Talk:Children of Men/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Single-shot sequences

I know that the Lead doesn't require citation, but I was curious as to why the following section paragraph makes statements that aren't cited:

Children of Men is noted for its use of several lengthy single-shot sequences in which extremely complex actions take place. The longest of these are a three and a half minute shot in which Kee gives birth; a roadside ambush on a country road; and a scene in which Theo is captured by the Fishes, escapes, and runs down a street and through a building in the middle of a raging battle. These sequences were extremely difficult to film, although the effect of continuity is sometimes an illusion, aided by CGI effects.

There are citations afterwards, but it is my understanding that all statements in the body of the article require citation, so as to avoid claims of OR or OR by synthesis. I haven't altered any of the paragraph, as there might be a sustainable reason for not citing statement sources here. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The editor who added that to the article summarized the sources in that section. It's an accurate summary to the best of my knowledge. And, the lead does require citations when content is in dispute. If there is a particular claim you need sourced, best practice is to make that clear. —Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a 'lead' paragraph in that it summarizes the rest of the section. As far as I can tell, everything it says is backed up by the citations to the more detailed explanations underneath. I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines about whether to put citations in introductory paragraphs like this one, but the basic rule of citing is "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." I don't see how this paragraph could be challenged. Cop 633 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my use of the term "lead paragraph" refers to the short summary at the beginning of the article, and not at each section. Each section requires citation for each statement made. I don't recall there being any FA film article that uses the first paragraph of an internal section as a preamble to summarize the rest of the section. However, if there is, could someone point it out to me? I just haven't seen it in any of the FA film articles. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to review the article with a critical eye; we need more of that. But, I don't know of any rule or policy that states that each section needs to be sourced, and articles depending on their subject (mathematics, astronomy, etc.) use sources differently. If you are interested in proposing an applicable standard for WPFilm articles, I encourage you to do so. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Cop633 is the original author of the paragraph. If so, it looks like that paragraph is fully sourced in subsequent citations. Further discussion may be warranted, but there is nothing wrong with applying lead standards to subsections. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't calling for a change in how FA articles are evaluated. I think the section is rather well-written, save for the unreferenced statements. Is it possible that some of that was written in the temp page and ported over? That would explain the introductory paragraph without citations. Again, I do not see any FA Media film articles that employ this style of article structure. I am concerned that this might be a stumbling block to FA nomination, as I don't see any other FA films using the same lack of citation. It does look like Cop633worked at it a bit, but he is still a fairly new user, and may not be aware of the criteria that a lot of FA articles are evaluated upon. Someone is going to say, 'you have uncited info here. Can you show me where other FA articles do that as well? And I think its a valid point. They aren't looking to simply evaluate articles for FA; they are also upholding a set of less tangible criteria, and nothing works like precedent when stating why the article was constructed one way and not another.

I am in no way suggesting it should be cut. Instead, I think it would be a Good Thing to meld the intro paragraph of the subsection into the actual, cited body of the section. this sidesteps entirely the departure from FA precedent. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is fine, and functions as a general, summary style subsection lead with inline citations appearing subsequently. This is acceptable. Remember the nature of subsections: they are also budding articles, and first paragraphs are often proto-leads. It would be best if you contact the WPFilm project to determine the citation "house style"; as I said in the previous reply, each subject deals with this approach differently. For example, Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry use WP:SCG. The film project should use similar standards. The paragraph as it stands is fine, as it describes sourced text that follows. If after speaking with the WPFilm project you determine that no such guideline exists, you should create one. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the proto lead is necessary. Since it's outside the lead paragraphs, I think it would be best to cite all sentences. This could be easily done by duplicating references. Surely one of the citations in the article described the shots briefly here, and can be multi-referenced. Additionally, I have an issue with the single-sequence shot being called "notable", especially when this notability is not established in this subsection, but rather in the Critical reception section, so it could be seen as a weasel word at first glance. Lead paragraphs are the summary of the article's body; I am not familiar with a subset of lead paragraphs within the article itself, and I think it would be best to attach references (duplicating what already exists and matches seems easiest) so a reader can read a sentence and click on the citation to see where it came from. I don't oppose an overview, but it can't be assumed, especially with a separate paragraph, that the reader will be familiar with the proto lead concept. From what I've seen, I think a lead sentence is appropriate, as the information immediately follows it. For example, "The film has themes such as love, hope, depression. Love is shown as..." That first sentence is something I wouldn't dispute, but if it's going to stand alone as a paragraph, it should have citations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming in a bit late here, but yes, I think I wrote that paragraph - seems a bit pointless to duplicate the citations, but if that's considered necessary, go for it. Cop 633 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You should always cite, even if you are showing. The only instance where that might not be a problem is the main article's lead paragraph, because it's summarizing the entire article. Also, the "summarizing" of the subsection in which it is located is probably better for the article's lead, because you are presenting it as something that the movie has created an impact with, which should go at the top. The subsection can be about "showing" how it impacted the culture with its use of the single-shot sequence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cop, I don't think people were saying that you had to duplicate the references; I think people were respecting the work you put into and appreciated the writing of the paragraphs. If you would prefer to meld the proto-lead into the rest of the paragraphs, that might look better than the redundancy of citing the same references to make the same point. The point was not that it should be cut, but instead re-worked. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Category question

Is there a reason that CoM is categorized as: Serbo-Croatian-language films, German-language films, Spanish-language films? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

The cats contain "films in which the X language is wholly or partially spoken". It appears to be an instance of overcategorization which may need discussion on WPFilm and CfD. In a separate but related issue, the talk page is categorized in Category:Hungary. If someone could find the cat and remove it, that would be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's referencing the DVD extras commentator? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I can't speak for the editor who added the cats. There were many languages spoken in the film. —Viriditas | Talk 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn;t referring to the actual film, but the DVD extras portion, the commentary by Slavoj Žižek (who I discovered after seeing his article, is Slovenian). Maybe you should go through the edit history of the article and see when the category was added, and then ask the editor who added it.

Is it typical to reference every language spoken in a film via category? I can understand bilinguial films, or movies like Peacemaker where languages like Russian and Serbian were spoken frequently, but aside from Marishka's words (which didn't seem consequential to the storyline), I don't see how it would fit any foreign language criteria.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The film's language is primarily English. If someone's Spanish maid curses in her native language in some American romantic comedy, that shouldn't get categorized as a Spanish-language film. I think it's pretty clear-cut that this film has one primary language, as opposed to something like Babel. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The cats should be deleted from this article; It's an instance of overcategorization. Instead of removing these cats and forgetting about it, I would like to see WPFilm follow up with this as it's going to keep occurring unless we have a guideline. Would it be acceptable to move this discussion to the WPFilm categorization talk page? —Viriditas | Talk 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. I took both [[Category:Hungary]] entries that existed in the talk page and changed it into <noinclude>[[:Category:Hungary]]</noinclude>. That was a pest of a problem! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'll put in the request for Peer Review this evening, unless Viri has already done so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you fellas were too busy biting each other's heads off, I've put the article up for peer review. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead content

Arcayne, your reasons for modifying the lead don't seem to make any sense. Your most recent edit summary stated, "the hope isn't discussed in the film, and the cited references do not equate HP with hope. This is more accurate." That is completely false. The sources do equate th Humn Project with hope, and not a single source claims that it is "rumored to be the last hope". The sources state that the Human Project is putative. Either way, I have asked you to cite a source. Earlier, you cited a source I added regarding the HP as a chimera, which supports the use of putative. I've left both out for now since they are not important in the lead. Please do not keep disruptively changing the meaning of the sentence in a way that is not reflected by the sources. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, now I see you have removed "the last hope for the future of humanity" from the lead section, with the edit summary, "As the HP is only rumored to exit, and many of the sources list Kee as the last hope, I'm removing the bone of contention." I'm not aware of any contention other than the one you are introducing. Kee and the Human Project are both the last hope, Kee's baby is the "key" to the future of humanity, and Theo is delivering her to the project, both of them hopeful that it exists. The sources cited are very clear about this and it is entirely uncontroversial. Your removal of the content does not make any sense and appears to be purely disruptive. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my reasons before. The sources do not say what you seem to think they say. Please cite where any of the sources specifically say "that the Human Project is putative". I am reverting your interpretation of the sources, and instead clarifying what they do say. The Human Project is only rumored to exist. That's in the movie. More than a few reviewers state that Kee is that last hope for mankind. As you contest their statements, opting to instead include the few who suggest that the HP is that. Clearly, when a content dispute occurs, we are supposed to either find a third choice (as I did here), or move on to mediation. You have said you will not bother with mediation, insisting you are right. I have been nothing but civil with you since returning to this article, and as you ignore talk page suggestions to resolve disputes, and call people who disagree with you trolls, please tell me how a third party would interpret your actions and behavior? I have purged your previous versions of your post, as they were both personal attacks and uncivil. I will do it every single time you attack me or are uncivil towards me, as they constitute disrupting Wikiepedia to make a point, and they make the editing process unpleasant for everyone. You can get blocked for such behavior. You can get banned for such behavior. As you have deleted or ignored such warnings on your talk page, they are presented here. Please do not continue your uncivil behavior, and stop the personal attacks, Consider this your last warning. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping that you see that your very post actually proves my point, Viriditas. You said "Kee's baby is the "key" to the future of humanity, and Theo is delivering her to the project, both of them hopeful that it exists." key is indeed the key to the future, but to be considered that key, people have to hope that that is so. Both Theo and Kee hope that the HP is there, but the HP is not the hope itself. You said it yourself. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

However, you asked for citations, so here they are:

• (citation #4): "and Claire-Hope Ashitey stands out as Kee, the future of humanity in her third trimester."
• (citation #24, in the Hope section of the article): "Enter a young pregnant illegal who is therefore mankind's last hope, and you have the kick-ass sci-fi premise of a lifetime."
• (citation #25): It's the same with The Human Project [a mysterious group the protagonists attempt to rendezvous with]. The Human Project is nothing but a metaphor for the possibility of the evolution of the human spirit, the evolution of human understanding. The moment I explain who The Human Project is, it's a movie about these guys who don't exist. I don't care about them. I don't care anymore"

The HP is not mentioned anywhere specifically as the last hope of humanity. If anyone or anything is, it's Kee - and it's sourced by those very words. To assume anything else is OR and synthesis.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're being disruptive again. This topic was already discussed ad nauseum two months ago in March and was present in the archives until you removed it [1] on May 2 and created archive 4, in the process failing to archive more than 100,000 bytes. Coincidentally, you reopened this discussion after deleting the previous one. This isn't the first time you've performed a questionable and highly selective archive, and this isn't the first time I've had to dig into the page history to recover extremely important discussions you've deleted, only to find you reopening the same discussions as if they never occurred. In the future, please do not archive this page. It makes it look like you are trying to hide past discussions while at the same time, reopening old discussions as if they never happened. This discussion is now archived here and addresses all of these points. The links you've cited above do not meet the standards for research and evaluating sources. The first link you offer, link #23, Peter Hartlaub's article for The Chronicle, does not even mention the Human Project, so you have selectively cherry picked it. Link #24 does not mention the Human Project either, nor does it appear to meet the standards for WP:RS. Link #25 is a link to an interview with the director where he discusses the Human Project outside the context of this discussion, in metaphorical terms. The original text regarding the Human Project was sourced to film critic Philip French [2]. When you do decide to actually do some research, it is important that you learn how to evaluate sources. As I reminded you before, the three basic things to look for (per MLA) are authority, accuracy, and currency. You promised you would do some actual research at 04:34 on 16 February 2007 (UTC) [3] but you haven't. You're going to need to learn how to evaluate sources when you finally decide to do the research. Please don't continue to ressurect old discussions from months ago. The archives and page history show that you have contributed very little content (and no research) to this article in the last three months. Instead, the talk page and edit history shows that you have repeatedly attempted to force your personal beliefs and pet theories into this article through edit warring and sneaky reverts, first by insisting that Theo was alive at the end (contrary to the director), then demanding that trivia sections be included (contrary to policy), then insisting that because you recognize a type of gun in the film, you should be allowed to insert your expert opinion into the article (sans sources), inferring that discussion of allusions to the Earth Goddess are crazy (Cuaron is on record at the Scriptor awards stating he researched Gaia for the film, and reviewers have described Kee as an Earth Goddess), demanding that the "sound of children laughing" in the credits is a major plot point (no reliable sources), insisting that because you personally see "evil unsmiling sailors" on the bow of the Tomorrow ship the article should represent your expert opinion in the plot (original research), and demanding that the "shanti" be included as a plot point (it's a theme). Now, you want to weaken the article /again/, this time insisting on inserting poor writing, unnecessary and misplaced adjectives (against all good writing guides such as The Elements of Style) that modify the wrong part of the sentence (It's the Human Project that is putative, not the hope). As far as I can tell, any discussion with you doesn't go anywhere, as you fail to listen time and time again, and more importantly, understand what other editors are saying. —Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was one very long paragraph. I presume that you decided to bring up discussed matters from months ago as "evidence" to indicate my interest in "resurrecting" conversations from months ago. I don't recall mentioning recently anything about my past edits. Some of them required a Third Opinion to weigh in, and once they did, I resolved myself to it. Apparently, you are viewing the past a bit more differently than I or anyone else is. I deleted a massive import from archive, as it appeared to be a violation of WP:POINT; how else could the importation of over 6 Mb of months' old material without current value be considered anything else but a disruption of the Discussion page to attack a specific fellow editor? However, the past is the past. I made mistakes, but so have you. So have we all. It's actually the current issues that I am concerned with, and only those I will address. You might want to revisit Consensus to be reminded that consensus is not a changeless, static state of affairs.

The citations you are stating that I am "cherry-picking" are in fact the the citations used in the article, both in the Lead statements regarding Kee and the Human Project, and in the sub-section I believe you had a hand in titling Hope. I didn't go elsewhere for citations. I didn't really need to - we have 100 of them (over twice the citations found in most other film articles), so it would appear that we have enough to cover the topic right there. You yourself have claimed to have added "more than fifty" of them yourself. I am quite likely using citations you yourself provided, sir. You have stated that some of the sources I cited were unreliable. This begs the question of why you would allow unreliable sources in the article, and why they would remain for months without challenge? The sources are not recent additions, so I guess I am left wondering why you are denigrating those sources which you had about a 50-50 chance of having included yourself?

As my edits are based upon the citations within the article itself, they will be reinstated. As you have not provided equivalent citation to support your position about the HP being more than a "chance for the evolution of the human spirit" (citation #25, from the Hope subsection), I presume you cannot do so. However, even if you could find a citation stating that the HP was the 'last hope for humanity', I believe I have clearly shown that there is citation that counters it. At the very least, reference of anyone or anything being the "last hope for humanity" needs to be purged. At most, it needs to refer to the proper individual identified as such. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, all of the citations are provided in the archival link to the discussion above. I'm not going to repeat myself again. This topic has already been discussed. If you visit the link in my reply above this one, you will find them. Please do not continue to reopen old discussions as if they never occurred. I encourage you to use the best authoritative, accurate, and current sources to improve the article. —Viriditas | Talk 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciat the advice, though it is not really needed here. My edits used the "best authoritative, accurate, and current sources" that were already present in the hundred-plus citation article to support my edit. Despite your earlier arguments in favor of designating the HP as "humanity's greatest/last/apparent hope", it is not supported by the citations present. I have cited my sources, and have explained in detail all of my edits. You are allowed to not agree with them but, as they are properly references, they will remain until you find alternative sources that negates them.

That said, I am willing to discuss an alternative to naming the HP as the greatest/lat/whatever hope. Make a suggestion; I am not unreasonable. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above (you are making me repeat myself again) look at the sources I provided in the link to the original discussion; You'll find them in the Chickenmonkey's proposal section. There's a lot of them, and I included the text - make use of them. I'm going offline, so there's no need to reply. —Viriditas | Talk 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would submit that you are repeating yourself because you are not finding the answers you are seeking here. A more critical voice would suggest that you mayhap are not looking for the answers in the responses you are getting. I can appreciate that a lot of things were said (some particularly brilliant things by Chickenmonkey). However, I am providing citations for my edits - not unsourced OR or pet theories; just cold hard citations. Let's please stop this much ado nonsense. Perhaps we can move on to fixing the rest of the article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not done any research, you have not looked at the sources that compose the content you keep removing, and you do not appear to be familiar with Wikipedia's basic policies regarding WP:CITE and WP:V. I'm not sure what kind of answers I could expect from someone who blindly deletes material from an article without understanding what it is he is editing. Additionally, you don't appear to understand what you are writing on this talk page. Kee and the Human Project are described by the highly creidible and published film critic Philip French as "the best hope of mankind", and that is cited in the lead section. You removed the most authoritative source in the lead without reading the sources...again. As I explained to you earlier, your sources are not "proper" and no editor is required to "find alternative sources that negates them", that's not how Wikipedia works. This subject has already been discussed here. Please consult WP:CITE and get in the habit of reading an article before you edit it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

From your purged post, I re-read the single review that posits the HP as the "best hope". I've since melded the two. We do not get to choose our sources, and as we have reviews already in the article (that, as presented before, posit Kee as humanity's last hope), we need to include both of them. I've done that here. I've stated that Kee is in fact the last hope of humanity, and stated that HP is the best hope for ending human infertility. Kee is the hope, and the HP is an instrument of that hope. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misinformed. We most certainly do get to choose our sources, in fact it is a primary requirement of research. Sources are used if they represent the best authority, are the most accurate, and have relevant currency. All sources are not equal. Wikipedia polices regarding ATT, RS, V, NPOV, and CITE cover this subject. Please review them before continuing to edit. Furthermore, you need to read WP:LEAD, as your current "rewrite" violates that guideline in every way. —Viriditas | Talk 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; what I meant to say is that we do not get to choose what part of a cited statement we get to use and what parts we do not. As this skirts the edge of attack, I am going to not remove it, but as we are both grown-ups here, AGF that I have read the policies in question thoroughly. That we have disagreements as to approach and interpretation is not just cause to in essence repeatedly infer that I just blithely wandered in here while looking for Scooby-Doo cartoons.

In addition, if you suggesting that my Lead violates WP:LEAD in that it discusses material not in the body of the article, I think that that is rather easily remedied by mentioning the cited reference that Kee is the last hope for humanity in the body of the article, likely under the hope section. I will do so later today.

Now, as we have two sources which say two separate things about the same position, how would you suggest we handle this? Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

You're still not adding a citation after I've asked you many times to do so. The current citations do not support your additions to the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources certainly cite the information contained within, and I have provided them before both here as well as in the actual article. Perhaps you might wish to revisit the conversations, and maybe even read the cited sources. Here is a quick survey of those sources, from both within and without the article (note that I am not including the citations mentioned earlier in this Discussion section):

• 1 "Julianne Moore is a rebel leader, and Claire-Hope Ashitey stands out as Kee, the future of humanity in her third trimester."

  2"Enter a young pregnant illegal who is therefore mankind's last hope, and you have the kick-ass sci-fi premise of a lifetime."

  3 "Reluctantly, he takes on the daunting task of escorting Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), the refugee who represents humankind's last hope for survival, out of harm's way and into the care of a mysterious organization known as The Human Project."

  4 "Clare-Hope Ashitey as the pregnant Kee, the planet's last hope"

  5"Turns out Kee may prove to be humanity's last hope for survival, but Julian and her gang don't trust the government to do right by her."

  6 "Ordinary bureaucrat Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is suddenly drawn into a secretive adventure after he is shown the last hope of mankind, a young woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) who is pregnant."

  7 "Theo realizes that Kee is not merely a fugee but nothing short than the last hope for humanity: She is eight months pregnant. "

  8 "Reluctantly, he takes on the daunting task of escorting Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), the refugee who represents humankind's last hope for survival, out of harm's way and into the care of a mysterious organization known as The Human Project"

  9 "Theo, played by Clive Owen, guards the planet's last hope, pregnant Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey, in an unfertile 2027."

  10 "Reluctantly, he takes on the daunting task of escorting Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), the refugee who represents humankind's last hope for survival, out of harm's way and into the care of a mysterious organization known as The Human Project"

  11 "And it is during that time that he learns why this woman is so important: she’s pregnant — and quite possibly the world's last hope."

  12"Theo, a revolutionary leader played by Clive Owen must protect a young pregnant immigrant girl who may be humankind's last hope."

  13 "Her child represents the last hope for humanity, and with the help of Theo’s friend, Jasper (Michael Caine), Kee’s rendezvous with the Human Project seems to be within reach."

Now, I could simply add on each one of those dozen or so citations that all say pretty much the same thing, but I think that would be something approaching overkill to simply point out that you might be a bit incorrect here (note that I avoided calling you biased, as that could be seen as uncivil). If you think it will help the article get to FA that much faster, and survive the Peer review, well, I can split them up adding them both to the Lead and the to the Thematic section on hope. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I've been meaning to bring that whole 'citations in the lead' thing up. A survery of FA articles doesn't really indicate it to be a practice. You might want to read up on what the Lead is supposed to be again. I can point out the article link, if you would like. I added a pertinent statement in the themes section Hope, citing the sources (please note that there were more than one, and I chose the ones already in the article, to keep the number of references down) that clearly stated that Kee was humanity's last hope. As it was mentioned in the article, and you seem to think that mentioning humanity's last hope is so very im portant, I felt it necessary to point out just who - and not what - was humanity's last hope. Apparently, you either misread or hyper-focused on the French article, whom you call 'preeminent' and whatnot; I sense a bit of bias off that statement, but I'll give it a pass, as you might know the guy personally. However, I have two citations that were already in the article before this little argument of yours ever began. I have read them as well as the dozen or so others, and they say Kee is the last hope. You have named one citation that alludes to the metaphorical rebirth nature of the HP as plot device. I believe my edit addresses that.
As my edit is simply better in terms of citability and flow, I think we should go with mine. I am going to stick to my guns on this, as I have clearly proven that I am correct here. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources have been explained to you over and over for the last three months, there is no excuse for your continued, disruptive behavior and repeated addition of sources that do not meet the necessary criteria. You canot expect anyone to believe that your addition of an anonymous (fails authority and RS) commercial website (blockbuster.com) a blog (fails authority and RS) and the misinterpretation of an sfgate.com review trumps one of the four greatest living film critics on the planet. This is akin to the time you insisted that reliable, published but non-electronic sources should carry less authorty than self-published websites. Thanks for the laughs, but you are clearly disrupting the article. Philip French's qualifications are listed below in the next section. You have never justified your removal of one the most authoritative sources in the world, nor have you adequately explained why you added unsourced content in its place, and in other sections, repeatedly linked to non-RS such as blogs. And, you've been doing this for three months. Is there a particular reason you can't adhere to Wikipedia policies? —Viriditas | Talk 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While i am tempted to yet again remove your disruptive attack post, I am going to take the time to explain some very, very basic rules to you. There are more citations that say that Kee is the last hope for humanity than there are that say otherwise. Many of those cites are not from Blockbuster, and are from both RS Verifiable. I've read the wiki-article on French - can you perhapos cite his position as "one of the four greatest living film critics on the planet" or "one the most authoritative sources in the world"? I didn't recall getting that memo, and his own wiki-article appears to have missed that particular accolade. Your repeated inclusion of that phrase implies a WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and bias that is unseemly here. As stated at least twice before, it was removed because other sources proved his unusual opinion of the Human Project to be the minority opinion. So I took your inadvertant advice and made a choice regarding which reference to use. You have been supplied with all the proof you need. If you have continued issue with it, please feel free to refer the matter on for mediation to MedCab.

As I said before, there are more than enough sources to support my statements and frankly, I have more than you. I guess I am not sure why you would want to interfere with the process of makinghte article more accurate and therefore better. Not to mention the 500-pound gorilla on the page, but you do know that your opinion isn't the only one that matters, right?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I must again point out that I think you might want to revisit the subjects of the assumption of Good Faith, No Personal Attacks and Civility. We do not have to tolerate attack posts. I will simply remove them in the future as disruptive, so please make more of an effort to remain civil. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating myself again, why did you remove Philip French's content from the article? And repeating myself again, I gave you the citation for his authority below. And, finally, repeating myself again, the fact that the entire film is structured around getting Kee to the Human Project in no way conflicts with Kee's baby representing hope for the future. I have repeatedly informed you that both are true, and the statement in context implies it as such. Let me know if you need me to keep repeating myself to you, as I and others have done for the last three months. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I mentioned only three times before. While French has had a long and distinguished career, I hardly think a personal homage reference to him on the Orson Welles page and an award almost 20 years ago warrants overlooking what a dozen other critics are stating. As you seemed to have missed all the other critical reviews carefully detailed for you in the days you have chosen to fight this out for over a week about a phrase. Mr. French is a gifted film reviewer, but he is but one film reviewer. When we are clearly shown that the opinion of this one person is in the specific minority, it becomes ever so clear that the majority outweigh the minority.

Additionally, you claim: "the fact that the entire film is structured around getting Kee to the Human Project in no way conflicts with Kee's baby representing hope for the future". Mostly, I agree with this; however, the edit that you keep insisting is more on-target doesn't suggest this at all. Fact: Kee is the last hope for humanity. Fact: So is her baby, once it is born. Fact: the Human Project is not the last hope for humanity. Fact: the Human Project is near-mythic.

Again, if you feel that you cannot agree with this, you certainly have the option of taking the matter to Mediation. I have repeatedly cited my sources as you have asked (again, some of the sources are from within the article, where they remained, unchanged and unchallenged by yourself for over four months), and it appears now that because you have a certain prediposition towards one movie reviewer in particular, we should forget all the others. I am sorry; we do not do that here. The edit as it currently is just fine. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion already took place in the archives and sources were provided by me, not you. I've also repeatedly explained to you why your edits violate Wikipedi's policy regarding RS and sourcing in general. You have never justified your reason for removing French's accurate summary of the plot (the plot is about the quest to get Kee to the Human Project - not the thematic nature of her baby), nor have you succeeded in meeting or exceeding the specific requirements of adding a reliable source like French. Instead, you continue to disruptively modify the lead (without adding a source that reflects it) and add links to unsourced author at blockbuster.com and an alternet blog. These links do not in any way meet the requirements for authority. (Personal attack removed) There has been no improvement in your edits. For example, you continue to add unreliable sources like blogs and commercial links, and when they are removed per policy, you add them back with the edit summary of "revert vandalism". Your edit summaries are also getting stranger. In the last 24 hours you claimed to eliminate POV pushing by removing a statement about the plot attributed to Philip French, the most authoritative film critic in the article, and you replaced it with a link to a blogger who writes for Christianity Today, an unknown women's rights web page and an anonymous commercial link to blockbuster.com. You also added content to the theme section that turned a discussion of the difference between infertility in the book and the movie into a meaningless, unconnected tangent about Kee. When I fixed the section and preserved your content in the next paragraph, in the correct context of hope for the future, you reverted without any explanation. You don't seem to understand what you are reading. The concept of using reliable sources has been explained to you for months. French's description of the plot is not a "minority opinion" in any way. You keep confusing the plot, related actions occurring through the struggle of opposing sides that leads to a climax and resolution, with the theme, the abstract idea that unifies the film through the action of the characters.(Blacker) The entire film is about Theo smuggling Kee out of the UK to the Human Project, a group which is attempting to create a new society; throughout the film, the group is spoken of as the greatest hope for the future of society as a whole, a hope that fuels the struggle and keeps people believing. "Human Project Lives" reads graffiti on a wall in one scene. Kee's baby, on the other hand, represents the hope for the survival of the species and on a closer level, the redemption of the individual. Your removal of the most authoritative and reliably sourced content in the article that describes the plot appears to be based on your misunderstanding of the multiple layers of hope found throughout the film. When Philip French speaks of the Human Project as the greatest hope for the future of humanity, he is referring to the new society that every reliable source describes. Sources describe Kee as the "key" to this new society (hence her name) as her new baby will populate the world anew with its help. Your repeated attempts to remove this information do not make any sense. It seems like you are trying to revive your personal, pet theory of the Human Project as an "evil" organization; you tried for a long time to add original research to the plot conclusion, arguing that you personally observed "unsmiling sailors" in the last scene of the film. That would explain why you keep trying to remove Philip French's plot summary. In the process, you have also removed citations to Film Comment and Filmmaker Magazine, so that the lead is no longer supported by authoritative, relible sources. —Viriditas | Talk 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed multiple references from the Lead, as most FA articles find that the Lead works best as an overview of the article with few or no citations, and not a persuasion piece in and of itself. Within the article is where the references belong. The presence of the multiple citations appears to have been an attempt to reinforce a point of view that prior editors thought to be incorrect. Having cited numerous references that contradict the one reference by French possibly misinterpreted by another editor, the citation string was removed. More work is still needed to reintegrate the sources within the article. Things to keep in mind:

• French's review: "The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera."
• Overstreet's Review: "It's unmistakable—that baby is the hope for humankind's redemption...Claire-Hope Ashitey as the pregnant Kee, the planet's last hope."
• Finseth's review: "And it is during that time that he learns why this woman is so important: she’s pregnant — and quite possibly the world's last hope." (Finseth's review is not a blog, as she is the publisher and editor of the linked site).
• Buchanan's review]: "Reluctantly, he takes on the daunting task of escorting Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), the refugee who represents humankind's last hope for survival, out of harm's way and into the care of a mysterious organization known as The Human Project." (review also seen here)
• Sabella's review: "Theo, played by Clive Owen, guards the planet's last hope, pregnant Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey, in an unfertile 2027." "The main idea is that there may be hope. There is one woman, someone who is hidden from the public, and who is phenomenally pregnant. The journey is to get her to the Human Project, which some believe to be a safe haven, and which others believe doesn't exist."
• Hamaker's review: "Her child represents the last hope for humanity, and with the help of Theo’s friend, Jasper (Michael Caine), Kee’s rendezvous with the Human Project seems to be within reach."
• Hartlaub's review: "...and Claire-Hope Ashitey stands out as Kee, the future of humanity in her third trimester." (the link to SFGate refers to San Francisco Chronicle, not Science Fiction)
• Avni's review: "Enter a young pregnant illegal who is therefore mankind's last hope, and you have the kick-ass sci-fi premise of a lifetime."
• Rahner's review: "We need to have children, and the hope is with them." (Quoting Cuaron)

And that just represents eight differing opinions from the review by French, all by reviewers who are not bloggers or mankily-sourced. I am not sure where the claim of unreliable sources is originationg. Perhaps if the eidtor could point out which references are actually not necessarily reliable. As well, it would be interesting to know why the article was nominated for GA status that includes references that the editor now claims are complete rubbish/

It should be pointed out that citation #24 (which posits the idea of environmental desctruction and divine retribution as the causes for the mass infertility) cannot be verified through a search of the Tampa Tribune archives. Citation #28 appears to not be very reliable, as it was written not as an officiial review, but as a blog of sorts, and not altogether RS. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This was explained already in a previous discussion on March 12. Chickenmonkey added multiple references to the lead and although the lead has changed over time, the references citing the text in question have remained due to the propensity of editors to add their personal opinions to the lead. The multiple citations were never used at any time "to reinforce a point of view that prior editors thought to be incorrect". None of the sources contradict or "differ" with French in any way; I explained that they are complementary in the previous reply (and in the previous discussion).

• "Cuaron said: 'At its core, it's a story about hope.'" (Daily Variety, 2001-10-05)
• "If there is to be any hope for humanity, Kee must survive..the goal seems to be getting Kee someplace, where her child can be born and thus give hope to all mankind." (Baltimore Sun, 2007-01-05l
• "The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera." (The Observer, 2006-09-24)
• "Theo soon learns Kee is pregnant and is being brought to The Human Project, a group working towards the creation of a new society." (Filmmaker Magazine, 2006-12-22)
• "Kee is to meet a boat from the Human Project, an organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race." (Film Comment: 32-35)
• "...the goal is nothing less than the survival of the human race." (Washington Post, 2006-12-25)
• "The revolutionaries hope to spirit Kee out of the country where she can be cared for by the Human Project, an almost mythical organization devoted to saving mankind." (Kansas City Star, 2007-01-05)
• "Theo's flight across England to the sea, as the guardian of a young black immigrant....their goal is to escape England on a ship from the Human Project, a semi-mythical group of do-gooders with whom the Fishes are in conact." (National Review, 2007-01-29)
• "Hope is the first casualty among survivors, who include Theo...Julian begs him to help the Fishes...rebels dedicated to helping refugees...since he and Julian share the sorrow of having had a son who died, Theo agrees to slip a fugee named Kee...past the police to find safety with the Utopian Human Project." (Rolling Stone, 2007-01-25)
• "an apathetic bureaucrat...finds himself shepherding the first child born in almost two decades to something caled the 'Human Project', a shadowy group determined to help the human race survive, almost in spite of itself." (Daily News, 2007-01-22)
• "Theo's only goal is to shepherd her into the hands of a benign outfit known as The Human Project, rumored (no one knows if the organization actually exists) to be working on a plan to perpetuate the species." (Philadelphia Daily News, 2007-01-05)
• "the ex...leader of something called the Fish underground...saddles (Theo) with this burden. Get this naïve young woman to safety, to something called The Human Project. Save the world." (Orlando Sentinel, 2007-01-05)
• "a mysterious group known as the Human Project waits to rescue (Kee)." (Commonweal, 2007-01-26)

You claim that you are "not sure where the claim of unreliable sources is originating", but I have explained this, over and over again, in reply after reply. Most of the sources you offer aren't published or printed sources, and most of the authors are unknown. I see you have finally removed the link to blockbuster.com after repeatedly adding it to the article; in that particular case, there was no author at all. Citation 24 refers to the Tampa Tribune, which can be verified through the appropriate periodical index and is supported by multiple sources making the same claim. The Tribune states, "The universal sterility isn't explained. It could be the poisoned environment. Or it might be -- as an upsurge of religious fanatics proclaims -- God's punishment of a sinful society;" So, it represents the cited text. Citation 28 is an interview with the director, not a blog, and the source is used to quote Cuaron; how could the director not be reliable source? And, the director has made the same claims in multiple interviews with other sources, so there are many to choose from. Philip French is an acknowledged expert on the subject of film, having published many books and articles on the subject. He is also one of the most reliable sources in this article and is considered one of the ten greatest film critics of all time.[4] [5] [6] [7]—Viriditas | Talk 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, why did you blindly revert this edit? —Viriditas | Talk 20:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a much better way to present your ideas, Viriditas (and thank you for finally making it civil). To begin with, I cannot disagree enough that your personal preference for French's review trumps all the other articles that speak to a different focus of the hope of the piece. Of all the bullet point citations you offer, only one of them says anything approximating that the Human Project is the best hope for humanity. In practically every other source cited, Kee is specifically named as such. The Human Project is the facilitator of that hope, not the hope itself, prepresented by Kee (and her baby).

My issue with your edit is that you keep insisting that the Human Project is the last/best/greatest hope for humanity, and that simply is not supported by the sources within the article. Kee (and her unborn child) is. Anything less than saying that is incorrect. And no, I do not and will not give extra weight to any editor simply because a blog site (and it's non-expert evaluators) considers them one of the 10 niftiest people on the planet. I am not saying the man is a clown; I am saying that he rides the clown car with all the rest of the established reviewers. This isn't French's article (and you might want to consider updating his Wiki-article to reflect your knowledge of him).

I wasn't suggesting that the citations without web presence were invalid. I simply said that they could not be verified. However, the Tampa Tribune has a web presence wherein article can be viewed by paying for access to their archives; one should not have to pay for access to the article in question. It does state in External References that citation s from pay-for-view sources should be avoided if free sources can be found.

As for citation 28, I cannot find any other periodical history for Alex Vo (wheras I can find such for practically everyone else). As the only other web presence for an Alex Vo is as an actor/model/musician, so the idea that the conversation might not be real should be considered. That the conversation exists in other, more reliable formats should indicate that this is a redundant source and, as the less reliable one, should be culled in favor of the more reliable one.

If, as you say, a lot of the sources in the article are inadequate, shouldn't an effort be made to screen out the duds before continuing a Peer Review and nomination to FA?

You didn't answer my questions again, and I'm tired of having to repeat myself to you.I have no preference for any source other than the best, most reliable ones; that is how sources are used on Wikipedia. We've been over this. If you want to learn how to use sources, I recommend getting a copy of the MLA guide (or APA or any other guideline) and reading the book, The Craft of Research. Alex Vo represents Rotten Tomatoes, and his interview is considered a reliable source. We are not quoting Alex Vo, we are citing the director of the film, and this interview has been cited by other reliable sources. If you want to start screening the "duds" from the article, you should start with the ones you added. And, I already explained to you in previous discussions how to check up on published but non-electronic sources. There are database services at your local library that will allow you access the databases in-house and remotely. I don't recall ever saying "a lot of the sources in the article are inadequate". Where did you get that from? —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to your post, once you do a little self-editing to make it far more polite. Normally, I would simply delete it as a disruptive attack, but perhaps not responding to your insults is the only way you are going to learn to treat your fellow ediotrs with respect. I will continue to edit the article - prefereably with your civil input, but I can do it without it as well. When you decide to act civil, you will get a response and cooperation. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered your questions and yet you did not answer mine. Instead, you made me repeat comments that I've already made. That is the paragon of incivility. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, as we've been over this many times. You have not explained why you are blindly reverting edits. How many times did you add back in a link to a registration-only web forum *Cinema TV Forum (WP:NOT) without even checking it? Six times? And how is a link to Christianity Today [8] a POV-fix to one of the greatest living film critics in history? The source you added doesn't even make that claim in context. In fact, none of the sources you've added do. This is what I'm talking about. The previously sourced material was accurately represented in the lead. Now, it isn't. —Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kee's ethnicity

I recently removed Kee's West African ethnicity from the article, as I didn't see it anywhere else in the article or in the citations (gads, 100 citations!), and I don't rmeember it coming up in the film. As well, I am not sure whether it's even notable. Anyway, i thought I would mentionit, as my full edit summary was cut off by accident. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's cited in the very first reference to that section in note number 2: "a West African woman named Kee". It's also discussed in the cast section and cited in two additional sources [9] [10]. As the lead is an overview, this is entirely appropriate. The only way you could miss it is if you didn't read the sources cited for the lead section nor the cast section. This wouldn't keep happening if you actually did some research. This is the second time in 48 hours you have removed cited material from the lead section. Please stop. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

However it appears that she is West African, as Viriditas informed me of such. I missed it in the source. Mea culpa Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. You should not take my word for it nor should you believe the source without evaluating it for authority, accuracy, and currency. If you had done this, you would have noticed that there are open questions about the authority and accuracy of the source: who is the author (published, notable?); is there an editorial policy for the site (does it meet RS, etc.); is the source accurate (compared to other RS)? The official script released by the studio describes Kee as North African, not West. And the other sources only describe her as African. So, you need to begin the research process by evaluating sources and cross-referencing. Unless other sources are found and the authority of the author and site are verified, "West" should be removed. This is why it is so important for you to do the research. You will run into errors like this all the time. A review in a Contra Costa paper describes Kee as a "prostitute". Should we add it to the article? —Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly man, I'm just tired of having to fight with you tooth and nail for every bit of give. My first inkling regarding the removal was that it wasn't truly necessary to the point of the film. Then I thought, well, there is a section talking about how Kee's ethnicity is supposed to play into the whole 'returning to the cradle of man' thing (coupled with knowing that Man's earliest fossil record seems to come from West Africa) mentioned in one fot he souces. Then when you reverted it, I figured I was right, there was something going on there that you were working out, and if it made the article better, fine.

Its a natural presumption to rely on the veracity those citations that have survived being in the article for months without removal. It is why I cite them for Kee's being the last hope, just as they are cited by you for the HP being such. I am not seeking sources outside the article (though there may be some). I am using the same sources which you beenusing for months now.

Lastly, in response to your question, if we include the citation wherein the reviewer considers Kee a prostitute, we allow for the possibility that some other editor might find it notable enough to add (personally, I don't, except as antidote to CoM being viewed as a "Christian" film). We may get to pick our sources, but we have to allow for anyone to use those sources in a way that speaks to the article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not rely on the "veracity" of citations merely because they have been in the article for a while. And, you did not add a citation for the modification of the lead, even after I asked you to do so many times. We also do not "allow for anyone to use those sources in a way that speacks to the article." I don't know where you get this from. The author of the "prostitute" error is film critic Mary F. Pols [11] of the Contra Costa Times and fellow member of the San Francisco Film Critics Circle [12]. She does not seem to have anything on Philip French [13] film critic for the Guardian and the Observer[14]. French has been called a "distinguished film critic" who has "written widely on books, theatre and cinema for newspapers and magazines in Europe and America. He has been theatre critic and cultural columnist for The New Statesman, chief book reviewer of The Financial Times and deputy film critic of The Times...He served on the British Film Institute’s Production Board before becoming film critic for The Observer in 1978, later serving on the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in 1986. He has contributed to a number of anthologies and his books include The Movie Moguls (1969) and The Faber Book of Movie Verse (1993)." [15]. He has also been interviewed as an expert on film by the BBC [16]. Most importantly, the non-commercial website OrsonWelles.co.uk listed Philip French as number 7 out of the 10 greatest film critics of all time [17], six of which are dead. The site describes him as: "More authoritative than Derek Malcolm of The Guardian, more accessible than Geoff Brown of The Times and outlasting them both, French is the strongest of the male vanguard of British critics who spent many years vainly attempting to foist a culture of film appreciation on reluctant British audiences. A pure product (and now a doyen) of the European film establishment, French is possibly as knowledgeable as any critic working today. Lovers of Westerns will find no more complete an account than in French's book. At 74, his writing is as relaxed and pointed as ever and his deep love of the medium shines through every essential weekly piece." Please provide a source that meets or exceeds French. This topic has already been discussed in the archives (links above). —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a pedant, but mankind's earlist fossil record actually comes from east Africa. :) Cop 633 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No,I'm glad you pointed it out. I knew I took a wrong turn at Albequerque... :D Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)