Talk:Shutter Island (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Ashecliffe[edit]

Boston Globe says that the title of the film is Ashecliffe. Requesting a move. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Move complete. Any questions, let me know. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that more recent news is still referring to the film as "Shutter Island." I don't know if Ashecliffe is still the working title.--Skywarp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.125.36 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's kind of confusing. If people go to Shutter Island, though, they can be led here. Also, Shutter Island (film) redirects here. How about we stick with this title for now until we can verify from the filmmakers themselves what the title will be? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is referring to it as Shutter Island 25 Feb and 26 Feb -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Google News Search shows that Ashecliffe is used, too. I think that it would be preferable to stick with Ashecliffe because normally, films would take their names from their source materials. This is a highlighted exception, not at all a rumor. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
To update about this, all the March, April, and May headlines about this film being produced in Massachusetts has titled it Ashecliffe. This is pretty much the film title barring any changes down the road. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Update from the Boston Globe: "Martin Scorsese can't make up his mind. Initially, the famed director was calling his next movie "Shutter Island," which is the title of the Dennis Lehane book on which the film is based. But while Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams, and Max Von Sydow were shooting the movie here, the title was switched to "Ashecliffe." Now, the name's been changed again..." I would suggest staying with the status quo until it is clear that one title or the other is the final title. The lead section reflects the dual nature in the meantime. —Erik (talkcontrib) 00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven Knight[edit]

Screenwriter Steven Knight was added to the article per Variety, apparently culled from Baseline Studios Systems. However, Google News Archive Search reveals no mention of his involvement in headlines. If something comes up, post the headline here, since it would be nice to clarify how Steven Knight took over from Laeta Kalogridis. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Celina Murga Account Copy Right Issues[edit]

There have been some accusations that I posted some material on Wikipedia without permission from the owner to obtain rights to the information. Well, I would only like to say that I, Bryan Angarita, owner of this account Born365, took information from a Total Film Magazine article and arranged and summarized it in away that would be suitable for Wikipedia. I did not steal the words that I wrote, those words came directly from me and I have witnesses, who saw me toil over my summary of that account for the three hours that it took for me to assemble it. These accusations are false, and although legally I may not "own" what I wrote, I will not allow any body else to take credit for what I created. And I all I have to say, is that if those assholes who took the rights to my count would be so nicely as to take off these false charges and allow the information to be publicated for the world to see, I would greatly appreciate it. Nothing more, nothing less, thank you, sincerely Bryan Angarita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born365 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 30 June 2009

First, please review WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Disagreements on Wikipedia may happen, but referring to those with whom you disagree as "those assholes" is not appropriate on this site. When questions about copyright are raised, it is proper for other editors to blank or remove the material pending investigation. Second, on investigation, I believe that evidence supports your assertion that the material was published by you first. It was published in the linked blog ([1]) on the same day, but your initial placement of the material was subtly different from that external site, and as you edited it here it became more like that external site. Generally, when material is pasted from elsewhere, it starts verbatim and moves away. (See [2]; note that originally on Wikipedia the text said, "a 1962 film directed by Orson Welles adapted from a novel by Franz Kafka. Scorsese says references to The Trial include". This was altered to read, "a 1962 film directed by Orson Welles adapted from the novel by Franz Kafka; he says references to The Trial include". The external site uses the language placed on Wikipedia a half an hour later. Minor changes here are also present in the external blog.) I think given this evidence, that the text is usable. I understand your being upset that your work has come under this cloud, and I am sorry that sometimes these things happen. People frequently copy from Wikipedia without giving us credit, and I think that's probably what happened to you. But do remember, please, to assume good faith with other contributors. It's essential to keep the project working smoothly. Checking these concerns out is pretty important to avoiding legal troubles for the project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Celina Murga's Account of Filming on the Set of "Shutter Island"[edit]

Investigation suggests that Wikipedia published this before the blog did. (See the section immediately above.) Accordingly, I have restored it to the article. Please note that I'm not expressing any opinion on whether the material is appropriate for inclusion here for other reasons or whether it should be altered to bring it inline with various policies and guidelines. I simply believe as an uninvolved administrator that evidence supports a conclusion that the text is free for our use. Thanks to the contributors who brought up these concerns. We all know that, unfortunately, a good bit of material is pasted on Wikipedia, and we do need to investigate when this seems to happen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you very much, I apologize for the inapropriate comment reffereing to those people who accused me of anger. I thank you however for dealing with the situation so smoothly, in a way such that no one is hurt, nor condemned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born365 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's way too much information in this section. Short summary and link if it's really important, but it completely overwhelms the rest of the article. Please prune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.221.229 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

Guys we can't add a % reception, using Rotten Tomatoes as a source before the site actually gives it a % score. For it to get a % score it needs to have at least 5 review tallied and it currently only has 3, so you can't say it is 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes if the site still says N/A! Thanks. talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Well now we have that. But we also have a huge number of critics, so I suggest removing rotten tomato as it adds no real value to the section. The quotes from well known critics are far superiror. RT is just a meaningless number, while the quotations give depth as well as readability to the reception section. In addition it should be consindered to remove the oomska (or what it is called) reference, as it is not really a useable source (wiki cannot quote minor websites & opinions). I'll make the changes for now, reverte if you have better arguments. 77.11.162.147 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the oomska reference removed? It contained genuinely new info - nobody else had pointed out the Wizard of Oz reference. It reflects badly on Wikipedia that someone can come along and delete useful info, particularly when that person does not have much of a command of the Enhlish language: " In addition it should be consindered to remove the oomska (or what it is called) reference". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Because content needs to come from reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The source *is* accurate. Having watched the film again, I can confirm that the quotation (re. Wizard of Oz) is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 'oomska' article - if you read it - has obviously been written by someone with knowledge of Scorsese. And many critics have indeed noted all the film references in 'Shutter Island'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Can I also point out, for all those who refer to the oomska article as 'unreliable', that (whether it's reliable or not) oomska is not a 'blog'. Where do people who cannot even tell whether a website is a blog or not get the nerve to call other people 'unreliable'? Seems to me the article in question is informative in general and, in particular, contains pertinent information (the Wizard of Oz reference) which was not noticed by more 'reliable' sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarities to other movies[edit]

Did anyone else observed the uncanny similarity between this movie and "Crazy as Hell" (2002). The plot is almost identical with a highly delusion protagonist going to mental institution/island, a flashback of dead wife/child and even the ending except for the character of Satan in 'Crazy as Hell' (which I agree is far inferior with respect to direction, screenplay and character development).

Also, this movie is similar in plot (if not the theme) to Wicker Man and the ending is a deja vu of Memento.

Can we include these in the wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.160.191 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a movie, but there are also quite striking similarities to the plot of Silent Hill 2. --167.206.73.125 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Even the introduction of the main character is identical - both of them are introduced by their reflection in the mirror. Silent Hill 2 has almost all the elements that are present in this film as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari will quickly figure out what's going on. Didn't any reviewer remark on that? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

The summary was nice to have, but I wish that the ending was not stated on the page. I want to see the movie and now I already know the ending, which is unfortunate. I know that it is based on a book, but some people have not read the book yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.54.132 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Cirt (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it hurt to have a "Spoilers follow" banner? I did not expect the ending in the next paragraph, and it has ruined the movie for me as well. 71.174.247.150 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, from WP:SPOILER: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." Cirt (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the plot needs to be rewritten with the actual plot not just the ending - describing each turn of events and in the final paragraph stating the twist eg. like the synopsis for The Sixth Sense (Imagine if the second paragraph of The Sixth Senses's plot synopsis started with "After his death as a ghost"!). I personally had the film spoiled for me when I came here - the "Teddy" really catches your eye. While the ending does change the entire plot, it is still an ending and should occur at the end of the plot synopsis. It doesn't make all that occurred before the ending invalid and not worthy of describing. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HE DOES NOT RELAPSE INTO DELUSION IN THE FINAL SCENE. INSTEAD, HE PRETENDS SO THAT THEY WILL LABATOMIZE HIM SO THAT HE WILL NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHAT HE'S DONE. REMEMBER WHAT HE SAYS AT THE END? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.215.221 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is made clear in the article already. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that maybe instead of him being crazy the whole movie, that the people were tricking him all along and that in the end he knew he wouldnt be able to get off the island anyways so he let them lobotime him. So he didn't kill his wife, she actually died in the fire but he went along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.66.170 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a legitimate point here. I thought it was apparent that Teddy thought he was crazy, but there is NOTHING in the film that proves that he wan't right the whole time. This is perhaps the most powerful point of the book/film, and it needs to be included in the plot summary.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 10:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The theory is actually discredited, but quite subtly. *SPOILER ALERT* It's where the doctor asks where all the secret facilities are. It's shown quite clearly from the cinematography that there is NO PHYSICAL ROOM in the lighthouse; the rooms are small and cramped -- almost closet size. So, the "inescapable conspiracy" interpretation makes no sense. OTOH, consider the line about living as a monster or dying as a good man. He says it AFTER he makes sure he's sealed his fate. This is an indication of self-sacrifice: He knows he can relapse, so he willingly goes to his doom rather than risk regressing into a monster. However, I note this interpretation is not on the page.24.95.90.102 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was definitely crazy. The scene in the lighthouse he shoots the doctor, but moments later it is revealed that was part of his imagination. This was meant to show him snapping back to reality. Also, the idea that his a doctor could pose as his partner is ridiculous. In real life he would have met his partner before arriving to the island or, at the very least, would have been able to confirm him as a police officer somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.78.12 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I partly side with Wikipedia in reference to the fact that this article should mirror an encyclopedia article as closely as possible. There should be no spoiler warnings. However, I do believe that although the author of the original plot summary probably had good intentions, this summary is not sufficient due to the fact that it dedicates most of the summary to describing the ending. I very much wanted to see the movie (as many people who have probably come to this page have) and reading the ending so early on and so abruptly completely ruined the movie for me. I only suggest that someone who has viewed the movie and wishes to write a new summary please try to dedicate more of the text to the description of the movie and not to the ending, if he/she feels including the ending is warranted. I personally believe that it is not. I believe that most people who view this page come here hoping to learn more about the movie with hopes to see it. This however is just my opinion. Any input from others is wanted and would be interesting to hear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.153.249 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, a lot does take place in the last few minutes of the movie. Misplaced intentions are not the responsibility of an "encyclopedia article"; what you wanted was a review, of the sorts you could find on a more dedicated site like Rotten Tomatoes. I personally don't think knowing the ending spoils the movie; it's not the sort of film that relies on the twist. But personal preferences aside, it's impossible to summarize the movie objectively while omitting the ending when so much happens at the end. "Soylent Green" is a good example.24.95.90.102 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I ALSO AGREE THAT THE ENDING SHOULD NOT BE STATED. IT RUINS IT AND THERE IS NO SPOILER WARNING... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carousel1039 (talkcontribs) 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia allows for spoilers does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Perhaps several years down the road it will make sense, but while the film is still in theatres it is completely unnecessary and mean-spirited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talkcontribs) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

However, it would be highly inappropriate and unencyclopedic to exclude part of the plot, especially the crucial ending. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to allude to the ending without destroying it for someone who has not seen the film. I could understand if it was a multi-paragraph, full synopsis; but it is a very brief overview where it seems as if two-thirds of the content is there simply to ruin the ending for those who have not viewed it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talkcontribs) 18:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Really most f the problem is that — and I can't believe I'm about to say this — the summary here is too short. I frequently look up movies I haven't seen yet on wiki and I generally read only the first couple of paragraphs so I can get the gist of the setting, tone, etc. And most of the time that works fine; you get an idea that goes above the annoying blurbs often put out by studios that essentially tell you nothing. But the heaviest spoilers don't really come into play until about halfway through your average 500-700 word summary. So since I'm on my way to watch this flick now, I'll add the summary to my to do list and get something with a few more paragraphs in there sometime this weekend. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a cue from the page for The Sixth Sense and alluded to there being a twist ending at the beginning of the paragraph where the ending is revealed. This gives more information on the nature of the film, while also allowing a reader to stop reading if they feel the following information may hinder their experience in subsequently seeing the film. I believe this is a reasonable compromise that takes Wikipedia policy and common sense and courtesy into consideration.

I like that. If no one objects to keeping that element, I'll include it when I do the rewrite. I have a rough outline now that includes more events from the middle of the story. I estimate I should land at around 450-500 words. Based on the notes I've got so far, I think the twist ending blurb will probably land a little earlier, relative to the story, than it did for the Sixth Sense. So that will give people even more time to back out. I wonder if there isn't a genre that could be included in the article lead sections that would allow for the twist ending wikilink. While I think it makes a good compromise, it also makes for a bloody awkward sentence. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, just wanted to add my tuppence as I contest the ‘plot’ as outlined on the wiki entry (that’s what this talk function is for right, to avoid page editing wars??). I’d like to offer my contribution based on three details firstly as a person who has seen the film, secondly as a person who has studied neurobiology, neuropsychiatry, and social psychology as pathways in my degrees as a medical anthropologist (BSc, MSc), and thirdly and perhaps most crucially as a person who has looked at Lehane’s original text, i.e. the novel. We have proposed that the film is what might be described as ‘A Brilliant Mind meets The Sixth Sense’, whereas I would propose it is far more ‘Angel Heart meets The Manchurian Candidate’. The wiki seems to say that Teddy is REALLY Andrew, and the poor old patient has a serious mental illness that renders him within a delusional/hallucinatory world which Dr. Cawley (Kingsley) manages to demonstrate and allows Teddy/Andrew a short period of insight. The initial problem with this analysis is the illness that is proposed for Teddy. It most closely corresponds to what the DSM IV (admittedly a more modern tome than 1954) would designate Dissociative Amnesia (300.12) or Dissociative Fugue (300.13) which are both considered psychosocial defense mechanisms against psychological trauma, and might well be associated with the proposed attempt by ‘Andrew’ to combat the terrible memory of the death of his children and his murder of his wife. However the degree of delusion and/or hallucination demonstrated by ‘Andrew’ and required altered state of consciousness would require a mental illness with primary neurochemical basis and/or the use/introduction of a psychoactive drug. While both Dissociative Amnesia and Dissociative Fugue might incur a secondary imbalance of neurochemistry through a ‘nocebo’ effect, the primary aetiology would be considered psychosocial. The key scene for me in the film is where Teddy and Chuck/Lester speak in the mausoleum about how Teddy thinks he has come to the island under his own motivation for a broader investigation of a sinister mind control program, whereas Chuck reveals ‘that’s what you were meant to think’ (paraphrased); for me the film is clearly a comment by Lehane on the MKULTRA project initiated by the CIA. One of the commentators within this talk option reiterates what Dr. Cawley (Kingsley) says in the lighthouse when he asks ‘where are the Nazi experiments?’, I’d propose that in the context of the film, the whole island is; the island does not need to resemble a medieval torture chamber, Hadamar, Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz to justify the analogy. However enough inference about what the film means, Lehane in his book makes it very clear about what is real and imagined. The novel opens with a prologue; it is a couple of pages long and takes the form of an entry in the journal of one Dr. Lester Sheehan dated 1993. It speaks of Teddy Daniels not Andrew Laeddis, indeed it only refers to Andrew Laeddis along with Rachel Solando as ‘twin terrors’. It also speaks of Teddy’s arrival by boat at the island, as well as the duration of the episode of the book as ‘those four strange days of late summer 1954’; the inference is that Teddy’s arrival at (accompanied by Lester/Chuck?) and subsequent stay on Shutter Island is for a period of 4 days, not the multiple months of ‘treatment’ which are ‘suggested’ by Dr. Cawley. I’d really like you guys to buy the book, and perhaps change the wiki entry so it more fairly represents the ideas, themes and influences that were at play for Lehane in his creation of his narrative, and subsequently not mystify the political by reducing the work to a tale of Teddy’s/Andrew’s mental illness.--Nehustan (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book. I came to the same conclusion there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you explain the prologue?--Nehustan (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You mean the sort of diary entry from Dr. Sheehan (other editors who haven't read the book can read the prologue on google books if they'd like to weigh in)? I don't see anything in that contradicts my conclusion. It certainly does not assert that Teddy was actually Teddy (not Andrew) or that the concept of his delusion (the MKUltra related experiments) is real. And even if it did, this is not the book we are summarizing, but the film. The plot summary is now a synthesis of mine and others' work. But when I first wrote it, I did originally leave the last paragraph somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not Andrew was faking relapse (this is no longer the case per a discussion with another editor below). I only did this because it seemed to be a point of debate. At no point is the movie ever really vague on whether or not the delusions are delusions. The book was, as I recall, more open about this third possibility. For the movie, however, including it in the plot summary would be original research unless notable, verifiable source discussed the topic.Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Then there is obviously different versions of the prologue as the version I have clearly identifies the character as Teddy, calling Andrew a 'terror', outlines the arrival on the island by Teddy, and a period of 4 days not the months he is SUPPOSED to have been there. I will admit that the excerpt in the prologue doesn't give the plot of the book away, but would you REALLY expect a novelist to spoil his own book? As to your statement 'It certainly does not assert that Teddy was actually Teddy' I disagree, it does precisely that.--Nehustan (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds in line with what I read but a different interpretation of the words; my take has always been that Sheehan was going along with it in telling the story in hindsight because of the complicated nature of Andrew's case and therapy. I always felt that saying it was ironic that "Teddy" didn't like lies was really the biggest thing from that prologue, given that the man's illness had him lying to himself. Sheehan referring to Andrew as Teddy does not, in fact, equate to Sheehan confirming that Teddy was a real person and not a delusion. It is a possible interpretation but not a confirmation of that as fact. Which, ultimately, is what this all boils down to, interpretation. Which is why the ideal thing to do is stick with a "just the facts please" approach. And finally, this is all moot as none of this applies directly to the film's plot summary. If you want to take up introducing this angle to the plot summary of the book, that might be another matter. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the person above - for example, when referring to someone with multiple personality disorder, people will often refer to the name of the person they are behaving as at that time - when they were letting him live out his fantasy, he was Teddy - they called him by that name, so they probably found it easier to differentiate between Teddy and Andrew that way. So I think the diary entry still makes sense in terms of the insane theory. As for referring to Laeddis as a 'terror' - that to me is probably once again differentiating between the two people he can be - Laeddis can be a terror, but Teddy is a calm, clever cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworked Summary[edit]

It's just over 500 words but I'm sure it needs copy editing. I left in the twist ending wikilink, brought in some other wikilinks that seemed to make sense, tried to explain the critical events a bit better, reworded the last bit so it wasn't an exact quote, and pulled out ALMOST all of the interpretative stuff like "seems to" and the like. The only interpretation I left in was the last bit about it being unclear if he was faking since that seems to be a point of confusion. Honestly, I'd rather end it after "live as a monster or die as a good man" but I see why people think it's important to note it was ambiguous. I intentionally skipped over the smaller details like Chuck at the bottom of the cliff and the migraines. They really weren't critical to explaining the overall story. But it's short enough now that some of that could easily be put back in if others think it's more important than I did. Have fun and happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we didn't need links to cast in the plot section if an article had the cast link sufficiently in the infobox and cast list. Which is why I removed all of the cast links in the plot summary when I updated. So now I'm confused because the BearPaw (who's been around longer than I), is adding them back in. Did I have the wrong idea? Honestly, I've been told three different things by three different long standing editors since I've been here. Need some clarification. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just went with the consensus I've gotten from longer term WP FILMs peeps and removed the excessive cast linking. Also added Leonardo's first name back to his parenthetical since his was the only one with just his last name. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I proposed the following addition to the plot summary at the end, in order to highlight the significance of Teddy/Andrew's last line which I regard as an important and final twist in the plot: "This closing remark could be seen to imply that the treatment was successful and Andrew has in fact managed to escape from his delusional fantasies, accepting the truth. However, unable to tolerate it, he chooses to be lobotomized, opting for a peace in ignorance rather than despair in his newfound realization of the truth." - this was deleted when inserted into the article, the reason cited as it had no reference. I would like to point out none of the other points in the plot summary section are referenced, why does this one need to be? I appreciate that to an extent this final point this is open to interpretation and could serve as a piece of opinion rather than description of the plot. I can therefore can understand why some would view it as not appropriate for the synopsis section of the article, however this is a plot point that's meaning has been left deliberately ambiguous and should not be overlooked. I feel it needs highlighting and i think i have made it clear in my phrasing that this is just one possible, but quite compelling, explanation as to the significance of the otherwise unexplained and confusing closing line. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.113.123 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policies of WP:V verification and WP:OR original analysis come into play. Plot points that are specifically presented can be directly from the primary source: "John drives his car into a tree." "Shelly stabs her puppy with a knife she stole from Tesco" - but interpretations and anyalysis of things that are NOT explicity presented in the film ("his silence suggests .... " ) need to be provided by third parties. Active Banana (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, is there not scope for a separate 'analysis' section in this article, which would function to highlight these vague areas of the plot and explain their possible significance in relation to the overall story.

Every article about a film has room for a "critique" section! - The issue is finding (a) professional reviewer(s) that discuss the film and its contents. If analysis / interpretations can be found in [[WP:RS|reliable sources], we can use them. (note that we need to present "pro" and "con" commentary in roughly the proportions that they are presented in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

Supposedly it was released 19 February (Friday). I saw it yesterday (Saturday 20 February) at my local theatre in Nowheremuch-ville, Australia, where it's been showing since Thursday 18 February. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a citation. (Btw, the cinema is not for sale; the name of the city is Sale, Victoria.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Film role?[edit]

How is it Leo's biggest in the box office? What about Titanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.210.153 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's his biggest premiere. Titanic brought in $28,638,131 [3] its opening weekend while Shutter Island brought in $41,062,440 [4]. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

storylining[edit]

  • I would suggest to add an analysis on the page. Especially the family lines are interesting.Finally Tedd/Ladd lived in 1952 with his wife and three girls. In shutter iland there is one daughter(patient/prisoner) missing. Rachel is shown in three ages and urged for killing her children and he searches her.

Real Ladd's wife drownd three. Scorsese chains the murdering in this way. Projections of the main figure, his imago is worked out and the recipient thinks it#s real in fiction. But it's imaginative or subjective in the story.[borrowmay]marvellous gramar. The history bgrd tells inhuman experiences of the protagonist, his memory, a soldiers or a marshall's profile mixes family and professional pictures.Unbearbable violence destroys him and the others. Folio Macbeth! Has anybody kidney problems?--188.100.205.28 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Clues for ending[edit]

I like the idea of that section a lot, even though no other similar movie has one that I know of. Mainly, it appeals to me because of how much of that stuff I had to cut from the plot summary for length and readability reasons. But I'm not sure that someone isn't going to come along and delete it for not being encyclopedic; there's nothing similar on any other similar movie I've looked up. However, in the event that it does stay, I'd like to give it a better title (but can't think of one) and maybe trim it down a bit to some of the bigger hints. Thoughts? Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-written section, but some of the explanations seem a bit subjective; furthermore, doesn't this section make the movie a lot less ambiguous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.234.24 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the subjective, which is sort of what I was thinking in terms of pairing the section down. I'd like to find a published source that discusses the clues so that 1) the section is referenced (because right now it has a fan site feel to it, even though many of those clues are perfectly valid) and 2) there's some basis for trimming them to a more reasonable length. I haven't had any luck so far because, I suspect, the movie is still too new. I'm thinking about copying the whole thing to my sandbox so that I have it for later; I figure much like with The Sixth Sense, eventually it will be older enough that some viable source will discuss that sort of thing. Regarding it making the movie less ambiguous; I'd say the end is still ambiguous since whether or not he is faking the delusions seems to be a point of debate amongst many. I'd also say that since the twist is given in the plot summary it may be a moot point. I feel like that sort of falls under the spoiler guidelines in some way. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Millahnna, but I think the description of the ending was far too subjective to be considered accurate, and also feels slightly misleading to me. I personally didn't get the idea of a cryptic ending at all, I think the scene at the lighthouse and the subsequent flashback of the death of his kids removed any doubt that Teddy was in fact Andrew. Also the vision of the little girl in his dreams which was in fact his daughter, and the dialogue between "Teddy" and George Noyce were more unsolved mysteries which only made sense when we find out the truth. I had to remove the conjecture from the plot description. Other viewers might agree with your theory about an open ending, but I don't think it belongs here. Indorock (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I personally agree that it was made clear that he was faking. I had originally left it more vague since there seemed to be some debate. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

weird perspective?[edit]

  • In the beginning of the film, the camera works on a mediative perspective.Fast movements lead from figure to figure, something Scorsese never done in other films I remember. I thought it over and may be it#s the perspective

of Rachel, the dead. She watching her father the marshall' til he transformes into the patient wearing white. These lines between the real figures in fiction and the imaginative ones are tensefull build up. Not just a neurologic zoo!So he enlightenes a system of relations and the paranoic system either.The historic line settled as a grounding in function of a battery, which changes idalism into direct violence, works well.There are marshalls in reality who are not chained and act on such paradigmas normally. May be I overinterpretate....--Danaide (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) --94.220.247.71 (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In Treatment (synopsis)[edit]

  • The film settled in the fifteeth USA deals with criminality and pschychy phanonemens.The causes of the murder seem to be found lately and the cruel solution in this time means lobotomy.

Just one person guilty for murder? Mirrowing the father is the cause of all deeds.Catholic beliefe bgrds this message. Is there any message ? is there only one guilty? Real Justice as a possible frame, may lead in another direction. b(h)uddy stuff!--88.77.134.56 (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thou shalt not wiki while drunk? Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers in the cast list[edit]

I think maybe we should remove the 'secondary'/'actual' character names from the cast list.

I know some people go to wikipedia for general information on a film before they see it, but will skim or skip the plot section, where spoilers are traditionally placed.

Having them right there on the cast/characters list is a bit too blatant of a place to put those such major spoilers.

Even the wiki page for Usual Suspect ***spoiler if your one of the 3 people on the planet who havent seen Usual Suspects*** doesn't put Keyser Soze next to Kevin Spacey's name.

I think it's best to just stick with the original cast and character lists as printed by IMDB and on press releases.

Totallyprocrastinating (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave it that way in spite of WP:SPOILER just because it looks cleaner (I really hated how the slashes looked). The only problem I see is that people will likely wonder why there are two Rachel Solandos listed, which is in and of itself a spoiler. So it seems like the change really doesn't help anything but the visual aspect of the page unless we remove Clarkson from the list, which I think is a bad plan just because she's a well known actress. I am going to re-add the Dr. back to her listing so that it doesn't look like a mistake. If someone else wants to revert the cast back to the slash version 1) I won't edit war over it, I don't really care either way and 2) find a better looking method than the slashes pretty please? Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that's fine. For Patricia Clarkson's role I noticed that IMDB had her and Emily Mortimer credited as "Rachel 2" and "Rachel 1" respectively, while the film's official site listed them both as "Rachel Solando", which is what I followed when I changed that section.
While Patrica's credit as "Dr. Rachel Solando" is a still a spoiler, it's minor compared to having "Teddy Daniels/Andrew Laeddis" or "faux Laeddis" printed right there.

Totallyprocrastinating (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see sensible editors working on this article. Too many trolls abusing guidelines like WP:SPOILER as an excuse to be griefers instead of following the spirit of the guidelines which is to make sure we have things like a full plot summary including ending. And since you've done a good job there too I could even read the first few paragraphs of the Plot summary without spoiling the ending. Here's hoping the article will stay in good shape. -- Horkana (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ninth Configuration - 1980[edit]

The plot both book and film has a lot of similarities with Blatty's Ninth Configuration, except without the best bar room brawl in cinema history. Still a very atmospheric film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.5 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Also, the lady drowning her children reminds me of the legend La Llorona. 67.10.202.168 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can source it, by all means... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted changes.[edit]

I performed several changes that I believe were for the good of the article, and they removed for supposedly being plot bloat and having bad grammar. My edits certainly didn't take the plot over the limit specified by MOSFILM, so I'd like to know what's the grounds for saying it was plot bloat. Then, I'd like to know what were the grammar and punctuation mistakes. Each of my changes was made for a reason, and I find it REALLY annoying when people just reverting a whole bunch of changes when they have a problem with any of them, instead of trying to work from them to improve the article. I leave the diff here. --uKER (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi UKER. I'll try to explain some of my specific issues and hopefully others will weigh in as well. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything. In general, I saw a lot of things that explained something that was already stated and added length in the process. If it had helped clarify something ambiguous the length wouldn't be an issue. I started to try and rephrase the things I felt strongest about but found too many problems, from my perspective, thus my decision to revert to the previous plot.
Going point by point through the changes that I took issue with (should be mostly in order through the diff):
  • 1st Paragraph sentences about Rachel: "supposedly" in connection to her disappearance I felt was an unnecessary word addition and could be taken as interpretative as it seems to tie into the later part of the film where Teddy believes he has been drugged and that the Rachel plot was a lure to draw him to the island.
  • "and that despite having spent several years in the institution, she believed she was at home and that her children are still alive. " Is significantly longer than the previous sentence and says the same thing.
  • 2nd paragraph: I wasn't sure why you removed the sentence about the cliffs but don't have a major problem with it. I liked that addition because it helps the reader realize how extensive the search was but could see how others may feel it's an extraneous detail.
  • "hospital's personnel's files" typo/punctuation problem on "personnel's"
  • "who had died in a fire two years before" Unnecessary change of verb tense leading to unneeded length.
  • "During this dream" and "in which she died" Addition of specific explanation that isn't needed, given the directly preceding sentence.
  • 3rd paragraph: The distraction for Chuck I felt was an unneeded detail in terms of a summary. I don't feel terribly strongly about this one, however.
  • Perhaps I'm remembering wrong but I don't recall Teddy saying he was specifically assigned to investigate the hospital after Andrew's disappearance. Given the end of the film, this is perhaps a moot point, but while watching I got the impression that he took it upon himself. My point is that it wasn't specified either way so I felt it best to simply leave it at the fact that he investigated without a why.
  • The sentence about Noyce and nazis seemed awkward to me. Part of the problem here, for me, was the introduction of Noyce by name. At this point in the plot, he's just a guy that Teddy talked to in the past and his name is not really critical. But if he is brought in by name this early, should the actor parenthetical be brought up as well (honest question, I'm really not sure) even though we don't see the character for a while yet?
  • 4th paragraph (in your version): "At a given point, and without any anticipation, Teddy is told Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer) had appeared some time ago, that she is just fine, and she is presented with her. " Last few words of the sentence have obvious grammar issues. However, I really liked the idea of what I think you were trying to convey in terms of how that moment played out in the movie. I felt the execution awkward and I stared and stared at it trying to figure out how to rephrase. I realized that ultimately quotes from WP:PLOTSUMNOT were what was bugging me. "The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience — it's to explain the story." "Do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary."
  • The rest of that paragraph I felt was unneeded detail and ultimately said the same thing that was there before; she was unresponsive to Teddy's questioning.
  • I can see a case for mentioning Teddy's hallucinations and headaches (ties into his beliefs about the hospital after he talks with Dr. Solando later) but as written in the diff they came off like extra details.
  • 5th Paragraph (your version): I don't think thee introductory sentence you added is really necessary but it's no big deal either way.
  • 6th Paragraph: "Teddy then makes it to the lighthouse but find nothing unusual, contrarily to what Noyce and Solando had made him anticipate. " Sentence isn't really needed and has minor grammar problems.
  • "and then went on to create a fantasy" Says the same thing as other version but with more words.
  • "This fantasy implied him adopting his new identity as Edward Daniels, an agent investigating the disappearance of Rachel Solando, being these names anagrams of "Andrew Laeddis" and "Dolores Chanal", his name and his wife's." Implied; not sure what you mean by that in this context. The anagram stuff I felt was unneeded detail; to me the fact that he invented the Rachel Solando character was sufficient.
  • "Cawley explains that during his time in the clinic, Andrew had went through several cycles of beginning his investigation, only to find out the reality about his crime, after which the cycle restarted, so Sheehan and Cawley decided to try a roleplay experiment, in which they contributed to enact Andrew's fantasy, in an attempt to bring him back to reality before a lobotomy is deemed as the only viable remedy. " Again, I see what you were trying to show with this but the execution was wordy and had some mild grammar issues.
I think I got my major points (I know I including some of the things I didn't really mind that much). And again, please do let me know if there's something I'm not being clear enough on. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to make that list. Now, here are justifications for my edits and the problems I have with the current text:
  • Presentation of Teddy's full name, needed for later presenting the anagrams without needing to explicitly say Teddy was actually called Edward (see later point on the anagrams' relevance).
  • Designation of Emily Mortimer as the actress for Rachel Solando when she is mentioned as the target of Teddy's investigation. At that point Rachel solando had not been presented on-screen, and during the course of the movie two different actresses portray her. Furthermore, the actress mentioned there as portraying Rachel turns out to be an impostor and not actually Rachel, so that designation I'd say is definitely wrong. IMHO each of the actresses' names should be given when Teddy is presented with the impostor and when he meets the "real" Rachel in the cave.
  • The sentence about the cliffs not possibly allowing her to reach the caves I'd say is totally pointless, lacking any cohesion with the rest of the text, and also meaningless since Teddy later actually meets Rachel in the caves (albeit she is a fictional one). If you feel necessary to reflect the intensity of Rachel's search, perhaps a sentence could be added that does that explicitly.
  • Since the film follows Teddy's mind's fabrications, the diversion for Chuck when the patient passes the note is relevant in presenting Teddy's subconscious suspicions towards Chuck.
  • The sentence "She tells him (...) who started the fire." actually required me reading it a couple of times before I knew what it was about, but maybe it's just me. In any case, I'd say scatimation on words doesn't outweigh the improvement in clarity.
  • Presentation of Teddy's wife, Dolores' last name. Same as with Teddy, makes way for the presentation of the anagrams.
  • George Noyce's name is in fact mentioned during Teddy's story about meeting him. No reason to mention it only later when they meet. Your question about designating the actors despite the character not actually appearing, I think is answered by the problem that arose with Rachel Solando. My take is actors should be presented only when they come on screen. Imagine films where the same character is played by several different people (this comes to mind). About Teddy investigating the institution, he says "I started making some checking on Ashcliffe.", so you're right on him not explicitly saying he had been asigned to do so.
  • Blatant omission of the scene where Teddy meets the impostor Rachel Solando. You're right on me making a typo there. I actually meant "he is presented with her" and not "she". About me trying to convey emotion, that was not the point. The point was to reflect the glaring awkwardness of the scene, which ties in to Teddy's suspicions of things going on behind the scenes.
  • Blatant omission of Teddy's increasingly disturbed state (photosensitivity, headaches, sweating, daydreaming, etc).
  • Blatant omission of the normality of the lighthouse, contrary to the house of tortures Teddy was expecting to find there.
  • The anagrams I think are the key point in clearing up any possible doubt one could have as to whether Teddy was insane or not, by revealing that the character's names were purposefully chosen (I actually have used that argument to settle debates with people that say Teddy wasn't insane and the hospital plotted to make him seem so). That said, my proposed text presented a more cohesive presentation of the anagrams.
  • No mention of the cycles in Teddy's evolution during his stay in the institution, and the fact that the fully-enacted roleplay thing was tried as a last resort. Somewhat tied to following point.
  • Blatant omission of Teddy knowing beforehand that the failure of his treatment would inevitably lead to a lobotomy, without which it is left unclarified that Teddy was actually wishing for it.
FWIW, whenever I find an edit that I am not completely happy with, especially when it comes from a non-anonymous editor, I always try not to revert it altogether without actually giving it a careful read trying to see what they were trying to do, and if anything, modify what I find wrong with their text, trying to keep the improvements they intended. Of course it's not a rule, but it makes things go much more smoothly and I find that it helps the article too. --uKER (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey uKER, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Real life reared it's ugly head. Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind your edits; I have a much clearer picture in my head now. In hindsight, there's some bits in there that were clear to me that, now that you point it out, I can see how it was unclear to others. There's a few points a I disagree with you on but nothing that I feel really strongly about, myself. Since no one else is chiming in, want to go ahead and revert back to the version you had made and we'll just hash out any rephrasing we need work on? Also, I want to apologize. The day I originally reverted I wasn't really paying attention to who the edits came from (I'm familiar enough with your work that I would have just gone and bugged you directly if I had). It's a bad habit I picked up elsewhere that helps avoid problems on another wiki I poke around on; read the edits not who they're from. I totally should have been paying more attention to the "who" in this case. Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That's OK with me. I'll see to do it incorporating any changes that have been introduced so far and taking into account the suggestions you made. --

uKER (talk)

Well, here's the new diff, between my previous edit and the new one. You were right on the grammar errors. Seems like I wrote it while sleep deprived because some of them were quite atrocious. Here's some comments about what I changed. Check it out and of course, feel free to improve at will.
  • Rachel "said to have vanished" reflects the uncertainty of the affirmation that she actually did, which Teddy suspects right from the start.
  • Not sure about the relevance of Rachel still thinking her children are still alive and she is still at home.
  • "had died in a fire" Although tecnically the plot is written in present tense, it talks about facts in the past, and as a fact that had already happened before the other events being described, I'd say the tense is right.
  • Gave context for Ward C.
--uKER (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading now; looks good so far. I think the sentence about Rachel thinking her kids were still alive originated with me, although now I can't recall why I felt the need to be so specific about it. My best guess is that I was trying to explain how severely delusion she supposedly was, as this gave a sense of urgency to the investigation. But yeah, kind of irrelevant, really. My beef with "had died" in a fire was that it went to past imperfect tense (or whatever it's called when you add the had in front of the modified verb). I thought just past tense should be fine (in which case just "had" would need to be pulled). But I went to public school in California so what do I know? ;) Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to come up with a formal justification for the tense in the mention of her death, but written in simple past it just strikes me as if the sentence had suddenly started talking about a real person and not a character in the film. It's probably just me though. Perhaps we should get some third party's input. --uKER (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that and see what you mean. The first time I read it, the sentence seemed really awkward but I find I don't notice it so much anymore. Go figure. I'm guessing it's probably clear enough either way and we're both over thinking it. Heh. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes in language[edit]

Hello. I do not understand this part of the plot: ...he finds Noyce, who says that the whole situation is a game for Teddy's benefit and that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

It could be divided into:

...he finds Noyce, who says
a) that the whole situation is a game for Teddy's benefit
b) that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

... so the situation number two would be exactly this: ...he finds Noyce, who says that Noyce is afraid of being taken to the lighthouse

Is really Noyce speaking there about himself? This reproduction really sounds so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.65.4 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

More cast list issues[edit]

I have a few questions/issues and a suggestion about the Cast list:

  • Re the two "Rachels" (see Spoilers in the cast list above), I just watched the movie on DVD and noticed the closing credits list them as "Rachel 1" followed by "Rachel 2" consistent with the IMDB. Perhaps this would be least spoiling, since movies often cover several stages in a character's life, requiring two or more actors to portray the same one.
  • Style question: Does the MOS dictate always using characters' complete names? In this case (a plot combining characters' fantasy with reality) it contributes to the spoiler problem. There is also a problem with Delores' name; she could never have actually been Delores Chanal Daniels, but rather Delores Chanal Laeddis. It might be best to just list her as "Delores", or at least "Delores Chanal".
Do you see the generic problem here? Perhaps a "one-size-fits-all" style standard doesn't really exist; a cast list is intended primarily to match actors with characters; if we get too specific it reveals relationships between characters, and the difference between reality and fantasy (as defined in-universe).
  • Order question: is the intent to present the actors in order of appearance? If so, I seem to remember the fake Rachel being introduced after Leonardo meets Max Von Sydow's character; also the deputy warden is out of order since he appears early.
Or, is the intent to be in order of plot importance? Even then, I believe von Sydow should be moved up and the fake Rachel moved down.

JustinTime55 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, when there's a debate about how to list the cast I tend to copy the official credits verbatim. For example, in The Uninvited (2009 film), none of the characters last names are given in the credits (though they are stated in the movie itself). Yet, there are numerous official sources listing two different last names for the main family. So to avoid the inevitable edit war, at one point I just killed all the last names and matched the closing credits and official website. So I think in this case the Rachel 1 and 2 idea would be great. My inclination is to go with this on the issue with Delores as well. I thought she was listed in the credits as Delores Chanal but I haven't seen this since it opened so I could be off.
I think the intent was to go with order of plot importance (not sure as I didn't do cast on this one) but I'm not positive. The few times I've done cast editing where the order came into play I was able to just use the credits. I can't remember how they were listed in this one (appearance, importance, etc.) so I'm not positive. Great questions. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did it say Dolores (Michelle Williams character) was bipolar?[edit]

Didn't the character say there was a worm or insect in her brain or something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Section8pidgeon (talkcontribs) 08:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like schizophrenia to me 173.181.105.124 (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I'm not sure her mental illness was specifically identified. I'll double check and do a once over of that section of the plot to make sure we're only as specific as the film is. Millahnna (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray Vs Blu-ray Disc[edit]

While technically correct, I find repeatedly calling it "Blu-ray Disc" is pointlessly cumbersome, and it's not what we've been doing in every single film article to date. Note I haven't been involved in the ongoing edit war on the matter. --uKER (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: Blu-ray Disc could be used in the first instance and then BD or non-hyperlinked BD for every additonal mention. This way, both of the official forms would be used, and it would be less cumbersome. Personally, I think only BD / BD should be used, analogous to "CD" and "DVD". It shouldn't matter if some people don't get it at first; after all, that's what Wikipedia is for: to learn something, and an encyclopedia isn't about what's popular but what's right. But since there's probably huge opposition to that (unwarranted, in my opinion), the above could serve as a compromise. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I insist that while perhaps more technically correct, calling it BD is an impractical technicism, and goes against common sense and established usage here on Wikipedia. I'll ask on WP:MOSFILM for other people's opinions and let you know what comes out of it. --uKER (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the discussion I've just started. --uKER (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

oomska?[edit]

Who is oomska? Referenced as a critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.52.169 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed as spam. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A semi-reliable source – maybe, but definitely not spam. Reinstated with a tag. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it was spam. Links to this site have been added (and re-added) to several articles from the IP range 155.56.68.x. The source is not in any way "semi-reliable". It clearly fails WP:V as a recently founded WordPress blog with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, any opinion expressed in a source like this is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oomska is not spam, 'Prolog', any more than you, sir, are spam! Why are there so many busy-body nerds on wikipedia, continually and relentlessly imposing 'rules' on worthwhile contributors' content? As I have just posted above, oomska is not a 'blog', and the Wizard of Oz reference is both accurate and pertinent. As to whether such sites are capable of producing content "notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia", can I point out to you that Wikipedia is *not* an encyclopedia; rather, it is an *online encyclopedia*. Don't get above yourself!

Oh, and 'Prolog', one more point: that there is a reference to 'Wizard of Oz' in 'Shutter Island' is not an 'opinion', it is either right or wrong, either the reference is there or it is not. An 'opinion' would be, say, if the article suggested that the whole film was intended as an homage to 'Wizard of Oz'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 11 October 2010

An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if it's online, on paper, on a floppy disk, … Also references are, unless verified by the creator, often interpretation of the viewer, and are frequently unintentionally and random rather than actually intended, people see hidden meanings that aren't actually there all the time.
Also the about page says "Some movie, tv, and related words from a guy with more dvds than time to watch them." clearly this is just some non-notable blogger. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to oomska.com, that is the wrong 'oomska'. Once again, I question the right, of people who make such mistakes, to judge the 'reliability' of others.

Do you really believe that there is no distinction between wikipedia and, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.215 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia aspires to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Its avoidance of using recently created blogs as sources is one small step in that direction.Cop 663 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
clearly not a "reliable source" with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy nor viewpoint of a "widely recognized expert in the field." Just some guy. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
And regardless of how much we are like EB, we are our own site with our own rules for inclusion of information in articles. The two relevant ones in question that the IP should review are the guidelines on reliable sources and external links. Oomska does not appear to meet either standard. While we may not be EB, we're also not a free-for-all forum that allows anything that any editor thinks is valuable. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How is oomska "just some guy"? Clearly there are a number of writers represented on that site. In what way are you, 'Active Banana', more than "just some guy"? Where on Oomska doe sit call itself a blog? Wikipedia may aspire to be Encyclopedia Britannica, but then I may aspire to be Martin Scorsese.

Cannot get why a site must have a "reputation" for fact checking, in this instance, when the 'fact' in question is easily confirmed, by watching the film, which I personally have done. Have you? No. You rule-worshipping wiki nerds don't know anything about the subjects being covered, you spend your time learning the rules and then nit-picking through other people's contributions. Man, get a life!

Ok, I think I'm gonna give up on this - how can "just one guy" hope to beat an army of pendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to add that information and link. 3 different editors have now told you that is neither a reliable source nor an external link. If you do not agree, you either need to continue discussing here, or you need to take the issue to a notice board like the reliable sources noticeboard. However, you may not simply try to "have your way" by pushing the info into the article repeatedly. Doing so is called "edit warring", and is not allowed (see WP:Edit warring for more details). Your IP address is changing, so I don't know exactly how we will resolve the issue if you continue to add against consensus, but disruptive editing is not allowed. If you don't like the fact that Wikipedia makes editors follow rules, then I recommend you either try to change the rules (and, just to save you time, WP:RS is not going to change the way you want it to) or you need to find a different site to edit on. Wikipedia is the place anyone can edit, but editors must abide by policies and guidelines. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This individual, using at least three IPs, has been adding the same material to this and the Annie Hall article for at least a month; he's ignored a dozen or so requests to stop. So I've blocked the 155.56.68.216 account. If he resumes the same editing with the 155.56.68.215 or 86.5.25.15 IPs then I'll block those too as needed. If that proves to be insufficient, we can add oomska.com to the spam blacklist; I dislike semiprotecting an article for the sake of one individual who isn't interested in productive contribution. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Victory to the nerds!

"...we can add oomska.com to the spam blacklist..."

You really are a bunch of plonkers, you can't even get the name of the website right: it's oomska.co.uk, not oomska.com. Good luck getting a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.25.15 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are taking the wrong approach here. Trust me, no one here hates Wikipedancy more than I do, but we do have to face certain facts. Here's a few pointers:
  1. You "attack" articles from different IPs instead of creating a username, and when confronted never address the issue. This can be seen around here as WP:Vandalism, WP:Trolling or both. You have one of two choices: agree or keep vandalizing/trolling. If you choose the latter, you're on your own.
  2. You repeatedly ignore crucial questions addressed to you by multiple editors, specifically about core policies. If you're pointed to a policy over and over again, might as well at least try and read it, rather than bashing your head against the wall. It's supposed to be a conversation, not who can "outscream" who. A fair amount of veteran editors use similar tactics when they have an agenda, and they indeed get away with it because they always manage to get WP:Consensus, fake as it may be – but it still doesn't justify your attack.
  3. You offend, rather than discussing, and such name calling and remarks are considered WP:Personal attacks. Blatant lack of WP:Civility is by no means welcome here or anywhere for that matter.
So, your problem in a nutshell:
  • You have created a website along with some friends. The website quality is not an issue here, not a single bit. It's probably great, the reviews may be very profound and the writing level may exceed some well known magazines. The problem, though, is on a whole different layer: allowing your site to be used as a source is akin to opening a can of worms. Suppose oomska.co.uk has been agreed upon as a reliable source. Shortly afterwards, 234673 others will do the same thing you've done, but their websites suck. Big time. Now there's an endless discussion thread around "why is his blog good and mine isn't?" or "is it because I'm black/Jewish/have ADD?" or any other unresolvable red herrings. Got it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

bad editing on purpose?[edit]

I have watched this film a few times and i have noticed that this film has poor scene editing. I was wondering if i was the only one that noticed this. I told this to other people who saw the movie and they thought that it was on purpose to kind of show how teddy views the world and how it is glitched and strange things happen. I know that sounds wierd but i had a hard time putting it into words. If someone else could elaborate that would be great. A great example is when they are interviewing the patients and the woman who tells teddy to run drinks the glass but there is nothing in her hand. Now i know it might be because she is crazy and thinks there a glass in her hand but the next shot is of her putting one down. There are also many scenes that seem to skip in the middle for a few seconds and don't blend correctly. Maybe someone who understood the film more could tell me if it was just poor editing or not and if it was related to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed too, and I got confused a bit about the glass. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I had some similar thoughts but without another source commenting on it, we can't do so as it would be original research. If done some poking around in reviews to see if anyone commented on it in that same way but so far nothing. Millahnna (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Many of the scenes are from the viewpoint of Teddy/Andrew. He is subject to hallucinations. He has a fear of water - a symptom of the repressed memory of the drowning of his children. That's why the sight of the water glass is blanked out for a moment. That's my personal interpretation; I'm too lazy to hunt for "reliable sources"... Ericlord (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When I started watching, I thought "Thelma Schoonmaker couldn't possibly have edited it". Then I realized the intent was to disorient the viewer. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dachau with Snow[edit]

The article incorrectly states that the "winterly" setting of the Dachau scenes is inaccurate. Snow was on the ground in spite of it being late spring as you can see in the pictures here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/dachau22.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.234.140 (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a source that directly contradicts the claims of inaccuracy in the movie? If not, this is unfortunately WP:SYNTH. –CWenger (^@) 04:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre and psychiatry[edit]

I removed the long final paragraph in the genre section that discussed a so-called "controversy" regarding psychiatry. The bulk of it was sourced to a LiveJournal blog entry, which does not seem to be an appropriate or reliable source. The final quote was from a Guardian article, but the quote made no sense without the preceding Dennis Lehane quote. Lehane's thoughts are certainly relevant, if they were sourced better, but none of it would belong in the "genre" section, anyway, because it is not germane to that subject. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Asinine updates?[edit]

I believe it unwise to characterize revisions to Shutter Island as "asinine" and violates Wiki protocol per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons#Disagree_respectfully David F (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I characterized the massive plot expansion that occurred on 26 November as "unnecessary and asinine" because both of those adjectives were justified. The IP who made those edits clearly knows nothing about how to edit WP, and I am not the only editor who is sick to death of constantly reverting the edits of nitwits who have no business being here in the first place. The great experiment in allowing "everyone" to edit Wikipedia must end. Clearly, some people have no business doing so. And I would characterize the belief that anonymous editing should continue to be allowed on WP as also being asinine. It is clear they do a great deal of harm. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough - unnecessary edits certainly must be frustrating and I think I understand the feelings behind "asinine", "knows nothing", "nitwits", and "no business being here in the first place". I also agree with terminating anonymous editing. However, I'm not so sure the "great experiment" of allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia must end. Further, unless and until Wikipedia policy changes, if experienced editors are unhappy with changes made, I believe this is something up with which experienced editors must put, and I suggest the onus on experienced editors is to disagree with changes respectfully. David F (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Shutter Island PC game[edit]

I just picked this up at a second-hand enterntainment store, and wondering why is there no article about it, or any references to it in this article. This is a "hidden objects" adventure game based on this movie. Was the game so mediocre (from what I read) that it went ignored by everyone? Cheers. Wildespace (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception section -- mixed reviews?[edit]

Like I stated here at the WP:FILM talk page, I came to this article and saw that the lead-in sentence in the Critical reception section describes the film as having received mixed reviews. This struck me as odd because it currently has a 68% Rotten Tomatoes score, which cannot too accurately be described as "mixed," and a 63% score from Metacritic...which outright classifies that score as generally positive. I figured that either an IP changed the lead-in summary to "mixed," or that a registered editor was keeping it that way. And sure enough, I looked into the edit history and saw that TheOldJacobite has been reverting anyone who changes the lead-in summary to "generally positive" (or something very similar). This stopped me from changing the summary.

So this is a case where the lead-in summary should be completely removed, right? Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support "mixed" in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how "mixed" belongs at all. I prefer using Metacritic, and one look at its breakdown shows 26 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and 4 negative. (I'm not crazy about Rotten Tomatoes since it operates on a positive-negative dichotomy.) Also, MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." To do this, we can do something like Google ""shutter island" "critics" to find periodicals that cover how critics received it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If, within a few days, the Critical reception section is not changed so that it better reflects the critical commentary of the film, as noted in the now closed WP:FILM discussion about this matter, I will re-open this discussion by re-inviting WP:FILM editors to comment on this matter here at this talk page. I will not be WP:Edit warring over this topic. WP:CONSENSUS, arrived at WP:FILM, about this matter is that "mixed" should be changed to "generally positive" or that a lead-in summary should not be there at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not the final word. The film opened to some critical, negative reviews, which means its reviews were mixed. That's the deal. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic quite clearly show the deal with regard to what critics generally felt/feel about this film. No film gets all positive or all negative reviews. Every film opens to "some critical, negative reviews," as was made quite clear in the aforementioned discussion. That is not how we define "mixed" for film articles here at Wikipedia, and this is the only Wikipedia film article that I know of that ridiculously categorizes a score exceeding 60% as "mixed." Hardly ever is 60% defined as "mixed" in general, let alone a percentage exceeding that. The categorization of "mixed" to describe this film is unsourced and generally at odds with what the sources relay about the film, and that will be remedied.
I'm off to re-invite WP:FILM to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Coming from FILM, from the video game project, we will use what MC categorically calls the score (in this case "Generally positive reviews") and often directly quoting that to avoid the original research. (here "Shutter Island has a cumulative score of 68% at Metacritic which considers this "generally positive".). I know the score breakdown is all over the place and the reception section needs to pull from both the best and worst reviews. The only other thing that would help would be to find a meta source that comments on the widely varied reception of the film, so that while the statistics say one thing, the practicality is that the film has a wide variance in scores. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In looking through the Metacritic results, I have to conclude that their algorithm is flawed. For instance, they score The New Yorker at a fairly positive 70% but Anthony Lane writes some pretty rough stuff about the film, such as its being composed of hundreds of cliches, that it is "irreproachably comic", that the film is empty ("nothing really seems to be at stake"). Lane says that, next to Scorsese's films Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, Shutter Island comes up short, that it "flickers and fades", that "the final twist is a fizzle" because Scorsese fails in his pacing. This is pretty damning, and it shows that Lane is not happy about the film even though much of his description of the plot is friendly to the film. This difference between Lane's negative conclusion and the meat of Lane's positive/neutral description of the film is probably where the Metacritic algorithm goes wrong.
In reply to Masem, there is no "original research" involved in assessing the views of the critics. Instead, it is the normal job of a Wikipedia editor to accurately represent the balance found in the literature. Assigning that job solely to an automated process such as Metacritic is a dereliction of duty, an abdication of the power of the human mind. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, as noted above, it's Rotten Tomatoes that gives this film a 68% score. Metacritic gives it a 63% score. I'm not seeing what you see with regard to "the score breakdown [being] all over the place." By the way, thanks for weighing in at my request.
Binksternet, it is WP:Original research (the WP:Synthesis aspect of that policy) to draw the conclusion that the reception for this film is mixed, if this is not explicitly made clear by a WP:Reliable source (meaning that a WP:Reliable source somewhere out there classifies the film that way). And, like I stated above, if it is made explicitly clear by a WP:Reliable source: "Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support 'mixed' in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking." The fact that the "mixed" summary is at odds with the two main review aggregators certainly makes it dubious to call the reception for this film mixed. Doniago, Corvoe, Erik (not sure if I should ping him since he's likely watching this article/talk page), Masem and myself have been clear about what should be done in this case. There is no valid reason that this article's Critical reception section should deviate from standard practice...unless it's deviating from the standard practice of having a lead-in summary (meaning we should simply refrain from having one for this article). Heck, for good measure, I'll go ahead and ping WP:FILM editors Betty Logan and Tenebrae as well; hopefully, they will also weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the archived WT:FILM discussion, here are sources to use: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. We should use these as well, especially since RT only assesses a review as either positive or negative. My initial understanding of the consensus is that it is considered a weak Scorsese film. This is reflected here. I can try to draft something this weekend if someone does not beat me to it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of >70% scores assigned by MC, and there's a lot of >30% scores. This is basically means both highly praised and very much panned. While not unheard of, this is a point that it would be great if it could be sourced outside of RT/MC, that the film had a strong range of reviews. (Compared to when we see scores for video games, they nearly always fall within the same +/- 15% of the average score). --MASEM (t) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your draft would be helpful, Erik. Thank you. And, Masem, thanks for continuing to contribute to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment My view on this for the last year to 18 months has consistently been to drop that opening sentence. WP:AGG's advice that aggregators are "not arbiters of critical consensus" seems like good advice to me. A comment User:Ring Cinema once made has stuck in my mind: "Rotten Tomatoes does not sample, it surveys". I think that is a very salient point. RT and MC don't at any point attempt to represent the wider critical consensus, they simply assess the reviews that are submitted to them. All the reviews are from English sources, and most are from the same handful of countries, so they draw from a narrow spectrum. Looking at the case of Shutter Island inparticular, in both cases RT and MC judge roughly two thirds of the reviews to be positive so we can skip that first sentence and simply state that i.e. "Around two thirds of the reviews surveyed by review aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic were considered to be positive". To me, that is a simple statement of fact and avoids any editorializing or assumptions about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment That's been my understanding as well. In case after case, editors argue and edit-war over subjective terms such as "mixed" or "universally acclaimed" (the later even when the "universal" is not 100%). None of these subjective interpretations help the reader. But if the reader sees that "RT's aggregation says this" and "MC's aggregation says this" and reads a sampling of critics' quotes beneath that, then a reader can make up his or her own mind. And we even offer the CinemaScore audience view to give them an even more well-rounded picture. We don't need to open with a claim that's subject to debate. We need to just give the facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Tenebrae, Betty Logan, and the others who have expressed dissatisfaction with opening sentences. It's better to just let the reviews speak for themselves. Otherwise, you get people who invent phrases like "mixed-to-positive", which is almost meaningless. Is it mixed? Is it positive? How positive? Just quote the aggregators and a representative sampling of reviews. There's no need for editorializing. I'm probably guilty of editorializing in some articles, but I generally remove it whenever I see it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would comment that it would be great to see some type of sources statement as to the split in reviews (some praised highly, some panned horribly) so that the reader is prepared, in reading the reception section, that they're going to see two extremes here. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for commenting. Like before, there is strong support to either source the lead-in summary well (meaning with WP:Due weight) or to remove it; there appears to be stronger support for the latter. Betty, I take it that you were speaking in a general sense when you stated, "My view on this for the last year to 18 months has consistently been to drop that opening sentence." Not just for this article. As for lead-in summaries in general, I think that they do help the reader. In fact, it's common that it's our readers who add such summaries. But I think we should only offer those summaries in cases explicitly supported by the sources or in clear-cut cases. And let's face it: There are some clear-cut cases, such as Schindler's List or The Avengers (2012). This is despite The Avengers (2012 film) article currently not offering a lead-in summary in its Critical reception section or even a mention in the lead noting that the film did very well with critics (in my opinion, there should at least be something about its critical success noted in the lead...other than the awards it was nominated for and received). In that case, I stated, "Pretty silly to me to make a big deal out of directly stating that the film is critically acclaimed, or received mostly positive reviews, when it obviously is/did. And while it can be argued that 'It's obvious to our readers as well,' there are a lot of people who are not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and will perhaps wonder why it's especially relevant that those sites are mentioned instead of only quoting individual critics."
For those interested and unaware, WP:FILM has discussed the lead-in summary topic time and time again; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Ranges of Reception and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative for more recent discussions on the topic. And also see this recent discussion, which resulted in some changes to the film layout guideline. The only thing that WP:FILM seems to be in complete agreement about on the topic of lead-in summaries is that no WP:Original research should be employed and that "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" should not at all be used. But then again, there is sometimes a bit of disagreement about what is and is not WP:Original research in such discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Erik, with regard to your draft proposal mentioned above... Do you still have any plans for that? Or would you rather one of us take a shot at it? This IP's addition of "positive," while better, is not ideal in this case. "Generally positive," for example, would be more accurate than simply "positive." Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been preoccupied with other things and didn't have this on my watchlist. I have too many things on my wiki-plate, so I can't really guarantee getting around to it. If someone else could do it instead, that would be great. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Wasn't (still isn't) on my watchlist either. But I can try to make time to work on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"hency why"[edit]

I'm changing "hency why" to "which is why", because "hence why" is incorrect English. Thank you. 82.30.214.154 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness that the wording wasn't actually, "hency why", considering that is worse than "hence why." Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)