Talk:Monolith (Space Odyssey)

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Comments

The monolith can be seen in the mmo game eve-online [1] Can anyone add this to the page? It can be seen in a level 2 agent mission, doesn't have an exact place.

The Monolith (disambiguation) page leads to this page. Is there a policy about two disambiguation pages one after the other?

If this one is also a disambiguation page, shouldn't its name reflect this?

Somnoliento 06:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that the article confirms that it's a "fictional" device :D Charlesr (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism??

Short Article though it is, this Article on the Momolith seems to have been vandalized -either that, or these is a whole lot about the Monoliths that I don't remember reading about. Thanos777 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Tycho Magnetic Anomaly TMA-1 into this article

It seems that there is no discussion about this yet! That's a susprise because it seems like an obvious merge. I fully support this idea. Does anyone disagree? -- Lilwik 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I can't imagine many people seeking information about the Monolith in 2001 would know the exact technical term. Hmmm. Although the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to dumb-down to the lowest common denominator. So maybe this should be merged into that. VonBlade 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to merge this into that? The TMA is just one example of monolith related weird stuff. Surely we should merge the TMA article into this one. -- Lilwik 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rewrite!

Had this in draft for ages and finally had the time to finalise most of it. Any suggestions or alterations welcome. Some more screenshots would also be good BTW.--ChrisJMoor 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zagadka

who said it means Big Brother in Russian? is that in the book? anywho factually incorrect since Zagadka = Riddle or 'unsolved mystery/question' in Russian. so i dont know about "This is a reference to Big Brother, the enigmatic and apparently omniscient antagonist from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four". in this case as everyone around wiki likes to throw around - *source is needed* - Obrez 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Zagadka" ("Загадка") does mean "riddle" or "enigma" in Russian as well as in Polish. M3n747 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of Universe"

I don't know if you know this, but ... the Monolith is FICTIONAL. Popular references in culture DO BELONG, because it has an impact on culture. You must love deleting actual useful information. Maybe you should contribute to this Wikipedia instead. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Monolith

The article misses that another Monolith appears at the end of the film 2001 at the end of Bowman's bed as he transforms into the Star Child. I haven't read all the books - is it cleared up if the Monolith is directly responsible for Bowman's transformation?

Also in the 2001 comic the Monoliths can act like a viewing screen to educate characters. This was a concept Kubrick considered for the film but ditched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.114 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Apemen.JPG

The image File:Apemen.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly 11 Feet Long?

The article states that one of the monoliths is "exactly" 11 feet long. Can that be true? Nice of the aliens to use our outdated measurement system. Isn't it more likely that it is approximately 11 feet long? Unless the novel(s) state that explicitly, which I doubt since Clarke was pretty good about such things. Jimaginator (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only details of measurements that I can recall offhand is the ratio - in at least one book, it's stated that all known monoliths have those exact same dimensions, measured to the limits of possible accuracy. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jedikaiti is correct. The books give no actual linear dimension of any kind of any of the monoliths, only that the ratio of the sides is 1:4:9, and hint/speculate that this may continue in "higher dimensions" (whatever that means). POV that it may be, Jimaginator is also correct that Clarke never commits himself to anything as specific as an actual length. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm french, I don't have access to the actual book, but in all the electronic versions of the original I could find there's this sentence : “The monolith was 11 feet high, and 11/4 by 5 feet in cross-section.” And these measurements DO NOT verify the 1 : 4 : 9 ratio AT ALL ! o_O So, is this a factual error in the novel, or an OCR / transcript mistake ? --Abolibibelot (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EVE Online mention

It appears to be reliably sourced (the site cited has an editorial staff comparable to a magazine). It is WP:UNDUE weight, though, for it to have its own sentence. I'd recommend just adding in the reference to the previous sentence, and listing "such as SimEarth, Spore, and eve online." EVE online is currently more popular than SimEarth, and I'd believe more so than Spore currently is (I don't know whether or not Spore had a higher peak, but none of my friends are still talking about it). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia. Junk it. <eyeroll> --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please take it and the commented out entries sourced to screenshots and lyrics back out. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion here and there. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that the disputed reference, Massively by Joystiq, is considered a reliable source by the videogames wikiproject. However, I agree with the essay WP:POPCULTURE - this instance is not significant enough to mention. Marasmusine (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action figure?

Hello... Is it acceptable to add following link: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0?srp=1 ? Although this smells rather spammy, I think its exceptional nature deserves to be mentioned on this page in the "In popular culture" paragraph: "* A company sells an "action figure" Monolith" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axd (talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

error regarding other monoliths?

Article states ..and it is revealed that thousands if not more were created throughout the solar system, although none are seen." however there are thousands if not millions seen in the Jupiter-implosion scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.171.240 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... it is revealed that thousands if not more were created throughout the solar system, although none are seen. ... "

Uhh, no, definitely not. The correct information would be:

"... it is revealed that many more were created and sent throughout the galaxy. ..."

I shall wait a few weeks and then correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... somehow triggers a considerable shift in evolution."

There's no "somehow" about it. Moonwatcher (the main hominid) feels something in his brain. The inference is quite clear: the monolith is manipulating his brain directly. This is confirmed later in the book when another monolith manipulates David Bowman's brain, and a back-reference is then made to the hominids.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... The first monolith to be discovered in the modern age was unearthed on the Moon near Tycho Crater ".

Uhh, for the third time, no. However the monolith was put on the moon, the process created Tycho Crater, and thge monolith is therefore found inside the crater. Clarke explicitly says so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several Issues with Monolith Count

It is implied that only 3 are known of humans, which isn't true. In 2010, the millions spawning to implode Jupiter are observed from Discovery. Then there is the monolith on Europa, I'm not sure if it is the same as TMA-2, but the article calls it TMA-4 which I'm pretty sure was never a given name in the book. And then there's the small Monolith (minilith) that Floyd sees onboard Universe. TMV943 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMV943 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Infinite — Kubrick's Odyssey II

Any chance that a section about Jay Weidner's interpretation of the Monolith as the alchemical black stone could be added? Jay Weidner is a gnostic scholar. He presents his ideas in 'Beyond the Infinite — Kubrick's Odyssey II.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californicus (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewrite

This article hurts my brain. 2001, 2010, a newer film?, the book, comic-book, ................NO we should NOT have all of these used as a "mash-up" of the monolith. The monolith itself needs to be parsed-out, and properly referenced, to each related iteration/appearance. IF there IS to be any reference to "mash-up" meanings or explanations, ONLY those that are part-of legitimately referenced literary, film, etc, critique, or reliable sources- should be cited and used. I don't have a problem with mentioned in popular culture, possible references in reality or other works if references in other works are at minimum validated or hypothesized by reliable sources. I'm going to try and work on this one, if-not, I hope someone can improve this article.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty good now, i don't know if it was rewritten since this comment. However I do note there are numerous items mentioned that need to be attributed more specifically to a particular source (eg the Olduvai discover I guess comes from 3001, but it needs to say so ) )

Gjxj (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cosmic zoo ?

Who figured that out ? And why ? As in my understanding it is more an "airlock" than a zoo. As this is the place where David Bowman waits during his transition from human to elevated being... No ? And as far as I know, animals in zoo don't get elevated, kind of the opposite in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Man (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have read an article in french yesterday containing a quote from Stanley Kubrick himself saying just that, cited from an interview with Joseph Gelmis. I found it odd myself that this place be compared with a “zoo” and a “hospital”, but it seems to be legitimate. I also found it surprising that the man himself, known for his reluctance to elaborate on his art, would have spoken so freely and explicitly about the deeper plot and meaning of his most eerily mysterious movie, carefully designed as such (even though of course it doesn't explain everything or exhausts the many layers of interpretations that can be found in it). Below is the link and the quote, it should be somewhere on the Internet in original english.

http://www2.cndp.fr/TICE/teledoc/dossiers/dossier_2001odyssee.htm

« Non, je ne vois pas d’inconvénients à en parler, au niveau le plus élémentaire : je veux dire en vue d’une simple explicitation de l’intrigue. Elle commence par un artefact laissé sur terre il y a quatre millions d’années par des explorateurs extraterrestres venus observer le comportement des hommes-singes de l’époque, et qui avaient décidé d’influencer le cours de leur évolution. Puis vous trouvez un second artefact enterré sur la Lune et programmé pour donner le signal des premiers pas de l’homme dans l’univers. C’est une sorte de clairon cosmique. Et, finalement, vous avez un troisième artefact placé en orbite autour de Jupiter dans l’attente du moment où l’homme aura atteint la limite extrême de son propre système solaire. Quand l’astronaute qui a survécu, Bowman, finit par atteindre Jupiter, l’artefact l’entraîne dans un champ de forces, à travers des espaces intérieurs et extérieurs, et le transporte finalement dans une autre partie de la galaxie. Là, il est placé dans un zoo humain, en quelque sorte un hôpital, un environnement terrien tiré de ses propres rêves et de son imagination. Le temps n’existe pas : sa vie passe de l’âge mûr à la vieillesse et à la mort. Il renaît en un être amélioré, un enfant-étoile, un ange, un surhomme si vous voulez, et retourne sur terre prêt pour la nouvelle étape de l’évolution et de la destinée humaines. » --Abolibibelot (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:African monolith 2001.jpg

File:African monolith 2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah "Replica'

The silver column discovered in Utah in November 2020 is by no means a replica of the 2001 monolith, it is merely something that has benn compared to it. I suggest this section be removed. ahpook (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

A considerable portion of this article is not currently sourced - notices as far back as 2008. I get this is, perhaps, not a 'burning' issue with many. Other than the novels where the information resides, what other sources could be looked for to start in on providing sources? I'd like to help out if possible. Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]