Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Twelve Monkeys
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Breed3011, Sir Isaac Lime, and Indecine
Mediator(s)	Cool Blue talk to me

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Twelve Monkeys]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Twelve Monkeys]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Breed3011, Sir Isaac Lime, and Indecine

What's going on?

A seemingly unresolvable discussion over whether or not Twelve Monkeys contains religious symbolism. Two parties (Breed3011, Sir Isaac Lime) think it does and have cited references that Indecine (I) believe do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

Hi, Breed3011 here: My basic premise is this. There are several sources I have found on the internet which enforce the case for their being biblical symbolism in the film. Please bear in mind that 12 monkeys is a highly stylised Terry Gilliam film, dealing with the themes of prophesy, apocalype and even Greek mytholgy (Cassandra Syndrome). With all that going on, it doesnt seem too far a strecth to acknowledge that their is also biblical symbolism in the film. Given the themes of the film, I would say that it isnt a "fringe" theory. It is a pretty "mainstream" reading of the film.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F, states that "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". The sources I cited are trustworthy in relation to the subject at hand:, a fanzine, a review from Rotten Tomatoes and 2 religious publications.

I havent found a quote from Terry Gilliam verifying the symbolism but I have found an interview from the Observer newspaper ( http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,905609,00.html) in which Gilliam says that he was once a Presbytarian Missionary and then he acknowledges the influence biblical stories have on today's stories. "I rate the Holy Bible as literature. It's a good read. And much of our common culture was based on biblical stories."

IMO the symbolism is self evident and doesnt need citing (like in Terminator, John Conner having the initals JC and having the role of saviour of humanity at Judgement Day), but I have found sources anyway. I am not a christian, neither am i religious, but I do feel that Indecine's objection is based on a fear that religious people would abound with endless conspiracy theories and ruin what is an otherwise good page. I dont feel that is a valid reason to deny the truth.

But I will humbly abide by the decision the Cabal make. Breed3011 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

INDECINE In addition to what I have already mentioned, I present the following in support of my reasoning.

Of the top 50 most common male names in America, 7 begin with a J. (James, John, Joseph (Joe), Jason, Jeff, Joshua (Josh), Jerry). Of the top 50 most common surnames in America, 4 begin with C. (Clark, Carter, Campbell, Collins). So, it's not at all a stretch for someone's initials to be innocently J.C., which may explain, to name a few, Jacky Chan, Jim Carrey, John Carpenter, John Cusack, John Cleese, James Cameron, John Candy, not to mention James Cagney.

As for the theme of saving the world, I feel a little silly even addressing that because it's so common. Does "Save the cheerleader, save the world" sound familiar? Heroes (2006). If not, here's just a sampling of the recent movies and tv shows (that are not listed on the Christ-figure page) with the save the world or apocalyptic theme: War of the Worlds (2005), Independence Day (1996), Armageddon (1998/I), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (4 Times), Doctor Who (countless times), Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004), Mars Attacks! (1996), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), The Incredibles (2004), Men in Black (1997), Men in Black II (2002), Starship Troopers (1997), The Core (2003), Sky High (2003), Spy Kids (2001), X-Men (2000), I, Robot (2004), 28 Days Later (2002), Doogal (2006), Children of Men (2006), Agent Cody Banks (2003), GoldenEye (1995), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), Star Trek: Nemesis (2002). See also Apocalypticism, which states that "apocalypticism can be tied to religious or secular views", so its mere presence is not indicative of religious symbolism.

So, yes, a statement like the one that is in dispute is a "fringe theory", which is probably why it hasn't appeared in any mainstream publication. The reason that wikipedia has these rules is to keep people from posting references from just any website. I, for example, own 4 domains (two are movie related), on which I could put any number of articles for use as references. I could even inexpensively self-publish a book, and many people do. For these reasons, it's not enough to have references; they must be quality references. These references are neither mainstream nor quality. In fact, one cites another as a reference, and none of them contain anything other than original research. Indecine 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

So Cool Blue, our basic points are this: Indecine thinks it is a pure coincedence that some characters in films who are given the responsibility of being the saviour of humanity - have the initials JC (John Conner in Terminator, James Cole in 12 monkeys). Even though there is other biblical imagery in those films (terminator: a strange other-worldly man comes to earth and impregnates a woman (immaculate conception) - their offspring will be the saviour of humanity at "Judgement Day" - 12 monkeys: James Cole is sent to Earth at the time of an apocalypse to save humanity, the film even has quotes from Revelations from a street prophet!) and at the end there is a "resurrection" of sorts (in the scene where he dies, we see that he lives on). Indecine treats the directors and screenwriters like they are congenital idiots who arent aware of symbolism or what they are writing about. To indecince these are mere accidents and labelling this symbolism a "fringe theory" shows he has an anti-religion agenda - He is reacting as if I am trying to put the theory of Intelligent Design in to the article. I am not a christian, nor religious yet take offence at this agenda.

I have read in the talk pages a lot of earlier attempts by writers to add the biblical symbolism and I would absolutely concur that some of those attempts represent ludicous Original Research with no basis. Perhaps Indecine is still reacting against those clumsy contributors - but my paragraph was extremely carefully worded see below

Since its release in 1996, fanzines ^[1], reviewers ^[2] and religious publications ^{[3] [4]} have detected biblical symbolism in the film. In particular, the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) seems to fit the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself. The film, set at Christmas time, deals with an apocalypse reminiscent of prophesies in the Book of Revelations (7 vials), some of which is quoted by a street prophet in the film. Furthermore the letters "Chris" are the only visible letters on Cole's t-shirt in one scene in the film.

Now Indecine wrote the paragraph below, which shows that he isnt averse to the symbolism being in the article - he just wants to make out that you are a reglious lunatic if you believe it

A few religious publications have published articles about unconfirmed religious symbolism in the film ^{[3] [4]}. They believe that James Cole fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure. This belief centers around the protagonist's initials J.C., the film being set at Christmas time, and the name Chris that appears on Cole's t-shirt.

It does seem a little bit obvious that Gilliam hasnt accidentally put the symbolism in there, doesnt it? Breed3011 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually... looking at our 2 different paragraphs, the main difference (apart from my extra sources) is the word "unconfirmed" which is in Indecine's paragraph but not in mine. I would consider the matter resolved if my paragraph went back in the article but with the addition of the word "unconfirmed" before "biblical symbolism" - that would be a highly satisfactory solution for me. How about you Indecine? Breed3011 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Would using Bruce Willis as the Messiah: Human Effort, Salvation and Apocalypticism in Twelve Monkeys as a source help advance this mediation? Tim Vickers 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

- Tim, that is one of the sources that Indecine doesnt feel is notable and has labelled "Fringe" Breed3011 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Breed3011, I would appreciate it if you would focus on the article and not on what you think I think. You have attacked me personally, albeit underhandedly, four times now. Focus on the article. I have. Indecine 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

INDECINE - The following are my objections for each reference, as requested by the moderator.

First, I think I should start with a definition of mainstream, which Wiktionary says is: (mildly derogatory): very popular, as a fad; familiar to the masses; common, usual or conventional. I don't see how any tiny, religious, on-line, university publication can qualify as mainstream.

http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art8-cinematicchrist.html
This also is an on-line only publication that is hosted by the Department of Religious Studies and Anthropology, The University of Saskatchewan, a (private Catholic?) Canadian university. This publication is not mainstream. Additionally, the reference that this article provides for what it says about this topic is as follows:
Dailey, F.F. 2000. "Bruce Willis as the Messiah: Human Effort, Salvation and Apocalypticism in Twelve Monkeys." Journal of Religion and Film, 4,1, 1-8. [1].
You'll notice that it's the same reference as the following one. I feel like I'm going in circles.

http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Messiah.htm
This is an on-line only publication from the Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of Nebraska at Omaha. None of the listed editors have any expertise in film, only religious studies. The author appears to have relevant experience, but not education; however, there are no references in the article for 12 Monkeys. It is 100% original research. Furthermore, this publication hardly qualifies as mainstream.

http://www.mouratis.org/12m/
This reference is a personal domain. On the main page it states "Demetri's clearinghouse for sharing stuff I've made or learned.". This person is a Unix Sysadmin without any relevent degrees. The only place this topic appears is in a 12 Monkeys FAQ page in which Demetri quotes the opinion of another person.

http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/review.asp?R=R0000568
The last given reference has nothing to do with religious symbolism in the film. It simply states "It (12 Monkeys) blends notions of the Bible's Apocalypse, Greek mythology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, anarchist ideologies and ecology into a surprisingly cohesive, exhilarating epic of ideas." But these quotes do not support the statement. He mentions nothing about the characters initials or any of the others points. Most importantly, this reference is also a personal site. In the about page he states "Montreal Film Journal went online in May 2002, the last in a series of different incarnations of this movie review site my brilliant web designer Mathieu Gagnon and I have worked on continuously since 1998. From the horror that was the (free) Xoom page to a nice little warm place in the back of the Net Communication domain, through a bunch of ill-thought names and color schemes, all the way to the current dot-com, it's been quite a journey!... Kevin Laforest, MFJ founder and editor"

As you can see from the edits, I was willing to compromise and let the first two stand, provided the statement matched reality. The only references that are even remotely up to Wikipedia standards are the two religious publications, and they are both unconfirmed. As a statement of what someone believes, it would be true. As a statement of fact, like it originally was, it's not. The last sentence was removed because it is unreferenced by any of the provided references.

Again, for review, this is the compromise I offered, and I think it matches the facts exactly. "A few religious publications have published articles about unconfirmed religious symbolism in the film[5][6]. They believe that James Cole fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure. This belief centers around the protagonist's initials J.C., the film being set at Christmas time, and the name Chris that appears on Cole's t-shirt." Indecine 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually I just found these 2 links http://www.philipcoppens.com/12monkeys.html and http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/monkvive.htm. They contain quotes from the screenwriters David and Janet Peoples who say that one of their key themes in the film was to show how time travellers are like prophets.

Kosberg got the Peoples to watch La Jetee again and the couple began to see possibilities for a different, more detailed take on the material. "How would we react to people who showed up and said 'Oh I've just popped up from the future' and in turn how would that person deal with our reaction." With this in mind, David and Janet set out to write a challenging piece of fiction that not only manipulated our conventional views of time but that also dealt with the notion of madness. Janet explained in an interview, "We were very interested in asking questions like 'Is this man mad? And how about the prophets of the past, were they mad? Were they true prophets? Were they coming from another time? What are all the different possibilities?'" The film's script argues that certain people who are classified insane by society at large may not really be crazy at all but are in actuality presenting ideas that are way ahead of our time. And perhaps the blame for this misunderstanding should be leveled at the psychiatric profession which, as one character in the film observes, has become the new religion of a society that has deserted traditional faith for modern technology.

So, an admission from the Screenwriters that they wanted to investigate the theme of time travellers as prophets. It doesnt get more clear cut - although there is no list of the symbols they actually put in, it is enough to know that the biblical symbols detected are deliberate. Therefore I think my paragraph can go back in the article with an added sentence and citation to the quote above. Breed3011 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The following sections of the Wikpedia guidelines support my objections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view_.28NPOV.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
Indecine 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Indecine, i have written the following paragraphs for inclusion in the article - any objections?

Screenwriters David and Janet Peoples were intrigued with the possibilities that arose from depicting time travellers as prophets. In a rare interview Janet said "How would we react to people who showed up and said 'Oh I've just popped up from the future' and in turn how would that person deal with our reaction...We were very interested in asking questions like 'Is this man mad? And how about the prophets of the past, were they mad? Were they true prophets? Were they coming from another time? What are all the different possibilities?'" ^[5] Consequently in the film, prophesy is a key theme. In Katherine Railly's lecture "Madness and Apocalyptic Visions", we are told about the Cassandra Complex where Cassandra was "condemned to know the future but to be disbelieved when she foretold it". Railly also speaks of several prophets warning of an apocalypse who are time travellers sent to the wrong era (As proof, we see from a photograph that one of the prophets is Jose in 1917). Two particular examples are quoted below.

"According to the accounts of local officials at that time, this gentleman, judged to be about forty years of age, appeared suddenly in the village of Wyle near Stonehenge in the West of England in April of 1162. Using unfamiliar words and speaking in a strange accent, the man made dire prognostications about a pestilence which he predicted would wipe out humanity in approximately 8OO years."

"During such an attack in the French trenches in October, 1917, we have an account of this soldier... who, during an assault, was wounded by shrapnel and hospitalized behind the lines where Doctors discovered he had lost all comprehension of French but spoke English fluently, albeit in a regional dialect they didn't recognize. The man, although physically unaffectedby the gas, was hysterical. He claimed he had come from the future, that he was looking for a pure germ that would ultimately wipe mankind off the face of the earth in the year... 1996!"

In addition, when Cole returns to the future having been sent to the wrong year, he hears a voice telling him to be thankful he didnt get sent to ancient Egypt - the implication being that a time traveller warning of an impending apocalype had been sent there.

Since its release in 1996, many eagle-eyed fans have noted prophetic symbolism in the film ^[1]. In particular, the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) seems to fit the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself. Furthermore the letters "Chris" are the only visible letters on Cole's t-shirt in one scene in the film ^[4]. While there is no exhaustive list of symbolism in the film, the idea of depicting time travellers as prophets has been confirmed by the screen writers ^[5]. Breed3011 05:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Breed3011, I understand that the documents covering Wikipedia policies are quite long, but a familiarity with them will save you and everyone else a lot of work and frustration. The following quote appears at the bottom of your latest reference. "J.D. Lafrance is a freelance writer who hopes to one day get paid to watch and write about movies. He counts David Lynch, Michael Mann, Wes Anderson, the Coen brothers, and, of course, Terry Gilliam as some of his favourite filmmakers." I wish you luck in your continued search. I truly hope you find good references. Indecine 07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Why is that relevant? I am quoting from an interview with David and Janet Peoples - not quoting ideas or views put forward by J.D. Lafrance but if you really want another source to that quote, here http://www.philipcoppens.com/12monkeys.html. A quote from the same interview on a different website.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that I am jumping through hoops to get something that is blindingly obvious put into the article whilst at the same time it is very easy to turn round and say that the sources arent good enough... even when they include quotes from the writers of the actual film. I strongly suspect that if Terry Gilliam himself had published an article where he admitted the symbolism, you would still hunt for an obscure wiki page to try to get his testimony silenced.

In my view the paragraphs I have written are hardly controversial or fringe-theories. Indeed, I back it up with quotes from the people who wrote the film. I have jumped through enough hoops and removed quite a lot of the unsourced examples. Consequently, I am posting those paragraphs in the article. Breed3011 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm going to wait for our moderator before discussing this any further. Indecine 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I believe I have tracked down the source of the David and Janet Peoples interview which is quoted in http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/monkvive.htm. I have found a DVD about La Jetee called Dreams in which David and Janet Peoples provide the audio commentary here http://www.amazon.com/Short-2-Dreams-Jean-N%C3%A9groni/dp/B000031VPS/ref=imdbpov_dvd_1/104-9800864-1935934?ie=UTF8&qid=1183537279&sr=8-1. This must be the source of the quote, making it mainstream, non-npov, and verifiable. Breed3011 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Alright, I'm reviewing the sources and whatnot right now. For now, I'd recommend that both parties would just sort of roam around Wikipedia, edit a few articles via Special:Random, etc. Wikipedia's a big place, and Twelve Monkeys and this aren't the only two places. I'll contact both of you when I'm ready. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

What would you like to change about that?

I would like someone to intervene.

Discussion between parties and mediator

I'm asking all parties now if it's okay if I'll be the mediator. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Breed3011 accepted, confirmed here. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with User:Cool Blue mediating as well. Didn't realize this had reached this point, but so it goes. I'd also like to point out that I am not religious either, I'm agnostic, in fact, but believe that, since the religious symbolism in 12 Monkeys is obvious enough for several journals and interviews to mention it, it is probably worth a single paragraph in a wikipedia article. Sir Isaac Lime 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Last accept, we're good. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry guys, I'd start now, but I have to go in real life. Thanks. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, it looks like this gained some heat while I was gone. Anyways, Indecine, to start this off with a mediator, I say we start with the reliable sources, the move to the other issue(s) from there. Could you list all the sources that the other two users have used, and give an explanation on why or why not you believe it is(n't) a reliable source. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have posted the issues I have with the sources. Indecine 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have come to a possible conclusion that might make both parties happy. Here are some of the issues I have found:

1) The "J.C." issue could or could not be coincidental. Indecine makes a good point, but many movies such as the Terminator and Twelve Monkeys use it. The Santa Clause also has Scott Calvin. But that issue doesn't matter.

2) It doesn't matter if the Pope or Kim Jong-il wrote the script. The point is that people detected it. WP:RS cites "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." The first two listed are reliable. It doesn't matter if they're mainstream or not, they're from accredited universities in religious studies, and although they're not film studies they're still reliable. However, the last two are not reliable. The second-to-last one is a personal domain, and the last one really doesn't have anything to do with the situation at hand.

3) It doesn't matter if there was or was not any religious stuff in there, or if it was all just people's thoughts just detecting possible stuff that wasn't intended. So I recommend three things:

1) A very brief paragraph, not more than a few sentences, (which will be constructed by Indecine and Breed3011 together, and will be okayed by me) with the paragraph stressing that it was only detected, not confirmed, while maintaining a neutral point of view, the paragraph will have every statement referenced with a reliable source, whether the source is mainstreamed or not. I'll make changes to it when it is run through me, so no one will be complaining.

2) To encompass all of the facts, I suggest making an article called Religious symbolism in Twelve Monkeys, which will again will stress that it was only detected, will contain reliable sources, maintain a neutral point of view, and will be run through me. While we can deny that the Twelve Monkeys article is the wrong place for the information, and we can deny that the symbolism was not intended, we can't deny that it was detected, there were symbolisms whether they were intended or coincidences, and we can't deny that the information is suitable for inclusion. and,

3) Indecine, you had only had 9 edits until you came to MedCab. Take it from a user with over a year here, and has amassed around 6.5K edits, there will be a lot of disagreements. You'll have to learn to work them out.

I'll ask the parties if they accept, and we'll go from there. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Cool Blue - Firstly let me apologise that I have written so much on this topic - I am off work sick at the moment and bored out of my mind and you know what it is like when the slightest things become so important!!

That conclusion is acceptable to me for the final paragraph. However, since the mediation cabal was set up by Indecine I have written some prior paragraphs supported with quotes from the screenwriters regarding the theme of prophets (greek, and medieval). As this is supported by valid quotes and isnt Original Research - can these earlier paragraphs stay in as I dont think they are contentious or disagreeable at all? (and I am quite proud of them!!) Breed3011 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Personally, I don't mind, but Indecine will have to agree. We're here in the first place because of the paragraphs, and if Indecine doesn't accept we'll just have to stick with that. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Breed3011, I have undid your revisions here, because it is not inline with the mediation agreement, unless Indecine agrees to let them stay. However, if Indecine lets them stay, just undo my revision. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Seems fair enough. Not sure if another article (Religious Symbolism in 12 Monkeys) is necessary, but a couple well cited sentences in the article is exactly what is necessary. This whole article is such a mess, and needs so much work, it's unfortunate that this became such a big deal. Sir Isaac Lime 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Your proposition would depend on several things

• As for agreeing to the wording, I will try. I have already posted what I thought was a NPOV, but Breed3011 apparently disagrees with my use of the word religious. Both of the sources use the word "religion" in the title of their publication, so I don't see how that could be perceived as a POV word. Also, the word detected implies that it was really there. I think perceived or interpreted would be a better choice.
• Breed3011 has added new information to the article that is also sourced with 2 personal websites. Personally, I think quotes from the screenwriters should definitely be included, but it also needs to be sourced properly. However, comments accompanying those quotes and attempts to blend them with other references and draw conclusions from them is misleading and original research. The words prophecy and apocalypse are not necessarily religious and have nothing to do with the appearance of the initials J.C. and other religious interpretations.
• I am okay with the new article; however, the title of the proposed new article seems a little narrow in scope for Wikipedia. If the only reliable sources indicate a Christ figure, then I would suggest moving the information to that page. If there is more, then the new page may need a broader title. Indecine 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me, but I really don't think the quotes should be included. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a news article, and quotes are hardly ever used outside of biographies of living persons. However, that's your decision. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi guys - Im about to post a vastly truncated and differently sourced version, hopefully agreeable to all concerned. One thing though, although I have never explicity written that I take issue with the word "religious" as an adjective (as opposed to biblical) - my reasons for preferring "biblical" are because I feel "biblical" is more NPOV. I think the term "Religious symbolism" helps to imply that the people who interpret the symbolism are followers of christianity with a hidden agenda ^[6]. This labels people and isnt NPOV.

Furthermore, i think it is a better classification - There is Greek symbolism (Cassandra) and Biblical symbolism. Technically speaking BOTH are religious as the Greek legends were about their gods too. I am not christian, therefore the christ-figure stuff isnt a religious issue for me - it is however, biblical. I hope I am making sense here! Breed3011 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Here it is: BTW I am not keen on writing the other article - I am happy with this - less is more! - any objections?

Screenwriters David and Janet Peoples were intrigued with the possibilities that arose from depicting time travellers as prophets. Speaking on the DVD audio commentary of La Jetee, Janet said "How would we react to people who showed up and said 'Oh I've just popped up from the future' and in turn how would that person deal with our reaction...We were very interested in asking questions like 'Is this man mad? And how about the prophets of the past, were they mad? Were they true prophets? Were they coming from another time? What are all the different possibilities?'" ^[7] Consequently in the film, prophesy is a key theme. In Katherine Railly's lecture "Madness and Apocalyptic Visions", we are told about the Greek legend of Cassandra who was "condemned to know the future but to be disbelieved when she foretold it". Railly also speaks of medieval and war-time prophets warning of an apocalypse in the year 1996, but viewers understand that they were time travellers (as we see later from a photograph that one of the prophets is actually Jose in 1917).

Since its release in 1996, many fans have interpreted biblical symbolism in the film and a notable Religious Studies academic has authored an essay claiming that the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself. ^[4]. Breed3011 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this for the main article or for the separate article? In either case, but especially if it's for the main article, I would recommend putting on of the other "interpretations" between these two to eliminate confusion. I have edited it for length, to remove the first person and for clarity.

In the DVD audio commentary of La Jetee, screenwriter Janet Peoples asks, "How would we react to people who showed up and said 'Oh I've just popped up from the future' and in turn how would that person deal with our reaction...We were very interested in asking questions like 'Is this man mad? And how about the prophets of the past, were they mad? Were they true prophets? Were they coming from another time? What are all the different possibilities?'"

These questions are reflected in the movie when the character Katherine Railly lectures on "Madness and Apocalyptic Visions". She speaks about the Greek legend of Cassandra who was "condemned to know the future but to be disbelieved when she foretold it". Railly also speaks of medieval and war-time prophets warning of an apocalypse in the year 1996. Later in the movie, a photograph of one of the prophets reveals that it was actually Jose in 1917.

SEPARATE

Since its release in 1996, a few religious studies academics have authored essays claiming that the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself.[13]. Indecine 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Getting there, but I will only go with that wording if the paragraph beginning "Since its release" follows on directly from "Jose in 1917". Breed3011 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That would be both deceptive and original research, so no. Indecine 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Havent we just had a week long mediation cabal (which you instigated, not me) which decided that the Religious studies academic paper was notable and acceptable for inclusion, and that there were no issues regarding the quotes from the screen-writers. That should be the green light - they 2 paragraphs are on the same subject - you just happen to disagree with it. Personally, i dont care whether you disagree with it or not - let's be aware that this is you're only gripe though. Don't stand behind wiki guidelines of Original Research because the mediation cabal(which you instigated, not me) has decided that it is not. Why should we bury an interesting acceptable paragraph that is undeniably linked to the other paragraphs merely because you disagree with it? I'm complaining to Cool Blue. Breed3011 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Complain all you want to, but I'm not going to let you deceive readers into thinking these two are related. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position Indecine 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

this is exactly my point - i have read that obscure rule and it doesnt apply. where is the position C? It is in your head! Position C is the agenda you have IMAGINED that is being implied - I am not furthering an agenda - there is paragraph A and Paragaraph B - putting them together doesnt make position C. No theory stating "If position A is true and position B is true then C" - it just puts 2 closely related paragraphs together. Breed3011 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You think all the rules are "obscure" because you haven't read any of them. Position A = The screenwriter mentioned the word prophets, which is vaguely religious. Position B = There are some "prophets" in the movie. Position C = A couple of tiny religious publications think there is religious symbolism in the movie, and you happen to agree with them, so you want it all together to try to advance that point.

And in case you don't remember, you should look up a few paragraphs to see what Cool Blue said about those stupid quotes. Quite frankly, I agree with him, but I've been trying to be cooperative. In reality, it's long, boring and doesn't belong. And, it's STILL UNSOURCED. Indecine 11:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And our instructions were to write "A very brief paragraph, not more than a few sentences". This far exceeds a few sentences. Indecine 11:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Incorrect Indecine: position A: the thematic link between time travel and prophets is established. Position A: Some examples of time travellers being mistaken for prophets are cited, which supports position A so it isnt a new position B. Position A again: further exploration of symbolism detected in the film by notable sources which explores the depiction of time travellers as prophets in the film.

1 theme, 1 position. No Original Research.

If there has been Original Reasearch, as there was in my previous attempt (according to that wiki guidleine you showed me) it has already been edited out by you... ie ,There is no statement saying something like "the quotes from the screen writers prove that there is a saviour figure in the film". It doesnt happen. The quotes which Cool Blue has said is relevant is sourced and not attributed to the screen writers. No attempt is made to attribute it to them. It is merely on the same thematic subject, the depiction of time travellers as prophets. The question arises. Do you agree that this is a theme in the film. The screenwriters say it is a theme. You may not agree with every example of it, but i dont care. The symbolism was DETECTED by notable people and the source is relevent. Breed3011 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Breed3011 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Possible solution #2

Hi

As noted earlier, the screenwriters quotes arent really necessary to the article as they neither prove nor disprove anything. Furthermore, Indecine feels that it gives unfair weight to the Religious Studies stuff. I have therefore condensed the paragraphs quite a lot and removed the quotes. I have been deliberately brief - i havent mentioned the medieaval street prophet calling out to James You're one of us, or the Cassandra Syndrome - as I dont want to turn it into a list of Original Research. Paragraph below...

There is a recurring motif in the film regarding the depiction of time travellers as prophets. During Katherine Railly's lecture on "Madness and Apocalyptic Visions", she speaks of medieval and war-time prophets warning of an apocalypse in the year 1996. Later in the movie, a photograph of one of the prophets reveals that it was actually Jose in 1917. Religious studies academics have authored essays claiming that the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself ^[4].

Do i have agreement from Indecine and Cool Blue here? Breed3011 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(This response is a duplicate of a response from my user page, for the record.) At this point, I don't care as long as it isn't outlandish like it was when I first edited it. I would change a few things before I posted it if I were you. You have used the word prophet three times in the first two sentences, which sounds repetitive, and they are never called prophets in the movie. Change it or post it as it is, it doesn't matter to me anymore, but I would expect someone to change it. Oh, and one last thing... That last sentence sounds out of place, like you're changing the topic in the middle of a paragraph. Indecine 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You are right - I will edit it to avoid repitition - many thanks Breed3011 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

=== Administrative notes ===

I've requested for the article to be protected. Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply