Jump to content

Talk:Soylent Green/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Burstein, Matthew (2009). "The Thanatoria of Soylent Green: On Reconciling the Good Life with the Good Death". In Shapshay, Sandra (ed.). Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 275–296. ISBN 0801890772.
  • Murray, Robin L.; Heumann, Joseph K. (2009). "Environmental Nostalgia and The Tragic Eco-Hero: The Case of Soylent Green and 1970s Eco-Disaster Film". Ecology and Popular Film: Cinema on the Edge. Horizons of Cinema. State University of New York Press. pp. 91–108. ISBN 0791476774.

Overpopulation?

Does the film explicitly state that the world is overpopulated? The impression I always got from this film is that the masses are forced to live in cities (not suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas). Heston mentions that the countryside is heavily guarded and is used to grow food for the elite. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of the movie shows the date, the city, and the population which is 40 million. Later on in the movie Sherly and Thorn talk about the "other cities" which are no different and that the farms in the country are under military guard. 75.127.181.211, 2013-09-19 16:04:31
To be specific, the whole point of the introductory sequence of the movie is to show the human population (at least in the United States) exploding over the generations since the early decades of the country. It ends at AD 2020, showing New York City having a population of 40 million. So, yes, the implication is quite clear, that this is the result of a Malthusian population explosion, and now there are too many people to feed. (No mention is made about the rest of the world, which we can only assume is at least as bad.) — Loadmaster (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Source of the bodies

It has been a few years since I watched the movie, but I'm fairly certain that the only confirmed source of the bodies was from the euthanasia clinics. Thorn follows the truck that takes Sol away from the euthanasia center and sees that it winds up at the food processing plant. There are riot scoops that appear early on in the film and scoop people up into the backs of trucks, but it's never hinted that those are the primary source of meat. Since they're called in by the police, presumably the people scooped into them go to jail. --4.246.9.180 09:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just watched it, and I did not see any implication that the people picked up by the scoops were taken to the processing plant. A recent edit reinserted the statement that they were. I'm going to revert it. -- LonelyPilgrim 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well since the riots start with a food shortage and end when the supply of soylent rations is back, then the goverment would have to have recived a large influx of ingredients during the riot. it would make sense to utilise all the extra meat they could get, and the rioters could be that extra meat. 84.67.150.114 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's conjecture, and not allowed see WP:OR. Mallanox 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conjecture or inference?

Conjecture. The movie makes no reference to the fate of those scooped. I'd suggest that it would make sense for the government to use all people who died in government custody, but nowhere in the story do they even suggest that. If you can find a credible movie reviewer (i.e. movie reviewer that either Wikipedia has an article on, or that IMDb links to) who says that the bodies that are used for Soylent Green come from the scoops, then I have no problem with including it.
Honestly, have you ever heard of food riots? They start when food is scarce, and they end when food comes back. The fact that the food comes back has nothing to do with the fact that people were rioting. In the case of the movie, the food comes only on appointed days, and there's rioting because the people want the food. Soylent Green only comes on Tuesday, and they run out every Tuesday. That's why there's rioting. superlusertc 2007 July 30, 04:33 (UTC)
It's been a while, but having just watched the movie, the claim is that the Shortage is due to a "transportation" problem, and not a production shortage. TheHYPO (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

Does anyone else feal that the 'Cultural references' section is getting out of hand. -- Solipsist 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. —Morven 17:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
In fact, looking at the list, I can't think that any of it adds value to the article. I think it could all be replaced by a simple paragraph stating that "Soylent Green has been referenced in numerous movies, TV shows and songs, including <very short list>" —Morven 17:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the the list: it's interesting and entertaining, and gives reasonable detail to allow understanding of the points. More information on the plot would be welcome, it's obviously very different from the book. - dave souza 20:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

some of those don't have anything to do with soylent green other than cannabalism so they could be removed but the list should stay.

"Soylent Green is people!" has become such a staple of pop culture that to make a list of every reference to it would be ridiculously unmanagable. I have replaced it with a shorter paragraph called "Cultural impact" that, I hope, explains this phenomenon easier than a list of jokes from various television series could. Captain Yesterday 18:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wish there were some way to get Xenogears in here without being massively spoilerific. Those who've played that game will know what I mean. 65.190.52.238 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Gah! I JUST started playing Xenogears :O!!! 24.116.172.29
AAARRRGGGH!!! *slaps with a stick* --LonelyPilgrim 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh, it's pretty damn obvious, when the place is called the "Soylent System" or something similar (been a while since I've played the game. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're letting a list of references creep in again. Are we going to allow this? I tend to think it's going to get out of hand again. There are probably hundreds of references out there, and people are going to list even the most minor. If we're going to list references, I think we ought to vote on which are most significant. —LonelyPilgrim 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the list of references: it should also be expanded to include today's current usage, specifically regarding how people derogatorily refer to stem cell research as Soylent Green. This is important as it pertains to a current issue. Gemini79 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A citation was requested for usages of "Soylent Green" regarding stem cell research. Here are several examples taken from various blogs and forums, commonly discussing the matter of Stem Cell research & relating it to Soylent Green: [1] [2] [3] Gemini79

Connection to Nazi propaganda film?

Skywayman added:

When Sol is "going home" the background score on the film is Beethoven's Symphony #6. The same musical piece was used in the Nazi propaganda film Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt (The Führer grants the Jews a town). The film was an attempt by the Nazi regime to portray the Jewish ghettos as happy suburban communities.

How exactly does the fact that Symphony No. 6 was used in Nazi propaganda relate specifically to Soylent Green? Does the reference Skywayman cites ("The World at War") actually relate this to the movie? I don't see the connection. The use of the symphony in the "going home" film is not propagandistic. Symphony No. 6 is the "Pastoral" symphony, and so is directly related to the imagery of the film. Symphony No. 6 was also used in Fantasia, but I don't think it's relevant to mention that here. Can anyone justify this addition? —LonelyPilgrim 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any relation between this movie and the one presented here (The Führer Gives a Village to the Jews) Concentration_camp_Theresienstadt#Used_as_propaganda_tool ? 85.204.119.88 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the same film User 85.204.119.88 points out. Beethoven's #6 is probably used in lots of pieces and it's merely a coincendence in most of them. I remember a Simpson's episode used it once, I'm sure there's no connection. Maybe it is just a coincidence as well but the symbolism of a character clearly identified as Jewish being disposed of by the state strikes me as not coincidental. It may have been done deliberately by the film makers to hint at this. I noticed the score was identical when viewing Thames Television production of The World at War which came out around the same time. They included a scene from that propaganda film so I listed that as my source since I do not have access to the original film. SkyWayMan 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that is some interesing trivia! In my opinion considering the time frame of the "World at War" series for release, the time frame for release of "Soilent Green", the fact that E. G. Robinson was a Jew, and that the going home aspect is comparable in some ways to the propagada effect from the Nazi piece, it's a fairly valid observation. But I suppose all of this is now cut out due to the trivia aspect. 14:05PT, 15 July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

References in Futurama

The show mentions Soylent Green ALOT, maybe it should be noted? MikeyB! 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this because other users are correct that if you list every reference it would go on forever. Then again both are set in New York of the future which could explain the writers using it "ALOT". SkyWayMan 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned? It's made later and has nothing to do with the movie or its production, it should rather be made note of it on the futurama page and redirect to the soylent green page.

Spoiled Plot Twist Leading to Popularity?

I do not understand how a movie trailer that spoiled the film's plot twist could have enhanced the popularity of the film or its title as a popular culture term, as suggested in the article. Perhaps this idea could be explained and also referenced - I cannot find anything on this subject, although an analysis on why the term is so often referenced would benefit the article greatly. --ChrisJMoor 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you think about it, a movie that has nothing going for it but "in the future, this one kind of food is, like, really popular" isn't going to garner nearly as much interest as cannibalism. People are interested in, say, the identities of murderers for its own sake, or of ghosts, and even the last words of fictional tycoons, but Soylent Green is an interesting case where the twist is almost its only hook. —Lenoxus 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The trailers (short and long versions both) did NOT at any time show or state what "the secret of Soylent Green" actually was. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I have delisted the article as a GA, per the following (copied from WP:GA/D)--Konstable 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no references what so ever. Also, the article only contains a plot summary, trivia, and a small paragraph on the cultural impact. If this is all it takes to make a good article then the Clerks. page i've been working on should also be a good article. Andman8 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Delisted I'm not sure what the guidelines are for the plot summaries, probably no references are necessery, but there are other things that need references on that article - for instance the cultural impact and the trivia sections.--Konstable 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"New Orleans Sludge-metal Band Soilent Green" - this is un-encyclopaedia-like. I could change it to "splash-metal" and it would be just as meaningful

Un-encyclopaedia like? You mean, writing for dumb people? Dumbing things down by using incorrent terms, or in this case, not the right terms, is rather "un-encyclopaedia like". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia reference: National Public Radio

On April 1, 2007, the National Public Radio show "Weekend Edition", as an April Fools Day prank, added a tag line indicating that it was "... sponsored by the Soylent Corporation, manufacturers of Soylent Green. Soylent Green is people."

The spoof was admitted on their April 8 show.

I'd post this text directly, but want to check the actual quote before I do so.

Typofixer76 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate to add mention to the article. This article used to have a giant section filled with many, many references by other works. It was removed as an unmanageable list. See #Cultural references on this page for some of the discussion. The movie is a pop culture thing, and as such gets referenced frequently. Every such reference is thus not automatically notable. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:Notability for the rationale behind this. Thanks for taking the time to post about it here, though. —DragonHawk (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd never heard of this movie so I specifically looked for the references section and found none... it would be nice to see a few that aren't the sci-fi genre just self-referencing. NPR is prime. Potatoswatter 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant spoiler tag

This is one of many articles on Wikipedia that contain a redundant warning after the clearly labelled "Plot synopsis" section heading or something similar. I have removed this unnecessary typographical element because the meaning of the heading is clear. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However the first paragraph contains a significant spoiler (i.e. the lasts line of the film) without actually having a spoiler warning - please can this ee reinstated. CheShA

A "Plot Synopsis" or "Summary" is by definition a "plot spoiler". This is not a movie review site or IMDB, it should be assumed that the article will give a more or less complete rundown of the important elements of the movie. Think in terms of Cliff Notes. The whole idea of having to "warn" someone that a WIkipedia article on a movie "might" contain plot details is just silly. WiccaWeb 02:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

color or black and white?

Why are the IMDB photos sometimes in black and white? Are there two different versions of the film?

Because it was the early 1970's, and most hollywood promotional images back then were done in black & white photography. It was just the times, and the way hollywood did things back then. Xaa

still photographs from movies are not provided by the cinematography but taken by photographers on set using slr cameras probably sometimes with b/w stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler or not?

Because of the film's cult popularity, the term "soylent green" and the famous last line "Soylent Green is people!" have become catch phrases in English. Many subsequent works refer to Soylent Green for either dramatic or comedic effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


It's a spoiler, but no spoiler warnings please. See WP:SPOILERS.--Martyleehi (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro

The intro says "Soylent green is the supposedly natural, but really artificial, plankton food product at the center of the story." If Soylent green is people, doesn't still make it natural? Either way it's not a very good introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Futurama has an episode where there's a mock "Iron Chef" cook-off, and the main ingredient is Soylent Green. Not sure if this should be in, but it's the type of thing you'd find in a lot of other movie articles currently on Wikipedia. --Scottymoze

Joking references to "Soylent Green" are also in The Simpsons and Brewster Rocket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I'd like to redo the synopsis as it seems to contain a lot of original research information and assumption, and is a bit overspecific. The thin yellow smog, the "malthusian catastrophe", the government encouraging euthanasia (I didn't see encouragement)... etc. I'd like to par it down to stuff actually explicitly said in the film. Any objections? TheHYPO (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, maybe the government wasn't encouraging euthanasia in the same way that the fictional UK government does in some dystopian films (e.g., with propaganda ads and posters), but the film does depict a government euthanasia clinic.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical response

I think the critical response section needs work. In my opinion it would be much more relevant to quote a review that was made around the same time the film came out, and then maybe in addition to that quote some more current reviews. This would better show the actual critical response the film got at the time it was published. --Twinzor (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

greenhouse effect

I feel that the specific reference to greenhouse gas effects in the introduction is an anachronism. This was not an issue in 1973 (movie), let alone in 1966 (book). Bart van Herk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.108.1 (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the movie does use the term "global warming". | Loadmaster (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The film had an environmental engineer as a consultant. global warming and the greenhouse effect was well known in scientific circles at that time, and i would be shocked if the novelist harry harrison didnt know of it as well. probably came from the novel.76.232.11.212 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The reference to greenhouse effect should be put back. This movie should be noted for being one of the first dramatizations of global warming. It is not anachronistic. See History of climate change science. For example Paul R. Ehrlich wrote in 1968 "the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide". --gnirre (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me tell you: I haven't researched the history of climate change science, or any such thing. And there is a great push to politicize the question of "climate change." But I graduated high school in 1975, and we did something then called "the senior coffin," into which we put items of the times. I specifically remember a TIME magazine I put in with an article regarding a possible coming Ice Age. I've heard people deny that such an article existed by misrepresenting it. For instance, Snopes (among many others) "debunks" this by asserting there was no such cover story. That's true, there wasn't. And many people have faked covers to make it appear it WAS a cover story (which, again, it wasn't). But I know the article appeared, and in spite of many folks denying it, here's the link to Time magazine archives with the text of the article, dated June 24, 1974. There is no doubt that the article WAS published. To imply that global warming was trending as a scientific theory during this period seems a bit disingenuous, unless one considers TIME to not be a reliable source. I think this validates 80.79.108.1's original point, although Loadmaster's assertion that it IS mentioned in the movie is also true. Obviously, climate change was a concern at the time, but as to which way temperatures would move, I would say there was no "consensus." FWIW Jororo05 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your research could include global cooling, and its references showing that in the 1970s most scientific indicated global warming, but media exaggerated the minority view that the greenhouse effect would be outweighed [in the short term] by atmospheric pollution reflecting sunlight. As it discusses, the Time story was an outlier in science. Make Room, Make Room as science fiction didn't need no stinkin' consensus, and Harrison had more than 30 years of studies to draw on indicating that warming had occurred due to fossil fuel use. . . dave souza, talk 06:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Production method of soylent green?

I admit that I have not seen the movie...it's quite a ways before my time. However, I am very curious...does the movie go into any details of the actual production of SG, or does it just show bodies going in one end of a machine and wafers coming out the other? Is there any indication of the amount of wafers each human becomes?

I know this is a little morbid...to be honest, I'm currently studying economics and I was considering how an economic graph to describe institutionalized cannibalism would look, based on the topic here. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No real details are shown. Thorne sees the bodies (wrapped in bedsheets) move along a conveyor belt and then dropped into a large vat of liquid; walking a bit farther along in the plant, he then sees a conveyor belt holding soylent green wafers. The conversion process is simply implied, albeit rather effectively. (I know this is a plot spoiler, but you wouldn't be reading this if you you didn't already know it.)
You really should see the movie; its warning about the consequences of mankind's disregard for the planet (and human life) is still relevant today, regardless of whether or not you agree with green politics. And it's got one of the most touching scenes ever done by Heston. | Loadmaster (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall any specifics being detailed either, the whole point is that it's swept under the rug so to speak. But the basic premise seemed to be that once a malthusian point was reached where the food supply was insufficent to meet demand, a way to balance the population with the food supply had to be reached. By culling people of a certain age and making them into food this was achieved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

I see someone added a bit about global warming and I went to check and found it asserted in this article [4] that the first use of the phrase "global warming" was in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green. Is that true? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. At least not according to [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-transcript-heston.html Soylent Green Script - Dialogue Transcript] {{citation}}: Check |url= value (help). However, global warming is indeed an part part of the plot, and maybe this is the first movie to dramatize the phenomenon? --gnirre (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

I don't have time to fix it now, but someone familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding links should go over this article and de-link most of the internal hyperlinks. For example, we don't need links to "liquor," "soap", "prostitute", "murdered", "videogames", etc. If I have some time, I'll come back and fix this myself... -- AdamRoach (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of trivia to me, not only this, but can you imagine doing something like this with, say Star Wars? It clutters up the article. Jasonaltenburg (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have to agree, it's just a list of every time the film is mentioned. The whole section should go IMO. Muleattack (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else got an opinion on this?Muleattack (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, my take on "trivia list" sections is that only works that make direct references (as opposed to parody, indirect, or covert references) to the original work, or somehow incorporate actual snippets or samples of the original work, should be considered as notable enough for inclusion. Thus I support the deletion made of all the references, with the possible (but only slightly possible) exception of the song "Soylent Green" by the German industrial band wumpscut:, since it uses samples from the actual (German-dubbed) film. Mention of a popular catch-phrase from the movie would also be appropriate for inclusion, as long as it had a supporting citation (e.g., from "AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes"). — Loadmaster (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think some acknowledgement needs to be made of it's pop culture impact just because so many TV shows, other movies ect. reference it. I know many people (myself included until I read the article) who have never seen the film and don't really know anything about it but are still famililar with the name Soylent Green and the line "Soylent Green is people!". It shows the impact the movie had and that it continues to be popular even today. 86.148.66.175 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If third-party reliable sources discuss it, feel free to add information with an appropriate reference. Doniago (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Real world analogues?"

Seriously, what the hell is this section doing here? I'm assuming I can't be the only person who think that is a bad precedent to set for film/literature articles, but then again, it's still here - did I miss a discussion? In the 1984 article, it brings up the fact that people often allude to the book/films for social/political reasons. But I doubt anyone would tolerate a politically-motivated list of Big Brother analogues. NeutronTaste (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This reference had nothing to do with the subject of the article, so I deleted it. It's a common talking point among militant vegans and is not entirely based on fact. Human hair is not used in the production of human food products.----

Added section for the new remake.

I just added some info and an IMDB link reference to the remake for Soylent Green set to be released in 2012. Not much information is out there on who's in it or if any of it's story gets changed but I got the ball rolling incase anyone knows any information please add it to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaakonXCI (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Production

removed paragraph from Production which discussed the directors previous experience and later films, none of which has any bearing on this film.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Source of "Soylent Green is made with people!"

Soylent Green famously ends with "Soylent Green is made with people!" Lu Xun's Water Margin ends with "It's people. The buns are made with people!" Does anyone have RS that one come from the other? PPdd (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As at Talk:Lu Xun, I'll point out that you didn't link to a version of Water Margin written by Lu Xun. Did you have another work in mind? or just got confused? — LlywelynII 14:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below material has been unsourced long-term. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with proper references. Doniago (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the factual portions of the above that mention the conductor, composers, and piece names, which are visible in the end credits of the movie itself. I did not include any of the flowery opinion text, which was unsourced. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Simpsons

There have been 3 episodes of the Simpsons that have mentioned Soylent Green. "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", "Bart to the Future", and "Million Dollar Abie". Various other articles have Simpsons episodes listed under Cultural References and this article should be no different. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Soylent_Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That other articles mention The Simpsons under a cultural references section does not mean that they have handled it correctly. All cultural references in any article should have secondary sourcing to establish that the reference possesses some element of real-world signficance; Wikipedia articles should not contain random lists of popcruft. Also, there's an earlier discussion of Cultural References you may wish to review. Doniago (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons fall under the relevant category of "cultural references". To be mentioned or mocked on the Simpsons is considered to be one of the greatest forms of flattery available. But I guess this article has been hijacked, like many others, by a self appointed Wik-tator.DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But at least you're staying professional... According to what source is being mentioned on The Simpsons "one of the greatest forms of flattery available"? And did you even read the earlier discussions about Cultural References? If you're going to accuse someone of hijacking, you might want to wait for a more clear-cut example of them violating consensus. Doniago (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery ~ Brian Molko. However if you really need a reference, well, here: "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" ~ John Ortved DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well-played, but a book about The Simpsons would not be sufficient to establish that Soylent Green references within the show received significant attention. A nod in Entertainment Weekly or such, that would fit the bill nicely. Doniago (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding a single sentence that mentions 3 episodes causes no harm no foul. It is just another nod to how Solent Green has affected pop culture that surrounds us.DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It sets a precedent for other editors to add "a single sentence" and suddenly we have a 20 item list of cruft. Give it some time for other editors to chime in, or take it to WP:3O if you're feeling impatient. Doniago (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Its been 10 days, no chimes yet.DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You can request a third opinion from an uninvolved party at WP:3O if you'd like. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have meet are off your "personal" requirements. It has now been 11 days, no one else has chimed in. I add to the article and you accuse me of vandalism. Now you want to send me on a wild goose chase. What is it to you? Other then you wanting to be a simple DICK over the whole matter. CHANGE THE FUCKING ARTICLE.DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine is one of the directors of The Simpsons. Shall I call him up and ask him whether being mentioned or mocked on the show is, indeed, the highest form of flattery DEWY believes it is (what's with the ALL-CAPS NAME? USE YOUR INDOORS VOICE!)? I'm sure he's got nothing better to do. Hey, Doniago, you're not just a wiki-tator, but a dicky wiki-tator. Cool. Now you just need someone to call you whacky and you have a new user name.--TEHodson 22:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia?

Without commenting on whether or not the material listed is trivia...I will note that the only information in the section is now reliably-sourced...I will say that I don't believe it's appropriate to call a section "Trivia" if essentially any other heading might be appropriate. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As there's only the one item, we could trim it and add it to the "See also" section: "Soylent (food substitute), a food substitute developed by Rob Rhinehart, named after the film" or similar? We don't need excessive information here, as it has its own article. However, I see no problem with the "Cultural impact" section. I've reverted the rename and removed the tag for trivia as it seems to have been addressed. I'd suggest the user who wants to see this changed discuss here before reverting again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This product is unrelated to the movie in any way. It is simply dietary supliment made with soy, of which there are thousands. The only vague relationship is that it has a name that indicates it is made with soy. This is not sufficient to warrant inclusion, it's not even a cracker, it's a protein drink. =//= Johnny Squeaky 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The article for the food product clearly establishes that it is related to the film, albeit loosely. If you feel it should not even be included as a "See also" link, you're welcome to start a discussion on that matter. In fact you could have added that as an option to the straw poll but you apparently opted not to do so; a new consensus is necessary at this point. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose moving it to "See Also" if that's the consensus. It might help deter the list-bloating issues this article has faced in the past, while a heading such as "Trivia" seems like a magnet for inappropriate information. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes - changing the title of these sections to "Trivia" can only encourage trivia to be added. I see the editor in question is making a habit of this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The idea that calling TRIVIA "trivia" attracts more "trivia" *is not* an acceptable reason *NOT* to accurately label something what it is. If it's TRIVIA, it's "trivia". =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Rob's idea is a good one. Obviously, if such a section includes trivia (and it's borderline here) we don't rename the section we remove the trivia. But yeah, ultimately we try to discourage "trivia" sections so obviously calling a section by that name is a step back. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Folks, the label "In Popular Culture" and similar section labels are a SHAM. Yes, a SHAM. It is an attempt to include "trivia" without the socially unacceptable label "trivia". But none the less, they are the same thing. They are synonyms. Call it what it is, or get rid of it. Trivia is trivia. "In Popular Culture" is trivia. I think it is also important to realize and understand that "trivia" *is not* verboten at Wikipedia, there is no absolute rule that says "no Trivia". It is "discouraged" but NOT disallowed. But it is disingenuous to include "trivia" and call it "In Popular Culture" when in fact it is "trivia". Disingenuous. Accuracy is key, if it's trivia, call it trivia - and label it as such with the trivia tag, or get rid of it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. There is no clear consensus in favor of your changes at this time, so please wait until there is a consensus. Thank you for your consideration. DonIago (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring. There is no clear consensus in favor of your changes at this time, so please wait until there is a consensus. Thank you for your consideration. Lists of trivia are in fact legitimately labeled "trivia". That's why there is a Trivia template. I didn't make up the Trivia template myself. You can call it "cultural whatever" but the "Trivia" tag stays because the content fills all the requirements. Removal of a legitimate template without consensus could constitute vandalism.
You are going to be "hard pressed" to argue that the "Cultural Impact" section does not contain a "list of miscellaneous information" which is the definition of "trivia" in the "Trivia" tag. Therefore, the tag is legitimate. You have some WP:OWN issues here, maybe you should step back and edit elsewhere for a while. =//= Johnny Squeaky 16:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't own the article either, and the changes you're proposing are what is currently being discussed and there is no consensus in favor of your changes. If and when editors are in favor of your changes you're welcome to make them. In the meantime the section should be maintained in a state prior to the contentious edits. DonIago (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't object to the template while the discussion is ongoing. Personally I think it is trivia, but it is trivia that may be of interest to readers which is why I support the suggestion above of moving the link to the "See also" section. However, if the consensus is that it is not trivia i.e. it is of encyclopedic value, then the template should be removed and the title should remain as it is. As it stands, does anyone object to adding the appropriate link to "See also" and deleting the whole section? If not, then I suggest someone goes ahead and does that once the article is unprotected. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
If it is a section that primarily contains "trivia", than the "Trivia" tag is appropriate until such time as the section does not primarily contain "trivia". It's not an "argument", it's about accuratly describing the content of a section and labling is appropriatly. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Some aspects of its cultural impact may be trivial, but that doesn't describe the purpose of the section. Labelling it "trivia" would be a bad idea: would trivia related to plot, critical response, or home video releases go in those sections, or in the "trivia" section? Peter James (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The "purpose" of the section is not the issue. The content is what defines the section, and the content is "trivia". Thus, it is a "trivia" section, and the "Trivia" tag is appropriate. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the section is completely the issue. The purpose defines the content, and always has done on Wikipedia. If the content is determined to be trivia then it should be removed because the purpose of these articles is not to collate trivia. If the content is determined to be encyclopedic then by definition it is not trivia. The consensus will decide which it is, not the sole view of a single editor. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
So, you're saying you can call a section what ever you want, and as long as the title is not "Trivia", it doesn't matter, you can pack it with all the "trivia" you want? I disagree. It doesn't matter what you call a section, if it's packed with "trivia", it's a "trivia" section and the "Trivia" tag is correct. If it's *not* a "trivia" section, than perhaps the "trivia" should be removed? But of course in this case, that would leave an empty section. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that isn't what I have said. I don't know if you are misinterpreting my comments on purpose or not, but it is irrelevant anyway because there isn't a consensus to rename the section. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think we are now mostly talking about the Trivia tag, not the name of the section... But, I really don't understand why people are fighting honesty here. Trivia might be "discuraged", but it's not outright outlawed. If you want to include "trivia", do so and simply lable it accuratly and honestly. No issues! At the very least, "trivia" content should carry the "Trivia" service tag. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll on how to proceed

Feel free to add additional options.

  1. Do not label the section "Trivia" and do not tag it as such.
  2. Do not label the section "Trivia" but do tag it as such.
  3. Label the section "Trivia" and tag it as such.
  4. Label the section "Trivia" but do not tag it.
  5. Delete the section. Move the pertinent information to a "See also" section.

Discussion

  • Support options 1 or 5. "Cultural impact", "In popular culture", etc. sections are common in Wikipedia articles and it is my impression that we do not name them "Trivia" regardless of whether one or more editors deem the content trivial. It is my experience that articles are prone to accumulating inappropriate examples of such (i.e. examples with no third-party sourcing establishing their significance), however, and I am concerned that a "Trivia" section will only encourage this tendency. I would consider deleting the section entirely and moving the information to "See also" to be a reasonable alternative. DonIago (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

trivia, n a. Trivialities, trifles, things of little consequence. b. Useless information or (knowledge of) matters of little importance.
— Oxford Dictionary

If that were how it was used here, we'd obviously just delete it. Usually a "Trivia" section of an article is "Interesting (to some) stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else." If there is a more descriptive and specific title, that should be used. If everything that some thought was "trivial" had to be listed under that heading, may articles would be reduced to a lead and a "Trivia" section. That heading should be a last resort, not the first. My opinion, if anyone cares: "trivia" should be repurposed, or if not possible, deleted. But I think the real-world impact of a movie (not just jokes made in other media) is not trivia. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support option 5 for now, but if additional content is added I may prefer option 1 - I agree with 202.81.242.216 on whether content should be labelled as trivia. I don't oppose the existence of a "cultural impact" section, but the current content isn't worth keeping in this article. Evidence of independent coverage is needed, as well as verifiability, otherwise it's just indiscriminate information and potentially indistinguishable from spam. Soylent (food substitute) is notable, but the source says that it is "called Soylent, after Soylent Green from the book Make Room! Make Room!", so it would be more appropriate in a "cultural impact" section of the article about the book. It should probably be moved there, and a "see also" link to Soylent (food substitute) added in this article. The remainder, "Soylent Green is referred to in a number of television series and other media, either for dramatic or comedic effect", isn't useful without examples or sources. Peter James (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support option 5 or 3 (option 5 would be best). It really doesn't matter if we call it "Cultural impact" or "In popular culture", the content is trivia by any reasonable definition. Lable it as such or get rid of it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolution

My assessment of the above is that the consensus is to delete the section, for the time-being at least (with the option to re-create the section if/when there's more appropriate content for it), and move the existing content to "See also" as appropriate. The article is currently locked for another 24 hours, I believe, but any editor who wishes to is welcome to implement this consensus once the lock has expired. If anyone disagrees with what I've said, feel free to speak up with your interpretation of the discussion. Thank you to everyone who participated! DonIago (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the "See also" section. For example see Mars, or Milky Way – neither one mentions the candy bars. Rather they merely link to the respective disambiguation pages (which contain links to the candy bar articles). I don't see a reason for this article to treat things differently, so I've been WP:BOLD and moved the food substitute Wikilink from the "see also" section to top of the page along with the other disambiguations. Mojoworker (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of this situation to date I rather wish you'd asked for an opinion here before making changes. That said, I'll leave it alone unless other editors express opposition to this change. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry (and sorry I missed participating in the previous discussion). I saw the edit warring occurring and thought the change might put an end to it before someone got into trouble. I'm still hopeful that it has, but if anyone questions the change or my rationale for it, we can move on to the 'D' phase of WP:BRD (whether or not someone actually does the 'R' phase ) and I'll be happy to discuss it further. As an aside, seeing its current state (and rated as 'C'), it's sad to know this was once a good article. Mojoworker (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it matters where the link goes, provided there is a mechanism for navigating from this article to the food substitute article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I don't doubt that you were operating in good faith, especially given the message you just left. :) Afraid someone already did get into trouble, in the sense that they got blocked for edit-warring, but they'd been given ample opportunities to work here instead of making changes unilaterally, so I'd say they dug their own hole. Anyway, as I said, the change doesn't bother me personally, I just tensed up a bit when I saw your changes given that this had been a bit of a hot button lately. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Mao Suits???

Perhaps this belongs in Cultural References . . . I saw the movie for the first time this summer. Did anyone else notice the "elites" in the movie were wearing Mao suits? Was it in the novel??? Did the screenwriter do it??? Richard Fleischer??? It's eerie.User:JCHeverly 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References would be the film's impact on pop culture, not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Cultural Impact

This movie has had significant cultural impact, enough that it should AT LEAST have an article section, if not its own separate article. From the new Soylent meal replacement shakes, to the countless references in popular media like movies, tv shows, and music, the cultural impact is pretty significant. A person who didn't know anything about "Soylent," that's a fact that they should be aware of when they stumble upon this article. otherwise, how are they to differentiate it from any other random movie from the 70's? Leostaley (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at WP:IPC. The best means we have of determining cultural impact is the presence of reliable sources that discuss such impact. What we should not do is create a random list of alleged references to the film that don't have any indication of how they are significant, or at least sources that confirm that they are intentional references to the film. DonIago (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Closely based vs. loosely based inconsistency

The introduction here says:

"The film, which is closely based upon the 1966 science fiction novel..."

While the Soylent page says:

"Soylent Green, a 1973 film based loosely on Harrison's novel"

Czukrae (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave it at "based". Anything else, to my mind, is us forcing our POV on the matter, unless a reliable source has made an explicit statement in such regard. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Global warming and greenhouse gases

This huffpo blog says "Leading man Charlton Heston utters the terms “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” for the first time in Hollywood history." I'd like to see a better source for attributing the words to Heston, though the source I've added shows that the film does explicitly discuss "the greenhouse effect". . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per WP:FILMPLOT, the summary was already excessively long. Might I recommend this be added to Production instead? DonIago (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your trimming, I've simplified this issue in keeping with the shortened plot summary. Not sure if an extended discussion would be appropriate in Production. . dave souza, talk 16:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soylent_Green/Archive_1&oldid=1075140401"