Talk:The Terminator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"highly intelligent and articulate"

While this is important information, it is also a description that I think plenty of people would disagree with (I'm not one of them). How could we rephrase this? I don't know, which is why I left the text alone. But I do think it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry_Sanger (talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 July 2001 (UTC)

I'll try and wrap my head around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 July 2001 (UTC)

Long sentence

The middle sentence of the entry originally read: "The pretext of the movie is that a cybernetic construct, the eponymous Terminator (played by Schwarzenegger), has been ported back in time from a future where the world is ruled by computers, (who are bent on eliminating the last traces of mankind), to eliminate the mother of a child that the computers perceive may be a threat to their superiority." That sentence seemed a bit too long to me.

Also, why is the Terminator "eponymous"? What people, place, or institution was eventually named after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoyaanisQatsi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2001 (UTC)

I have that tendency sometimes, mea culpa.
er, eponymous doesn't necessarily have to have something named after it in English usage, it is only American dictionary definitions which seem to be quite so strict. It can simply be used for referentiality in English. But then English is a very inflexible language and quite unlike American :-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 July 2001 (UTC)

Arnie vehicle?

Was it really an Arnie vehicle from the outset?

He has hardly any dialogue, and is only in the action sequences, with Hamilton and Biehn on screen far more, and doing most of the acting. Sure, its since been repackaged as a star vehicle, but prior to that he'd only been in the Conan movies and various projects related to his status as a bodybuilding champ.

I think a better description is it was the film that *made* him a star, since a monosyllabic killing machine is a role he was born to play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 July 2001 (UTC)

You're probably right in this respect. I'll amend accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 July 2001 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the issue of this moving "making him a star". Conan was his first big star vehicle and was also widely successful. Perhaps re-wording this to "was his break-through role". Many millions of people knew who he was outside of body-building because of Conan made several years earlier. --Lestatdelc 22:30, 8 April 2004 (UTC)

User's home page

I have removed http://home.kc.rr.com/technoir since it is just a link to the anon contributors own site. --Tεxτurε 03:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Page move

What was the purpose of the page move? --Cburnett 06:27, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

This movie isn't named The Terminator. It's just Terminator. Plain and simple. Even the front cover indicates this. There's no The on the front cover. Like any other movie that shares its name with a word, the move has resulted in (year movie) after the name. For instance, check Equilibrium and you'll understand what I mean. This is just wikification. --EliasAlucard|Talk 06:01, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
It's generally not done to include the year when only one movie is named that. So Terminator (movie) instead. It's also expected that you fix the double redirects (SkyNet) and change the links to avoid the new redirect. As of now, there are only 2 links pointing to the actual article. --Cburnett 04:48, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
What about Equilibrium then? It's only one movie and has the year in the name. --EliasAlucard|Talk 11:10, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
Same thing, it should be at Equilibrium (movie). --Cburnett 01:24, 24 April 2005 (UTC)
According to [1] and [2] the movie IS actually called "The Terminator" rather than just "Terminator". --Micpp 23:09, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

Terminator 4

Somebody said in the history tab of this article that Terminator 4 was cancelled according to IMDb. But I googled that, and it rendered 200,000+ google hits. That probably means that it could still be in production. Could somebody verify that? --SuperDude 06:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cyborg or Android?

A point of detail. While the Terminator may have a "living" skin covering, I would argue that the Terminator is in fact an android rather than a cyborg. The design itself was created artificially from scratch from a factory, not from an existing humanoid organic base like for instance Seven of Nine in Star Trek - it has an alloy endoskeleton, there is no heart or "brain", there is no blood in the innerworkings and it has no organic metabolism throughout its body. Its skin is created artificially. The later T-1000 and T-X series of Terminators were explained as having "liquid metal" skins. What do you people think? I myself believe the Terminator should be called an android. --Iam 22:58, 31 December 2004 (UTC)

Well, he refers to himself as a cyborg, so he definately is one in the film's universe, maybe that world has a different definition. --Boffy b 01:15, 8 January 2005 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, cyborgs are augmented organic beings...humans probably...the only semi-organic thing is the artificial skin, all the rest is machinery. I'm thinking in the film they meant cyborg more in the fashion of "resembling a human", which would be incorrect use?
But is it a robot or an android, or is there any difference at all (the way I understand, an android is a robot, but a robot isn't necessarily an android)? --Rygir 00:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
a robot is any automaton, which can be a humanoid, or a box with wheels attached. an android on the other hand is an automaton that is made to appear human. --Tani unit 07:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Given the varying definitions and usage regarding these terms, I believe he may be both cyborg and android but not necessarily one or the other: movie and online references do not reconcile, so both are valid (references indicating that T is not a cyborg have not been presented as yet, though). In case you're interested, a lengthy discussion and request for comment is underway in the 'cyborg' article regarding this. Enjoy! --E Pluribus Anthony 15:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The arguement as to whether Arnie's Termnator is an android or cyborg really needs to be addressed, as it has repercussions for said other 2 articles as well. The partially organic, albeit artificially created nature of the Terminator, means that it might fit very easily into either category, and both have valid points of view. If you open up the talk pages on either android or cyborg the Terminator is at the heart of a heated debate, due to it's organic nature. Personally, for now I'm taking a neutral stance on the issue, at least 'til I can get my head around it, but I intend to check up occassionally on the progress of the issue. --Dessydes 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image title renamaing

The "skin-less" termintator (image:Terminator endoskeleton in Terminator 2.jpg) was originally labed as being from T2. This is incorrect because the terminator only gets stripped of his skin in a fire near the end of T1. I have changed the title. --2mcmGespräch 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, with that cute stop-motion claymation... =) --81.232.72.148 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Right now, the article begins: "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film which became the break-through role for former body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger." However, in the page for Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, the first Conan movie is said to be his break-through role. --Dorfl 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I've changed it to "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film featuring body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger in what would become his best-known role" and rolled the next paragraph up so that it flows a bit cleaner. It could probably be worded better, but in a pinch, I feel that this will do. The "best-known role" concept (which, to be honest, has no real source) is culled from his article, should anyone be curious. --EVula 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes section

I removed this section on the grounds that it didn't contain quotes, but rather the transcript of two seemingly random scenes. I couldn't determine the notably of the scenes, so I removed them. --Ashmoo 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Firearm question

What kind of assault rifle did the Terminator use in this movie? I thought it might be an FN FNC, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.20.221 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Terminator uses an Armalite AR-18 assault rifle for the assault on the police station. This rifle is relatively uncommon but I think its semi-auto derivative, the AR-180, is still in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.87.53 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Low Budget?

If the film cost $6.5 million, how could it be considered low budget? --Alexrules43 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most movies have budgets bigger than $6.5 million --Name Theft Victim 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Low budget can be subjective. Look at the difference in cost between T1 and T2. A lot of movies these days are considered low budget if it comes in under $30million. --HDC7777 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's compare T1 with some other 1984 movies:
6.5 million really isn't that high. Horror movies generally have small budgets, so those are skewed, but I was shocked to find out that Revenge of the Nerds and Splash had bigger budgets. Just... damn. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed opening text

To whomever altered the "Opening Text":

I appreciate your contribution, but please understand that the opening text is rendered here exactly as it appears in the film. I've corrected it. If you would like to verify the text, and cannot get a copy of the film, the following Google query should yield a more than satisfactory number of references that quote the text directly. [3] If you have any further questions, please post them here before reverting the article copy. Thanks. --ManfrenjenStJohn 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what happened, one user vandalized it and another with good intentions tried to fix it, but did not do so accurately. To the "fixer", you have my thanks, and I hope you will find my reference above useful if it should happen again. --ManfrenjenStJohn 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Plot section

There are many articles on films that contain plot summaries as long as this one or longer. If you feel the section can be improved, please discuss why and how you think this should be done to improve the article. --ManfrenjenStJohn 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated Plot subsections and article breaks

I understand that someone feels the plot section is too long. I invite that person to state the reasons here, so that we may improve the article.

I fail to see how removing the formatting (which was placed there to improve readability) improves the article. I've reinstated the formatting (subsection titles and line breaks). If you feel the plot section is too cumbersome, removing the paragraph markers, thereby condensing the existing copy into 3 huge paragraphs hardly seems like a move towards improved readability.

However, I am certainly open to your concerns and intended goals, so I invite you to discuss them here.

Thanks, --ManfrenjenStJohn 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ending

Is there not a parallelism between the ending and Revelation 12? --Krazykenny 02:30, 7 June 2007

If there was, it would only be appropriate to report it in the Wikipedia article if there was a valid source for the comparison - not original research or speculation. --VisitorTalk 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont remember that...

Guns and Roses song "You Could be mine" is about T1... ! add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.184.116 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

While you might be right about the song, the article is only about the movie, not about other creative works inspired by the movie. The reference would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia article. --VisitorTalk 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue with a statement in "Philosophy"

FTA: "Yet in Terminator 2, John and Sarah Connor and John's new protector, a model of the previous Terminator, managed to prevent Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet"

This, IMO, is conjecture. It is never explicit or implied that the trio succeeded in "preventing Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet" (whatever "launching" SkyNET means). If anything, the ending monologue by Sarah Connor supports the idea that they have NO IDEA if they were successful, and won't know until Judgement Day comes, assuming it does at all. This is further supported by the crappy "happy ending" Cameron filmed and never used, thankfully.

Additionally, if we accept the idea that they were able to "stop SkyNET from 'launching'," then T3 could have never happened. Let alone T2... or the original! Although I won't directly address the issue of T3 and how it totally shits on the Novikov principle and the story of the previous two films, T3 explicity states in the dialogue that SkyNET was not stopped, it was merely delayed.

Accordingly, I have removed this entire paragraph. Feel free to debate with me, but in the meantime I have removed the paragraph. It's just wrong. --66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As it's been months since your edit with no rebuttal, I recommend removing this section from the talk page. --VisitorTalk 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

I'm not interested in getting into a big debate over this, but these are the problems with the pieces I removed and had reverted. In order of importance:

  1. The paragraph seems like Original Research. Has a 3rd party made this analysis, or is it just what one wikieditor thinks?
  2. Use of analogies doesn't seem very encyclopedic (it seems more like a textbook)
  3. The evolution/ID section doesn't explain why E/ID is mentioned. Is it an analogy, or something else?
  4. The language used is very hard to decipher for someone not versed in philosophy/textual criticism

Regard, --Ashmoo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits to the page after receiving no comment to the above. I am sure my removal of large sections of text will annoy some editors, but I ask for calm. As it stands, a lot of the article, while good and interesting analysis, is unsourced and as such does not really belong on wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss any issues relating to this before making any more changes. Regards, --Ashmoo 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys:
You know that the Terminator represents our dependence on machines. I'm wondering if this has been spelled out appropriately already in the current article, or whether someone needs to make it clearer. I believe that James Cameron may have been quoted somewhere discussing his reasons for creating the movie, but I can't find it now.
The article that I'm referring to discusses how Cameron was pointing out how much we depend on machines in this era of technology. I think that he was saying that we need to avoid letting the machines run, and therefore ruin, our lives.
If anyone else here has the text in question, please post it. (I may have invented this article in my mind, after having discussed the concept with my dad. I will speak to him, and figure out whether he himself came up with this concept, based on something else that he may have read.)
Thank you. --SammyJames 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In the special features he states the initial concept for the film came from a dream containing a terminator rising from a fire, as shown in the part just before the three characters enter the factory in the end of the film. It is unlikely therefore that the film's purpose was to warn us about reliance on computers. It is a theme of the film but not the reason for its creation. More central to the film's success is the near indestructability of the terminator and the fear it instills, which is of course what cameron dreamed about. It must be clear that this is more of a thriller/action film than a social commentary. --Howboutpete 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The current article already captures the relentlessness of the Terminator and the fearful drive it gives to this action movie. I suspect that the comments about reliance on machines may have been from a scene in T2 or T3. I don't recall anything within the original movie that emphasizes the theme of over-reliance on machines; it wasn't until T3 that Skynet's takeover was shown to be from naive human trust in the system. T1 and T2 left open the interpretation that Skynet launched the unprovoked attack without human naivete being a factor. --VisitorTalk 06:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As it's been months since your edit with no rebuttal, I recommend removing this section from the talk page. VisitorTalk 06:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding contents?

Hi everyone. I am quite new in Wikipedia. I've seen that we need mor contents on The terminator. I know really well this movie as it was one i choose for my thesis many years ago. I would like to add a section (roughly 10 short line). The title would be : Cultural Impact and Social Values. And i could specify 10 interesting aspects of the movie. Each aspect could be improved in the future by anyone. Could you tell me how should i proceed to submit those info. Should i just add it and see what you think about it? Thanks a lot for your advices. --Jjcolmax (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page to The Terminator, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Terminator (film) → The Terminator — all the links to "The Terminator" intend the film —Ewlyahoocom 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Skimming the DAB page, this appears to be the only article that uses the definite article. --Reginmund 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Reginmund. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - as above. --Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support - nothing to disambiguate, hence the suffix in parentheses is superfluous. --Juiced lemon 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Terminator: The Definitive Edition

The article only shows the standard soundtrack, there is an updated version. [4] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

I removed the inspiration section because, one will note, none of the citations actually speak to the inspirational effect of these films on Terminator. All of the citations speak to the various films that whatever editor added to the section felt him or her self were the inspiration for the film. Without connecting citation, it cannot - as per WP:SYN be included without it:

Inspirations

James Cameron states that the Terminator idea was originally his, and that it came to him in a dream after becoming ill in Rome. However, several works that predate his script bear some similarity. Some aspects of the story were sufficiently similar to two episodes of the TV series The Outer Limits written by Harlan Ellison, "Soldier" and "Demon with a Glass Hand", that Ellison pursued legal action against Cameron. The two settled out of court, and Cameron acknowledged Ellison's work in the film's credits. The concept of Skynet is similar to the evil intelligence featured in Ellison's short story, "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".[citation needed]

The story is also similar to two stories by Philip K. Dick, "Second Variety" and "Jon's World". In these stories, robots, originally designed to fight for humans, design newer models that look like humans in order to infiltrate their bunkers and kill them. The novel Cyborg by Martin Caidin featured a cyborg assassin, a human rebuilt with machine implants, that relied on its human appearance for infiltration. Another film, La Jetée, featured a soldier from the future, sent back to obtain resources needed for humanity to continue. The film Cyborg 2087 had a similar plot of a killer machine sent back in time to change history.[1]

--Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia errors

IIRC, Bill Paxton's punk wasn't killed, since he complied by removing his clothes for the Terminator to wear. Also, IIRC, the Terminator doesn't kill anyone unless they interfere with his eventual goal of eliminating the Sarah Conner. --Mike18xx 06:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Paxton was the Blue-Haired punk. He did not comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.244.2 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Just ask the gunstorekeeper. ;-) --80.201.106.37 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The above post is correct. Bill Paxton was the first one of the three to be attacked, as he pulled a knife then was thrown/smashed against the gate in the background. --HDC7777 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The punk on Paxton's right was the first one of the three to be attacked. All three punks pull out switchblades. The punk(with dark hair) on Paxton's right is thrown against the fence. Paxton(the blue-haired punk)is then thrown against the gate. The blond-haired punk then stabs the Terminator, and the Terminator kills him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.164.36.223 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The date

While the following movies seem to fully cement the fact that this movie takes places in 1984, this one doesn't as far as I know. The only indication of when this movie takes place is a card just after the opening credits, which reads "May 12th, 1:52 AM", and a police officer mentioning that May 12th is a Thursday if I'm not mistaken. Now, while May 12th was Saturday in 1984, it was Thursday in 1983, and since noother date specification is made in this movie, wouldn't that render all other date specifications in the following films irrelevant? Wouldn't it be much better to write in this article that the movie takes places in 1983, and NOT in 1984? --Mulder1982 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually says "Los Angeles 1984 1:52 a.m." --ColdFusion650 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it does? Well, I don't remember seeing that when I watched the movie last time. Then again it was on DVD, so they might have removed it in order to make room for the subtitles or something. However, in any case, if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen and only focus on what the characters say, you get 1983. But oh well... --Mulder1982 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen... you get 1983". And you if spin a giant number wheel... --ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Day One 1984 1:52 a.m. (on-screen text) – Terminator Series 800 Model 101 arrives. Kyle Reese arrives.
12th May Thursday (dialog) – Police officer to Reese.
5/19/84 (on-screen) – Sarah's time card "PAY PERIOD ENDS"
Friday night (dialog) – Sarah is stood up, and goes to the bar.
Day Two Saturday (scenes set in daylight) – Motel, etc. John is conceived that night, before the fight at the factory. (This makes Sarah's full term due date February 15th the following year.)
Day Three Sunday morning (it is again daylight) – They load Sarah into the ambulance and find the Terminator parts in the factory.
Six months later November 10th Scene with Sarah driving Jeep at gas station.
  • In the script the movie was set in 1983. This was changed to 1984 during production, but the days of the week were unchanged. (So correct for 1983, wrong for 1984)
  • The cop saying Thursday on what is technically Friday morning makes perfect sense, since his shift would have started sometime Thursday night so it is not subjectively the next day for him. (He also had his own gun aimed at him.)

I wrote all of this down as I re-watched the film today. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you are on my team when we play any movie trivia game. Wow. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Terminator" or "The Terminator"

Is the name of this film "Terminator" or "The Terminator"? --Ewlyahoocom 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's "The Terminator" --Name Theft Victim 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's "Terminator", based on the box, poster, and names of the sequels --DurinsBane87 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look closely the poster that is/was in the Infobox is actually foreign (Italian I think), the U.S. poster is titled "The Terminator". (See IMP Awards: The Terminator Poster to compare) —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Predestination Paradox

The statement "This paradox can also been seen generally, in that if the machines had not tried to stop John's birth, he never would have been born (as Kyle Reese would never have had cause to go back in time)" is untrue. In the original timeline, John Connor was indeed born, albeit not with Kyle Reese (but another man) as John's father. John would have been born regardless of Kyle's presence. The only thing different are the circumstances of his birth and likely the timing as well. If no one objects, I'd like to modify this statement. --Mike Beidler 17:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What you describe is one theory of how time travel paradoxes may be resolved, but I don't think it is universally accepted, so I'd probably object to its inclusion (depending on exactly what you put in). Having said that, I think the way the section is now also suffers from the same problem (specifically Original Research) and needs to be fixed. --Ashmoo 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When Sarah asked Reese "so your from the future?" Reese explicitly replied "one possible future." Why didn't he simply say "yes"? For this reason, I always presumed that viewers were not watching the original timeline but a new one that was created as a result of the events in the movie. --74.117.144.153 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The paradox can also be applied to Skynet sealing it's own fate. By sending the Terminator(s) back in time, they gave Sarah Connor a "heads-up" which enables John Connor to start preparing for the war a lot sooner than he would have in the original timeline. --HDC7777 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Mike Beidler, I have to agree with Ashmoo; your conclusion is flawed simply because it's conjecture, and has no support whatsoever with the film. The film clearly relies on the Novikov principle of time-travel, and thus your assessment is inaccurate. --66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)kazuo
I believe the paradox section as written is fine, simply pointing out what is already evident from the story of the movies. Mike Beidler's and HDC7777's speculations are original research, as the movies do not tell us what would have been an original timeline's events. (For comparison, "Back to the Future" clearly shows an original timeline and an alternative timeline as the result of time travel; Terminator merely shows a single loop of causes that are their own effects.) 74.117.144.153's note could be included in the article, however, it could be Reese's personal opinion in the story, which doesn't portray Reese as a physics expert who is well versed in the mechanics of time travel. --VisitorTalk 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The predestination paradox when taken to its inevitable outcome forbids the destruction of skynet and John Connor. If skynet succeeded in killing John in the past and proceeded to take control after judgment day there would be no John Connor to rebel and no problem in the alternate timeline and so no reason to send a terminator through time to kill him so it wouldn’t have done it right? It works better the other way round theoretically if skynet was destroyed in the past then no terminator good or bad would ever be created in the future, time travel wouldn’t exist either and so no-one would be sent back and no-one would know of terminators so why attempt to destroy them. My point is nothing can be done to change the past or future without the original timeline being in existence and if it could it would correct itself anyway so why bother? --Clocksmith 23:28, 20 March 2008
Looking at the first film, by itself, Skynet is not aware that there is a predestination paradox. I.E. Skynet does not know who John's father is, and that in trying to kill John Connor, it ensures that everything happens the way it already has. This is not the interpretation as of the second film. but it is pretty clear in the first film by itself. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could take a moment to point out how this is vital to the article. Maybe you could point out anything that even resembles a reliable source. Until then, let's leave off the theoretical musings. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what your talking about, all I added to the article was a note that there is a predestination paradox, with a source connected to the production of the film. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison - Original Research?

Hardly... Alex Cox way back during the 1980s when introducing films that were being shown on the BBC Two television series "MovieDrome" remarked that The Terminator was based on episodes from The Outer Limits. See also Wikipedia articles for Harlan Ellison and The Outer Limits. --Wfgh66 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was OR. I said it was removed as OR, meaning the person who removed it said it was, which is true. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the editor is accusing the edits as OR, but without notable citations it looked that way. The Production section looks better now, but the inspiration should probably lead the section? --Nreive (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect score but...

In the reception section we have:

It currently has a perfect score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.[8]

Isn't it probably a bad idea to put something like this in which could change at some point, wouldn't a similar statement with a specific date or date range be more future proof? --86.128.50.177 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is common procedure on almost all film articles. If it changes, we can always update it. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale tag

Since some people are apparently too dense to grasp the fundamentals of Wikipedia, the tag at the top of the article has no supporting argument. No CN tags present in the article, and no discussion on the talk page to support it. Therefore, the tag should be removed. I understand this is a difficult concept, but you don't just add tags to the top of the article without a reason. Hopefully this is simple enough for everyone to follow. --Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps I should have simply removed this post as a personal attack, but perhaps some good can come of it. I don't need to tell you that I have ten times the edits you have, Tool; you can see that for yourself; I'll give you that blunder for free. Everybody's new once.
We do not remove citation needed tags from an article unless we are replacing them with citations - the lack of sufficient citations is kinda the reason the tag was put there in the first place. It doesn't matter that some users have drifted away from the article. Just because there is no current interest in seeking out citations doesn't magically eliminate the need for sources. That's just common sense.
Now, your choices are somewhat simple: you can either roll up your sleeves and find some of these citations, or work on some other aspect of the article. One of the choices not available to you is removal of a valid tag because its older than your account. That is simple enough to follow. I would suggest you seek out an administrator to mentor you through this apparent rough patch. A list of admins can be found here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tool2Die4, please read WP:NPA. Arcayne, while I agree in principle, the article-level tag has no indication as to what exactly the problem is. As it is, the article has no in-line [citation needed] tags, which would indicate what needs to be worked on. --Ashmoo (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you actually pulled out the "well I have ten times the edits you do!" Pathetic. --Tool2Die4 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Be civil Tool2Die4 or you can be blocked. --WorkingBeaver (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tool was blocked. Anyway, the point of the mentioning of the edit count is not to have the feller with 20k edits trout-slap the feller with 2k, but for the first feller to let the second know that, in matters with policy, there is a strong chance that the problem has come up before, and the feller with more experience might know from whence he speaks. Like, for example, that being unpleasant will get you blocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rating

In the UK, The Terminator was originally rated as an 18. When the film was released to DVD, it was re-rated to a 15. Curiously, the U.S. version remains classified as an R.

That last part about the R rating is ridiculous. Just because the film was re-rated in the UK to a 15. Doesn't mean it should be re-rated PG-13 in the USA. Whats so curious about a film with violence, strong language and nudity getting an R rating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.85.85 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The "R" rating in the US is the equivalent of a "15" in the UK. They are the same level of classification. --HDC7777 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this relevant? --VisitorTalk 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is COMPLETLY incorrect - especially considering the MPAA "R" is "advisory" while the BBFC "15" is "restricted". --61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD Info

Does anyone else there should be a mention of the fact that the 5.1 and DTS mixes found on the DVD releases feature altered sound effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.41.125 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice catch. The original sound mix in theatres was completly mono, and new sounds were introduced in the "DVD" 5.1 mix which does alter the original sound of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sending Metal Back in Time

Am I missing something here or not. It says: Time travel can only send living tissue back, preventing Reese from bringing any advanced weaponry, and 20th century small arms are not enough to destroy the Terminator's hard metal skeleton. With its disguise of real living tissue over the metal, it is indistinguishable from normal humans, so no one will believe Reese's story.

Now, even though the Terminator is covered with flesh, it is still made of metal and therefore should not be able to time travel. So it makes no sense that you can send a metal "robot" back, but not weapons made of metal. --Bwd234 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping it in flesh allows it to travel back. One of the police officers asks Reese the same question that you're asking. --ColdFusion650 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As this was a plot point, it could be mentioned in the article. --VisitorTalk 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a plot point. It's only about two sentences in the whole movie. It probably should be worked into Terminator (character). --ColdFusion650 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the plot section ("the main problem...") to explain this point. --VisitorTalk 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
WRONG WRONG WRONG! It was never stated that organic or non organic material can/not travel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
From IMDB, here are the significant parts of the conversation:
  • Dr. Silberman: Why didn't you bring any weapons, something more advanced? Don't you have, uh, ray guns? Show me a piece of future technology.
  • Kyle Reese: You go naked. Something about the field generated by a living organism. Nothing dead will go.
  • Dr. Silberman: Okay, okay. But this cyborg, if it's metal...
  • Kyle Reese: Surrounded by living tissue.
Any further misstatements you care to make? --Val42 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that in the original film script it is explained that the Terminator isn't simply "wrapped" in flesh; but also has the internal organs to sustain his organic component - which is therefore very much living. It is also a plot point that the machines built the time travel device - not the humans - and therefore it would have been useless to them if they had not made it work correctly with their own units. --61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Android or Cyborg?

Is The Terminator a Cyborg or an Android. The article calls it both, however I believe that The Terminator is an android. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.44.79 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/terminator-script-transcript-arnold-schwarzenegger.html script] refers to a cyborg but not an android. --Rd232 talk 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
But based on the wikipedia articles for cyborg and android, it appears to be both. --Rd232 talk 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The date (again)

I'm not familiar with the history of discussions about what year the film is supposed to take place, but to me the sentence "the machines send back someone from the future to May 12, 1984 (a cop mentions that the day was Thursday; May 12, 1983 fell on a Thursday)" is just self-contradictory and confusing. I've read the discussion above, but as a casual visitor to the page I still can't work out whether the action takes place in 1983 or in 1984. Maybe it's really simple and I'm just being dense, but can't someone re-word the sentence to make it clearer? Apologies for revisiting a discussion that's probably been done to death in the past --Dom Kaos (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved the Thursday issue to footnote. Possibly it should just be dropped, but it will probably crop up again so perhaps best leave it. --Rd232 talk 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - that now makes perfect sense :-) --Dom Kaos (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Provoking their coitus"

That phrase made me LOL. Surely there's a less, well, creepy way to put this? --87.236.134.146 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. --Ikip (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting lead to fix & remove "TRIVIA" template

I just completed the same with the T2 page; I am hoping to fix the lead so this article (and its richly deserving subject) can be restored to proper form and readability. Please feel free to post any suggestions here. --ManfrenjenStJohn 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the trivia section?? Stuff like that is what makes the movie interesting to read about. --Crakkpot 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections are outlawed. --ColdFusion650 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
why, exactly? To make Wikipedia BORING TO READ? This is NOT an encyclopedia, I don't care what anyone says! Encyclopedias are not user-edited on the fly. But I've seen editors remove valid info constantly, so I'm guessing you want the info on each page to be vapid and uninteresting. If this was an encyclopedia, then fictional characters would not have multiple-page-length bios. Fictional character histories are never in an encyclopedia. Therefore, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting an encyclopedia wouldn't have an article about Robin Hood? I find that hard to believe. --DurinsBane87 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note the actual verbage of linked page: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections"; rather, it recommends translating trivia lists into prose as a stylistic issue. Reverting to a trivia list is thus proper in the face of deletion. Trivia information should be incorporated into the prose or removed by another standard, e.g., lack of citation. --Strangename (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletions

I added a good-faith paragraph to the plot summary about how the Terminator goes about "his business". I consider this important for several reasons. For one, the "phonebook" scene is important because it establishes the Terminator as an emotionless killing machine. It makes no attempt to see if the Sarah Connor in the phone book is the right one, he simply murders them all. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the movies, where the Terminators smile, tsk-tsk their victims, give the evil eye, etc., or in the case of the latest installment, are so full of emotion they don't even realize they're robots. The Terminators of the early movies are very different than their portrayals in the later movies, and the entire opening of the movie is used to establish that fact. Given that, and that the portion in question represents something like 1/4 of the running time, a single paragraph on the topic hardly seems egregious.

I also consider it important for other reasons. Without this section the summary still describes some of the main action points, but not others. IllaZilla suggests that the car chance is important to mention specifically, because it leads to their arrest. So, why is that important? Either the action scenes are important or they're not, it seems that one editor's ability to pick and choose is unlikely to be better than anyone else's. Given that it's a single paragraph, erring on the side of completeness certainly doesn't seem unwarranted. Further, the scenes show what Kyle later states, that they come through without any support, or even clothing. This isn't repeated in the later movies, the viewer is expected to understand this plot point. --Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarkovsky

The great Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky called the film "a work of art". Might be a nice addition to the Reception section. Just a thought. --110.32.134.56 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

First of all, the Terminator is most probably an adroid covered in living tissue. The skin covering is only used for infiltration purposes, it is not an needed for the terminator to function, This is shown in T2 and T3 with the bare terminators in the future war sequences.

Second of all, the Terminators model and series should be mentioned in wikipedia. Its not illegal to mention extra things that were not included in the film, not to mention that the model 101 was mentioned by kyle reese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.75.129 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Terminator is not "most probably an android", it is a cyborg. If you've watched the films at all, numerous characters (Kyle Reese, The Terminator, Cameron in the TV series) specifically correct other characters who refer to them as robots or androids, emphasizing that they are "cybernetic organisms. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton." The purpose of the living tissue is entirely irrelevant: a cyborg is defined as "an organism that has both artificial and natural systems". It could be a toaster with fur, and it would still be a cyborg.
Second of all, the model and series numbers are mentioned in Wikipedia, in the articles Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character). Of course it is not "illegal to mention extra things that were not included in the film", however it is not pertinent to mention these extraneous details, which are not explained in this film, in the plot summary of this film. There is inconsistency and confusion about the series and model number of Arnold's Terminator because different numbers and nomenclatures are used between the different films and TV series. That is why we have a section in the Terminator (character) article explaining this. In fact, it's the very first section: see Terminator (character)#Character nomenclature. The "800" designation is never mentioned in this film at all, and Arnold's character is credited in the first 3 films simply as "The Terminator". If readers want to know more about the model number of the character, that's why we link it to the article on that character. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration

I posted a simple remark The Terminator's "Skynet" future was inspired by Frank Herbert's Dune novel in 1966. However, it keeps getting removed.

This period in Dune, referred to as the Butlerian Jihad, was the conquest and enslavement of humans by thinking machines and, other than Spice, is the basis of all society that followed after it although its less central than this movie. I don't know of any other robot storyline before Dune that went to this depth. The first commandment in the Orange Catholic Bible is Thou Shalt Nnot make a Machine that thinks like a Man. Dune, like Lord of the Rings, was the inspiration for many, many stories after it, including Star Wars, so something like this is too much of a coincidence to ignore.

I kept the reference short, didn't elaborate on the three prequels on the Jihad, and where is the harm in pointing out the obvious parallel? I think fans of the movie believe The Terminator's premise is more original than really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.181.251 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide a source to prove that the writers of the Terminator were inspired by Dune, otherwise it is original research. --Ashmoo 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Despite settling out of court, Cameron still maintains to this day that the Terminator was his original concept." -- source on this? As I recall the basis of the original case and what caused Hemdale to insist on settling was an interview in Starlog where Cameron as much as admitted to have taken it from "a couple of old Outer Limits episodes" I think the phrase was. --LamontCranston 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that Cameron is telling the truth about waking up from the dream, and expanding on the story with his conscious creativity, without awareness that he was applying influences from Ellison and, perhaps, Dune. If I recall correctly, either George Harrison or Brian Wilson was involved with a copyright lawsuit about a previous song that was determined by the court to be an influence, but an unconscious one. --VisitorTalk 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The idea of war machines disguised as humans to infiltrate and destroy was developed previously by Philip K. Dick in his story "Second Variety", published in 1953. I have no information if Cameron was aware of this story. Ironically, there's a movie adaptation of that story, "Screamers", released in 1995 reference (11 years after "The Terminator"). --TheWiggin (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any support for the idea that the end of the move Westworld was one of the inspirations for The Terminator? --206.53.193.5 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You would have to find a source to that effect, per our verifiability policy. If there's a reliable source, then it's worth touching on. Otherwise it's original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The plot of the 1966 movie "Cyborg 2087" looks almost identical to plot of the Terminator films. Any views? --90.192.136.222 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The laser sighted pistol

what gun was this? It seems interesting enough to merit some identification. --67.187.91.103 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think tis an AMT Hardballer Longslide, .45 ACP. --Fillosaurus (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Looks just like it and this gun is often flavored with a laser sight. I know Hitman 2: Silent Assassin had them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.227.129 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just want to say thanks for this article. Even this sentence alone makes it worth reading: Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that "such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer." ;-) --92.192.179.23 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Terminator is not a cyborg

Cyborgs by definition have organic parts which are essential for them to fuction. The terminator is not really a cyborg, it would be better described as an android covered in a living tissue disguise layer. Its organic covering is purely a disguise, it is not necessary for it to function and is not part of the terminator itself. Scenes with series 8oo terminators deployed stratight onto the battlfield show them without the tissue covering and in the first movie when the terminators disguise is burned away we see that the robot has no organic parts.

A good example of a cyborg would be Marcus wright from terminator salvation, which actually is part human part machine. The T-800 is a robot and only receives an organic covering for infiltration purposes, its organic elements are in no way necessary for it to function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.92.111 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Cyborgs by definition have organic parts which are essential for them to fuction." No, a cyborg is "a bionic human", or "an organism that has both artificial and natural systems". It is not requisite for the organic parts to be "essential for them to function" in order to be a cyborg. In the first 2 films Kyle Reese and the Terminator are both very insistent that the Terminator is a "cybernetic organism: living tissue over a metal endoskeleton". It has living tissue which bleeds and heals. It is not an android like Data, whose outer layer is non-organic and who has no natural systems. True, it begins as a robot, but once the layer of living tissue is applied it is more accurately described (and is described in the films themselves) as a cyborg, as it is a combination of both natural and artificial systems. It makes no difference whether the tissue is essential for it to function. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If a terminator is to be considered a cyborg just because of its tissue covering then a knight wearing armor could also be considered a cyborg. It is best if a compromise could be made, such as calling the terminator a machine. Also, the terminator bleeds due to a tiny pneumatic valve so it can pass as human, the flesh covering does not even require nutrients. In fact, the flesh covering is artificially grown. Much controversy exists as to what the terminator really is, due to inconsistent explaining in the film. Calling the terminator a cyborg is misleading, the terminator is not a cyborg in essence. The tissue is not part of the T-800 itself, it is just a cover disguise, like a knights armor. Marcus wright is a true cyborg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The films themselves say that terminators are cyborgs. It is not our place as editors to provide commentary as to the correctness of that fact. Now if there is a reliable source out there in which the "incorrect" usage of cyborg is discussed than that could probably be added to the article with an appropriate citation, otherwise cyborg stands. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The analogy of a knight is inapplicable, as a suit of armor is not a "system", merely a layer of metal used for protection. The Terminator's endoskeleton is a complex system of hydraulics, electronics, and artificial intelligence, while its outer layer is a living organic tissue with skin, blood, hair, etc. (I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that its bleeding is caused by pneumatic valves; I don't recall this ever being mentioned in the films). There is not, in fact, "inconsistent explaining in the film". As MJBurrage says, the films are quite explicit in describing them as cyborgs. Here are direct quotes from the film dialogue:
From The Terminator:
  • Kyle Reese: "He's not a man - a machine. A Terminator. A Cyberdyne Systems Model 101."
  • Sarah Connor: "A machine? Like a robot?"
  • Kyle Reese: "Not a robot. A cyborg. A cybernetic organism."
From Terminator 2:
  • John Connor: "Holy shit! You're really real! I mean, you're like a machine underneath, right? But sort of alive outside?"
  • The Terminator: "I'm a cybernetic organism. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton."
As you can see, the films themselves are pretty specific about the Terminator being a cyborg. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is true, but if you look at Terminator wiki, you will see that alot more is explained about the T-800. It does in fact have a tiny pneumatic valve which causes the bleeding. And again, the terminators OUTER LAYER is a LAYER, a cover, not part of the T-800 itself, it is a covering. As for the films there are inconsistencies, take for example the naming confusion in which it is hard to understand the difference between T-101 and series 800. here is a link to the terminator wiki T-800 page: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk • contribs) 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but Terminator.wikia.com is not a reliable source. It is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, and anyone can edit its contents. I could log in there if I wanted to, and change everything it says. And it cites no sources for its own content anyway, it's all written by fans and random internet folks who could be (and likely are) doing any amount of speculation and original research. For Wikipedia we require primary and secondary sources for verification. And again, it makes absolutely no difference if the organic layer is a covering or not. It is a natural system, acting in combination with the artificial robotic systems, which makes the Terminator a cyborg. The films are quite specific on this. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact, here's "cybernetic organism" used again in Terminator 3:
  • The Terminator: "You cannot self-terminate."
  • John Connor: "No, you can't. I can do anything I want. I'm a human being, not some god-damn robot."
  • The Terminator: "Cybernetic organism."
  • John Connor: "Whatever!"
--IllaZilla (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is plausible for a robot to stand up to what it would perceive as a degrading comment. The T-850 in T3 wished to distance itself from the fact that it was a robot. But in the end of the day, he doesnt eat, drink or breath and his covering can be compared to a knight wearing armor, in which it is not part of the wearer itself. Scientifically, he would fit the category of an android. This is exactly why the tissue covering receives a model number, which is a completely separate classification from the series number which refers to the actual machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Robots don't have feelings. Terminators in particular don't have pride and wouldn't have an emotional response to "what it would perceive as a degrading comment". It's merely correcting incorrect terminology. It doesn't matter if he doesn't eat, drink, or breathe, and it's not like a knight wearing armor. Armor is inert metal and has no functioning natural or artificial systems. The skin has complex, functioning organic systems: it bleeds, it heals (it healing ability in particular is explored in The Sarah Connor Chronicles), etc. It is specifically designed to do these things in order to make the Terminator a more effective infiltration unit. A bare Terminator endoskeleton is most accurately described as a robot or android, but a finished infiltration unit covered in living, functioning tissue is most accurately desribed as a cyborg, and is referred to as such in every single film. It's not as if it's a rubber suit that he takes off and hangs in the closet at the end of the day: It's permanently grown or grafted over the endoskeleton and is only ever shown to be removed by force (usually by being burned off or cut away). The series number refers to the endoskeletal design, and the model number refers to the physical appearance of the finished infiltration unit (it's not a model number just for the tissue, as again it's not like these are skin suits hanging in a closet somewhere; The Sarah Connor Chronicles showed how the tissue is grown over the endoskeleton—it's not some separate piece that the Terminator slips on and zips up the back). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it can take its skin off easily, it is still a covering. as for the knight, it is a human underneath metal just like the terminator is skin over metal, so according to your logic that would also be a cyborg, which doesnt make much sense.
As for emotions, it is actually shown in all movies that terminators do have feelings, especially when the T-800 at the end of T2 understands why john cries. James cameron himself referred to that scene as the tin man who got his heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the distinction again: a cyborg has has both artificial and natural systems. A suit of armor is not a system; it is totally inert. The Terminator's endoskeleton is a system: it has a power source, moving parts, and an artificial intelligence. Likewise, its living tissue is a system: it has blood, circulation, regenerative capability, etc (just as human skin is an organ). It's not just a covering; it is shown in the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles season 1 episode "The Turk" that the living tissue is grown around the endoskeleton (the Cromartie Terminator gives the formula for creating artificial flesh at a rapid growth rate to a medical scientist, who mixes it; the Cromartie endoskeleton then lays in a bathtub of the stuff and eventually emerges covered in a new layer of living tissue). The stuff is made of living, growing cells that are grown over and around the endoskeleton; it is far more complex than a mere "skin over metal" reverse-armor person-suit. This is what makes the Terminator a "cybernetic organism", as described not only by the Arnold Terminators themselves in T2 & T3, but also by Kyle Reese in T1 & by the Cameron Terminator in TSCC. And no, the Terminators do not have emotions. As the Arnold character in T3 describes, it is programmed to simulate emotions. The empathic ending of T2 does not support your assertion that the Terminator calling itself a "cybernetic organism" is due to some sort of offense it takes at being called a robot. Terminators do not suffer from hubris. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

←i must bring 2 things to your attention, but first i must say that TSCC is not very accurate in relation to the movies.

In the T2 teaser trailer, it is shown that the skin is grafted onto the terminator which only takes a few seconds. TSCC shoes things which are innacurate in comparison to the movies. Here is a link: [6]

secondly, it is heavily implied in T2 and TSCC that terminators do have feelings beyond what they are programmed to simulate. In the end of T2 sarah say that if a terminator can learn the value of human life, then maybe humanity isnt doomed. Since switching its cpu to read and right mode, they gave it the ability to learn and considering how advanced its AI is, it is possible for it to feel human emotions. Cameron in TSCC is also shown to express genuine emotions, as well as the T-1001 before leaving for the future when it shows genuine concern for savannah by requesting she be picked up. Sure, terminators might not be as emotional as humans, but the really advanced one do become after a certain period. James cameron has also confirmed this in documentaries about T2, see the tinman reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.173.255 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the back and forth over how the franchise depicts the terminators is pointless. The films say they are cyborgs, and so that is what the article calls them.
If you want to quibble over the meaning of the term "cyborg" in this article, than you need a Reliable Source that says the films were wrong to use the term.
Absent such a source, any arguments over the terminology's correct or incorrect usage here are pointless. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also note that your in your precious teaser trailer, the computer says "Cyborg tissue generation 800 series model 101 sequence initiated". Your own source contradicts your point. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The point of the trailer was to show that the skin is grafted on the terminator and does not need an extended period to grow. As i said before, the terminator would probably not be considered a proper cyborg by scientists, regardless of what the films inaccurately claim it to be. I agree that it wouldnt be completely wrong to call it such because of its tissue covering, but its not a cyborg in the traditional sense in that its organic parts are a covering and not part of the android itself. I think a more accurate description would be cyborgoid.
with regards to terminator emotions, which the films explicitly indicate, there are a few very good examples. When the T-X identifies john's DNA, it exhibits a gasp of surprise. It is also clearly angry in several scenes, including in the final fight sequence when it begins letting out feral growling noises towards john and the T-850. The best example is the fright/pleading expression it exhibits when the T-850 shoves its remaining fuel cell into its mouth.
and something else, i noticed a tone of sarcasm when you said '"in your precious trailer"'. remember this is a discussion, so do not get annoyed with conflicting opinions, your perception is not absolutely perfect, neither is mine for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.221.18 (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's because I was being sarcastic. The issue of emotions is irrelevant to whether or not the Terminator is a cyborg, so I'm simply going to drop that line of discussion except to state again that it calls itself a "cybernetic organism" because it is a "cybernetic organism", not because it has some personal distaste towards being called a robot. As to the rest, it makes no difference how long it takes to grow or apply, the living tissue is living tissue and thus the Terminator in this film is "a combination of natural and artificial systems", because living tissue is a natural system. Thus, it is a cyborg. Your whole argument seems to rest on your own strict interpretation of what constitutes a cyborg (that the natural and artificial components must be dependent on each other to function), which is not, in fact, the definition of a cyborg:
  • Merriam-Webster defines cyborg as "a bionic human", and gives the entymology of the word as "cybernetic + organism".
    • It defines cybernetics as "the science of communication and control theory that is concerned especially with the comparative study of automatic control systems (as the nervous system and brain and mechanical-electrical communication systems)"
    • Bionic is defined as "having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices"
  • Nowhere do these definitions say that the biological and electronic/electromechanical systems must be dependent on each other for function. This is your own definition that you are attempting to force on the term. If you want to debate the definition of a cyborg, the place to do that is at Talk:Cyborg, not here.
As both MJBurrage and I have pointed out, whatever you interpret the definition of "cyborg" to be is irrelevant as well; the relevant fact is that, in the context of the Terminator franchise, the Terminators are defined as cyborgs:
  • In The Terminator, Kyle Reese insists that it is "Not a robot. A cyborg. A cybernetic organism."
  • In Terminator 2, the Terminator calls itself "a cybernetic organism. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton."
  • In Terminator 3, it again specifies itself as a "cybernetic organism."
  • In the T2 teaser trailer, the Skynet computer screen calls it a "cyborg".
  • In The Sarah Connor Chronicles, they are repeatedly identified as cyborgs:
    • Cameron refers to herself as a cyborg or "cybernetic organism" (example: episode 106 "Dungeons & Dragons": "Cybernetic organism. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.")
    • She is referred to as a cyborg by several of the human characters (example: episode 209 "Complications": John says to her "That's one for the cyborgs.")
    • She is also referred to as a cyborg by other Terminators (episode 101 "Pilot": The Cromartie Terminator's HUD identifies Cameron as an "unknown cyborg", episode 202 "Born to Run": The Catherine Weaver Terminator says to John "Savannah's told you about John Henry, I assume - which is why your cyborg is skulking around my basement.")
So regardless of your own personal opinion about what a "cyborg" is or isn't, the creators of the characters clearly intended them to be cyborgs, and as far as the fictional universe is concerned they are cyborgs. Thus, using the term "cyborg" in the plot summary & description is completely appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that matters is the source material. As IllaZilla has illustrated, the source material consistently refers to the Terminators as cyborgs. Like they said, using the term "cyborg" is exactly what we should be doing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I just want to clear one more thing up so please bear with me. The definition of cyborg is a bionic human, or enchanced human. Most cyborgs start of as humans. The terminator is not an enchanced human, it starts as a robot and once the tissue is applied it can be identified as a cyborg. But besides that, its organic covering is only there for aesthetic purposes, it has nothing to do with the function of the T-800 itself. A cyborgs natural system must contribute to its function in some way. Perhaps we could create a reference mentioning that the terminator is not a cyborg in the traditional sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.173.255 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"A cyborg's natural system must contribute to its function in some way." This is untrue. None of the definitions of cyborg specify this. This is an artificial definition that you have concocted and are trying to push. Find a reliable source that says this, and you may have a leg to stand on. Otherwise this is just your opinion, and not part of the actual definition of the word cyborg. Besides, one could make a very strong argument that the Terminator's living tissue exterior does contribute to its function, and is not "only there for aesthetic purposes". The Terminator is an infiltration unit; its function is to infiltrate human organizations/society and assassinate specific targets. Its organic covering is vital to this function, and is the entire reason that the 800/850 series uses the living tissue covering rather than the rubber skin used by the 600s: the rubber skin was not convincing enough to fool the humans, so Skynet began using the more advanced, more convincing living tissue exterior (which is also why it builds the Marcus Wright cyborg in Salvation). Thus the tissue is essential to the Terminator's purpose as an infiltration & assassination unit. As Kyle Reese says in the film: "The Terminator's an infiltration unit, part man, part machine. Underneath, it's a hyperalloy combat chassis - micro processor-controlled, fully armored. Very tough. But outside, it's living human tissue - flesh, skin, hair, blood, grown for the cyborgs." The living tissue also allows the Terminator to travel through time; it would not be able to do so without it. Since the Terminator's mission is to travel through time and kill Sarah Connor, the tissue is clearly essential to performing this function. True, the tissue is not essential for the robotic endoskeleton to get up, walk around, or kill someone, but it is essential for the Terminators of the first 3 films to carry out their programmed missions. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we use the term Cybernetic Android then? i've checked all the definitions of cyborg and they strongly imply that cyborgs need their organic parts to remain functional, as well as that they are bionic humans. The terminator would really not be a cyborg in the traditional sense, i agree that it needs its tissue covering to carry its mission, but the tissue covering is not necessary for the robot underneath to function. At least lets make this distinction, cyborg is too vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.148 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please cite where you have "checked all the definitions of cyborg and they strongly imply that cyborgs need their organic parts to remain functional", because I have cited several definitions of cyborg above and none of them state or imply that the organic parts are necessary to remain functional. We will continue to use the term "cyborg", as that is what is used in all of the films and behind-the-scenes materials. Consensus is clearly against you on this matter, and it is time to drop the stick. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a vote then? from what i see you are the only one defending this matter so feverently. I also checked terminatorwiki and it says that the term is incorrect. It may be original research but it doesnt mean its incorrect. Do bother to look at this link: http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Cyborg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.148 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We use consensus, not voting, and I am not the only one who has argued in favor of the term "cyborg" (see comments by MJBurrage and EVula above). As I've pointed out before, terminatorwiki is not a reliable source, as it is a wiki and its contents can be changed by anyone. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the criteria for sources on Wikipedia. Specifically, we require that sources be published and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Terminatorwiki passes none of these criteria. Original research is unacceptable in any case. Do bother to look at the links I have provided already: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyborg, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cybernetic, and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bionic. Merriam-Webster is an infinitely more reliable source than "terminator wiki", and nowhere in any of its definitions does it specify that the organic parts must be necessary for the cyborg to function. I'm sorry, but terminatorwiki is completely unacceptable as a reliable source, whether you believe it is correct or not, and I do not accept it as proving your point. If that's the only source you've got to stand on, then frankly you've got nothing. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
All the definitions you have provided state that a cyborg is a bionic human, an organism enchanced by mechanics. All other definitions of cyborg i've seen strongly imply that a cyborg's organic and mechanical system work together. The terminators organic covering does not work with its endoskeleton, neither is the terminator a bionic human. Now i suggest you show me a definition of cyborg which directly states that its organic components dont have to work with its mechanical ones. The definitions you provided prove my point, not yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.221.18 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
None of the source I've provided prove your point. The only source you've been able to provide that you claim "strongly implies" your preferred definition is terminator wiki, which as I've stated is not a reliable source. Negative proof is a logical fallacy, so it is not possible for me to prove that the organic components don't have to work with the mechanical ones; the burden of evidence is on you to prove that they do. Please provide a reliable, authoritative source stating that a cyborg's organic parts much be essential to its function in order for it to qualify as a cyborg, or drop this pointless argument. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

213.170.221.18, note also that even by the definition you want to apply to this article, they are cyborgs. There is a neural interface between the terminator's brain and the biological tissue as evidenced by their ability to move facial muscles, blush etc. They also have a sence of touch, so the tissue is sending input to the terminator's brain as well.
It boils down to most definitions describing human (or animal) cyborgs, because that is what we have already in real life. The Terminators are android cyborgs.
Regardless, as we have said multiple times, it does not matter what definition of Cyborg you use or I use or even find in a dictionary. The franchise calls them cyborgs, and so cyborgs they are. If you can find a reliable source that specifically states that the use of the term cyborg by the Terminator franchise is incorrect than that would make an interesting note for the article. But the article would still call them cyborgs (with the note of course) since that is what the franchise calls them.
—MJBurrage(T•C) 10:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

In Roger Ebert's written review for Terminator Salvation he states "The first Terminator movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see."[7]. While it is true that he did not write a review of the original film, He did review it orally on a November 1984 episode of At the Movies.Video on YouTube In the episode both Siskel and Ebert mention that they had overlooked the film, and were now reviewing it for the show because it was No. 1 at the box office. Further, Ebert's written reviews for Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 compare those films to the original.

Most likely, he used his own archive of past written revues, when reviewing Terminator Salvation, and lacking one for The Terminator incorrectly assumed he had not seen it (or he meant to say "... I did not review."). Given how many films he has seen, I am not that surprised he could forget one, especially when he has no written record of seeing it. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IMDB link

I have added the IMDb link again. I don't get why the IMDb external link keeps getting removed from this page. Almost every film on wikipedia with a corresponding IMDb-page has a link to that page, as they are relevant and useful, which is what WP:EL requires external links to be. I don't see what makes this article different. TheFreeloader (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Relevant and useful" is an opinion, and subject to debate. WP:EL says that external links should be kept to a minimum, and restricted to sites containing relevant, neutral, accurate material that can't be incorporated into the article for some reason. It also says to avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." IMDb provides no unique, relevant information that wouldn't belong in the article itself if it were an FA. It contains nothing useful that can't be incorporated into the article itself. The only relevant information it typically contains is cast and crew listings; much of the rest is user-contributed which is why it WP:FILMS doesn't consider it a reliable source except for production details. In addition, IMDb is already linked in this article as a reference, so an additional external link is superfluous. Editors indiscriminately add IMDb links to the bottom of every film article without stopping to consider whether they actually provide any useful, reliable information that the article itself doesn't or shouldn't cover, which in the vast majority of cases they don't. It's the equivalent of adding an Allmusic link to the bottom of every album article, or a Gamespot link to the bottom of every video game article. These are links just for the sake of having links, and that's not what EL encourages. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
IMDb provides cast and crew information that would be indiscriminate to list in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source, but it is a useful resource. (Because of this, we should not cite this because it is driven by user voting, which is subject to vote stacking and demographic skew.) IMDb also provides community interaction; it is pretty popular in that sense, and the link is appropriate. Erik (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"Community interaction" isn't relevant to an encyclopedia. By that logic we should add external links to any messageboard community or forum for a given topic. There's very little relevant cast & crew information that shouldn't or couldn't be incorporated into the article if it were improved to FA status. That's beside the fact that the IMDb entry is already linked as a citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We agree that IMDb is not a reliable source, so we should remove it from the article. As for community interaction, there is precedent -- major fan sites are appropriate to link to. IMDb is the most popular for community interaction. In addition, do you not think that IMDb serves as a resource for providing the full list of cast and crew information that would not be appropriate to list here? Erik (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it provides a more extensive cast & crew listing than what we would likely provide in the article even if it were an FA, an on that basis it could be included per WP:ELYES. But if we consider it reliable for cast & crew listings, shouldn't we just cite it as a source in the cast section? It's always preferable to have a citation than an external link. And wouldn't a citation to the film itself (say, a DVD copy), which of course lists the full credits at the end of the film, serve the same purpose? Either would be reliable sources that a reader could seek out to verify the cast info. I disagree that the presence of community interaction means that we should link to IMDb from nearly every film article. It doesn't matter that "IMDb is the most popular for community interaction"; we're not a directory of forums, and links to discussion forums don't serve an encyclopedic purpose. In fact WP:ELNO says to avoid links to chat or discussion forums/groups (#10). I've also not seen that "major fan sites are appropriate to link to": note that WP:FANSITE goes to "Links normally to be avoided", #11 of which says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." "Community interaction" is not a criteria for deciding whether to add an external link. The criteria is whether the link contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". Discussion forums aren't relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, so I find the fact that IMDb has popular discussion forums to be irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to expand on what I mean by community interaction. You're right that there should not be an external link to a message board. I would not link directly to the message board. In addition to Internet Movie Database having a comprehensive list of cast and crew information, it is very multi-faceted, as you can see with all the links in the left column of a given film's page. A lot of these sub-pages are resources that are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but obviously they exist for certain audiences. My point is that IMDb is too multi-faceted to declare that a link to a film's page would not be "useful" (one of the basic criteria) to readers looking for supplementary resources. IMDb basically covers a lot of areas that Wikipedia does not. As a result, most film articles are attached at the hip to the respective IMDb pages. What from I've seen, there is inordinately high demand to have access to these links, and they do not quite fit the EL criteria to qualify for or be disqualified from inclusion. Erik (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the typical IMDb "left column" contents, and besides the cast & crew listing I don't think there's anything there that we would consider relevant and encyclopedic beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article would be expected to cover. Take the entry for this film: Trailers? Not really encyclopedic. Official sites? Should be externally linked already from WP. Trivia, memorable quotes, goofs, crazy credits, etc.? All user-submitted and thus unreliable, and not of encyclopedic value anyway. Plot summary and synopsis? We have that in the WP article already. Seriously, there's little to nothing there outside of a cast & crew list that is both relevant and unable to be included in a comprehensive Wikipedia article. IMO we need to divest ourselves of this notion that Wikipedia film articles are "attached at the hip", as you put it, to IMDb. It just seems to be one of those situations where "we've always linked to IMDb, so we should keep on doing it", and it needs to be re-evaluated. At this point we're talking about a larger issue than just this article, so we should probably take the discussion to WT:FILMS or WT:EL. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're evaluating IMDb for encyclopedic value. The point of an external link is to supplement encyclopedic coverage of a film. I believe the different resources at IMDb accomplish that, and reliability is not imperative. I think that the editor's perspective of IMDb is that it is not reliable enough, not flat-out unreliable. (Except when we're talking about trivia pages, which IMO are seriously messy.) Basically, I think that the resources qualify as "good enough" for readers who are seeking out resources other than an encyclopedia. Even putting that argument aside, I think that the comprehensive cast and crew information is reason enough to include IMDb as an EL. I just do not think that WP:EL forbids IMDb; discussion of its value will hinge on consensus. We can discuss IMDb as an external link at WT:FILM, though. I'm just not sure if it's possible to overcome its entrenched nature... I advocated removing Allmovie, a much lesser resource, but there was not interest in removing it. I mean, if you put up the IMDb template for TfD, you will very likely see serious backlash. Just my $0.02. Erik (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a section about this on the WP:Films talk page. TheFreeloader (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Like Erik said, if you place the template up for deletion, you will very well see that consensus is just not ready for IMDb to be removed from ELs. At this point, there's no valid argument or reason to remove the link. I believe Erik covered the basics quite well. —Mike Allen 01:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

←Thanks Mike, but I'm not particularly intersted in a TfD right now. Since this discussion has broadened to a wider scope than just this article, might I ask that further comments continue at the link provided by TheFreeloader? It's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#IMDb external links.. We can add or remove the link from this article accordingly depending on the outcome of that broader discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Action-Horror

I thought I would start a discussion here so we can form some kind of consensus on the issue of the action-horror category since there has recently been some controversy over it. Note that I am not saying the Terminator is a horror film, I am merely saying that it does utilize enough elements of one to merit inclusion in the Action-horror film category. That does not make it an out-and-out horror film however, which is why it should not be included in categories such as American Horror films, 1980s Horror films, etc. To me this makes sense. It is comparable to including the category Tech Noir films while not including the Noir films category. In addition to action and horror, The Terminator mixes aspects of both film noir and science fiction, to the extent where it is acceptable to include that category. That does not make it a film noir however, so we leave that category out. Another example is the film Evil Dead 2, which is in the Action-Horror category because it mixes enough elements of the action genre with horror to merit inclusion, yet it remains out of the Action films category because that does not make it an out-and-out action film. Ash Loomis (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, call forth the sources. Can you present some that call or classify it as horror or action-horror, or describe its horror elements? If so, problem solved. If not, then it probably isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

British production, and British release dates

Despite the film being set in the U.S. and made in the US the film takes its nationaility from the nationaility of its production country according to Template:Infobox_film. The relevant section for country states:

Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.

Given that the film is produced by Hemdale Film Corporation, a British company then this makes The Terminator a British production. It is no more strange than say the Harry Potter films being a part US co-production despite being made and set in the UK, simply because a US company is involved in the production.

Accordingly, the Infobox rules state in the case of release dates (WP:FILMRELEASE):

Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.

There is a clear consensus on this issue, and the usage of nationalities and release dates must be consistent across all film articles. This means that some films that seem American aren't and some that don't seem to be are, but the guidelines are precise in this respect. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you as far as the infobox goes; since Hemdale Film Corporation is a British company, we should list the United Kingdom in the "Country" field and give the UK release date, per the template instructions. However, I think we should also list the United States among the countries, as Orion Pictures, the primary distributor, is an American company and the US was the film's primary country of release (in fact it was in theaters there almost a full 3 months before it hit theaters in the UK). As for the lead sentence, though, I don't think that nationality needs to be mentioned at all. Calling it a British film is a bit misleading since other than the Hemdale connection the film is not "British" in any way: it was written, directed, and produced by Americans, stars Americans, was set and filmed in America, was released first in America, and was distributed by an American company. There's no particular need to attach a nationality label to the film in the lead sentence, unless that nationality is particularly significant to the film itself (as with Australia or The Patriot). The MOS for WP:FILMS says that we should ideally identify the nationality of the film in the opening sentence, but "if the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I think that since this film is so blatantly American in all aspects except for the nationality of the production company, we should leave nationality out of the lead sentence and mention the nationalities later in the paragraph, for example: "The film was produced by the Helmdale Film Corporation, a British company, and was set and filmed in Los Angeles". This would be similar to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was produced by an American company but is otherwise blatantly British in almost all aspects. I really think that any reader who is at all familiar with The Terminator and sees "British" in the opening sentence is going to be at the very least suprised, if not incredulous. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Adding to the ambiguity is the fact that The Terminator was inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, who claim to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking...the registry stands among the finest summations of American cinema's wondrous first century". So it's evident that the Library of Congress considers it an American film, despite the British production company (unless I'm mistaken, the NFR only considers American films for induction). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the rules for the infobox don't apply to the actual text of the article, so you are perfectly entitled to challenge it on that basis. I actually agree with you it is ridiculous to call The Terminator a "British" film, given that it was written and directed by a Canadian, while it is made and set in America - the problem here is not The Terminator's nationality but with the rather peculiar criteria Wikipedia has for setting a film's nationality. Anyway, while researching The Terminator I have discovered "Pacific Western" was also involved in the film's production which is an American outfit so the situation is easily resolved in this case. Orion is just a distributor so is irrelevant to all intents and purposes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Pacific Western" is just a company developed by Gale Anne Hurd. She's American so it would be american based. The film was funded by HBO as well. I would like to have US listed first as it is predominantly an American film, not a british one. It was shot in the US, had American actors, released first in the US, and had American producers. Anyone disagree? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any record of HBO, where is it credited? The two credited companies are Hemdale (British) and then Pacific Western (US). Since Hemdale is credited first then the film should draw its nationality first from this prodiction company. The poster on the article makes the credit order clear. The infobox rules make it very clear that a film does not draw its nationaility from the nationality of its producers (hence why "Avatar" isn't Canadian) or where it was filmed (hence why "Star Wars" isn't a UK co-production). The only criteria for the country field in the infobox is the nationality of the production companies, and this should use the credit order of the production companies to remain impartial. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing that up on the infobox page. HBO is listed right on the page that the film got backing from "HBO" and "Orion". Here's the source: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Cyborg 2087?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_2087 ? No evidence of plagiarism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.120.249 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you're suggesting that The Terminator somehow ripped off Cyborg 2087, you'll need reliable sources to back up that assertion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

I passed this article as a GA. I had to do some light copy-editing but nothing too major. There were few typos that were a little problematic try to more thorough looking the article over next tim. Two suggestions however, I added a fact tag about the Sting comment, and the modern critical reception section needs a link to the rotten tomatoes page for this article to put things in perspective. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! The Sting information is from the cite that it follow up on, but I've added a cite to follow it. I didn't want to use the Rotten Tomaotes link as some reviews from it are modern, while some on it are decades old. I try to only use the link when it's has only reviews that are at least from the same decade. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They make love, guys

I really can't understand the reasoning behind changing "make love" to "have sex" or "have sexual intercourse" - it's perfectly clear that making love means having sex, and nobody is going to be confused about that. We don't need clinical descriptions in an article about a movie because it's a work of ART, for pete's sake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:EUPHEMISM. "Make love" is a euphamism not used worldwide, and Wikipedia has a worldwide readership. It is also important to be clear that this is sexual intercourse, as the resulting pregnancy is central to the plot of the entire franchise. "They have sex" is hardly a "clinical description", it is merely an accurate, unambiguous statement of fact. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's a cheesy euphemism. Millahnna (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
How about "...he gave her a damn good rogering"? Consensus? Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That or "they shagged, baby" ;-) --IllaZilla (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That's it...I'm going to build my own wiki where everything it written like Austin Powers wrote it. Millahnna (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be great! Hopefully you can demand one million articles from the masses! :) (I concur with IllaZilla about WP:EUPHEMISM.) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:EUPHEMISM may say that it's a euphemism but honestly, it isn't. It would be normally understood to include coitus, and not just kissing or holding hands, or even fondling. Nor do I think it's "cheesy"; I'm sorry if some people think that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, it is. It may be "normally understood to include coitus" in the US, but again, Wikipedia has a worldwide readership & slang terms/euphamisms like this do not have universal meaning. According to Merriam-Webster the definitions also include "woo, court, neck, and pet", none of which are coitus. "Make love" is fine for romance novels and soap operas, it's not the right language for an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tech-com winning the war

To quote Kyle when Silberman asks him why they didn't kill Connor then, "Their defense grid was smashed. We had won, taking out Connor then would have made no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence." So, it's pretty clear they had won the war and Skynet could not have won by fighting in the-then present. You don't have to destroy all your enemy's forces to win a war. The snare (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Winning the war means destroying Skynet. If Skynet was destroyed, it wouldn't be able to send things back in time. Skynet sends the Terminator back in time as a last-ditch attempt to prevent John from being born. "Smashing the defense grid" may make victory a certainty for the Resistance, but to imply that the war is over makes little sense. If the war was over, then there could be no Skynet to send Terminators back in time. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Depends on how you look at it, they had won the war in the future The snare (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If they'd won the war, Skynet wouldn't exist anymore, and it wouldn't be able to send Terminators back in time. The opening scene of the film clearly shows a war still going on. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think IllaZilla is correct in this instance. Kyle's declaration "We had won" is akin to a sports commentator declaring a game "won/over" in the dying minutes. What he was essentially saying was that Skynet was beaten on the battle front in the future. Like WW2—the Germans were beaten once the allies stormed Normandy in 1944, but the war wasn't over until VE day in 1945 because fighting was still going on. Remember plot summaries should just stick to relaying events rather than intepreting them. As Roy Walker would say: "Just say what you see". Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Country parameters on the Terminator articles

Should we dump them on Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 too? These parameters are infected by corporate nationality (French/German) on these two articles and it isn't clear in what respect they are French and German. I suggest ditching them backed up by the new guidelines, since they don't have a self-contained nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/ dumping them, per the new wording at Template:Infobox film#Parameters. Nationality is not an intrisic characteristic of these films, and their production crosses multiple national lines. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Looking at the new wording, there could be a case made for leaving "United States" in this article's infobox, as the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, whose stated goal is to "showcase the range and diversity of American film heritage" and to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking". So apparently the Library of Congress considers The Terminator an American film. That's already mentioned in the lead, though, and like I said this isn't a movie where attaching a national identity to the film itself is particularly significant (as it might be for films like Australia, The Patriot, or Dr. No). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we discussed this during the infobox discussion. I don't have a problem with using the NFR because it provides a context for the claim of nationality, but we need to make it a bit more explicit in the lede that we are using the NFR as the basis for the nationality claim. That way readers know why we're saying it is an American film. It might be a good idea to do that because if the country removal is challenged on the others this article can be held up as an example. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Exact date

OK, this is getting out of hand. Does anyone else think that the exact calendar date and day of the week are important to the overall plot or flow of events? I'm of the opinion that merely the year suffices. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, only the year is relevant. It's not like "Back to the Future" where the exact time and date are a major factor of the plot. The IP will probably move on soon, so I'd let it go and remove it tomorrow just to avert the edit war. It's not like it's factually incorrect, just irrelevant, so leaving it in for a few hours won't hurt. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, reverting it again would put me in 3RR, so I'll let it be for now. The IP's attitude in that last edit summary gave the indication that this was going to become an edit war. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ellison bit

An edit-war seems to be brewing (or even underway) by Dbrennan3333 (talk · contribs). The text in question is below (the contested bit is bolded and the source is converted to an external link for talk page purposes) The source—note 44—was already in place, as a citation to the preceding 2 sentences, before the contested text was added:

After writer Harlan Ellison saw the film, he stated that he "loved the movie, was just blown away by it".[43] Ellison believed that the screenplay for the film was based on the episode "Soldier" which he wrote for the television series The Outer Limits. Orion gave Ellison an undisclosed amount of money and gave him an acknowledgement credit in later prints of the film. (It's worth noting that, contrary to virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement, there was no claim that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized. Ellison himself stated this explicitly in 2001: "'Terminator' was not stolen from 'Demon with a Glass Hand,' it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, 'Soldier.'")[44]

I have checked the source and it verifies part of this text, specifically the quote by Ellison. It is a response to an email. The exchange goes as follows (again, relevant text has been bolded):

The email:

Alex Jay Berman <smeghead@erols.com> Philly, - Sunday, August 12 2001 5:48:53 Just thought some of you might be interested in a post I wrote on the misc.writing newsgroup, in response to a solicitation post:


The solicitor sez: "Hi Folks!

Here's your chance to submit ONE question for our cover interview with ... Producer GALE ANNE HURD."

(elided material)

I sez: "Yeah--I'd like to ask her ..."

Contiuing what the solicitor said: "Hurd's latest film is the upcoming sci-fi adventure "Clockstoppers" (a young man comes face to face with the greatest challenge of his life. Until now, Zak Gibbs' greatest challenge has been to find a way to buy a car. But when he discovers an odd wristwatch amidst his father's various invention and slips it on -- something very strange happens. The world around him seems to come to a stop, everything and everybody frozen in time. Zak quickly learns how to manipulate the device and he and his quick-witted and beautiful new friend, Francesca, start to have some real fun. But Zak and Francesca soon find out they are not alone in "Hypertime." Someone else is there and he wants the watch. When Zak's father is kidnapped, Zak must risk everything to save him -- and the world."

Again, I sez: "... to ask her if she's crediting John D. MacDonald's novel THE GIRL, THE GOLD WATCH, AND EVERYTHING as the story's interpretation, or whether they'll have to pay off JDM's estate, as they had to pay off Harlan Ellison and Ben Bova for their novella "Brillo" (and Ellison's "Demon With a Glass Hand") 's inspiration of THE TERMINATOR?"

Anyone think I'll get an answer?

And the response from Ellison:

Harlan Ellison - Sunday, August 12 2001 14:45:14 Alex Jay:

You won't get an answer from Gale Anne Hurd, because you've got your facts all wrong. As a wise man once NEVER said: "You couldn't be more wrong."

The "Brillo" lawsuit had nothing to do with Hurd, or Cameron, or Hemdale. It was against ABC-TV and Paramount and a slimebag named Terry Keegan, years before Cameron ever came on the scene. The ripoff was the ABC/Paramount tv series "Future Cop."

And "Terminator" was not stolen from "Demon with a Glass Hand," it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, "Soldier."

And, in truth, Hurd was probably the least culpable of all involved. She was enthralled with Cameron, and if she knew he'd copped my work, well, she thought (briefly, and at that time) he walked on water.

So, I suspect you'll only get a confused stare, if anything at all, because you've bollixed all the different incidents, and neither she nor the people running the website (who probably have no memory beyond a year ago, anyway) will be totally confused by your query.

Sorry, kiddo.

Harlan

The problem here is that the source is being twisted to support a larger claim that Dbrennan333 is making, but that the source itself does not explicitly support. Specifically, that "virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement [claimed] that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized." The source does not say anything about "media accounts" at all. The emailer, Alex Jay Berman, mistakenly remarks that Orion had to pay Ellison for "Demon with a Glass Hand" being an inspiration for The Terminator. Ellison replies "you've got your facts all wrong" and corrects him that it was "Soldier", not "Demon with a Glass Hand", that was "ripped off". That's it. There's nothing here that verifies the claim that "virtually all media accounts" made any claim about "Demon with a Glass Hand". You cannot make a claim like this that is not explicitly verified by the source. That is synthesis at best, flat-out falsehood at worst. Ellison correcting one emailer's mistake is not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and certainly isn't evidence in itself to support a broad claim about "virtuall all media accounts". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, I am not sure that clarification is necessary when the article itself stipulates that it was 'Soldier that was the plagiarized story. Do we really need to clarify that it wasn't the other work when it hasn't been mentioned at all? Secondly, Ellison's website is a reliable primary source for what he claims but it's not a reliable source for what other media outlets are reporting; so we can use the source for Ellison's claims and beliefs, but not not anything else beyond that, so in view of that perhaps we can keep the reference and source this sentence with it since it directly addresses what Ellison believed: Ellison believed that the screenplay for the film was based on the episode "Soldier" which he wrote for the television series The Outer Limits. (second paragraph, second sentence) Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Betty, the source was already there to begin with, verifying the preceding 2 sentences ("Ellison believed..." and "Orion gave Ellison..."). Dbrennan333's "virtually all media accounts" claim is then inserted after these sentences, before the citation, giving the impression that the source supports his claim. It doesn't. The source is already there, it just doesn't support what Dbrennan333 is claiming it does. Yes, Ellison said that The Terminator was based on "Soldier" and not "Demon with a Glass Hand", but he said this in correction to a single person who had made an error in an email, that's all. It's the "virtually all media accounts" bit that the source doesn't support, and without it the quote is useless. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize. This is much more straightforward, and if Dbrennan333 wants to include the information he will have to find another source for it. If he reverts again then I suggest taking it to ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to correct this after I'm done typing this, so that Wikipedia readers don't continue to believe abjectly false mainstream media reports. Second off, anybody who could read Harlan Ellison's quote and interpret that as anything less than an unequivocal, facial, and determining proof that DWGH was not a source wouldn't have to go to Oceania's "Room 101" to be forced to say that 2+2=5, because they obviously have no issue with saying wantonly bogus things. Third off, if everybody is so stridently opposed to my wording about the mainstream media....why not just do two minutes of research to verify it? All previous versions of The Terminator page had stated that the movie plagiarized DWGH, and it cites the mainstream media. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and surmise, "Hey, maybe this was mis-reported. Instead of just deleting it, I'll do a bit of my own work." That would've been a heck of a lot more useful to readers than just clicking "Undo". Fourth off, when I say that the mainstream media claimed that DWGH was plagiarized by Terminator, that's exactly what I mean, and I'll demonstrate it overwhelmingly when I correct the errors. Funnily, you guys got up in arms over that phrasing, but for whatever reason you don't take exception to other claims like, The Terminator opened to mixed reviews. (A) What's "mixed"? Technically, 2 bad reviews out of 100 is "mixed". Anyway, the statement's just flat out wrong because (B) The Terminator got very good reviews, in the aggregate, upon its release.

Finally, you guys apparently didn't like the wording when I corrected the bogus paragraph. First off, I qualified my statement about the mainstream media with the adjective "virtually". Secondly, somebody wanted an "encyclopedic tone" - which, apparently, just means to make declarative statements, because that's what The Terminator page is full of (like most other Wikipedia pages). This is wrong because it implies a level of certitude that's totally undeserved. For instance, the Terminator page declares:

In Rome, during the release of Piranha II: The Spawning director James Cameron grew ill and had a dream about a metallic torso dragging itself from an explosion holding kitchen knives.

First off, this statement is just wrong. Cameron drew a painting of a T-800 endoskeleton with a knife (singular, not plural), and has usually said that he envisioned, in the dream, the T-800 emerging from a fire. But more to the point, the history of The Terminator is more complex than that. For example, Cameron's colleagues at New World have said that he told them about the story when he was working there (which pre-dated Piranha 2). So if the origins of the story are a little bit messy and conflicting (even as told by the writer himself!), then it's totally wrong for Wikipedia to just come out with declarative statements (oh, I mean, "encyclopedic tone") and basically decree, "Hark! This is how it was!" That's a lie of inference - it implies a level of certitude and conviction that's undeserved.

So, if somebody had instead felt free to write, "It appears that the movie critic community was generally split about The Terminator" or, in the other example, "According to at least one account, The Terminator originated with a dream Cameron had in Rome filming Piranha 2"....

....That might not be an "encyclopedic tone" (a.k.a. "declarative statement"), but it would be much more accurate, and readers would then know that this isn't the voice of God, but just a more humble assemblage of reports, usually just from the mainstream media. I'm a big fan of James Cameron - I run a fan blog and podcast about him - and I see so many bogus claims at the pages about his movies that it's really annoying. But you know what? I don't hold it against Wikipedia, because I know that most of the posters are just regurgitating what the mainstream media reports (which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the site, but nevermind). But what I do mind - and I think is wrong - are the constant declarative statements. It's simultaneously funny and annoying when I go to the page for The Abyss and I see that Wikipedia posters have copied nonsense from the mainstream media about non-existent incidents that defy human physiology. I think, "The people in the mainstream media who reported that were obviously just dumb. But couldn't Wikipedia editors, collectively, kinda think dynamically and realize that the report is wrong?"

(By the way, was that arbitrary criteria of an "encyclopedic tone" just invented right here? And who decides what "tone" something is, anyway? Most people can't even determine what the tone of their spouse is in person, how do you determine the tone of total strangers in text?)

Anyway, now I'm going to correct the article and point out to readers that every single mainstream media article falsely claims that DWGH was an inspiration for The Terminator. (Incidentally, all you have to do to see that that's false is, ya know, watch the two shows.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrennan3333 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Dbrennan3333 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)DBrennan3333. 28 January 2011.

Yeah, changed text still has all of the same problems noted above and is poorly written, besides. Revert. Millahnna (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
tl/dr on Dbrennan3333's comment. The fundamental principle here, Dbrennan3333, is that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth. This is one of our core policies. One must be able to go to the cited source and see that it explicitly supports the claims made in the text. The Ellison link simply does not support the text you added which claimed that "virtually all media outlets" had for years wrongly reported that The Terminator plagiarized "Demon with a Glass Hand". The link shows Ellison correcting just 1 person who mistakenly gave the wrong episode in an email. This does not support your claim that "virtually all media outlets" have made the same mistake. To put that claim in the article, you need a source that explicitly says 'yes, most media sources named the wrong Outer Limits episode as the one plagiarized'.
Regarding the "tone" of your edit, I have referred you multiple times now to the manual of style section MOS:OPED. Do click on that link and read what it says. When multiple editors inform you that the tone of your text is not right for the encyclopedia, it is a good idea to revise the wording on the next attempt rather than simply sticking the exact same text back in 7 times in a row. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First off, I think it's awesome that the writing as bad with, bad writing is bad and misleading in conjunction with source it is being placed with. Sweet. Second off, the latest dude to go the tremendous lengths of typing "undo" and then making a bunch of declarative statements (why not just start every sentence with "Hark!" or "Lo"?) claimed that the article, "still has all of the same problems". Apparently, the user didn't actually read the article. Maybe we got our wires crossed. So, again, instead of (yet another) declarative statement....please substantiate your claim. Thanks!
Secondly, other users have demanded references to support the claim that the mainstream media routinely reported that 'Demon with a Glass Hand' was plagiarized by 'The Terminator'. Well....I just went in there and inserted the page numbers and the links for every mainstream media article that Wikipedia cited. The books 'The Futurist', the Sean French book, 'Dreaming Aloud', The New York Times....how many more do you want? I'm asking honestly. I could find twenty more mainstream media sources fallaciously reporting that 'Demon with a Glass Hand' was plagiarized.
So please tell me how many more mainstream media articles you'd like me to cite. (Or here's a novel concept: maybe some of you can, like, do some actual work instead of just, once again, clicking "undo", typing in a declarative statement, championing a bogus Wikipedia article, and then ganging up, hivemind-style.) Dbrennan3333 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
What you need to include is a source that comments upon the media coverage of the legal action, since that is the problematic statement. All the sources you have added rightly or wrongly comment on the legal action itself, not the media coveage of it. Ellison isn't a reliable source for saying what the media coverage consisted of. You either have to find a secondary source that says "most of the media coverage identified the wrong work" or words to that effect or you can't include the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
What sense does it make to report to a mainstream media article talking about it when the links already prove the point? You want proof that the mainstream media repeatedly made bogus statements about this? Done. It's proven.
The goal post keeps being moved. First, it was claimed that Harlan Ellison never said what he explicitly said. That was debunked. Then, another swarm from the hivemind crawled over and said that, because a small part of the sentence wasn't sourced, and so the entire thing must be stripped. (Nevermind that casual empiricism demonstrates that the mainstream media comment was accurate. They demanded sources, but were too lazy to do anything themselves.) So, fine, I went and got mainstream media sources claiming that 'Terminator' plagiarized DWGH. Five of them. That might sound excessive, but I can get another twenty, if you need it. (All this in spite of the fact that, again, the state is an obviously accurate statement to begin with. Again, casual empiricism.)
Now, you're saying that you want a mainstream media article talking about the fact that mainstream media articles reported something? What? Even if such a bizarre article ever existed, it would be totally redundant: the point is proven in the links I provided.
What'll probably happen is I actually will, miraculously, find some mainstream media article talking about this and then the hiveminded "undo" swarm will come in again with some inane criticism.
Just for the record, I run a fan blog and podcast about James Cameron, and I'm also writing a (self-published) book about Cameron's movies. I know a ton about all of them, and was hoping to go through and write new passages for all these pages and correct the countless errors here at Wikipedia - I can easily find a dozen demonstratively bogus claims on each one. But this stupid insanity has totally deterred me from wanting to do anything. I'm terrified that if I write "the" a bunch of hiveminded "undo" addicts are gonna swarm in - armed with their declarative statements and opinions - and turn a statement of obvious material fact into a week-long, idiotic battle. Dbrennan3333 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Irony on the interwebz, don't ever change. Millahnna (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Dbrennan3333, you are not grasping the fundamental problem, which is that when you make a broad, declarative statement like "virtually all media accounts..." without citing a source that specifically supports this claim, you are engaging in original research. When you make such a claim, it does not matter how many media accounts you then cite as evidence: ten or twenty or even a hundred, you cannot claim that this is "virtually all accounts", because there is no way of knowing how many media accounts exist or will exist in the future. You can claim that it is ten or twenty or a hundred accounts, if that is how many you are citing, but that's all you can claim as that's all the sources verify. Extrapolating beyond the explicit claims of the cited sources is original research. In order to claim that "all" or "most" accounts were incorrect, you need a source that explicitly says "all or most media accounts were incorrect". If all you're citing are the sources already used in the article, the only credible claim you can make is "all the sources cited in this Wikipedia article say 'Demon with a Glass Hand'". It's like looking around your neighborhood at your neighbors' dogs and seeing that most of them are black, then going to the Wikipedia article on dog and writing "most dogs in the world are black". That's original research. You'd need to cite a reliable, third-party source that specifically says "most dogs in the world are black" in order to make that claim.
Again, when multiple editors have advised you that there are fundamental problems with your wording, it is a good idea to revise the wording on the next attempt rather than to simply reinsert the same text, which you have done 9 times now. You chastise other editors for simply clicking "undo" and adding a few words of explanation, yet you have done the exact same thing 9 times. Pot. Kettle. Black. It is also worth pointing out that the burden of evidence is on you to prove your claims, not on others to remove them. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, to address your specific statement:
  • Now, you're saying that you want a mainstream media article talking about the fact that mainstream media articles reported something? What? Even if such a bizarre article ever existed, it would be totally redundant: the point is proven in the links I provided.'
Yes, that's exactly what is required. To claim that "virtually all media accounts" said something, you need a source that says "virtually all media accounts said this". This is not an outlandish request, nor would such a source be "bizarre" to find. Generally if something is reported incorrectly for many years and the error is then discovered, some source will report on the longstanding error. To whit: brontosaurus. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"I'm also writing a (self-published) book about Cameron's movies." — God help us! Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, your guys' latest and greatest claim was that it was impossible to prove the "virtually all media" accounts sentence fragment. (Again, nevermind the fact that this is true through casual empiricism.) IllaZilla then said that it would be fine if....you read it in the mainstream media. So if the New York Times reported on something that you believe is impossible, then you'd believe it, anyway. This is hilarious servitude.
Regarding the idiotic claim that the qualified sentence "virtually all" is too unprovable, well, now you can go through and edit about a billion other statements like that. The declaration that The Terminator got "mixed" reviews has got to go because, well, who defined what "mixed" is? Instead, you've gotta find every single movie critic's review of it and share that. (Incidentally, the reviews were overwhelmingly favorable, so the statement is bogus.
After I demonstrated a repeated lie in the mainstream media about this (again, something that anybody who simply watched the shows in question could see), somebody mocked my self-published book. So this person seems to be joking that they prefer lies to the truth. That's awesome. Because these Wikipedia pages have so many bogus statements about Cameron's movies (I love the one on The Abyss - Wikipedia editors believe that there are underwater port-a-johns) so, yeah, continue to enjoy the bogus tales from the mainstream media. It's easier than thinking, eh?
I just saw that the latest asinine re-edit says that merely "some" mainstream media accounts reported DWGH was plagiarized. This statement is false, as there are zero mainstream media articles about the plagiarism settlement which don't also report that DWGH was plagiarized. Therefore, the implication that only a partial number of the mainstream media accounts were wrong is incorrect. So, I'm going to correctly write that "many" mainstream media articles misreported the incident. If you don't like it, just find me one single mainstream media article - out of the dozens and dozens - which only reported that it plagiarized 'Soldier' and not DWGH. Then the statement could potentially be accurate. Thanks! Dbrennan3333 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • your guys' latest and greatest claim was that it was impossible to prove the "virtually all media" accounts sentence fragment
I'm the only one who said that, and I'm right here, so feel free to just refer to me by name. It is unproveable, because you would have to either (A) cite every media account in existence, or (B) cite a source that specifically says "virtually all media accounts...", and you have not demonstrated the ability to do either. Again, the claim that "virtually all dogs are black" is not proveable.
  • The declaration that The Terminator got "mixed" reviews has got to go because, well, who defined what "mixed" is?
Sources define what "mixed" is. There are 10 sources cited in the "Reception and legacy" section giving critical reaction at the time of the film's release. 6 of those are positive, while 4 are mixed or negative. The section goes on to show that reception in subsequent years has been almost universally positive, and cites sources that explicitly say so, specifically Metacritic which states "universal acclaim". (Personally, I'd be fine with "mostly positive" because 60% positive is "most" of the whole. Even if it were 6 positive, 2 mixed, & 2 negative, it'd still be "mostly positive". The "mostly" still leaves room for the negative reviews).
  • I'm going to correctly write that "many" mainstream media articles misreported the incident.
Only 5 sources are cited. "Some" is neutral and is supported because some sources are cited. Again, to claim "many" or "most" or "all" you would have to either find all media accounts in existence or a source that says "many mainstream media articles misreported the incident." Again, you cannot claim "most dogs are black" or "many dogs are black" without knowing what numbers constitute the majority of dogdom, but you can say "some dogs are black" because, look, there go some black dogs... --IllaZilla (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is worse than dealing with DMV bureaucrats. Alright, let's go through the latest round.

  • Sources define what "mixed" is. There are 10 sources cited in the "Reception and legacy" section giving critical reaction at the time of the film's release. 6 of those are positive, while 4 are mixed or negative.'

So, here, you're claiming that this sampling of just ten reviews out of hundreds constitutes a representation of the whole? Sorry, but no. Basic statistics here. 95% is the minimum threshold for statistical significance in even the most casual of sciences. Assuming just 100 critics reviewed The Terminator, then your feeble sample of ten doesn't even get close to statistical significance. So, I now assume that you're going to go and delete the "mixed reviews" claim, since it's demonstratively "unverified".

It is unproveable, because you would have to either (A) cite every review of The Terminator in existence, or (B) cite a source that specifically says "reviews were mixed...", and you have not demonstrated the ability to do either. Again, the claim that "virtually all dogs are black" is not proveable.

You might've noticed that the above paragraph is a direct paraphrase of your stated standards. Therefore, I expect and assume that, in the interest of consistency, you'll re-edit the section on the reviews for The Terminator....along with every other movie at Wikipedia. Thanks!

Once again, you're wanting to put "some" media accounts of the incident. Considering the fact that you have not shown that there is even one media account which did not cite DWGH, your statement is speculation and unverified. Now, unfortunately, I'm going to have to refer you to MOS:OPED so that you can realize that your speculation of the media reporting does not meet the criteria that we at Wikipedia expect. I'm so sorry about that.

Seriously, just give me a number that you think qualifies as "many" media accounts. I've already cited five, which most people would think is excessive. But you want more? Fine. Give me a number. Thanks! Dbrennan3333 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We accept that quantifying film criticism is a serious problem and virtually impossible to do by assessing individual reviews, which is why we source Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; these are aggregator websites which weigh positive criticism against negative i.e. we actually include a source that discusses critical reaction. The same thing is required here: unless you can verififiably demonstrate the number of erroneous reports to the number of correct reports, descriptions such as "virtually all" and "many" are unfounded, we have to use neutral language. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we here at Wikipedia don't like making declarative statements about unproven subjects. Therefore, I assume that you're going to delete the declarative sentence that, The Terminator opened to mixed reviews. Because, of course, this does not "verififiably demonstrate the number of erroneous reports to the number of correct reports". So I'm eagerly awaiting your deletion of that sentence to help us Wikipedians out. Thanks! Dbrennan3333 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a straw man argument. If there are problems with the Reception section, they are not related to your edits to the Release section. The same goes to the problems in other articles. We are discussing this article, and just because other articles have problems does not mean that this article should have the same problems. This is a volunteer project, so if you see problems in other articles, fix 'em yourself.
Give me a number. ... As you've been told several times by several people, it's not about numbers. You want to say that many media accounts got this fact wrong? Find a source that says "many media accounts got this wrong". It's as simple as that. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you got completely thrashed in the debate and so now you're returning to your favorite weapon: declarative statements.
The earlier argument was that the word "many" can't be used because it was supposedly unverified. Then I verified it and got "many" sources while, conversely, you have provided zero mainstream media articles which didn't say that DWGH was plagiarized. So, in point of fact, any claim that the mainstream media did not report DWGH is false. There is zero evidence to support your preferred claim. But you still fought.
Then, I used the exact logic to prove that, by the very standards you claimed to demand, the review section of this page also has to go. Now, considering how vociferously you campaigned against the DWGH sentence (and bear in mind that "many" is a simple counting stat whereas the word "mixed" is a percentage stat requiring a large sample size to reach statistical significance), I just assumed that you would enthusiastically go and delete that sentence. And yet it still sits there, still implying certitude that hasn't been earned and, oh yeah, also reporting inaccurately. (The reviews for The Terminator were overwhelmingly positive.)
You want to say that the reviews for The Terminator were mixed? Find a source that says "the reviews for The Terminator were mixed". It's as simple as that.
(Once again, I'm paraphrasing you to make sure that your seemingly arbitrary standard of needing mainstream media quotes - even when they contradict with reliable primary sources - is consistently applied. You really believe this, right? Because otherwise....it seems like you're inciting a flame war.)
Lost in all of this is the hilarious irony: We're arguing about the fact that the mainstream media routinely pushed bogus data on people....and you're saying the only way that that can be pointed out is if we cite the same mainstream media. This is kinda like going to O.J. Simpson to investigate the murders.
Unless and until you can find me even one mainstream media account of the incident which did not claim that DWGH was plagiarized, the technically accurate wording should be, without equivocation or qualification, "The mainstream media reported that Demon with a Glass Hand was also plagiarized".
(One final note: I could prove empirically hundreds of lies from the mainstream media about Cameron's movies alone. So your guys' servile deference to them is, from my point of view, sad. What happens when two media accounts conflict with each other? Do your brains just short circuit, like the Saturday Night Live skit where the Chicago "Super Fans" were asked to imagine Da Bulls versus Da Bears?) Dbrennan3333 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you may have a point about the "mixed reviews", but that is still unrelated to this discussion. Generally "mixed/mostly positive/mainly negative" etc is sourced to the aggregator sources, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm happy to discuss that once we get this wrapped up. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
you have provided zero mainstream media articles which didn't say that DWGH was plagiarized. — Negative proof is a logical fallacy. Again, if you want to make a broad claim that "many" media accounts were wrong, you need a source that says "many media accounts were wrong". You have to prove that the claim is true, I do not have to prove that it is false. You continue to put up straw men and attempt to distract from the real issue, which is your inability to accurately cite your own claims and your insistence on edit-warring to get your way. We have some sources that verify that DWGH was claimed to have been plagiarized, therefore we can say that some sources have said so. Your insistence that 5 = "many" is not logical, given that there are literally hundreds of media sources that report on films. You rail against using "mixed" to describe critical reception because the sample size is only 10 reviews, yet you're perfectly content to claim that "many" or even "virtually all" media accounts said something when your sample size is only 5. Pot. Kettle. Black. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been mostly trying to not step into this debate, but just for the record we should probably remove the "mixed" thing as it is not sourced. Most books i've read about the creation of the Terminator focus on the positive reviews, but I mean, I did find several reviews from the 1980s that did feel that The Terminator was rubbish or meh, which should not be ignored. I'm going to try and re-phrase that intro lead so it's no longer trying to express general blanket statements without a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060272/plotsummary
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Terminator/Archive_1&oldid=1137244155"