Talk:Children of Men/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Children's laughter

After adding the content to the new "end credits" section, I'm not really sure how mentioning the sound of children laughing in the credits improves this article. Why do we need to know this? Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, why did you remove the mention of the songs in the credits? And, why are they less important than the sound of children laughing? Please discuss why you are removing this material. This is neither "bloat" nor "OR"; it is a description of the end credits. If you don't think it belongs, then why do we need to mention the sound of children laughing and the end title? Let's treat this section as objectively as possible. It describes the end credits and what occurs during the credits. The Lennon and Cocker songs only appear in the credits, so they are given additional meaning due to their unique placement. There is no logical reason to even favor just describing the auido and end titles, without also making mention of the special songs played. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne writes: Please stop. This is not discussion,and you need to find a consensus or seek an agreement before reinstating.

That's strange, I see at least four open threads on this topic, and yet you are still edit warring, claiming that I need to find consensus or seek agreement. What do I need to find consensus or seek agreement for, Arcayne? The talk archives clearly shows that there is no consensus to add the material about the laughing children, but you've spent the last year edit warring it into the article. So why don't you please take your own advice? You haven't explained why the sound effects of laughing children are more important than the three songs that appear in the credits. Why have you deleted them? And why have you deleted the timestamps from the cite video template verifying the source? This is correctly called the closing credits and it documents that subject. Discussion has been ongoing on this page for three weeks, but I haven't seen you participating in any of the threads, and yet, here you are, edit warring once again. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring comments by Jim Dunning on this topic from Talk:Children of Men/Archive 6

To be fair, if the laughing during the end credits is mentioned, shouldn't the laughing at the beginning be included as well? Also, since it's audio, couldn't the music played during the end-credits then be mentioned in the synopsis, too (its mood, lyrics, intent, etc.)? It seems that those that wish to include reference to the laughing have attached some story-significance to it. I did (that of hope), but I recognize it's my interpretation, and acknowledge it could be no more than a reinforcement of the movie's topic (children), especially since it appears at both the beginning and end (if hope is the intent, why at the beginning when the focus is on despair?). I can find no reputable reviewer's mention of the laughing anywhere, so I'm hard-pressed to think it should be included in the synopsis. Even then, since it is SO open to interpretation, I'd be inclined to restrict it to the Themes section if a source could be found. — Jim Dunning talk  : 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoring comments by A Man in Black on this topic from Talk:Children of Men/Archive 4. He was asked where in the article the sound laughing children should go

Nowhere. Its importance and relevance is disputed, and there's no reference to back any view. Lots of things happen in this movie; it is not possible or desireable to describe every single moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like if this minutia is properly sourced, it should be OK. Still, it seems like this debate has been going on for like a year now. And I thought *I* was obsessive. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is in fact minutiae, Bugs. It certainly isn't worth the level of recrimination that it apparently inspires in some editors. I'm not sure aboutyou, but I am certainly a different edtor than I was a year ago. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. My point is that if this debate has been going on for a year, then maybe arbitration is needed. Never having seen the film, I'm in no position to say whether it's really minutia (singular) / minutiae (plural) or "significa". But it's not up to an editor to decide something like that unilaterally, it should be driven by consensus and by what valid sources have to say about it. The important thing, though, is that now I know how to spell minutia and minutiae. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Well, if I come to Wikipedia and don't learn something new every day, I feel cheated. :)

I should point out that I have sought DR to resolve the personality differences that often cause Viriditas' recrimination to spill out into the articles where he and I interact; it has failed or stalled every single time due to V's apparent lack of interest in such. It doesn't really bear discussion in this article discussion. Either way, I don't mind arbitration, though I feel we would get laughed out of the committee board for introducing such a WP:LAME dispute.

While I realize that the info about the children's laughter is not cited, it has been determined through the RS Noticeboard discussion that noting the laughter is observable phenomena, and is an exception to the NOR rule, much like the plot summary of the observable phenomena is. I think that the laughter of children that plays through the closing credits of a movie that posits the end of humanity caused by human infertility to be kinda important, though what form that importance takes varies depending on which editor you ask. I certainly didn't add it to the section currently being discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Closing credits

Should a section on "closing credits" appear in this article? If so, should it mention the sound effects (children laughing), the three songs in the credits, two songs of which only appear in the credits? And should the details of the sound effects and music be directly sourced to the time the events appear in the film using the time parameter in {{cite video}} for verification? Note: the film is used as a primary source for all elements except the use of the term "shantih", which is sourced to an online website, revolutionsf.com, and appears at the end of the credits as a closing title. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All details

As the closing credits begin, background sound effects of children laughing and shouting are played. The laughter is interspersed between the songs, "Bring on the Lucie (Freeda Peeple)" by John Lennon, "Fragments of A Prayer" by John Tavener, "Cunts are Still Running the World" by Jarvis Cocker, and a reprise from John Tavener. The children's laughter closes out the credits as the Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", appears in end titles. Writer and film critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs".

Select details

As the closing credits begin, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard. The Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", are also shown at the very end of the film. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs".

Comments

Bzuk

After reviewing the film, I agree with you as to the impact of the closing credits and either a separate section title (or sub-title) would be appropriate. I have provided the following minor revision (note changes in the date structure and author order):

As the closing credits begin, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard, interspersed with three songs. The Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", are also shown at the very end of the film credits. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

MovieMadness

I agree the closing credits in this film are unique enough to warrant discussion in a separate section. However, I vote for the "All details" version above. Given the director must have had his reasons for selecting the specific songs heard, I think their titles should be listed. (Are the closing credits discussed on the DVD release? I don't recall, but if they were, the commentary could be summarized here as well.) MovieMadness (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar

Popping over from WP:RSN, where this issue has been raised. It is not OR to state that a specific sound effect can be heard during the opening credits (it is a fact that can be cited to the film itself). My real question is: Why is this fact being mentioned in the first place? It seems fairly trivial. If the fact does have some significance in the context of the film, that should be mentioned. Of course, in order to mention that significance, you will need a reliable secondary source that discusses the significance (otherwise it would be OR to mention it). In other words... you certainly can mention it, but why bother? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that, without significant citation as to the meaning of the children's laughter and shouting, we cannot suggest one. I think that isn't really central to the problem as it existed when the issue was revisited yesterday. Nor is the other editor's frustration at my continued participation in this article, which is why I initially disengaged from discussion, so as to gain some emotional distance from his comments.

I would submit that the point about the Shantih (which is cited) is not solely att he end of the film, but occurs as an exclamation of one of the main characters of the film, noting the hope that Kee's baby will reverse the infertility crisis threatening to extinct-ify the human race. Therefore, it seems plausible that this is somewhat less than trivial. Time and academic analysis of the film will likely delve into the significance of the children's laughter and shouting at the end. Until that time, we can encyclopedically note its presence without entertaining notions as to what it means.

The central points of the RfC here are

1. whether the laughter of children playing throughout the closing credits is observable phenomena, and therefore an exception tot he NOR rule similar in application to that of plot details;
2. whether or not the cite video template is necessary to time-stamp the instance of the laughter that plays throughout the closing credits when described in a section by that same name; and
3. whether songs that play through the closing credits are notable on their face, or if they require secondary citation as to their significance.

I tend to think that the Select details example is more concise and encyclopedic than the All details example offered above it. I would however, trim the last part of Eldred's quote, "a world on its last, teetering legs" as extraneous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It would be rather helpful if Viridtias could suspend reverting the article until the outcome of the RfC he has requested, or the two difference noticeboard discussions he began. Continuing to revert while seeking opinion as to the validity of those reverts seems tendentious and disruptive. If he is confident in his viewpoint, he shouldn't have trouble awaiting confirmation of that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Response - This RfC was designed to get responses from users /other/ than you and I, so I have no idea why you are commenting here, as you have stated your opinion on this subject many times throughout this page and the talk archives. Adding citation tags is /not/ a revert. You just reverted the citation tags and asked me not to revert? As usual, you make no sense. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you are commenting here" - Said the guy commenting here. I don't ask you for permission hwere to speak. Stop expecting it. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFC was explicitly requested to solicit outside opinions - in other words, not your opinion. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MPerel

Should a section on "closing credits" appear in this article? Per WP:TRIVIA, there is indeed some question as to whether these details should be included at all. If the section is included, however, it needs to carefully adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR via reliable sources. The songs mentioned are unique to the closing credits and are discussed in depth by critics, particularly notable is one academic's mention of the significance of the film's lone John Lennon song since Caine based his Jasper character on Lennon. So the songs would be the most notable inclusion if the section remains. Laura Eldred's observation of Shantih Shantih Shantih being found in Eliot's poem seems significant enough to include. Are there any critics that mention the significance of laughing children? I’m concerned that the "Select details" version as written above places the laughing children in juxtaposition with the Shantih Shantih Shantih phrase implying a connection not made by any reliable sources. If mention of the laughing children is included, the "All details" version above (my first choice of the three possible choices given) at least sources its occurrence and avoids appearance of Wikipedian original synthesis. --MPerel 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - With respect, I disagree with your interpretation here, MPerel. The policy as it exists is that observable phenomena, such as the plot (from which we derive the Plot Summary) is one of those exemptions from WP:V. The consensus thinking is that the general consensus as to the content of the film will be pared down to the elements by those who've seen the film (ie, no space alien invasions in The Wizard of Oz). As no one contests that the events actually occurred (the dispute instead revolving about what the events mean), the observable phenomena is allowed sans citation. Were this incorrect, plot summaries throughout Wikipedia would have to be cited throughout.

Per that reasoning, the observation that children are laughing and shouting is allowed. Any speculation as to what that means is not. The Shantih actually improves on that observational quality by having at least three different references that improve upon that. The citations provide context for the observation. The observation isn't dismissed, unless it's contested on the basis of factuality.

That the observation of the laughter of the children occurs in the section before the shantih citation is not necessarily a 'juxtaposition' per se, but rather that it is the natural progression of the film. The laughter occurs during the credits. After the credits, the Shantih phrase is the last thing on the screen. I am not sure any connection is implied, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we could avoid this. We have a responsibility to present all the info observed to the reader, but we don't 'chew the food' - ie., we let them arrive at their own assessments. This is why we give them the whole observed story.

The connection between Jasper's characterization being an interpretation of an older John Lennon and the inclusion of the Lennon song by Lennon needs specific citation connecting those two, so as to avoid synthesis issues. The music noted, without specific citation as to why it deserves mention in an article about the film. I would posit that, if such citations exist, it belongs in the Music section. It would certainly be more notable than anything else currently there (save for the Tavener musical development) or in the spin-off article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, we already know your position. This section is used to request comments from other people, in order to bring in outside opinions. Is there a reason you keep responding here? Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If I choose to respond to posts, I am not sure why you should be bothered. It's called discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A discussion involves an exchange of ideas, an agreement and a disagreement, concessions, compromises, and the goal of consensus. Considering the fact that you have been trying to force this trivial information into the article for more than a year, and in the process, ignored every consensus that was reached, I see no discussion from you. What I see is a tendentious obsession with trivia that detracts from the larger issues facing the improvement of this article, and distracts from the writing process. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your definition of discussion, which makes it all the more boggling as to why you are so quick to dispense with it. To begin with, consensus isn't static. It can and does change. Your forcing the article to look the way you wish it to is a pretty clear sign of ownership. You have taken a discussion about use the cite video template and turned it into a battleground. When you did not get your way about the cite video template your solution was - instead of discussion - was to throw a tantrum and say, 'oh yeah? I am going to remove it all, then'. You followed that by edit-warring about the removal. Your behavior has been deplorable here. And you wonder why I oppose your edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you've spent the last year gaming the OR and RS policy, continually challenged each consensus on the matter, the results of which concluded that the sound of laughing children in the credits were both trivial and lacking RS. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments (mirrored from WP Films)

Now, I dig that films like Mulholland Drive and Memento are mindbenders when it comes to interpretation, ergo the caveat about applying interpretative narrative to events there. There are also a few films that provide credits running backwards (some sort of allusion to the film which, for the life of me, I cannot recall) which are observed and commented on as part of the observable phenomena of the film.

Currently, in Children of Men, a discussion is ongoing about the mentioning of the non-soundtrack sounds of children's laughter and shouting observed occurring during the closing credits. There is also the phrase, "shantih shantih shantih" at the conclusion of the credits that was initially strongly opposed for inclusion. That opposition has since evaporated since the observable detail of the phrase is accompanied by an cited interpretation as to its meaning.

The laughter of the children is observable phenomena, and its existence is not contested. It is part of the movie (which is considered the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film), and it bears noting that the laughter occurring during the closing credits is available in all three subtitles available on the DVD available in the States, as well as bootleg copies from China and Singapore subtitled with the same observation.

What is currently contested is whether the observable phenomena belongs in the article uncited (much as the plot summary is uncited). No interpretation is being applied to this observation; it is just being noted. No interpretation + no dissent about occurrence = no citation required.

In short, the film is the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film. For interpretation, we seek elsewhere.We give the reader the whole film, add citations where interpretations are made on the film, and leave the reader to evaluate the rest. We don't chew the food for them, but we do give them the food. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Media artifacts (in this case the film) are the source. Including what you see or hear in the film can be posted, because it is verifiable -- anyone can look at the film and confirm it to be there. There is absolutely no difference here from citing anything you've read in the book. You read the book (i.e. observe it), and post what you've read (observed), with a citation to the source. Someone who wants to verify it goes to the source (the film) and confirms it. Entirely the same, there's no additional level of interpretation, IMO.

As you say, if you were placing an interpretation on it, or a conclusion about its meaning, that would require a secondary source. In this case you're simply reporting the contents of the primary source, the media artifact. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are used all the time in Wikipedia articles. And they are always supported by WP:RS to avoid WP:OR. In terms of film articles, we generally do not use citations in plot sections because we are dealing with basic information about the film that can easily be verified in any review or critical treatment of the subject. If, however, the material is challenged due to is ambiguity, importance, or accuracy, then sources are requested to see how it is used. The exception in MOS:FILMS describes this scenario, and exists to show that the policy of WP:V always trumps guidelines. We do not report our observations about any "media artifacts. Plot sections only describe the most important elements. If a dispute arises as to whether a specific aspect of the plot is significant, secondary sources are called upon for comparison. This holds true for any content, not just plot sections. The "closing credits" section of Children of Men is pure trivia. Trivia sections are generally discouraged, and whenever possible, trivia is moved into established sections for expansion or illustration of a topic. The sound effects of "laughing children" in the credits take up less time than the three songs that appear. So, if we are discussing the closing credits, we are discussing the sound effects and the music that is played. There are several reviews of the music in RS, but no mention of the sound of laughing children. We could easily source the sound effect to the film with the cite video template, noting when it occurs with the time parameter. This was done, but was removed by Arcayne; he also removed the three songs from the section, only mentioning the trival sound of children laughing without reference and the end credits that appear in the film for less than several seconds. This is essentially the same content from the IMdB and Mutant Reviewers sites, except this time, Arcayne has used a web source to support the existence of the "Shantih" in the film, but that does not support the sound effects of children laughing. Furthermore, the RevolutionSF website that is being used as a reference, does not support the credits, but rather the use of "Shantih" in the film (i.e. spoken by one of the characters). So again, we have Arcayne, reverting back to the original trivia from IMdB and Mutant Reviewers but using the RevolutionSF source as a crutch. That source says nothing about the shantih in the credits and nothing about the laughing children. So again, we are left with using the film as a primary source to support this trivia. In order to show that this trivia is important, secondary sources must be offered. Erik has provided at least two film reviews that support the idea that the Shantih was used in the credits. These references can be used, and the material can be incorporated into the body of the artice, but these sources say nothing about the importance of trivial sound effects. Arcayne is attempting to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effects and the shantih, and he has spoken about his pet theories at great length in the talk archives. In one example, from 00:04, 27 May 2007, he writes:

To begin with, there is no children's laughter at the beginning of the movie (or anywhere else in the film, for that matter). You may recall that the fil opens with the Bristish nescaster discussing 'day 100 of the Siege of Seattle'. Secondly, the laughter is not a part of the soundtrack (it is neither listed as such in either the credits, is not part of any song listed in the credits, nor does it appear in the released soundtrack for the film). It is in fact notable that the laughter begins immediately before the screen fades to black, and continues through the credits and end title music, and stops immediately before the words "Shantih, shantih shantih" appear on the screen. Whereas the 'shantih' has been in the past effectively argued as a thematic component, this laughter doesn't appear to serve that same sort of purpose. The suggestion that - as another editor has suggested here - the infertility crisis is averted since Kee (and her baby) have made it to the rendezvous with the Human Project (justifying Theo's sacrifice) is a valid point; there is no other instance of children's laughter in the film. It only appears at the end of the film, when we are left wondering if humanity dies out or not. It's presence hints that man's extinction doesn't happen. However, never let it be said that I am unreasonable; please tell me why you think it is a thematic component. At least you aren't suggesting that the laughter was just some odd little happenstance that a bored film editor accidentally dropped in. Lastly, I think the only reason reviewers haven't mentioned the laughter at the end is because it is so clearly a spoiler. I think one would be equally hard-pressed to find a reputable reviewer who revealed the surprise endings of Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects. Following your wisdom, we could not detail the identity of Keyser Soze or Dr. Crowe's true nature because we couldn't find a reviewer who told us it was such. However, such are includable because they are a part of the, story - the film experience. The same is true for the laughter. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's only one of many examples of Arcayne's idea that the laughter is notable. No reliable source has ever made that claim or mentioned it. This is a continuing attempt by Arcayne to evade WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be completely arcane, but Arcayne is correct in making a connection between the laughter as part of the central theme of the film. Is it a "pet theory"? maybe but that is a dismissive way of deciding the argument, as well as insisting that a reliable source back up an eminently verifiable element of the film. Is there consensus for the use of the closing credits as a thematic device? If so, then, as the editor has made valid attempts to link the director's decisions to provide an overarching conclusion for the viewer and tried to provide as much attribution as possible, I cannot see the harm in introducing this element. FWiW, this discussion seems to have "migrated" from the talk page of the article and does not seem to have a bearing on the original "string." Bzuk (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not publish original thought. We cannot make connections in the article without evidence, such as WP:RS, due to WP:NOR. The only reasonable connection that could be made outside the article based on the evidence that we do have, is the connection of the laughter to scene 12, where the character of Miriam comments on the absence of children's voices. Still, we cannot discuss it in the article without proper sources. To say that anyone is "correct" in making a connection between one thing and another seems to miss the point, as I could make hundreds of "correct" connections. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for original research. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that I'm told this article: Kevin Crust (2007-01-07). "CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) references the laughter while talking about the film's audio in general. Anyone with a pay account for their archive should be able to access it online. Steve ^{T • C} 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've been given the wrong information. It's a good reliable source that discusses both John Lennon and Jarvis Cocker's songs and how they are used in the closing credits, but it says nothing about the sound effects of children laughing. I want to thank you for bringing it up, because I'm going to add it to the article to support the songs Arcayne deleted. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried to locate this article, but I couldn't find the whole thing. I saw it in Google News Archive Search, though. Not sure why it's been difficult to come across. Arcayne and Viriditas, may I just make a bold suggestion: Remove yourselves from this article entirely. Take it off your watchlist. Leave the article untouched, even if it's not the revision you want. Don't consider sneaking back with sockpuppets. Just... walk away. Every second and keystroke that you devote to fighting it out could be focused elsewhere, in a more contributive light. I realize that both of you have sort of done this before, but I mean permanently. There are so many articles on Wikipedia that could use your editing skills and not the debating skills you two have fine-tuned so well. I had wanted to weigh in about my findings (or lack thereof), but I also wanted to say that this is not worth the sorrow. Just look at the archives and see how long in the tooth your discussions have been. All for what? A sentence or two. Children of Men is a great film, but it by no means requires the most conservative presentation or the most intricate layout as opposed to some major topics on Wikipedia. I really hope both of you would consider this option. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Erik, I appreciate it. I'm not going anywhere, but I promise to try and be more polite to Arcayne in the future, as he deserves more respect than I've been giving him. As for the Los Angeles Times article, is it ok if I e-mail it to you? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going anywhere either, and I must say that I appreciate Viriditas' promise to be more polite. I would also like a copy of the article as well, pls. That whole 'trust but verify' thing, you understand. As for where, if the citation is sufficient, should go, we have a music section that pretty much speaks to the musical aspects of the film. Barring exceptional tie-ins with the credits, it should go there.

While consensus does and should change over time, this is a particularly thorny issue that keeps revisiting us, and I think about 80% of it is due to personality clashes. The other 20% is over things that we are actually here to do.

The inclusion of the laughter of children is not a "pet theory" as has been dismissively suggested at least a dozen times in at least 4 different pages. True, I personally think there is a connection, but since shedding a lot of my newbie ideas about what should be included and what shouldn't be in the article, I haven't injected my interpretation of the children's laughter, even though citation eventually affirmed my interpretation of the shantih phrase (also pooh-poohed at one point as my "pet theory"). The laughter is an observed part of the film that is not part of either of the two soundtracks commercially available. It is part of the DVD release (both legitimate and bootleg) in at least four different languages; meaning that not only is it considered part of the movie in the authentic versions of the movie enough to closed caption its its presence for the deaf, but in other languages and in bootleg versions that present the same info in languages like Chinese. As such, it is covered by the same MOS rules that govern the inclusion of a plot summary. This has come up in RS and NOR noticeboards in the past, and was noted by User:Blueboar as being of definitive consensus that for observed material of a film, the film itself is the explicit and implicit source of the citation. External citation is unnecessary, and an exception to the verifiability rule, as consensus ensures that the content is in fact an accurate ad neutral depiction of the film.

This beings us to our next problem. Do we use the cite video template to time-stamp the incidence of laughter? The noted instance of laughter occurs only in the closing credits, and throughout it. The section noting it is called 'Closing Credits'. Do we need a time-stamp telling us that it is in fact in the part that the section is telling us it is in? To me, it seems redundant and unnecessary.

Lastly, the question has been raised as to whether the section 'Closing Credits' following the Plot Summary is even necessary, and if the statements within are trivial. As I didn't create the section, I am of two minds on whether the section should exist. I do not know of any other FA article that has one, and that consideration (for good or ill) tends to be chief amongst my litmus tests for inclusion. Perhaps the statements there belong in the 'Themes' section As for whether the statements within are trivial, I believe that my numerous statements here and elsewhere are notable enough for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed on this issue nor on the policies and guidelines related to this problem; most editors see the content as trivia, and core policies demand tight sourcing to avoid original research. The burden of proof remains on the editor who wants to add the information. You've been trying to add this information for a year. Since that time, a few sources have shown up mentioning the Shantih, the homage to Eliot, and its use in the film. While not exacty a theme, I would support adding it to the appropriate section of the article. However, your continued insertion of the "sound of laughing children" has never risen above the level of trivia, and without secondary sources discussing it, we cannot gauge its importance. The version you are arguing for currently, is identical to the version on the IMdB website. A version which was added in January 2007. Prior to that time, an anonymous IP, User:80.192.175.116, was the first to introduce part of it into the article, on 00:00, 10 November 2006.The IP wrote: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again.[1] Another IP, User:66.207.89.105, showed up to add it back into the plot on 04:29, 13 February 2007.[2] The original IP showed up again to add some of it back into the article in June 2007[3] and was reverted by JimDunning based on consensus that had been reached on talk.[4] There are more IP's, I believe, but I would have to look through the page history. Based on your discussion about the laughing children in the talk archives, this particular OR has always been your root reason for inclusion. And to date, this has never been published in any reliable source. You've also gone one step further, trying to connect this to the use of the shantih, synthesizing unrelated, unreferenced material, with a secondary source that doesn't support it. That's why you removed the primary sources which used the cite video template, and that's why you removed the mention of the songs in the credits, which are supported by an article in the Los Angeles Times. By removing those two elements, and tying two unrelated things together, we are back to the OR. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(←outdent) Okay, this inspires a host of questions, but I will limit it to these:

1. what do the IP address have to do with me or my edits? Are you accusing me of socking without any sort of proof?
2. can you pull up an edit that is not more than a year old where I have added any interpretation of the laughter or the shantih to the article?

If you are going to accuse me of sock-puppetry using anon IPs, the right place to do that is right over here. As well, if you are going to accuse me of pushing what you keep calling my "pet theory", maybe try to find a diff that isn't over a year old. You've been told that characterizing it as such is uncivil and dismissive, and you just got done telling another editor you were going to try to be a lot more civil to me. I am personally not seeing the improved civility. Maybe you could just restrict yourself to comments that aren't going to likely result in you blocked, and simply focus on the edits, and not the editor. Consider this your last warning on the subject.(unsigned post from Arcayne)

Your description of the sound effect as "children's laughter" is an interpretation. To me, it sounds like children playing or talking and is trivial. That is why no single reviewer or critic found it worth mentioning. When the anon. IP says that the sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again, the IP is interpreting a sound effect and claiming it has an implied meaning. In your quest to add this interpretation to the article, you have agreed with this anon IP's argument on many occassions throughout the talk archives. I think you've been very clear on why you want to add this to the article. Sadly, there are no sources to support your theory. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, who's wiki-lawyering? It is the sound of children laughing and shouting - you yourself have edited this in. Your current edits reverting back to our favorite version notwithstanding, it will return to that version. My version places no interpretive value on the laughter, and it is an observable piece of the film. It stays. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comments - arbitrary break 1

Now, focusing on the actual subject at hand (ie, having to do with CoM and not another editor), discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if you wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.

Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.

Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.

Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia

"Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."

and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."

This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.

It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you claim, no noticeboard discussion ever stated that the material does not require a reference. I don't know why you keep repeating that, but it isn't true. Furthermore, the material has been challenged in relation to its use in the article as unsourced trivia. All primary sources on wikipedia are supported by secondary sources. This is to avoid the kind of OR you are engaging in here. Why is the sound of laughing childen in the credits important to this article? And what reliable source are you using to guage its encyclopedic value? Pretty simple questions that demand an answer. We don't pick and choose random, trivial elements to add to an article. Also, why are you linking the unsourced, trivial sound effects of children laughing in the credits to the closing titles of the shantih? No reliable source supports this link. If you are doing it to describe the credits in general, then why have you deleted mentioning the three songs that appear in the credits whose placement and meaning is discussed in a RS (LA Times)? In fact, if one were to choose the most notable elements of the credits, they would be the three songs by Tavener, Lennon, and Cocker, as they take up most of the credits and have significant meaning per the LA Times. So, we see, what you are arguing doesn't make sense. To avoid OR/synthesis, we use RS in order to verify content meets our standards. Where can I verify the sound of children laughing in the credits? In a primary source. In the one you removed. Now, where can I verify its importance and relevance in the article? In a secondary source. Where is the secondary source? The author of the LA Times article has published two separate articles devoted to the sound of CoM. And at no time, has he ever found the sound effects of children laughing in the credits to be significant or notable enough to discuss. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies primarily on secondary sources to avoid OR. Primary sources can be used if they are supported by secondary sources. To date, there is no RS that discusses the sound of children laughing in the credits. So, why should we include it in the article? You are trying to game the RS and OR policies, and the material you are arguing to include is a duplicate of the IMdB page that an anonymous person wrote, and it represents a position you are trying to promote like the anon. IP, namely, that the sound of laughing children is significant because it comments on the conclusion of the film. We don't know that, and that's why we need secondary sources. This doesn't reach the proportions of exicornt, but when one sees how this started with an anon. IP in 2006, moved over to IMdB in early 2007, and then found its way over to a personal website and then back here again, one sees the necessity of strict sourcing policies. We don't interpret sound effects. We rely on reliable sources to interpret them for us. The "sound of laughing children" you describe, is a very small part of the credits, and sounds like children playing and talking. No reviewer or critic found it notable to mention. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When you make that post anything approaching civil, I will respond. Not before then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no incivility in the above edit. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for a year. That fact can be supported with archives 2-6 and this current talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide any basis for the accusation that actually occurs within the past year, V.If you have to point to an archive, you are not making a current point. I am not trying to provide interpretation as to the laughter. I am simply saying that we will in fact note it as it is from the source of the film itself, and we don't need a time-stamp to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources cannot be used by themselves to support the inclusion of material. In cases where the importance of the material is unclear, secondary sources are requested. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"There was no incivility in the above edit. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for a year" - um, you don't consider that in the least uncivil? lol

Of course primary sources can be used to support material. Using the cite video template makes them easier to see, but we don't cite observed phenomena; observable phenomena that you yourself have agreed were as they are observed - the laughter of children. No secondary source is necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not incivil; it's a fact supported by diffs in the edit history. There is no policy or guideline that says challenged material doesn't require a secondary source. I have challenged the material on the basis of OR, trivia, and RS. Please face the challenge or remove the material. It's very simple. All challenged material requires RS. We don't use primary sources to support challenged material. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not the apology you were supposed to provide. I am not going to respond to repeated mischaracterizations, personal attacks or incivility from you. Clean up your demeanor towards me, and you will get a response. Not until then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Music in the credits

Kevin Crust, staff writer of the Los Angeles Times:

The thread that holds this crazy quilt of sounds together is British composer John Tavener's "Fragments of a Prayer," a 15-minute commissioned piece that Cuaron envisioned as "a spiritual comment rather than a narrative support." Tavener wrote it based on the screenplay, in contrast to the traditional method of scoring to a film's images. The director initially introduces the piece after a tragedy and then strategically places segments throughout the film, developing it as a motif. A sacred entreaty with recurring hallelujahs, it features mezzo-soprano Sarah Connolly and powerfully reinforces the idea of faith defying the blind malevolence of chance. By the end of Theo's journey, the theme has built to a complex emotional level that coincides with the film's climax. After a provocative ending that keeps audiences in their seats for the credits, "Children of Men" continues to reward aurally, finishing strongly with two politically pointed songs. Leaving us with Lennon singing the anti-nationalist rant "Bring on the Lucie (Freda Peeple)" and Jarvis Cocker declaiming global society's ills with an unprintable refrain in "Running the World," Cuaron emphasizes the timelessness of this future-set film and stamps it with a humanistic double exclamation point.

Arcayne's idea that music must be confined to a "music" section is ridiculous. Elements of casting, production, themes, and reception are always overlapping. Do we just talk about the director in production? No, he is discussed in almost every section. Do we just talk about the cast and characters in the cast section? No, they play a vital role in production and themes. The music is no different, and we currently have the music appearing in the theme section. We also have LA Times staff writer Kevin Crust describing Tavener's music as the "the thread that holds the sounds together", appearing throughout the film. Crust even describes the Lennon and Cocker songs as appearing in the credits. If we only we could find a reliable source that described the interpretation of the sound effects of "children laughing". Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for reprinting that source here, Viriditias. You could have avoided wasting a lot of our time by doing that straight away, instead of arguing and arguing. Second of all, could you perhaps tell me where I have indicated anywhere on this page (or any page, for that matter) that the music "must be confined" to the music section? I don't recall saying that. I believe what I said (most recently, in the post immediately above) is that the music should be put into the section that best describes it - in this case, music to the music section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by arcayne (talk • contribs)

You've posted many times above, on the RS and OR noticeboards that, "the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'." You've also misunderstood the burden of proof. You have consistently asked me to prove a negative with statements like, "you cannot specifically state with absolute assuredness that the laughter and shouting of children was not observed/heard by the reviewers". That's not how Wikipedia works. As the editor who added your own personal interpretation of the credits, you need to show why this is important to include in this article, and you need to support your interpretation of the credits with reliable sources. I can already do that with the music in the credits, but apparently you think that no reliable sources (laughing children) is preferable to reliable sources (music in the credits). Please ask an uninvolved expert on RS, like Blueboar, to explain this to you. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my posts, as I think you have at best, misread them. Your interpretation of "burden of proof" is inaccurate, and I've been good enough to point out how it is actually used; maybe re-read that.

As well, you have been asked to provide a more recent (ie, an edit within the past 12 months) wherein I sought to add any interpretation of the children's laughter or shantih to the article. Your next post addressing this should provide a diff of that. I suspect that you are going to be about as successful in doing that as you have been with providing anything resembling proof of your ill-advised allegations of sock-puppetry. So, do everyone a favor. Provide recent instances of my in interpretation in the article or proof of socking, or kindly keep you personal attacks to yourself. And maybe it would be beneficial for you to note that you are the one who went forum-shopping to the noticeboards. That those same noticeboards haven't supported your view of this might be that consensus you seem to be dismissing.

WHile I don't think this concludes matters, I am going to revert your changes to the article. Discussion os not complete, and consensus is not with you. I would ask that you invest more time in rebutting my specific points, and less time on personal attacks and edit-warring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the changes of other editors, especially citation requests, notes, and sources. Please read WP:V and understand why we use sources in articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Says the fellow who is edit-warring any version that mentions the laughter. Physician - heal thyself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to add the laughter to the article. Tell me where I can find a secondary source that describes its importance to the film. Please answer that question. We do not use primary sources to selectively choose things. This is very simple. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the point I have been endeavoring to make to you for the better part of a week, Viriditas: we do not need a secondary source. When we are faced with primary information from the film itself which is notable (in that it is as unusual as the shantih bit), we source the film. You saw this as well, which is why you added the cite video template to the article to source it. That it is the sound of children laughing and shouting isn't disputed by anyone - least of all yourself. It is not questioned and therefore does not need secondary souring for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that supports your contention that we do not need a secondary source. All challenged material requires a secondary source. I have challenged the material on many levels, from its selective inclusion due to its implicit OR as discussed by you in the archives, to its trivial nature and lack of importance, to its lack of a reliable published source. Those are three challenges that have not been met. All challenged material requires reliable, published sources. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, your belief that the "three challenges" have not been met is in the decided minority. I've already explained here and on two noticeboards how I've met your criteria. I am not willing to repeat arguments which you simple refuse to "understand". Forgie me if I let you play this particular game alone. My edits are based in policy and guidelines. If you don't recall the instances, you called it "wiki-lawyering and gaming the system." Not really a characterization that encourages healthy dialogue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary source

Arcayne, you recently changed "the sounds of children" back to "the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard". To support your change, you wrote in the edit summary:sorry, the primary source supports the info staying the way it is. Perhaps you thought discussion was concluded?[5] Could you please add a link to the primary source that claims that there is a "sound of children laughing and shouting" in the credits? That's your interpretation of a primary source, and it requires a secondary source to support it. I look forward to reading your reply that defends your revert. Hint: if a source supported that interpretation, it would in fact be a secondary source. The only thing that supports your interpretation of the sound effects of children "laughing and shouting" in the credits is you. The only thing that supports this trivia as notable is you. That's not how we write Wikipedia articles. All challenged material requires reliable sources. This material has been challenged due its interpretation and its notability. Please supply those sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather did that above. Did you perhaps miss that post wherein I cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines? How about the noticeboards, where several editors noted that noting the children's laughter unnecessary, as it is observable phenomena, much like the plot? Now, you seem to taking the tack that the identification of the laughter as that of children to be OR. Hmm. As your subsequent edits after adding the overkill cite video template seems to contradict your own comments here. That the laughter is of children isn't disputed (not even by you in both article and article discussion space), your argument rings, well, false. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you haven't posted any secondary sources to support the inclusion of the material, and for some strange reason, you keep removing primary sources and notes indicating where and when the "laughter of children" appears in the film. Not a single person on the noticeboards at any time has ever said that references are unnecessary. This is because, Arcayne, WP:V trumps all other guidelines. If you can't understand this points of contention, please have a neutral party explain them to you. You also made a very strange claim in your edit summary, where you wrote: we cannot use cc for a primary sourcece. First of all, the reference to cc (closed captioning) was a note, pointing the reader to where the "children laughing" appears in the film. Second, referring to closed captioning in the film is referring to a primary source. There is no reason we cannot inform the reader of its appearance, so I have no idea where you get this from. This reminds me of the time (several times actually) where you have claimed that we should not be allowed to use books as references because editors can't check them easily for verification. Please follow your logic. If we cannot use closed captioning in a film as a primary source, then why can we make mention of a sound effect in the credits? You need to find secondary sources that explain the importance of this trivial sound effect. As a compromise, a primary source note was added to provide the reader with some information. Your constant removal of these pointers and inability to support the inclusion of your material with secondary sources is a problem. We do not get to pick and choose elements from the film that we personally think are important. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Following the conversation you had on the NOR noticeboard, I am willing to compromise to allowing the movie to be cited using the cite video templet. It is foolish and a wase (what's next, we start templating the plot summary?). I've moved the music to the music section, since it seems better to have it there. It would appear you agree, since you fixed the tags for it.

I certainly hope you can live with that compromise, because your behavior has made you fairly intolerable to be on the same page with. I've been patient with your lack of good faith and personal attacks. Maybe this will draw the petty crap to a close - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The compromise explicitly involves the full proposal. There is no partial agreement on the table, and that was clearly spelled out. Allowing a source in the article is not a compromise in any way; it is policy. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Consensus isn't a suicide pact; it has been found that the laughter can be cited to the film. While I feel that the cite video template is cumbersome and hackneyed, I am agreeing to its inclusion - an inclusion that less than a weeka go, you personally advocated. The part of your re-interpretation of that consensus and compromise - the bits about the music that have since been placed elsewhere (and edited in place by yourself) - is not going to be revisited. Use the cite video template for the laughter. Consider it a smallish victory and walk away fast. Your behavior has been deplorable here, Viriditas, and will be the subject of further discussion outside this discussion page.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't respected any consensus at any time, Arcayne. And we don't rely on primary sources for any material, especially trivia. That the laughter can be cited to the film has never been in question by anyone familiar with policies and guidelines; in fact, only you have quesitoned it. Inclusion is an entirely separate issue, and one you need to address. Why is the sound effects of children important to this article? What reliable source discusses it? And, why do you keep removing two songs that only appear in the credits and have been discussed by the staff writer of the LA Times? Please asnwer these questions. Adding your personal observations of the film and removing RS material to create a synthesized, partial description of the credits is not acceptable, and it is being done to support your one personal theory about the credits, one that you have discussed in the archives. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing to use sources is not a compromise, it is policy. Consensus has been reached to merge the music into the credits. This is supported by Blueboar, MovieMadness, MPerel, myself, and others. You keep removing it because you are trying to game the OR policy by drawing an implicit conclusion about the credits. My behavior here has been to uphold policies and guidelines while you tread upon them and try to force your POV into this article. Wikipedia is built upon collaboration and working towards consensus. It is not built by angry, POV-pushers who don't respect sourcing, verification, and OR policies. You need to take a step back and look at how your edits have harmed this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, for two reasons. First, the sounds are drawn from the film itself, which serves as the explicit and implicit source for the material, just like the plot; you may not wish to equate it as such, but it is. It can be sourced using the cite video template, which, oddly enough, you performed on the laughter of the children before I removed it as extraneous. Secondly, WP:PSTS explicitly says that primary sources can be used, but are not given preference over secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources of the information, there is nothing challenging the primary sourcing of the film.

The consensus did not include the musical bits, and you have not pointed out where it was specifically made a part of that consensus. As I disagree with it, and there are others that see the laughter bit as allowable, I would point out that you do not have consensus.

You need to step back yourself and see how you have edit-warred about the usage of a cite video template into a personal vendetta. Were that assessment inaccurate, ask yourself this: is the cite template note the children's laughter? Is the noting of the children's laughter anywhere in the article? No. How about the music? Why did you insist that it be in the closing section? Why did you move it from the section on music, where it had been crafted? You have shown precisely no willingness to compromise (I personally think you see compromise as a weakness, but that's just my assessment), even when told to by a great many others, while forum-shopping. You have ignored my repeated requests to be more polite. I am working to improve the article, Viriditas; what have you done except to use your considerable editing ability to oppose anything I suggest? Of course, you must be aware that the edit will not stand. It will return to the proper form it did before your continued version war. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot argue from the negative. I do not have the burden of proof to show why it is not important. This is very clear. This discussion has nothing to do with a citation template. That is policy and is not even debatable. All challenged material requires sources. You have just threatened to edit war unsupported information back into the article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies upon secondary sources. We don't get to use primary sources to selectively choose what part of a topic we like and don't like. Please provide secondary sources that describe the importance of the laughing children in the credits. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting the usage of "challenged" here. IT isn't a matter of 'like' or 'not like'. At all, and I think that is part of your basic misunderstanding of the issue here. No one is challenging that the phenomena exists - not even you, who added the cite video template and laughter in the first place. What you are challenging is to prevent an interpretation that no one is currently making. You are speculating as to what the addition of the info would signify, and we simply do not do that here at Wikipedia. When someone adds an uncited evaluation of the laughter, I will remove it, as I am sure you will. I am not going to add info that is uncited. There is no reason to deprive the reader of a phenomena that occurred within the movie because you are afraid that someone (namely me) will add some sort of interpretation to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't rely on primary sources, especially in cases of trivia. All trivia needs secondary sources for it to rise above that level and for the reader to guage the importance of the material. Furthermore, we don't synthesize unrelated primary and secondary sources; when challenged, the secondary soures must support the primary. A good example of this is Terri Schiavo, where primary source documents are used to flesh out the secondary claims. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are in the minority when it comes to considering the observable phenomena as trivial. Please credit me with enough experience to recognize a straw-man argument when I am presented with one. I do not accept your premise that the info is trivia. You certainly don't, since you added and cited it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. The vast majority of editors that have discussed this issue have stated quite explicitly that the sound effects are trivia. Where exactly are you getting your information from? I'm in the minority? Not quite, Arcayne. If you have a secondary source, please provide it. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section

Closing credits

During the closing credits, the sound of children laughing and shouting is heard. which continues until the end, where the Sanskrit words, "Shantih Shantih Shantih", appears in end titles. Writer and movie critic Laura Eldred of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill observes that the "film is full of tidbits that call out to the educated viewer", noting that the "shantih" used in the film is also found at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land, a work Eldred describes as "devoted to contemplating a world emptied of fertility: a world on its last, teetering legs".

This disputed section has been removed to the talk page for further discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been reinstated until discussion/compromise/consensus are forged. There it will remain until we are done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not how Wikipedia works. Disputed sections are removed until discussion has concluded. You appear to be approaching things backwards. One editor does not get to force their POV into an article. Please learn to collaborate and work towards consensus. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is the way it works. Disputed material is removed while discussion is ongoing. The dispute about the tagging of the children's laughter - the source of your initial hullabaloo - has been resolved on two different noticeboards. As for collaborating and working towards consensus, we already have it. Your behavior notwithstanding, your point of view hasn't found a consensus. The comments remain until discussion is concluded. If you refuse to accept the findings of the noticeboards (both of which note that the children laughing can be cited to the film), then you might wish to seek other remedies, like mediation. Please stop edit-warring. This is your last warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, disputed material is removed while discussion is ongoing. Then why have you restored it three times in the last 24 hours? [6] [7] [8] Are you even understanding what you are writing? Your statement above is truly bizarre. I have accepted the consensus of the RFC and Blueboar's findings on the noticeboards.[9] You, on the other hand have not.[10] Since you cannot abide by consensus, then you have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello pot, meet kettle. [11]. You have been removing material in a tendentious edit war to add a template to a piece of observable phenomena, and then when you didn't get your way, you removed it altogether. I have been polite on every noticeboard you've forum-shopped this to. You have been told that the info is notable and citable. You are currently disagreeing (meeting your own 3RR warning/edit-warring criteria) because the compromise saying 'it stays' doesn't include the omnibus changes you wish to make. I am sorry, but I am compromising in agreeing to allowing the cite video template to be used to note the laughter of the children - the original disagreement. I am not agreeing to anything outside the aegis of that compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Still don't "get" it, do you? The burden of proof is on the editor adding material. You have not answered why the sound effects of children laughing is important to this article, where I can find a reliable secondary source that supports your claim, and how come you won't accept the neutral, third-party compromise propsed by Blueboar, and the findings of the RFC. You have edit warred your chosen POV into this article for more than a year, and you have repeatedly thumbed your nose at multiple 30's, RFC's, project interventions, OR and RS noticeboards, and suggestions from neutral editors. I have agreed to a compromise and I am on record making concessions. You have done neither. I think the evidence shows beyond question who has been editing this article tendentiously for more than a year, attempting to game OR and RS policies. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, I have adequately proven that the inclusion of information source to the explicit and implicit source of the movie itself is allowable. I have even compromised in agreeing to the overkill usage of the cite video template to time-stamp the sound of children's laughter (which you keep thinking I am adding interpretive value to in the article, despite the fact that I have not in over a year). What compromise have you offered? What civility have you offered to me as a fellow editor? You have accused me of everything from sock-puppetry to being unable to read. In what bizarro world do you think that promotes professionalism? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything you just asked was answered above, so repeatedly asking the same questions and hoping for a different response is not an acceptable form of communication. A regular contributor to the OR/RS noticeboards named Blueboar offered a proposal and I accepted it here. This was discussed above. Consensus has already been achieved on this issue via the RFC and noticeboard discussions, and not a single editor has objected to having the material in one section, except you. You seem to think that agreeing to add a primary source to support your material is a compromise of some kind. It isn't. Policy is very clear on this. Challenged material requires sources. Now, if you can explain why your personal observation of the sound effects of children laughing in the credits is important to this article, when no reliable source/commentator has said anything about it, I would like to hear it. Right now, I am not convinced of its importance. As editors, we do not get to selectively pick and choose things we like without secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above in regards to why the laughter observation is notable, as well as the policy/guidelines info that explains why it is deemed allowable. The musical bits being added to the closing credits is counter-intuitive to the reader (especially when there is an actual section reserved specifically for music in the article). The basis of your challenge does not stem from the existence of the phenomena (which would require secondary citation) but rather, a speculative interpretation as to what the inclusion of that observation means to you. This is not a "pet theory", or anything of the sort. I will even go so far as to guarantee that if I see anyone add information interpreting anything within the film without citation, I will remove it (and will more carefully watch the page to make sure something like that doesn't go unaddressed for three weeks). That's about as far as I am willing to go on this matter. I do not oppose the usage of the cite video template (though I still feel it is overkill), but I oppose the non-intuitive addition of the music to the closing credits, especially when it can be noted in the Music section (as per this edit) just fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the question as to why the sound effects of laughing children are notable in this discussion, so asking me to look above for your comments on the matter is absurd. On the other hand, you have answered the question in the archives, and you have made it very clear that this sound effect - that no reliable published source has ever mentioned - is notable because you think it is. That's not how we edit Wikipedia. You also misquoted the LA Times piece to push your POV. The two songs in question never appear in the film - only the credits. The facts are very clear: 1) You have engaged in this disruptive POV pushing for a year, and your behavior has never changed. You have been trying to game the OR and RS policy for the same amount of time. 2) Aside from your pet theory, you have never been able to support the claim that the sound effects of laughing children is notable in any way. 3) Your removal of the two songs that only appear in the credits is being done to selectively highlight your pet theory, using a primary source to support it. It is a fact that the two songs in the credits appear in the credits for a longer time than the sound effects of children laughing and the end titles that read "shantih". It is also true that the two songs are only used in the credits, making them unique to that aspect, and not to the music that appears throughout the film. Finally, the edit summary of your latest revert was quite telling. You claimed that you were "reverting to a better version", the classic edit summary of the consummate POV pusher. The fact is, consensus has been established before, that the sound of children laughing in the credits is trivia, and without reliable sources should not be included. The fact is, recent consensus has been formed from both an RFC and from comments on two different noticeboard discussions demonstrating that the music in the credits is appropriate for the credits section. You have never, at any time in the past year, respected consensus. Instead, you keep trying to force your POV into the article by edit warring. Looking at the edit history, we can see a pattern of the same behavior: you tried to force your theory that Theo may have survived into the plot section (contrary to the director's comments on the matter); you tried to force your theory that "unsmiling people" appeared on the ship at the end of the film in order to skew the conclusion (your personal observation); you tried to convince us that because you knew the type of gun being used in the film, we had to mention it (even though there were no sources describing it); you tried to tell us that the sound effects of laughing children in the film were important because they spoke directly to the survival of humanity in the conclusion (your pet theory, no RS); and now you are trying to tell me that primary sources are all you need to add your "observation" about a trivial sound effect. And you are also trying to sell me on the idea that reliable secondary sources that describe the importance of two songs that only appear in the credits isn't good enough? No. You need a secondary source showing the importance of the sound effects. Editors do not get to pick and choose what we think is important in an article. We only describe what secondary sources find important. The reason plot sections do not usually contain sources is because the most significant aspects of a plot can be found on the official web site of the film, in multiple critical reviews, and in interviews with the cast and crew. You have tried to game the OR and RS guidelines by using the plot guidelines and synthesizing them with critical reviews, in effect mixing primary sources and secondary sources to form a selective description of the credits that cannot be supported by RS. That's not how we edit on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think I have answered your oft-repeated questions both here and in the noticeboards you sought a consensus for removing the information. They did not agree with you, instead noting that it can be cited to the film. Please do us all the kindness of not asking the same questions over and over and pretending not to have heard or understand the responses you are getting; it is tendentious. I will answer them for the last time here;

1. The sounds of children's laughter are notable because they do not occur in other films, whereas the usage of music that doesn't appear in the film (and you should feel free to provide a link so as to support that statement, please) is quite a common occurrence, like Eddie and the Cruisers, King Ralph and the Blues Brothers.

As observable phenomena, like the plot summary, they can be cited to the film (which has been confirmed for you by no fewer than four different, established editors). You and one other editor are the only ones who feel that a secondary source is necessary for inclusion, and are in the significant minority. Were there secondary sources on the laughter and shouting, they would trump or supplement this primary sourcing via {{cite video}}. Until then, we do not cheat the reader out of a complete article by hiding info that can be sourced to the movie.

1. As well, please stop using year-old archives to imply that I am attempting to implement an interpretation of the children's laughter. Point to how I am adding interpretive content now. If you cannot do this, i would suggest you simply stop mischaracterizing my current edits. It's uncivil, especially when I have asked you to stop, or provide a recent instance of such.
2. And if you could perhaps stop implying that I am sock-puppeting (when you have no evidence of such), it would be much appreciated.
3. The music has been placed in the music section because its is is easier to find by the reader, and not scattered all over the article. It isn't rocket science to put the music in the Music section of the article. That's how we do it in Wikipedia.

I hope this answers your questions, as I am pretty much tired of saying the same thing over again. Either you will listen and respond politely, or you won't. If its the latter, I won't be responding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Kevin Crust is specifically talking about sound, and music is a part of that. The "sound of children laughing" should be grouped appropriately, and the contemporary references referring to the T.S. Eliot have been placed in the correct section. I'm still waiting on your secondary source that supports including the trivial sound effect of children laughing. At least we have it in the correct section, now. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summary

please discuss edits you are well aware are going to need consensus for inclusion. You have edit-warred this action for almost two weeks now. Just stop

Er, what? All of the information is in the article. What do I need consensus for? Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, care to explain this strange revert/deletion of material that I added to expand the article? [12][13] Do you need to be reminded of WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR? It's totally inappropriate for you to blanket revert expansion of this article when all of the disputed content is intact. And just in case you decide to make your fourth revert, here's your third:[14] Please note, you've reverted every edit, expansion, and change I've made to this article since April 22. That's not appropriate behavior. Either learn to collaborate and work with others, or go somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Current version

Arcayne, if you want to discuss the current version of the article, then you are welcome to do so. Blanket reverting me with no explanation on talk is not acceptable. I've expaned the article in good faith. I do not have to ask your permission to edit this or any other article. On the other hand, you need to explain your reverts. After being here for a few years, I would expect that you would know the rules by now. Explain your reverts. The current version of the article has removed all OR connections between sound effects, the shantih, and the credits - and yet - has preserved ALL of the information intact. Sound has been moved to the sound section and the Shantih has been moved to the themes. I believe it was Erik who first suggested this and you appear to have agreed with him. So, since the content is intact and the OR issue is removed, the only thing you need to do now is find a secondary source to support your "observation" of the credits, as it is purely trivial. Perhaps I should quote Blueboar from the OR policy talk page: "Very often, the problem is that editors see a connection between two things, but do not bother to establish that they are directly related. If you want to discuss X in an article about Y, try finding a source that connects X to Y... then you can go on to discuss X." If you want to discuss the importance of the sound effects of children laughing in relation to the Shantih, then please find a source that does just that. We've got sources that talk about the sounds and music in relation to the credits, and the Shantih in relation to the themes. We do not have sources that discuss the sound effects of children laughing and the Shantih. Please do not respond with "it's my observation of the film" when it is clear that you are picking and choosing what you wish to "observe". Never mind the fact that you have expressed your personal beliefs on this subject throughout the archives, going so far as to say:

One of the things that ties the shantih at the end to the story is that the sounds of children's laughter and playing is heard while the credits roll (and while end title music plays). After the title music ends, close to the end of the credits, the children sounds are still heard, which fade at the same time the shantih fades. then there are 4 more seconds of silence until the film flickers the way it does before the lights go up. Arcayne 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have stated on several occasions that it is part of the story, and is part of the plot as final piece of the story, tied together by the sounds of children playing and laughter. These sounds continue in the background, while the music plays, while the credits run their course. The sounds stop after the Shantih is displayed...Simply put, the Shantih is part of the plot because it occurs during the sustained past of the film, tied to it by the sounds of children laughing and playing throughout the credits and musical accompaniment. It is stated, like dialogue or graffiti on a wall, and not purely thematic (like the presence of pets, or the fact that Theo never touches a gun). That the Shantih is also thematic is not disputed. However, it is a part of the plot as well. I am not going to spend more than a moment to address the rather silly claim that the sound of children laughing may not even be that, and is not up for us to decide, because if that were true, then nothing we can observe throughout the entire movie is up to us to interpret, and a plot synopsis itself in an invalid concept. Nor am I going to address the prior claims that the sounds or the words were diegetic in nature, as it simply doesn’t meet the definition of such. And I think it would be unfair to address the claims that the laughter and sounds of children does not “reflect directly upon the structure of the plot or its conclusion” - in a movie about a possible future without children at all. Arcayne 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The observable fact that the items aforementioned are actually in the movie, and a continuation of the storyworld are inescapable and honest. To deny they exist is silly, as the proof of one's own eyes from viewing the movie clearly shows. Arcayne 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, the sounds of children laughing and playing as well as the Shantih have thematic components. They are also technically a synoptic part of the movie, not as set dressing, not as lighting, not as background, but by themselves. And I have said this before, but the practical...While I personally think that he tells us that everything works out by using the sounds of children laughing and playing, it has proven (at least here) to be very ambiguous indeed. Arcayne 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only a partial quote of your extensive theory you've invented. So, the justification for your inclusion is on record. You are convinced that there is a link between the children laughing and the shantih in the credits, which is why you continue to remove the music in the credits - the music that takes up the majority of the credits and is sourced to the LA Times. So, we have your theory on record. And that's just the part from archive 2; there's four more archives where you talk about it. And still, not a single secondary source supports this interpretation. In fact, no reliable source links the sound effects of children laughing to the shantih, and no RS even mentions the sound. Now, do you want to explain why you have been removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced synthesis? Viriditas (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is unacceptable

Unfortunately, Viriditas chose to participate in gaming the system to lock his version in place. He made his 3rr (1 2 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later. I am giving notice that I will not participate in any discussion of which Viriditas is a part in this article as a result. This sort of back-handed maneuver used while edit-warring is unacceptable, and because of it, I cannot see any proof that Viriditas is willing to accept any compromise that doesn't result in his version. Therefore, discussion to seek a compromise is moot, and I will not waste my time thusly. I will treat this behavior appropriately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Film, not movie

For the sake of Arcayne... the British English term is film, not movie. Apart from the lovely red lines that Firefox is currently showing me under the word 'movie', the Cambridge Online dictionary agrees with me: 1
This article is about a British film, and so should be written in British English. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "for the sake of Arcayne" is not the best way to start off a discussion, so please be and remain nice, please.

Secondly, as I pointed out on your discussion page days ago, the term movie is not an unknown one in the UK (and why you never bothered to discuss the matter before again reverting is beyond me).

It is not a US-specific term. Never has been (though it, like film itself, appears to have been invented in the US). While film is also used, it is not used to the exclusion of all else. Lots of other dictionaries refer to movie and film as synonyms. (1, 2, 3 the latter citation containing references to four other dictionaries). The term film is perhaps more 'formal' (suggested by how searching 'movie' in wikipedia redirects to 'film').

Therefore, presenting an argument that the word "movie" cannot be used to describe a cinematic presentation is inadequate to this discussion. I can appreciate that you - as a subject of the Crown - might never use it yourself, but others who consider themselves such do use the term, and with an frequency than an American student studying there (like I was) doesn't get a second look when I use the term. I find it rather perplexing that you would prefer to edit war over this particular item, but it needs to stop, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The references you have supplied are all American websites- we are not debating whether the word 'movie' exists or not; we are debating whether or not it is accepted in British English. Standard British English, not colloquial English. The term 'movie' may be used in conversation by British people, but that is not a reflection of dictionary English. The website I used as my reference point was the Cambridge Dictionary.

I created this section about a week ago- at your suggestion, in fact. I reverted back to my edit when you didn't respond.

I don't quite understand why you have an issue with me changing one spelling to fit in with the remainder of the article, apart from the fact that you deem this to be 'your area'. Your opinion has no more worth than mine, and yet you are the one senselessly reverting. If it was as simple as a one time occurrence of 'film' and 'movie', then fine- but my point is, there are over a hundred instances of the word 'film' in this article. Unless you plan on going through and changing every single last one of them, then I don't think it's unreasonable for me to change one instance of 'movie'. I'm not going to be intimidated by your bullying tactics. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am going to ask you to avoid making personal attacks: suggesting that the article is "my area" implies you are accusing me of ownership or "bullying"; "senselessly reverting" is another uncivil move down a path that isn't going to help our conversation, and would create some difficulties for you that you might consider yourself better off without. In other words, be polite, civil and professional; I have been such with you. If you cannot be such, you will find your experiences in Wikipedia to be increasingly unpleasant. That isn't bullying or threatening; that is cold, hard fact.

I think you are basically misunderstanding my intent here; allow me to clear matters up for you. I am fully aware of the inclusion of the word film elsewhere in the article. It is used somewhat redundantly, and I do intend to correct some of that redundancy. Now, please re-read that last sentence carefully. There is no (and has not been) intent to alter all' of the mentions of 'film' to 'movie'. If you thought that was my intent, then you might have saved yourself a great deal of time and confusion by asking me, (or simply responding to my post on your usertalk page).

Again, the term 'movie' is used in the UK synonymously with 'film', and the references I provided are not solely American ones. The term is used within Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia and (presumably) the rest of the English-speaking world as another word for film. For crying out loud, we even disambiguate it here at wiki-en! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see it, we're going around in circles. These are the issues, in my eyes.

1. The use of the word 'movie' in British English
2. Maintaining the same style throughout the article
3. The ongoing edit war
4. You think I'm making personal attacks on you, I think you're being aggressive and threatening.

This is my take on it

1. We aren't going to agree on whether 'movie' is used within the UK.
2. The article should use either film or movie, but not both. At the moment, it would make more sense to change the one usage of movie.
3. I didn't know you'd written on my talk page until after I'd added this section. I don't, generally, check it as I am normally logged in. I reverted my edits because I didn't know you had responded.
4. I find your attitude to be quite aggressive, and I don't like being threatened. I'm sorry if you've taken my point to be personal; it wasn't intended to be, but you initially reverted my edits without explanation.

In summary, I think we should request a third party's opinion. KillerKat (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (aka 80.7.186.169)

Thank you for your apology for your behavior. I apologize for taking offense at it. Allow me to respond to your points, as you made them.

1. I agree that you and I do not agree on the topic of usage
2. I do not agree that an absolutist (either/or) approach is warranted here, especially since both 'movie' and 'film' are used within the UK (and the rest of the English speaking world). I don't really see a break in style.
3. I am sorry you missed my usertalk comments in your anon. I guess its all the more reason to not edit anonymously, as you can miss some important conversations.
4. Again, I am sorry you find my behavior aggressive; I felt the same way about yours, and when pushed, my first inclination is to shove (be thankful I didn't act on it). Clearly, both of us feel the other was being a bit too macho. Let's wipe the slate clean and admit neither of us were being our best selves. As for reverting, you've been here long enough (under any account) to know that being reverted isn't cause for retaliating with guns blazing. When reverted, head to discussion. That's why we have BLP. Doing so might have gotten us to the point of seeking an RfC a lot sooner.

I agree that, if you cannot consider the possibility that 'movie' is ever used in the UK, then perhaps RfC or 3O is our next step. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Googling for film movie site:en.wikipedia.org gives me 106,000 hits. I think it's clear that referring to a movie as a film (or is it vice versa?) is a completely acceptable practice on the English Wikipedia. I don't see the relevance of a regional preference between the two in an article on a motion picture that was released in multiple countries. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article a little Overdone

I don;t know if its jsut me, but the way this article is written seems to make it out to be some great feat of intellectual art, but I personally think the arbitrary references to Dante's comedia etc etc are a little strained an tenuous.86.140.39.212 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think it's fairly well written and cited. If you think it contains speculative, uncited or synthesized info, tag it or bring the matter here - let us know what you have an issue with. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Government propaganda

The article says that the UK government is one of the last remaining viable governments in the world. Is the evidence for this an obvious piece of government propaganda that was being played on the buses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.130.151 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch the film more carefully. It is playing on the tvs there, but elsewhere as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another hint that law and order has broken down elsewhere is that the artwork in Battersea Power Station is sourced from museums all over Europe. Not definitive of course. Greglocock (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional Pop-culture references

While Theo is visiting his cousin, an image of a large, lighter than air pig is seen over a factory. This is an image taken from the cover of the Pink Floyd album Animals. Animals, by the way, is a piece predicated on the descent of human behavior into barbarity when faced with adversity. I am sure there are probably a number of such references, but this is one I caught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.216 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it's already in the article, and it is cited. We cannot add our observations - only those from people who we can cite as notable, reliable and verifiable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The link in the Pink Floyd Animals reference goes to a page that doesn't include the cited information.

Not financial success?

Are we sure? Is there a ref for this?

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have the same issue. Though there is a linked reference it does give some weekend grosses, but does not state 'success' or 'failure' or anything but a number. Further in the article is a more detailed financial statement. If no objection I'm going to remove that one phrase. - Rapscallion (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Road

This section seems to be synthesis, by linking to one article and then trying to tie the film to it. Probably should be removed. 88.109.166.78 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not seems - it is 100% original research (added by an anon) based on two sources that have nothing to do with the film. I'm curious why it has been allowed to remain in the article. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the Fishes kill Jasper?

I'm not positive but I could have sworn it was the government that found and killed him, as they called him a terrorist and said that they knew he had been there weeks before. Seeing as to how this is not cited anywhere I suggest either deleting that section or confirming who killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.179.99 (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that conclusion? Most of the citations already present point to the Fishies doing the dastardly deed upon Jasper. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly the dreadlocked Patric, one of the leading members of the Fishes, who shoots Jasper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

The article seems to have improved since its promotion. There are still some things left that could be improved though:

• At more than 1,100 words, the plot summary is far too long, and seems more like a retelling than a summary. WP:FILMPLOT says "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." I don't think that is the case here, I think it is just excessive wordiness on the part of the editors.
• There are no pictures. I don't know the exact history of this article, but I assume screenshots have been removed en masse due to copyright paranoia. In an article such as this, a couple of low-resolution, fair use screen shots are not only permissible, but highly recommendable, even necessary to fully convey the story. Lampman (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the input. I'll look around and try to find a few that are appropriate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Longest Cut Scene in the Movie

As far as I can tell the longest cut scene is 1:20:25-1:27:42, totaling 7 minuets and 17 seconds. During this cut there are blood splatters on the lens from 1:23:23 until they are focused out of in 1:24:33 --Ekidnagrrl17 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See also: 2019, the fall of NY

What is the connection between this film and the obscure picture in the 'see also' section? Apologies if i've missed something. --Williamsburgland (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No 1984?

There are many references to the book in this movie, one of the more resounding ones with me where Theo enters the Ark of Arts, which is undoubtedly meant to resemble one of the ministries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any references to Nineteen Eighty-Four at all (except perhaps the totalitarianism, however the motivations behind the government's policies are very different in Children of Men from those in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the leaders are all on a sadistic ego trip) the 'Ark of Art' is located in Battersea Power Station, a real building in London - User:TashkentFox 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a simple question...

"Amongst a genre-spanning selection of electronic music, a remix of Aphex Twin's "Omgyjya Switch 7", which includes additional samples of screams not present on the original can be heard during the scene in Jasper's house,..."

Could anyone tell me where to find the version of the song they use in the movie? I, personally, like it a whole lot better than the original, or was it made specifically for the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.48.199 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Renault Avantime

It is not a Renault Avantime, it has four doors, it is just a Renault Espace with a fake boot. Hektor (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities in categories

As this is a multi-national production, I have removed specific nationalities in the categories. It makes no sense to have the British sci-fi and the American thriller categories. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Miriam's appeal to the Angel Gabriel

In the 'PLOT' section of the page, Miriam's appeal to the Angel Gabriel to intervene on the refugee bus, as they are entering Bexhill, is described as 'faking religious mania'. I would disagree with this as her actions appear to be entirely genuine. The film has clear religious undertones and she is depicted as a very spiritual person- the Angel Gabriel is a universal religious figure of major importance in more than one Worldwide belief system, why is her act described as fake? Mullite (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

She acts in that way to distract the guard. If she was trully caring about her own well beaing enough to pray then she wouldn't have continued her act so feverently after the guard (who is armed...) hit her-she new if she let up she'd evoke suspicion. Its clearly her sacrificing herself to save the duo. =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.18.207 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

This article says "Shanti, Shanti, Shanti" is displayed at the end, which it is but as "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih" while the Shanti article says: "Shanti, Santhi or Shanthi (from Sanskrit शान्तिः śāntiḥ)" So is this a mistake here on wikipedia (lacking a Shantih, ending with h) or of the filmmakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.202.228 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)