Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Kubrick's 2001?"

I was fairly skeptical when I read the author's description of his thesis. Probably most of all is how he seems to mostly ignore Clarke's role in writing it - I think he refers to the book in passing as "Clarke's novelization" and criticizes it for getting stuff wrong. I don't think you can have the movie without the book. He also seems to claim that the use of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (the music) was fully intentional - I was under the impression that he only decided to use the classical music after hearing it in place of the planned original score, like the later story of Kirby's creation.

Plus there's the purely personal note, where he effectively pronounced that everyone else was wrong and he had The Facts®. (I think you can see what I mean from the quote in the article.) That sort of thing seeeriously grates my nerves. But that's obviously POV. --Shay Guy 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird Anagrams, Etc.

TMA-ONE = NO MEAT = WOOD = The Trojan Horse? That's almost as much a trip as the ending of the movie. 18.252.5.164 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since when does NO MEAT = WOOD? Those should be removed. Andy120290 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Homer's Odyssey/Heywood stuff is absolute nonsense. Jpm84 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wheat Guy. I've taken more English Lit classes than Tolkien, and I've still never seen so much bullshit proposed as a serious theory... I advocate removing the last section, because it's completely retarded.

I added it. I think it's retarded too. But it was published by a reputable academic press. I think it's an interesting example of the extremes to which nutty 2001 obsessives will go. Perhaps it should be more clearly labelled as such? Cop 663 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The "TMA-ONE = NO-MEAT" reading isn't loopy. It's right there in the dialogue and links back to the 'Dawn of Man' meat-eating scenes. Eating and drinking are of paramount importance throughout the film. The "Helen Wood Troy" notion IS loopy. "Watch this, now, it's hot ..." 68Kustom (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget it; just completely forget it. It's the stupidest thing I've ever read about 2001. Wheat's editor either never saw the film or went to work drunk. How do you figure "It's right there in the dialogue"? Clarke wrote "TMA-ONE". He didn't write "rearrange the letters and make a public fool of yourself". TechnoFaye Kane 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to spoon-feed you? (Snicker.) BUT, during the TMA-1 (ONE) map scenes, Floyd and crew talk about meatless sandwiches (yes, "no meat") not long after we saw starving vegetarian apes (yes, "no meat") chowing down on fresh tapir tartare. The stewardess pulling up straws--all vegetable symbols on her tray (yes, "no meat"). Look at the goo Poole eats (yes, "no meat"). All unplanned coincidence, I guess . . . and no, I'm not a vegetarian. 68Kustom (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the best laugh I've had in a month! As a simple country physicist (look up McFarland, CA....) I have no idea how to resolve this one! But I will be watching with interest to see how it's done. Maybe we should just leave it in, like the flaw in a Turkish rug? To remind ourselves that Truth and Provability are not the same thing? Good luck to all concerned! Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is essential to mention some of Wheat's barking mad anagrams. Otherwise readers might be misled into taking him seriously, given that his book was published by a reputable academic press and therefore qualifies as a reliable source. Cop 663 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Badly Written Passage

Clipped out of the article:

David Bowman arrived in one familiar room specialy prepared to him. It was made to make him confortable. After a long trip it was necessary to rest in one normal room. The aliens was watching him all time. He experiments many jumps in the time, the aliens does not want lose time to transform him in the star child,and can see himself older in the future. Once almost dead, on bed, the monolith convert him to star child. As star child he can understand all mystery behind the monolith and life creation. Only in the new form of life he is capable to compreend the meaning of life and see who is behind it.

This bit was either written by a child or someone with a poor grasp of English who saw this movie in a Chinese movie house and thought he'd helpfully tell us what he thought of it. For one, he naturally assumes the presence of aliens that were "watching him all time", even though the presence of aliens is AT BEST vaguely alluded to. I thought of editing it, but this whole passage seems redundant, so I got rid of it.

Because David traveled with the speed of light until the end of time, he got older and was given a chance to see himself in another plane of existence. He saw himself on Jupiter dressing as an old man and finally, when the monolith appears (meaning the Creation) and a new form of life is created, as a "Star Child" fetus.

Better written, but it seems like he wrote the bluntest interpretation possible. And, of course, he thinks Dave's still on Jupiter despite being hurled through time and space, and probably ending up countless miles away, or ending up in a time when Jupiter doesn't exist.

Should these be edited or left out? The article seems pretty informative without them.

-UberMan5000 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?

"Thus we have the long, bulb-headed spaceship as a penis, the destination planet Jupiter (or the monolith floating near it) as a bearded clam, and the meeting of the two as the trigger for the growth of a new race of man (the "star child")."

Oh wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's consistent with the very common interpretation that Discovery represents both a body (with vertebrae) and a sperm cell, with Bowman being the "life" in the cell which is passed on. Jupiter represents both a female and an ovum. Whoever wrote the "bulb-headed spaceship as a penis" interpretation is not too far off from this commonly-accepted interpretation (see jerome Agel's "The making of Kubrik's 2001). TechnoFaye Kane —Preceding comment was added at 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The larger Japetus monolith that Bowman enters could be seen as a vagina. "The thing's hollow — it goes on forever — and — oh my God! — it's full of stars!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tag

This article is crap. But it doesn't merit deletion on the grounds given by the tag. It's described as 'fancruft'; in fact, it lists several theories published by reliable sources, including academic presses. Some of them are silly, but that's not really the issue. Secondly, it's described as reading like a 'personal essay'; it doesn't, it reads like a list of other people's theories, which is what it is. Thirdly, it's claimed that it violates WP:SYN, but the tagger has not stated where this problem is. This article needs improving, not deleting. Cop 663 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that this article is a personal essay mildly derivative of the cited sources, and have restored tags accordingly. I will not put back the prod tag, but will AfD instead. Groupthink (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relation to novel version

As has been stated in the first section, the public seems to have forgotten that the novel exists. Perhaps this was done by Kubrick for commercial reasons, or perhaps it was ego, but in any case I have added a lead section pointing out the inevitability of attending to Clarke's very detailed and explicit explanations in the book.

It is amusing that the Wiki article on the book contains no section on interpretation (because obviously none is needed), only a plot summary, and a very short section on inconsequential differences of detail between book and novel. In fact this article we address here does not even say explicitly that it is explanation of the film, rather than of the book, which is intended. If there were any question about which is meant, we should say so explicitly in the article, and there would likely be confusion expressed here on the talk page.

Yet my late attempt to add some interpretive material, based on the book, to the article on the film, was immediately reverted by two editors as original research or "unsourced editorialising/OR, the other bowdlerising" [surely Clarke is a reliable source!]

Well, perhaps I did go too far. I should go back and reread what I actually wrote. Anyhow, here I have attempted to make just the basic point, in this article, that the relationship between book and novel is essential, not ignorable, and too obvious to be considered original research -- even though probably not everyone who has puzzled about (or even written about) the movie has troubled to read the novel.

Of course Kubrick's and Clarke's understandings of the work do not need to be identical, and either has the right to shift his views with time. In that sense there can be no "right" interpretation. And of course anyone has a right to make up a "real meaning" of their own, and Kubrick was probably wise (as well as commercially astute) to encourage that, as he did in the Playboy quote. Anyhow, I hope my intro will be accepted by the rest of you as at least an essential starting point for the discussion of "2001"'s meaning, and also be acceptable for Wiki. Forgive me if am being too contentious; I will be interested to see what the group thinks about it. Wwheaton (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am reverted already, for OR. I continue to claim that the assertion that the book and film versions of "2001" are closely related is not reasonably "original research", as they were written collaboratively and within a year or two in time, but simply obvious common knowledge to most who are familiar with the works. Since the plots differ hardly at all, subject to the constraints of the media of book and film, I think the assertion that the interpretations are similar or closely related is too trivial to be publishable, though it does likely appear incidentally in the literature. I hope others may weigh in on this discussion, both to give their thoughts, and to help provide good references. In the meanwhile I am going to re-revert, pending this process. Wwheaton (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now re-reverted. By the way, I am not the "Wheat" referenced in the previous versions of the article, and only added the reference to a recent translation of Also Sprach Zarathustra to respond to a previous editor's request for a citation. So I have no ax to grind on that score. My primary reference is Clarke's novel, which needs to be studied in its entirety and compared with the movie. As Clarke is a reliable source on his own work (ie, the novel vs his collaboration on the screenplay), I feel the requirements for external sourcing (both summarized in their own Wikipedia articles, conveniently) should be satisfied. I am a PhD astrophysicist, not an expert in the canons of scholarly literary criticism, but I am quite familiar with Clarke's work: the movie, the novel, and his space-related non-fiction; and also Childhood's End, which has been mentioned earlier here and is key to much else. So, please pardon me for seeming dense or obdurate. Wwheaton (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing the novel and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are insufficient to establish the original synthesis and criticism that you posted. Your familiarity with the movie and the novel and your credentials are irrelevant: You might be the world's foremost expert on Clarke and Kubrick, but on Wikipedia, the coin-of-the-realm is verifiability and attribution. Please do not revert again, and please do not repost this material until you find some reliable sources to cite. Groupthink (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I request that this page be reverted to this version until such time as notability and verification issues have been addressed. Groupthink (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This request should be denied as it is a Wrong Version request, and is the basis for the edit warring that caused article protection. Situation about the tags is described in the section above this one. Dreadstar † 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided my arguments as to why the templates in question should not have been removed and should be reinstated, and they extend beyond mere complaints that "The Wrong Version" was preserved (and incidentally, "The Wrong Version" is a humorous essay, not a WP policy or guideline). My request should be granted. Groupthink (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is humorous, which is the very point..injecting a bit o humor while making a valid point... :) Dreadstar † 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong version" essay is referred to in the very serious Protection Policy, which also states "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page.". No policy is violated here, this is a content dispute, therefore no edits should be made without consensus - which clearly there is no consensus for re-adding the tags. The AfD results cleared the way for their removal; insisting they remain without initiating further AfD action is very pointy. Dreadstar † 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. There was never consensus to remove the tags, and claiming that the AfD results "cleared the way for their removal" is just plain wrong: the result of the AfD was "no consensus", and there were a number of strong arguments favoring deletion. Besides which, since when does a request to improve an article's sourcing and its indications of notability have to be tied to an AfD? Dreadstar is the one engaging in point-mongering here, not me. Groupthink (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it had been found to be non-notable and without proper sources, it would have been deleted. If you don't think there was enough discussion to find consensus, then relisting the debate would not be disruptive. Dreadstar † 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, the matter of consensus I refer to above is regarding making edits to a protected page, not consensus for the addition or removal of the tags. Two different things. Please read the policy I referred to. Dreadstar † 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've denied the request. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So now this article has been frozen to a poorly-written, poorly-attributed, notability-poorly-established version. I fail to see how this helps either the article or Wikipedia. Groupthink (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

3o

This entire article is an innapropriate content fork. It is not notable enough to exist seperate from the parent article (2001: A Space Odyssey (film)), and should be merged back in. Sorry that my 3o dosen't address your concerns - I suspect you will get a wider audience that will apropriately solve your problem once this article is back in the parent. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did try AfD'ing this article -- perhaps I should have suggested a merge instead. Groupthink (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do. PouponOnToast (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow a day or two for discussion and further comments from the peanut gallery and then either make an unprotect request or a protected-edit request. Oh, and thank you for the 3rd op, to which I reply: "Amen!" Groupthink (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3o. Unfortunately, the particular dispute you are commenting on isn't just between two editors. As for it being a content fork, that is simply not true, this article's subject is "interpretations of 2001, A Space Odyssey," not about the film. It may be best to merge it if no additional, suitable content is found, but that's up to WP:CON. I suggest giving time to Wwheaton to find sources and content for this article. If we do we merge, we would also need to decide where it should go: 2001: A Space Odyssey Film? Novel? Series? Dreadstar † 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw no other editor involved in the dispute about tags. I did not state it was a POV fork. Doing the merger is up to you. PouponOnToast (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither Wwheaton nor any other user can add sources or content to this article until the protection tag is removed, can they. Plus, if you agree that the article isn't adequately sourced, then why are you so adamant against tagging the article thus? Groupthink (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no real objection to merging this article with the 2001 (film) article. In my personal opinion (as I explained above in "Relation to novel version") there is no question that the interpretation issue refers to the film, not the novel, because the novel can and does have extensive explanation, for which there was simply not room in the film. There is no interpretation section in the Wiki article on the novel at all, I believe because none is needed -- there is only one on the (minor, I think) differences with the film.

My problem is particularly to try to help the large number of people I believe saw the film and left it feeling somewhat bewildered, but who never read the book. Clarke's advice has been essentially to read the book; see the film; and repeat as often as necessary until clarity is achieved. In the meanwhile I am collecting references, with some help from other Clarke admirers, and once the dust has settled a bit (and as soon as I have some time -- other obligations press in just now -- sorry I can't respond more quickly) I would be delighted to propose a structure and offer text here for discussion and criticism by other editors, either for a stand-alone article, or for a section in the article about the film. I only hope we can resolve this so that the information gets in to Wikipedia, as both the sections in in the film article and this article are in pretty sad shape, I feel. By now I have done enough looking around that I think sources can be provided. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3O part 2

I don't see any consensus on notability, nor much effort to demonstrate notability, so that tag should definitely remain. I'm not one for "Not verified" tags, but prefer inline tags instead. Still, there's no reason to go back and forth over it. I think the editors should focus on finding independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm searching for more sources and content to add to the article. I've also created a sandbox to make article improvements.

Dreadstar † 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Please feel free to edit this draft: Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey/Sandbox

Opinions

None of these references establishes that "Interpretations of 2001" is a notable topic. "2001" is a notable movie, Kubrick is a notable director, but notability is not inherited, and these references do not establish that "Interpretations of 2001" rises to the level of notability of its parent topic. Groupthink (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was properly spun off the parent article per Wikipedia:Summary style, as indicated in this section: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Interpretation. Dreadstar † 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Groupthink, here's a movie that is currently ranked #4 of all time by film critics on inmb, yet it is common knowledge that there has been massive confusion about what it all means among "naive audiences", meaning normal folks not already pretty familiar with Clarke's work. Would it help to document that there has been a lot of bewilderment among viewers? I'm willing to do some work on such points (given time to do it, which is a separate problem), but I worry that maybe nothing will satisfy you -- which damps my enthusiasm a bit.

Do you just hate the film? Have you read the book? It's certainly OK if the answers are "Yes" & "No", but it really does affect the way I try to respond! I'm still not perfectly familiar with the Wiki culture, and I confess I was perplexed that anyone would think the statement that "the novel is relevant to the interpretation film" could be controversial or OR, but everyone seems to agree it is.

Trying to "Be bold" -- Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This essay section provides a succinct summary of the notability point I'm trying to make here. I happen to love the book and the movie, and I think an article of this nature would make a great addition to a Kubrick or Clarke-related Wiki. However, Wikipedia is supposed to be geared toward a general audience, and one if its core principles is that only topics that rise to a sufficient level of notability should be included. To reiterate a point I made in the AfD discussion: Compare the topic of "Interpretations of 2001" to "Interpretations of the Bible". Looked at from a broad, neutral perspective, the former topic seems to me to be of marginal notability, compelling only to pedants and fans, while the latter topic is of compelling societal, cultural, academic and religious notability.

At any rate, your goal shouldn't be to "satisfy me", as I am but one voice in the crowd. Your objective should be to establish the notability of this specific topic such that these guidelines are satisfied. I don't think it's do-able, but I am prepared to be proven wrong.

In the meantime, the current article is gravely deficient and should be accordingly tagged. Groupthink (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And at the bottom of the essay section you point out, it states: "See also Wikipedia:Summary Style and Wikipedia:Article series." Your own merge proposal backs the view that it is a Summary Style spin-off, much less the edit summary of the actual spin-off edit, as well as the very section it's spun off from. Dreadstar † 22:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests

Please revert page to this version to make it clear why this page is being protected. Groupthink (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please add {{mergeto|2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|date=February 2008}} to the top of this page. Groupthink (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for these edits. The page protection is easiliy identified by the lock, and the reasoning is made abundantly clear on this talk page. As for the merge notice, please wait until the ongoing collaborative effort is finished, this article was spun-off from its parent article and has since been steadily degraded. We're working on returning it to a more robust article status, which can be seen here: Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey/Sandbox. Dreadstar † 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to have the "protection is not an endorsement of current version" message on the article page itself, and your efforts notwithstanding, there has been a call for a merge which deserves to be discussed, especially since a number of people (on this page and in the AfD) have questioned whether this topic deserves its own article. Groupthink (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it survived AfD and we are in the process of restoring the article as I indicated above. I don't see any major move to merge the content. This is a Wikipedia:Summary style article and needs to remain separate from the parent. Dreadstar † 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, it survived AfD as "no consensus", not "keep". I don't know what you mean by a "major move" but one of the recently solicited third opinions called for a merge, which should be discussed appropriately. Another opinion has also been expressed that this article is a content fork. Groupthink (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a content fork, it is clearly a Wikipedia:Summary style spin-off. I don't see any ongoing merge discussions. I don't understand your continued pursuit of this when you can see that several editors are working to improve the article. Dreadstar † 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1) It may be clearly a spin-off to you, but others have disagreed. 2) A merger has recently been proposed; there hasn't been a chance yet for "ongoing discussion". 3) Two editors does not count as "several". On the other hand, "several" other editors have now posted to this page questioning the notability of this topic and calling for something to be done about it. 4) Personally, I think you're the one who's fanatically pursuing your personal POV: It seems like you're doggedly pursuing a course contrary to the suggestions of a large number of other editors here. Groupthink (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the proposed edit. Sandstein (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Merger proposal

Does this topic have sufficient independent notability to be kept as its own article, or should this article be merged back to its parent topics?

No merge is necessary at this time. This is clearly a Wikipedia:Summary style spin-off article from this section: 2001: A Space Odyssey#Interpretation. The spin-off was correctly performed, and clearly indicated in this edit summary. The RfC responders should look at the current draft proposal for this article and not just the active article. The draft is located here: Talk:Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey/Sandbox. Dreadstar † 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delay, but don't abandon, consideration. Wwheaton is clearly in the process of a major rewrite of this article, and deserves the opportunity to establish notability for the topic. The draft as of right now is pretty ambitious-looking, so I would give him at least a couple of weeks. (Sometimes things move pretty fast here on Wikipedia, and I acknowledge that some editors consider a whole day or so to be just forever. Maybe it's my age, but I'm not in that much of a hurry.) Wikipedia has a built-in bias toward giving the benefit of a doubt to people who believe they can improve an article, or who believe a piece of information should stay in - even in the face of opposition. (Hence, for example, the AfD process requires consensus to delete an article, but not to keep it.) So anyone who believes that a particular article has fatal problems, no matter how solid their reasoning, needs to accept that they're at a disadvantage in a disagreement, and to recognize when to move on to other battles (ahem, Groupthink).

THAT SAID, the article in its protected state certainly does not establish the notability of the topic ("crap" somebody said above). Quesions may reasonably be raised about whether it's notable, and as a result (Dreadstar, this one's for you) the {{notability}} tag is entirely appropriate pending the time when someone does establish notability. After all, the tag says that the article "may" not be notable, not that it "is" not notable.

FURTHERMORE, as of right now, Wwheaton's draft does not establish notability either yet. Large chunks of it appear to be as yet unreferenced, and the references that have been used lean heavily toward primary sources which do not meet the notability criteria that sources be secondary and independent of the subject. Some of the other sources used or listed for future use will need to be looked at to establish whether they are reliable, though the OUP book looks perfect. But Wikipedia has a fairly low hurdle to establish notability, and (no backhanded compliment intended) Wwheaton seems well on his way to that goal. But one argument that won't work for me is the "notability is inherited" approach, regardless of the summary style model - if it can't stand on its own, it shouldn't be a separate article.

SOOOOOOOOOOO, kudos to Groupthink for keeping the heat on this issue, kudos to Dreadstar for sticking to your guns and pushing improvement first, and many many kudos to Wwheaton for putting in the raw effort to do the rewrite. Once the rewrite is done however, everyone should critically and objectively revisit the question of notability with a focus on whether the topic has "significant coverage in reliable[, independent, and secondary] sources". Meanwhile, I'm leaving the computer to go to a hockey game (Go, Winter Hawks!), and you guys should consider something nonelectronically recreational for a while as well. Go. Scram. Beat it. Ipoellet (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I have done almost no raw work, just a little Google search on {2001 Clarke Kubrick film interpretation} I believe it was, yielding 8000+ hits, almost all that I looked at dross. I also put out a request for help on Reinaldo Bianchi's "Arthur C Clarke Internet Fan Club", with useful returns, and probably more to come. Dreadstar started the sandbox and has been working on it energetically, and Groupthink has stoutly defended his understanding of Wiki principles. Both are much more experienced and wiser about these issues than I. Several others have been busy as well. All I can say in my own defense is that (I am convinced...) the film is not airy flim-flam, but based on solid, mainline thought by both Clarke and Kubrick, and I'd like a naive reader of the article, coming from just having seen the film, to find some evidence of that, either in the article on the film or in a side article on interpretation. The situation as of mid-January was a sorry one, I thought. I continue to believe we can do a lot better than that.

As far as notability is concerned, I suppose it is established for the film by its critical acclaim. Then the fact that it has left so many viewers baffled might be grounds for an article on interpretation, IF in fact it was not deliberately written to that end, of bafflement (in which case it would be entertainment, without real meaning). It is clear from Clarke's other writing and the published extracts of his diary of the 1964 May--1965 December period during which the novel was written, that he himself intended the novel and the film to make a serious point about where the human species may stand in the universe, and the awesomeness of our inevitable ignorance about the range of possibilities we face, as pretty well laid out in the novel. I know much less about Kubrick, but my impression is that he also was a serious thinker, though undoubtedly concerned about commercial success--which might be enhanced by being a bit heavy on the mystery aspect of it all in his later remarks. Anyhow, if a Wiki-acceptable case can be made for these claims of mine, then the film is notable, and its message is serious and important, yet has been widely (and inevitably, given the constraints on length for a film) missed by the average viewer. I think this in turn makes the interpretation important, so that what can be legitimately said about that in the Wiki context "notable", though I personally have no strong opinion about merging that information into the main article about the film, as long as it is not left in its original (almost empty) state.

Anyhow, thanks for the undeserved compliment; and thanks to all for the education. The Wikipedia ideal is heroic, and the process almost more interesting than the subject matter itself, IMHO. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I humbly stand corrected on the division of the grunt work going on in the sandbox. Without taking anything away from Wwheaton, Dreadstar has evidently done the bulk of the heavy wordsmithing. BTW, Wwheaton, you have put your finger on a very salient distinction: between "importance" and "notability". I have no doubt of the importance of this topic, but the jury is still out on notability, as Groupthink has pointed out. Ipoellet (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can find sources who've interpreted it, as has been done, that establishes notability.

Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke are the original sources making statements about the openness of the film for interpretation, and according to Clarke himself, his book is an interpretation of the film. Interpretation of the film is the topic of this article. Secondary sources would be anyone making such interpretations, or discussions about the interpretations of others. Both these criteria are met. There is substantial and significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this article – therefore Notability is established for this subject, there is no doubt.

There are books on the subject, references, and more links. It’s notable.

Dreadstar † 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of sandbox version

Hi All, With all the work I see that has been done in Dreadstar's sandbox, I thought it might be a good time to re-open the discussion here, which has been quiet for a while. I just put in the dates of the novel's writing, with a reference to the dairy in ACC's Lost Worlds, to support the point that it was essentially complete before the film, even though it was published a bit later. I presume the later date of publication was dictated by the need to avoid scooping the film, though that is just a guess on my part, and no doubt ACC fussed over it to the end, as he is an incorrigible reviser of his own work. I read the "Lost Worlds" book decades ago and do not find it at hand now, but see "http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0073.html" for excerpts from the diary. I hope this all strengthens the case that Clarke's novel, if not definitive, is still a key resource to the meaning of the film, insofar as any work of art can have a unique "meaning" at all (especially one as complex in subject and gestation as "2001"). Also, thanks to Dreadstar et al for the work I see on the new version. I don't know if it satisfies Wiki's standards yet for referencing & notability, but surely it is a vast improvement in substance over the original of a month or so ago, and over the interpretation section in the article on the film. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's notable and well referenced. A little work still needs to be done on the HAL section, but other than that, it's ready to go. If there are no objections, we can ask for the article to be unprotected and move the draft into production. Dreadstar † 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A substantial number of refs in this proposed draft are from questionable, self-published sources which do not pass muster under WP:SPS guidelines. Even if those shaky sources were removed, it still has an unencyclopedic, essay-like tone – although some valid sources are cited, the draft is cobbled together in such a manner as to constitute original synthesis. This is fansite material which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and given that there's still a live RFC ongoing, and also given that there hasn't been time for User:PouponOnToast's merger proposal to be considered, I object to the proposed course of action. Groupthink (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please specify exactly which references you are referring to as not meeting WP:RS. I also ask that you point out the WP:SYN you're referring to, as well as what parts are "unencyclopedic" in tone. Dreadstar † 07:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Groupthink, it would help if you could point up the OR problems. If I understand correctly we are enjoined from combining material from sources A,B,C,... to advance position P, that is not clearly stated in one of the references. We are, I think, permitted to summarize or paraphrase P, as long as the meaning is substantially preserved, and balance with other alternatives is preserved, Can you specify the particular P(s) that troubles you in this respect? Hoping we can narrow down the problems as much as possible, without throwing out the entire baby. Thanks -- B Wwheaton (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the request for more details has gone unanswered, I' ve requested that the page be unprotected, and the draft has now been put into place. Dreadstar † 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You gave me insufficient time to respond. I do not spend every hour of every day in front of a computer constantly hitting the refresh button on my web browser. Now I have no choice but to make edits to the draft that you railroaded through by disingenuously asking for unprotection before disputes were resolved. Groupthink (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article instead of making comments about the contributors per WP:NPA. I also recommend that you discuss your changes here instead of revert warring your changes. You've removed sourced content. Dreadstar † 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You deceived the protecting admin to get this page unprotected, you added in original research and synthesis based on self-published sources, and now you're violating WP:OWN in order to keep your unencyclopedic changes in place. You're also flirting with violating WP:3RR. I think you're the one who needs to follow some conduct suggestions. Groupthink (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you discontinue your personal attacks and edit warring. If you continue you will be blocked again. Let's calmly discuss the sources and content you disagree with, I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Dreadstar † 00:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it about the article you consider to be ORIGINAL RESEARCH? 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is now 40 years old; how could anything here be original research? It would help me understand what's going on here if you could list the points you are contesting. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New version

Looks like there's some dispute over the sources and content used in the new version. Please detail exactly which sources and what the problem with the source is. Also, please identify any content that you believe to be original research Dreadstar † 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, definitely on the right track. I don't think the DeMet or Dirks articles merit inclusion, however, as they seem to be self-published web-pages. Cop 663 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look more into the DeMet source, but it looks like Dirks is a well-known and widely referenced film critic, for example, Rotten Tomatoes uses his reviews; and the source is also well-known, it is constantly referenced by Roger Ebert: [1]. So I think Dirks' filmsite.org is a sound source. Tim Dirks generates a substantial number of hits in Google and Google news, so I think both he and his site meet the threshold for a WP:RS. Dreadstar † 03:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is actually very little content supported by the DeMet source, and even that small amount of content can be sourced back to other reliable sources that DeMet references, e.g.: Quoted in “The Odyssey of Stanley Kubrick” by Michel Ciment.. I used the DeMet source as a tertiary to those secondary or primary sources. Dreadstar † 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Also, quotations from the novel would be appropriate in the summary of its 'explanation' of the Monolith, otherwise this could be accused of being 'interpretation' of the novel, rather than straight summary. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the book actually says Bowman is in a 'zoo', but I could be wrong, and I don't have a copy of the novel to verify it. Cop 663 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. DeMet did an excellent job of providing sources, the list is impressive: Demet Sources. We just need specifics on what content is being contested, then we can identify a better source for it. Actually, DeMet's site is an impressive resource for the film, [2]. It will make an excellent external link even if we can't use it as a Reference source. Dreadstar † 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think for this subject, both DeMet and Hollister meet the criteria under Self-published sources where it says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hollister has several different books out, so I'm not certain that he falls under "self-published" in the first place. And, after all, they are experts in their own views..or interpretations of the film....which is the very subject of this article..! It's good material which makes for very interesting reading, so I would even suggest invoking WP:IAR for these sources and authors. Dreadstar † 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Signing off

First off, I'd like to apologize for my comments which were construed as personal attacks. I retract any and all personal accusations. Secondly, I've decided that I have neither enough time nor enough energy to continue advocating against what I perceive to be the inclusion of inadequately sourced material and the sketchy use of adequately sourced material to create what I perceive to be OR and OS. I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak, for Pete's sake... so I'm calling for one last RfC, and then I'm walking away, secure in the knowledge that other editors will come to pick up where I left off. Dreadstar's camp holds sway for now, but the Wikipedian process is a marathon, not a sprint. Groupthink (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Sourcing

Does the current draft of this article utilize sources that do not meet WP:SPS or WP:V policy?
Do the sources cited adequately support the positions taken in the article, or is this article original research and original synthesis?
Should this article be merged back with its parent article, 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Please keep in mind that is is a Wikipedia:Summary style spin-off article from this section: 2001: A Space Odyssey#Interpretation. The spin-off was correctly performed, and clearly indicated in this edit summary. Dreadstar † 04:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also review the above New version section which talks about sources. Dreadstar † 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)