Talk:Children of Men/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Untitled

Re: the plot summary mentioning him falling unconscious, it's pretty clear that he dies, particularly given the "noble sacrifice" theme in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.136.166 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The film ends within two minutes of him passing out. Probably dying but not dead yet. No way to tell for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

I had previously added two simple {{citation needed}} tags to the article and User:Viriditas requested it be discussed on the Talk page.

My thought is quite simple: it is much more congenial to other editors to simply identify that something could use a source than to just copyedit my preferred fix; in other words, it seems to me that, as a courtesy to editors who may have added unsourced claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims were tagged ^{{{citation needed}}} to allow some time for sources to be added.

As for the two specific tags, the claim that the UK government "persecutes" did not seem to be supported by a verfiable source in the body of the article; persecutes being a fairly strong and specific word. The second tag was a simple request for a quotation from whatever editor has the paper source, since their is no URL link that can be followed to verify the claim. N2e (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I need for you to be clear here. Are you saying that there is material in the article that is not supported by the sources in the body (the lead is a summary)? Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(and here is a more detailed Viriditas comment left on N2e's Talk page: )"Thanks, but you'll need to be more specific. Are you saying that the sources in the body of the article do not support the content and that you failed to verify the material? The lead is a summary and does not require sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)"

Well, I thought I was more specific (see above), but since I did update my comment a few minutes after my initial comment on this page, you might have missed it. Let me try again.

I agree with you that sources need not be provided in the lede if verifiable claims are in the body of a Wikipedia article. In this case, I could locate no such source in the article body.

So on to your question. I did not find a cited source for the claim about refugees being persecuted in the body of the article. Persecuted is a far more specific term than merely encountered various obstacles, or faced difficult times partly due to legal issues related to some sort of illegal or undocumented presence in a foreign country, etc. Thus, I thought it ought to be sourced from a standard secondary source. Thus, I added ^{{{citation needed (lead)}}} at that point in the text. I could not verify what might or might not be in the source given much later in the paragraph, because it is a hardcopy source and no URL is provided. Thus, I tagged that source with a ^{{{request quotation}}} tag. This hardly seems like a case of "disruptive tagging" as you asserted in your edit summary comment. I think you ought to assume good faith on my part. I certainly don't think I've done anything, with two simple tags asking for verification, to merit a disruptive tagging assertion made by you. Cheers, and hoping for a better Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that you did not find a cited source for the claim, while at the same time admitting you were unable to look at the source because you could not find a URL. So, I'm afraid we are at an impasse. If you admit that you could not review that source, then you cannot have performed verification. Furthermore, you have not looked at the sources in the body, which the lead summarizes. The fact of the matter is, you should not have added the tags in the first place, because you had no reason to add them. Now, let's get down to brass tacks. The problem here is not the word "persecuted". The definition of the word and the word itself is used throughout the literature, so it is accurate. That the "fugees" were subject to hostility, ill-treatment and harassment because of their refugee status is not up for debate. The problem as you see it, is not the word "persecution", but that the government of the United Kingdom is being accused of this behavior. I am actually sympathetic to your concerns, as that wording was added by User:90.203.247.203 in January 2008, with a change from "Britain to "United Kingdom".[1] Previous to that edit, User:Erath changed it from "England" to "Britain" in June 2007.[2] Before that time, User:BrandonYusufToropov added the word "England" in May 2007.[3] Before that time, it only said "the last functioning government". So the question for me is not the use of the term "persecution"; that is clearly supported in the sources. The question is whether we should be naming the state of the United Kingdom or the island of Great Britain and if there is anything wrong with doing so. I suspect that the majority of sources support that term as well. The paragraph already opens with "Set in the United Kingdom of 2027", so there is no need to repeat it again. I think it could be rewritten, but the persecution is an essential part of the plot description. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, we are pretty much in agreement. The word persecuted was strong, and I could not find a claim in the body of the article, outside of the lede, that supported that the UK persecuted the fugees. I also could not verify the one source that was given, quite possibly only with the intent to support some later sentence or two, and not the entire section above it.

I simply asked for that claim to be verified with a reliable source citation. It's all rather simple, really. But I don't choose to take the time to argue the case any more than I have. If other editors see this, and weigh in, perhaps we will have a consensus for my simple little argument. If not, time to move on. Wikipedia has millions of articles that could be improved, and the cost of continually going over the same thing here -- when you accused me of bad faith in the first place, (via your edit summary) and have apparently not backed off that claim despite my attempt to clarify what my simple intent was to get the claim sourced -- is too high for me to stay here and debate you. Best, N2e (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim(s) are already verified with RS and there is nothing controversial or inaccurate about them. As far as I can tell, you added citation needed tags to this article for no reason. Whether that kind of editing is disruptive or not is a matter of opinion, I suppose. If you wish to dispute a claim or attempt to verify the information by doing research, that's one thing. But simply adding tags because you can't be bothered isn't acceptable. There isn't anything wrong with the word "persecuted", and I'm not at all clear why you have a problem with it. However, even though this article has been rated as GA-Class since 2007, I'm sure it could always be improved. At the end of the day, the persecution of the refugees by the government is hardwired into the story; the great irony of the film, is that the future of humanity lies with Kee, an African refugee, the very people the government is persecuting. This touch was deliberately added by the director, as the pregnant woman in the book is white. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid shit some American left, asking for removal.

"the film alludes to and resonates with the catastrophic destruction and symbolism of the September 11 attacks."
"this film only supports the notion that terrorism is a great threat to all nations, such as how the Fish detonated an explosive in a local pub. It shows us that only together, can we better help one another in great times of need."


"It shows that freedom needs sacrifice, much like the soldier who in the middle-east, sacrifices each and everyday. Courage, and the ideology of freedom guided this soul to the end, much like the American soldier who serves for the interest of freedom to the American people. Inspiring! "

Don't let the American's Americanize this article, please. This is a film and a book, neither serve to any "great American interest", or support any war in the middle-east. Absolute rubbish. Somebody remove the stupid shit some American left.--Suffery (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By all means. Of course all evidence of the fact that some critics regarded it as clearly progressive anti-War on Terror propaganda based perversely enough on a conservative/religious anti-abortion novel disappeared without a trace years ago. This was a part of the reception of the film and thus not POV, but I guess it was the wrong set of facts for NPOV Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.72.119 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete line

Why is one critics opinion so important that it gets featured in the opening to a heading? I don't know who 'Rowin' is but its just ridiculously silly that its mentioned that he alluded the entirity of the film to a single terrorist attack that happened in his country. Putting aisde the fact that such a statement is selfish and borderline demented; I don't see why this article needs to mention this line considering the director has never confirmed this as his vision, and why should he? With all the terror around, why is some dumb yank getting his say about a movie that he clearly thinks is about him (it isnt)? I'm deleting that line. If you are truely so sentimental that you want tokeep the line in, then you must state it was a feeling expressed by the critic only (a selfish and ridiculous feeling mind you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.184 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Only just noticed that someone has also left a comment on this talkpage indicating the exact same thing Im stating. As long as we're being blunt here, I agree with him 100%, that critics comment is a gross bastardisation of the films intentions and serves only the typical purpose of americans grabbing anything they like and attempting to call it their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.184 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed you have not deleted "that line", so I have done so and copyedited near it for style.

Thank you for your posting above which I moved from the top to the bottom as the latest section here.  Done

Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sound

I've added a reference to the screaming sound heard over Aphex Twin's "Omgyjya Switch 7" (I originally put reference to this song in about six months ago and recently found out the source of the additional screaming dub). It's a popular sound sample by Thanvannispen, check refs for source URL. 194.24.251.237 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) dcolley99 21/12/12

Extra source

Saw this and thought I'd pass it on:Literature and Genetics - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)