Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 7 September 2012

Film: American Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Moving the article to new Place

The temporary title Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film for the project is quite accepted until and unless their appears a official acceptance for the new title. Zero Dark Thirty is working title till now so it should not be moved to that name unless you a very good sources of information. Jpmeena (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty was used as the title at the BBC today:

Gary Oldman 'thought he had lost' Batman film script

Varlaam (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film → Zero Dark Thirty – Now that sources have confirmed the name of the film, we should get rid of the placeholder title. bobrayner (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite the sources(which have confirmed the title)? It will be help a lot to confirm the movement of article.JPMEENA (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

bobrayner (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first day of reporting TOI(from which cited 3 out of 4) has been referring it as 'Zero Dark Thirty', the first source is slight confirming but it still doesn't say that it is official/announced by management of movie. Still I don't have issues in movement of the article to other name, it's working or else it has been widely referred to as zero Dark Thirty and this might be final title. Since I believe what Wiki provides should be streamlined with time, I will support the move(despite poor source you have given).JPMEENA (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sources give the film an actual name. An actual name is to be preferred over ridiculous filler like "Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film" which no reader is going to search for.
• We don't need to get too hung up on names that are "official/announced by management of movie"; per WP:COMMONNAME we should prefer the name that sources use. A number of sources use "Zero Dark Thirty". No serious sources use "Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film" although it's possible to get a few google results which are scraped from this article. bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I have also made and surely we should use widely accepted title. If official etc comes we can move it there again.JPMEENA (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Removed material

This was added:

OPSEC's president is Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL who ran for but failed to win the Republican nomination for a Virginia congressional seat in 2010. Its spokesperson is Chad Kolton, who worked for the Bush administration and who was hired to perform media relations for OPSEC in July 2012 through HDMK, a Republican strategic communications firm. Another spokesperson and former SEAL, Ben Smith, was also a spokesperson for Tea Party Express. Critics of the "documentary" have compared it to the "Swiftboating" television commercials attacking the war record of Senator John Kerry just prior to the United States presidential election, 2004. See related article for details: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

some of it is repeated as well. --Mollskman (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, any avoidable repetition can be fixed. The problem is that this material belongs in the article and there have been repeated attempts to remove it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify: some overlap with the article about the makers of this film is unavoidable and good. The material also specifically mentions criticism of this movie, not of the group, and provides some basic background about the group that made it. All of this is extremely relevant, and the removal of criticism violates NPOV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That material can go in the Dishonable Disclosures article. --Mollskman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure can, and it can stay here, as well. I've seen no hint of a plausible reason to exclude it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it doesn't belong. Again, you have a history of edit warring and have been blocked for edit warring, and it be blocked again if you keep edit warring against consensus. --Mollskman (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, lots of people have been blocked for edit-warring, and not all of them edit-warred. Mistakes happen, but we should move past them instead of holding grudges or constantly bringing up old incidents. Don't you agree?

Now, could you explain why you say it doesn't belong? The conclusion all by itself isn't very persuasive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to lie about your block not being proper, but that won't change the fact that it was a good block based on your edit warring. --Mollskman (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How notable is this controversey anyways? I probably wouldn't even include it. --Mollskman (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say a word about my block, but you broke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA just now. Maybe you shouldn't do that, right?

Anyhow, I did ask why it doesn't belong, but you didn't answer. That seems odd. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have a record of edit warring and have been blocked for such is ok, just so other editors are aware of this. --Mollskman (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You still didn't answer, and you're poisoning the well. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for deleted paragraph

With this edit and this edit sum "Here are the citations you wanted" StillStanding claims to have properly sourced the addition of BLP-related material. This is false.

OPSEC's president is Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL who ran for but failed to win the Republican nomination for a Virginia congressional seat in 2010. Its spokesperson is Chad Kolton, who worked for the Bush administration and who was hired to perform media relations for OPSEC in July 2012 through HDMK, a Republican strategic communications firm. Another spokesperson and former SEAL, Ben Smith, was also a spokesperson for Tea Party Express. Critics of the "documentary" have compared it to the "Swiftboating" television commercials attacking the war record of Senator John Kerry just prior to the United States presidential election, 2004. See related article for details: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

This is an analysis of StillStanding's misuse of sources:

1. HDMK does not say anything about Scott Taylor
2. HDMK does not state that Kolton worked for the Bush admin
3. Politico does not say that Smith is a TEA spokesman, not does it say anything about swiftboating

This behavior is completely unacceptable and contrary to the ethical standards here at Misplaced Pages. Equally disturbing is the fact that StillStanding is edit warring to keep this content in the article. Apparently his block from a few weeks ago has had little impact on his behavior. The community must impress upon StillStanding the seriousness of misuse of sources and disrupting the encyclopedia by edit warring. – Sir Lionel, EG 07:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, you claim that I provided an inaccurate edit comment. In fact, I said "Here are the citations you wanted", as I was providing the citations whose absence justified the deletion of the paragraph.

You also claim that I was edit-warring, when in fact it is business as usual to restore with new citations what is deleted for lack of citations. You claim I am at 3RR, which is false. Provide diffs if you still support this claim.

Finally, you can quibble that I could have had better citations, but it turns out that I've found the original location of this paragraph, in Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, where it is complete with all original citations.

On the whole, I see a lot of smoke, but no fire. If anything, it looks like you're using this minor matter to grandstand for an RFC/U. Well, feel free to quote this, because I'll just deflate it by quoting my response. Have a nice day. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is material which is about the subject of the article. Then there is material which is about something which is about the subject of the article. IMO that should be more limited. But this attempted insertion doesn't even fall under EITHER of those. It's about something which is about something which is about the article. IMO should not be in there. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there's a typo or two in here, but I'm having trouble understanding. I do get that you oppose this paragraph, but I'm not exactly sure why. Are you saying it's not about the subject of the article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not only is it not about the subject of the article, but my point is its two steps removed from being about the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy against multiple steps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called "relevance". The material should only be in OPSEC, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does, at least on Misplaced Pages. If material is more relevant to article C than to article B, then to article A, if it were to appear in "A", it would only be in a summary section on B or C, if at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this like the rule that says each word must be used in only a single article? :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also part of making a quality article. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A December release will qualify the picture to be nominated for an Academy Award.

Can this be sourced or removed? I am not going to edit the article again for now. Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced to the article on Academy Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi ArdenHathaway, we usually don't source to other wiki articles. Also, it doesn't really make sense. It sounds like the Dec release means it gets nominated or something. Is there a citation that directly deals with this material? If you could post that here, that would help. --Mollskman (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense and the citation for the source doesn't even talk about a December release. I am removing it as not relevant to anything. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Potentially, some producers/distributors schedule a movie for a December (limited) release specifically to make it eligible for the Academy Awards for that year. For inclusion in Misplaced Pages, we would need a reliable source for the connection, which is unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant but synthesis. So I agree that we'd need a source to point this out. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article locked

I have locked the article for 3 days because of the protracted content dispute involving multiple editors. It's now your job to achieve WP:CONSENSUS as to what material, if any, should be included in the article about the investigation, etc. Although I don't want to express an opinion on the substantive content, if the consensus is to include certain material, please pay some attention to the wording. The current version is poorly crafted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section more than 1/2 of article

The section really doesn't need to be that long compared to the whole article. Just hit the highlights or lowlights. --Mollskman (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the controversy section was getting a little over-long, but I'm not sure that we've kept the right content. The Judicial Watch item seems to be of questionable value, since we've already given Bigelow's denial. Belchfire-TALK 18:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, maybe add one sentence about the other movie and get rid of that part. If this was some huge full blown article, then the controversies section wouldn't look so unbalanced. --Mollskman (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

also, hate to make the section larger, but the bit about Indian protests above belongs in there as well. --Mollskman (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? --Mollskman (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur, no objection to adding the Indian protests. Belchfire-TALK 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, nobody expected you to object. Nonetheless, I do object. I think it's extremely helpful to reference the documentary. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, now stop your edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 22:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, a single revert is part of BRD, not edit-warring, so your accusation is false. You need to redact it. Also, you do not have anything approaching a consensus; the two people who've responded are split on it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a single revert is part of BRD. Trouble is, you didn't stop at a single revert. I won't be redacting anything. Belchfire-TALK 22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• The article is heading for another lock. Starting on August 31, I see 7 reversions by 5 editors, two of whom are not contributing to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted an SPA. --Mollskman (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to tell from this section's header what the recent edit-warring is about, but I'll try to address the concerns that have been hinted at here and in the edit summaries.
1) Yes, the "controversies" section is long compared to the rest of the article, but that is to be expected at this moment. This is an article about a film that isn't even released yet, so the normal content we would expect to be in this article doesn't yet exist. Patience; it will come. The majority of reliably sourced information we have right now concerns all the political squabble about (a) whether the subject of this film is being used for political gain, and (b) about whether the makers of this film were given undue access to classified information. So, yeah, that will likely be the largest section of content until the film actually appears in theaters. Attempts to balance that content by weight to the rest of the article at this time won't be very productive.

2) I've also seen information removed (about OPSEC and their 22 minute video) with the suggestion to (→‎Controversies: keep it that article, scetion is already about 1/2 of article) -- That content is indeed already in "that article", in more complete form, while just the "Zero Dark Thirty"-relevant part was included here. Is there a specific reason you have to not include that relevant content in this article? As for the reference to size, see my comment #1 above.

3) I've noticed that same information removed with this edit summary: (Undid revision 510335114 by StillStanding-247 (talk) See Talk for discussion regarding this material, no consensus for this addition.) Well, reviewing the Talk discussion above as you suggest, there is no reason given to remove that specific content. In fact, your (BelchFire) only comment about that specific content above makes it sound as if you are unsure as to which content we should remove and which should be kept. Could you elaborate on if/why you feel it should be removed? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits to add content and remove some editing errors; but I've also replaced the "controversy" section with a more informative section. (Misplaced Pages frowns upon catch-all controversy or criticism sections when that content can be better incorporated into the article.) I also did some minor restructuring to standardize the format with other film Misplaced Pages articles, like The Hurt Locker, Avatar, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral or neutral content

Sourced or not, there are NPOV problems and accuracy problems with some of the newest additions:

1. "... formed in August..." OPSEC wasn't formed in August. We have other sources here that say it was formed earlier in the year, June I believe.
2. "A spokesman for OPSEC said the group intends to show a selectively edited video critical of Obama..." Uh, no. I'm pretty sure that OPSEC didn't say they intend to show a "selectively edited video". That's the sources commentary, and it either has to go or it has to be attributed to whoever uttered it, but it wasn't OPSEC.
3. "These allegations about the DoD and CIA's willingness to assist the filmmakers have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election season, and the charges that Obama is exploiting the bin Laden killing for political gain have even made their way into the Republican party platform." "Favorite" is an editorial comment, basically just an opinion. We can't say that in Misplaced Pages's voice. Likewise with "even made their way", which is value-laden phrasing. Stating the bare facts might be OK, but we need to omit the source's coloration. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Talk page. re: (1) I see two sources that say it was "formed" in August, and one source that says it was "incorporated in June in Delaware" -- and the Misplaced Pages article on the group still says August. It would be good to nail down a definitive date, but removing all indication that the group was formed during the past 90 days does the reader a disservice. re: (2) the fact that the video is "selectively edited" is not commentary; perhaps you misread. It's actually an assertion of fact by sources that meet Misplaced Pages's reliable-source requirements for the assertion of fact -- no commentary involved; and to apply attribution to it would violate NPOV policy. That doesn't mean it couldn't be worded more clearly; perhaps if we added some content from reliable factcheck sources that have examined the video and found edited sections that are "very misleading" (their conclusion, not commentary). re: (3) Facts are fine (I note that you removed some facts from that sentence that you do not mention here, i.e.; 'conservatives', 'willingness to assist'), but your assertion that "favorite" is "just an opinion" is itself an opinion. The reporter does not express it as his opinion, nor does he attribute it, so it could very well be that he/she found it to be a demonstrable fact that this particular meme is a favorite of conservatives. The Republicans did, after all, give it a favored spot on their Party Platform, to be unveiled at the convention.

If we can resolve these 3 concerns, perhaps then we could move on to the unexplained components of your edit, such as the removal of reference citations, or the purging of content conveying that an examination of the documents showed no evidence that classified information was leaked to the filmmakers, and the CIA records did not show any involvement by the White House. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Given all of these issues, including the ones involving changes he didn't mention, I suspect that it would be easiest to revert back before this change and then merge in each of his recommended changes once it's shown to be a good idea. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I copy edited per the above concerns as well. --Mollskman (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed "long after the election" since I didn't see that mentioned in the citation and its also non encyclopediatic. --Mollskman (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mollskman. I've left your copy edits, with the exception of some edits that went counter to what the cited reliable sources conveyed. Take your removal of the content that the film release date was rescheduled to a date long after the election, for example. If you haven't read (or "seen") the source, then you can't possibly conclude that the information is not "encyclopediatic" -- it is actually the central point being conveyed. The source material says, "Distributor Columbia Pictures was sensitive to the criticism that the film might be viewed as an effort to remind the public about Obama’s decision to authorize the strike, and decided last fall to move the film’s debut from October to December, well after the upcoming election." I hope that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually did read the cite but missed that. I can't for the life of me understand why you reverted some of my other changes except I wonder if you have ownership issues with this or are editing from a POV, which is what it looks like. --Mollskman (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you say you don't understand, perhaps I can help. I reverted changes that you made that contradicted what the cited reliable sources conveyed. If you feel I have ownership or POV issues, you can find your concerns addressed at the Complaints Department, or you can raise them at an appropriate noticeboard. Meanwhile, I'll ask you to kindly refrain from commenting about contributors. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Like "selectively edited" video shows your partisanship POV pretty clearly which doesn't help. All videos are "selectively edited". Parrotting talking heads doesn't help. --Mollskman (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Partanship"? What's that? Did you mean partnership? It still doesn't make sense to me. Did you have a specific, policy-compliant reason for deleting that reliably sourced information? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, "partisanship POV"! Thanks for correcting that, but you still aren't making sense. The group that selectively edited the video claims to be non-partisan. Showing that a group "selectively edited" a video is critical and negative, yes, but how can that criticism be partisan if the group is non-partisan? That's an impossibility. So are you claiming that group isn't non-partisan after all? Something that significant should probably be added to the article. Do you have a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

same goes for "favorite" As pointed out, that is an opinion and if you want to attribute to the writer, go for it. --Mollskman (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"As pointed out, that is an opinion"? Incorrect. Please re-read the above. Now if you have another reliable source that contradicts, disputes or refutes that content, please produce it for review and we can discuss it. But simply removing reliably sourced, neutral content based on your personal, unsubstantiated claim that the cited factual source inexplicably became an opinion piece for just that one sentence -- that's disruptive. As an alternative, you might try raising your concern at the RS noticeboard to obtain a little clarity and input on the matter. As I mentioned above, attributing an assertion of fact is against NPOV policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "long" after the election since that is what is said in the Chicago tribune citation. --Mollskman (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; that's not what the cited source said. It said "well after the election" -- wording that I see you mistakenly omitted. I'll correct that oversight for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See this.--Mollskman (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; that content isn't cited to the Tribune. Oh, look! You have caught your error and have now added the Tribune as a citation for that content. Nice try, but you do realize that edits are time-stamped, right? Retroactively correcting your error does not make me incorrect. It's nice that we are all on the same page now. All of the cited sources (including your new addition) have now been incorporated into the "rescheduling" content. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your latest round of changes seem counterproductive, in that they veer away from our sources and towards an obviously conservative POV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, we have or had ...the film release for December 19, 2012, long after the election. Sources differ here on this point in using "long". The source in question actually uses "well after". Another just says "after". Maybe use ...distributor Columbia Pictures, sensitive to critical perceptions, rescheduled the film release for December 19, 2012, six weeks after the election. My point about encyclopediatic was related to the word "long". How long is "long" and who decides that? That seems pretty subjective so just leave it out. People can decide if 6 weeks is "long" or "shortly after". --Mollskman (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Of the two cited sources, one says "well after the election", and the other source gives the date (it does not say "after"). I've returned the exact wording from the reliable sources, to alleviate any confusion. If you have additional "That seems..." feelings about what the reliable source is conveying, could you please support your personal feelings with reliably sourced information? Contradicting reliable sources with only your personal feelings is not productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing with a clear partisan agenda also isn't helpful. --Mollskman (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

100% Agreed, but that falls under "your personal feelings" mentioned above, so I felt it would be redundant to state it. I see that you added an additional source, and all sources have now been incorporated in that content. Let me know what you think. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of OPSEC has created a selectively edited video critical of Obama. Does the source call it a selectively edited video or does it talk about editing practices as you point out above? Call it what RS have called it and then talk about its editing style and practices. --Mollskman (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cited reliable source did indeed convey that the OPSEC video was selectively edited, but if you wish the article to also convey more detail about the selective editing that was done, we can certainly do that. My preference was brevity in that section, but let's give your suggestion a go. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. --Mollskman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Per your request, I have "called it what the RS have called it". Selectively edited video. Also per your request, I have "then talk about its editing style and practices". Let me know what you think, and if we should add more. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We have ...have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election season. This could be a fact but it reads more like an opinion in the citation. Have other sources made this point about it being a favorite? --Mollskman (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting personal observation, but that isn't a valid reason to purge a reliably sourced assertion of fact. Have you a citable reliable source that disagrees with, disputes or refutes the content? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just try to answer the question. --Mollskman (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. You asked me what every source in existence has said, and there is no possible way for me to answer that kind of question. I have provided a required reliable source, and asked you if you have just one reliable source that disagrees with it. If you do not, you are left with a mere hand-wavey personal objection without any substantiation. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mollksman. I've noticed you've been doing consistent reverts on this material and have now pushed past WP:3RR. It can be easy to lose count when you repeatedly oppose other editor's additions, but since it's a bright line rule, would you mind taking care of your latest revert? If you need help seeing the reverts, they go like this: First, you revert "long after the election" and "selectively edited" out of the article here. Next, you revert "long after the election" and "favorite" out of the article here. Next, you revert "long", "selectively edited", and "favorite" out of the article here. Next, you revert "well" after the election and "selectively edited" out of the article here, putting you at 4RR in less than 24 hours. Let me know if you need further help seeing how this happened, and please self-revert while you have the chance before someone else changes the text back again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rescheduling of the release date

We give the readers the release date. I thin that they know how to understand a calendar. I see no point in trying to describe it in terms of a second date, much less trying to characterize the time interval between them. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no point...

Ah, then that would be the source of the problem. Perhaps I can help explain the point so that you can see it. You are correct that in most Misplaced Pages film articles we simply give the readers the release date. In this instance, however, the release date was rescheduled after controversy arose (or was manufactured ... your choice) over the timing of the release. The controversy was notable enough that many reliable sources reported on it, as well as the subsequent rescheduling -- a rescheduling that was characterized by the specific motivation behind it: to alleviate any concerns that the film's release would be used as a political tool. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits that removed material

I'd like to open up a discussion about this edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(→‎Pre-release political controversy: clean up wordiness, remove irrelevant material about Bergen and Politifact, which are wholly unrelated to Zero Dark Thirty. Resequence for coherence.)

That was the edit summary. After reviewing the edit, I see that most of the material removed wasn't "about Bergen and PolitiFact", but was actually from them; and they are certainly reliable sources for the content with which we're dealing. The content is certainly related to Zero Dark Thirty. That relationship is explained nicely in this source, which was removed in the above edit without explanation (care to address that?): A component of OPSEC’s effort is the accusation from some Republican lawmakers that director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal were afforded access to classified details about the killing of Osama bin Laden, which is the subject of Zero Dark Thirty, a feature film Sony will release in December. In the video, titled Dishonorable Disclosures, OPSEC member Fred Rustamann, a 24-year veteran of the C.I.A., complains of Obama taking credit for killing bin Laden... So, yes, the information on OPSEC and their video is certainly related.

If your concern is that there is excessive text devoted to describing OPSEC and their video, I can see some merit in that complaint. Some of that content was significantly expanded at the request of another editor who wasn't satisfied with just noting that the video was selectively edited; he wanted more detail added on the specific nature of the deceptive editing style and practices (see above discussions). I'd like to see further input on that aspect. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm likewise open to concrete suggestions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that editors are trying to use this article - about the movie Zero Dark Thirty - to litigate all sides of the political claims concerning the alleged security leaks. That creates a huge amount of topic-drift. All we need to have here is a bare mention that there were accusations and subsequent denials. We shouldn't be engaging in a full-blown debate about the merits of everybody's claims and counter-claims. We should mention that there was a controversy, not attempt to resolve it. Belchfire-TALK 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP/NPOV claim

This revert falsely claimed BLP/NPOV violations. I insist that the editor specify what parts they believe are in violation of these policies. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just one of many of the severe problems with that material, see my previous edit summary for another. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

North, your previous edit summary only stated: (Are you kidding? Immensely wp:npov-violating choice of non-neutral wording) ... and that tells us nothing. In addition to the above request that the editor specify what parts they believe are in violation (and more importantly, why), I'd like to extend that same request to you, North, so we can actually address and resolve the concerns. Your revert-warring backed only by unexplained, non-specific, hand-wavey references to various policies are not helping to resolve the situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

1. HDMK on Kolton
2. Ben SMith Tea Party Express

• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles