just wanted to add back a data that had been deleted due to a lack of source (check the history). I did find a source and added it (but not on my first edit, which was wrong, I totally admit). To me, there was no matter to disagree, and it wasn't supposed to be fighty. I provided a source since I saw the data removed was marked as unsourced, now do as you want. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that since this is an Easter egg in the video game, that makes it far less notable. Also in the other video games mentioned, the monolith is promoting human evolution- here we get merely "it's full of stars". Yes, it IS an homage!!! The relevant section of WP:IPC is

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? 2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference? 3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia.

I think the answer to all three is probably no. But it was kinda interesting.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked those same questions and got no answer. I'm sure the answer to all three is "no". Yworo (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "it's full of stars" be an homage to 2010? That phrase is not in 2001. I also think this gets three "no" answers.Shirtwaist (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be strictly speaking an homage to the novel and film 2010 and the novel 2001 (the phrase is there) and the Odyssey universe in general, inaugurated by the film 2001. I don't think the game designers were thinking mainly in terms of which Wikipedia article their work would be possibly mentioned in. But we all agree it isn't really worth mentioning.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock problem survey

Could any of the longer-term editors of this article tell me if there's ever been a sockpuppet problem on this article? When it was suggested that 93.19.187.248 create an account he replied "It's my choice not to. I had one years ago, and I don't want one anymore, since I hate being involved in such stupid conflicts and being part of a community." In my past experience, every IP which has made a statement like this (about having an account and not wanting to use it anymore) has turned out to be a banned user. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, feel free to even ask an admin to check for sockpuppets on me, you're going to be heavily disappointed. To anyone interested, I gave my opinion about this here. To me, this user looks like a narrowminded maniac, and it looks like I'm not alone to think this. As stated on the latter link, I'm out of this, I wasted enough time for this crap. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Superficial first impressions of these various links make Yworo look fairly calm cool and collected (at least most of the time) with IP-laddy being more than a bit feisty. Someone awarded Yworo a Socratic barnstar a while back.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Socks haven't been a problem here, as far as I can tell. The only way to determine such a thing, other than WP:checkuser, is by looking at edit histories, and comparing patterns of dialog, spelling, etc. in talk pages. Personally, it amazes me that WP still allows people to edit without registering. The overwhelming majority of vandalism and other nuisances are cause by IP's. Requiring registration for editing would drastically cut down on the nonsense, I think. And yes, a statement like the one from the IP above is a bit fishy. Why conceal a legitimate previous registered name that is no longer used? Also, being registered in no way increases or decreases "stupid conflicts" for good faith editors, does not in itself negatively effect your anonymity in any way, and you're already "part of a community" when you edit here whether you're registered or not. In fact, a big motivator to register is that your IP is not exposed, which means people can't search your IP and find your location! If anything, that increases your anonymity! Shirtwaist (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your response certainly sounds like someone who has extensive experience socking and evading detection. I can't help but notice that you avoid doing the one thing that could easily clear you - pointing to your old username which is not blocked or banned. Is it my imagination, or is the sound of quacking growing louder? Yworo (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Give a dog a bad name and hang it, heh? I already said that I consider this matter to be over. And I don't care what you think about it, since you proved to be of bad faith and that you're clearly trying to evade and hide your responsibilities and misbehaving by trying to charge me with insinuations, even though an admin warned you about your bad behaviour (warning that you swiftly removed from your page, of course).

And who do you think you are? I don't owe you anything and my identity(ies) is none of your concern. Stop being a manipulative paranoid, and get some maturity and a sense of responsibility and self-reflection.

Or keep insinuating whatever you want if it make you feel more comfortable, either way, I'm definitively off that insane and meaningless issue. Have a good day. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you don't have to be experienced in something to understand how it works. You only have to be educated. I can explain you how a software is coded, though I don't know how to code myself. But that was probably either a very naive insinuation, or a purposely slanderous one. So, whatever. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yadda, yadda, yadda. What a blowhard you are, o great anonymous one. The consensus of other editors is that your proposed addition was crap. I was right, and you edit warred to put a crap link in the article. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Yworo (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You act and acted through all this like an insultive, bored and narrowminded immature, and anyone can and will see of this by reading it all. For your information, in the end, I don't care about this ridiculous modification, I only wanted to add back something that got deleted due to a lack of source, I added it back with a source, then you gone barking mad and personal for no reason but a personal anger, despite my efforts to be civil and to speak on a honest ground. That was the actual issue, and in the end, I feel sorry for you to be like that.

Whatever, the right persons have been notified of your case and acknowledged your misbehaves. So I'm fine. Keep trolling and being antipathetic if it help you feeling better. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And you smell like a rose? Sure you do! I didn't start the incivility, you did. And removing something that doesn't meet our editorial requirements isn't in any way abusive, underhanded, immature, paranoid, manipulative, or any of the other things you've accused me of... Though running to AN/I is... oh, wait—it was you who did that, wasn't it? It's pretty obvious to all which one of us is off our rocker, and it's not me. All this over an easter egg in a computer game. Caring so much about that seems pretty immature! Are you even in high school yet? Yworo (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get the point of all this, obviously. What got removed got removed because it lacked source in the first place. Aren't you able to read through the edit history? Because it was obvious and easy to check. And even though you've been warned by an administrator about all your recent abuses, you're still parading like if nothing happened. You remain blind to anything you don't like.

You may be of an astounding, consciously bad faith, as I first thought, but I think that you're just a psychorigid person, actually. At first I was confused by your attitude. Now that I've took a step back, I just find it both funny and sad.

Whatever, you won't ever acknowledge any bit of responsibility, nor question your own acts, nor try to loosen your rock-made point of view. But since anyone is free to check the history anyway, I don't care how you try to turn this, you'll only convince yourself, eventually. Again, I just feel sorry for you now.

That will be my last comment about this. Since this started, you didn't do anything but going agressive and suspicious toward me while bluntly rejecting or ignoring anything contradicting you, so it's going nowhere, and this discussion page' purpose isn't to serve as a support to your little crusade of anger and know-it-right against me. Have fun being right and holding the Truth, o great lord, for I am kneeling to your wikipedian magnificent superiority. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a slight confusion in that the new material was first rejected due to lacking a source, then rejected more or less due to lack of notability (WP:NOTABLE) in part due to the nature of the source (I think? Correct me if I am wrong). So the grounds for the rejection did slightly shift, and this seems to be why 93.19.187.248 is slightly miffed. Nonetheless, the game's film reference really is sufficiently marginal and fleeting as to not really merit mention here. Everyone here (some much moreso than others) seems to getting over-excited. Mr. IP, the legit point here is that this is an "easter egg" on a video game, and you seem to have too much of your ego invested in it. The rest, let's model the civility we want others to maintain. [16]--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this will be kinda long, but I like to make myself clear. Actually this is how it happened, I checked my past modifications with this IP, and I saw that what I added got deleted, by curiosity I ran through the history and saw that it first got flagged as unsourced, and then deleted a couple months later because no source had been added. Then I added it back claiming that finding a perennial source was a hard job for such matter. That was dumb and I totally admit it, I may find over-sourcing a pain for WP, but well, I accept the rule. I then searched for a source, and that's where the guy got mad and closed himself to any argument or middle-ground, while scorning me and my data. So, whatever he's gonna say, it was a sourcing issue, only he won't ever recognize it now, it's now an ego blockage (did you speak about my ego? ;) ).

So, that guy only came with his own, personal views about what should be in or not, interpretating the rules the way he wanted them to be. For example, the data totally have a legitimacy to be under Parodies and homages on this very article, but that guy won't ever accept it, even though... there's already video games listed there, and since I played these as well (yup, even Sim Earth, I grew up with DOS games), I can tell you too that it can be considered as marginal too. And anyway, what are the criterias to consider it marginal or not? What is an homage then? So, why these and not the other? No-one knows but that guy. But I think he should seriously search up in a dictionary for the signification of an homage, because under his personal criterias, most of the data under that section should be deleted. Which show how idiot is his claim.

Finally, to make it clear, I don't care at all about this fucking, ridiculous, meaningless data. I'm just amazed by the attitude that the guy had toward me, and that's why I reacted, because it's just so wrong. It looks like he's heavily participating to WP, I don't know about the quality of his work, but the guy seriously have an attitude issue, his behaviour with me was just shocking and not normal. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"This guy" may have been over-zealous and/or intemperate (edit-summary "remove crap" is a bit jarring), but the evidence really does indicate that the monolith-reference is more integral to the overall scheme and arc to those other two video-games as well as being a stronger reference, and the monolith-reference in this game is much more peripheral/marginal. I suggest you breathe deep, bite the bullet, think blue ocean thoughts and let bygones go. Also, please don't take this as a personal attack - this is a mere suggestion- but your command of English grammar and syntax could use some improving.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And just to add something about his insane bad faith, the guy first deleted the data on 27 january 2011 with that reason: rm uncited. He removed it, consciously, because it was flagged as unsourced. When I added it back unsourced, he removed it arguing: see WP:IPC, needs third-party source or isn't worth mentioning. Ok, so at this point it was still a source issue to him. Then I added a source, and he then deleted it again, arguing: not a reliable source, stop adding useless trivia. Not reliable, still a source issue, but oh, here we can see starting a shift in his motive (and also his non-neutral POV, which is his true motive, he just didn't wanted the data to be in, he probably wasn't in the mood or didn't like my style).

Then, that's just so hilarious to read the excuses he gave lately to justify his actions. It shifted totally from a source issue to an inclusion criteria problem to allow him not to change his attitude. Ta-da. That's hypocrisy at its finest. And the guy had been warned by an admin about his over-extensive use of WP rules. But he just ignored it, it seem.

(The previous lines were wrote while you were adding yours) Well, it's an homage nonetheless. I checked by curiosity the other homages listed, check them, some are exactly in the same case. That's why I dropped the question, what is an homage? Anyway, don't worry, I'm ok and seeing it all blue, I'm writing a lot because I like to explain things calmly and the right way, not because I'm mad. I really don't care about this, only as a very honest person trying to be fair and open-minded, I just don't like such people. And I sure can guess my grammar and syntax aren't perfect, I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if you got troubles understanding me right. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee dude, until it is sourced, it's impossible to tell the significance. Once you finally found what others consider a good source (and I still don't), it was crystal clear that it was insignificant. End of story. Nothing dishonest about it. I never ever said that if it was sourced, it would be a good addition! You're assuming way too much. My only real mistake here was that I when I originally removed it on December 31, I should have said I was removing it because it was both unsourced and insignificant, but the former was sufficient to remove it so I didn't bother to give all my reasons. It's certainly not something to go flinging accusations and name-calling over. Sheeesh! Yworo (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem lie precisely in that it's your opinion about what is significant, and what's not. To me, it was as significant as most other data included on both articles. As I said to WickerGuy, I invite you to check the other homages, some are of the same nature. It's all about the signification of an homage.

Anyway, as I already said, I don't care about its inclusion, really. I didn't fought for that at all, but because I felt treated in a very abusive way. And abusive you were, seriously. I didn't mean to offense you in any way, but I felt offended by your manners, for multiple reasons that I already stated. I may have dropped it instantly and acknowledged that it didn't belong in if we had at least a discussion about it, but you did simply behave an offensive, wrong and un-wikipedian way. Whatever, I don't want to fight or even talk anymore about it, I'm fed up with it and I stated everything I had to state. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Wikipedia is changing and the tolerance for trivia is much reduced. I was absolutely sure that I was representing the current consensus on the matter, and the input from other editors has supported that. It is true that Wikipedia used to have a much higher tolerance for long lists of insignificant trivia, but the consensus on that has changed. If you'd continued to use your account and involve yourself in community discussions over the last year or so, I think you'd have had a better sense for what's currently considered acceptable. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You still miss the point, read again my last comment, the real issue wasn't at all about the inclusion of that data, but about your behaviour. That's what an admin pointed too by the way. Not that I'm waiting for an answer or an apology, I just want to make it clear to you. :) 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I did anything wrong. I didn't technically break 3RR, despite misinformed opinions to the contrary. You did clearly break 3RR, and then you went running to the wrong venue to tattle. Admins are just people, they aren't always right. If I hadn't bothered to respond to your AN/I complaint, I'd not even have gotten those misinformed comments that I did get. I should have just ignored you and followed up on the 3RR complaint to ensure that you got blocked for your violation of 3RR. Yworo (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to back up Yworo that a shift in motivation does not necessarily indicate hypocrisy or thinking by arbitrary whim, but can genuinely be a sign of just having done further reflection.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)