Talk:13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Demographics of support

Moving into the opening weekend (I just saw the movie, it's great) Donald Trump rents a theater and offers free tickets for people that RSVP. Obviously, he hopes to influence caucus voters before Monday, February 1st.[1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Free promotion

Ted Cruz mentioned the movie to begin his closing statement in the sixth Republican debate (watched by 11million viewers). The next day, Donald Trump made his spash renting a theater in Iowa. Here is what Ted Cruz said, to applause: CRUZ: "13 Hours" -- tomorrow morning, a new movie will debut about the incredible bravery of the men fighting for their lives in Benghazi and the politicians that abandoned them. I want to speak to all our fighting men and women. I want to speak to all the moms and dads whose sons and daughters are fighting for this country, and the incredible sense of betrayal when you have a commander-in-chief who will not even speak the name of our enemy, radical Islamic terrorism, when you have a commander-in- chief who sends $150 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who's responsible for murdering hundreds of our servicemen and women. I want to speak to all of those maddened by political correctness, where Hillary Clinton apologizes for saying all lives matter. This will end. It will end on January 2017. And if I am elected president, to every soldier and sailor and airman and marine, and to every police officer and firefighter and first responder who risk their lives to keep us safe, I will have your back.(APPLAUSE)"[2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

On Location

I thought the photography was amazing, and wondered the location. Today, on the main Wikipedia page it instructs, "Did you know ... that 13 Hours, a dramatization of the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, is filming in Malta and Morocco?" TNKS, AstroU (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Box office receipts

On Monday, January 18th, after opening weekend, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ reports: $5,925,000(est.) for Friday, opening day; $5,785,000(est.) for Saturday; and $4,290,000(est.) for Sunday; in 2,389 theaters, totalling $16million. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: What was the film budget/cost??

There is already a 'box office' section under 'reception' and the receipts for Martin Luther King, Jr, weekend were estimated to be $19million (production budget of $50million).[3] -- AstroU (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot

Can someone add the full plot to the plot section? Just to show any differences in historical accuracy that isn't included in the historical accuracy tab? Just needs a whole plot overview like the other war films like Lone Survivor or Defiance. - Theironminer (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe bias detected in historical accuracy section

The historical accuracy section reads like it was ripped straight off of a pro Hillary fan blog. And the sources are a who's who of bought & paid for far leftist outlets. An ethical vacuum is what they all share. One or two such instances and I would assume good faith. But a whole section? It reeks of bias.

LOL @ randomly citing some quote from Zack Beauchamp, a writer for ThinkProgress. What authority does he have to comment on the accuracy of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B14E:E693:85D6:42EB:A488:2958 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please leave your personal POV at the door when editing. NPOV requires the inclusion of criticism when it's found in reliable sources, and Vox is a good source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not Conservapedia. Please assume good faith. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

While Vox may be a "good source", Beauchamp's article is strictly an opinion piece. There is no evidence that he has any personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the events of September 11, 2012. His quotes do not belong in the "historical accuracy" section of the article. Bones357 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Over time, we will have to consider the liberal bias. But for now, remember that the film makers wanted to avoid being a lightning rod and make it just about the brave six men and what they saw. If other people want to make their own movie based on the Whitehouse point of view, they can. You can note that no names are mentioned in the movie, above "The Chief" locally. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone editing here should watch the four-minute interview of Michael Bay: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4712583219001/michael-bay-enters-the-no-spin-zone/?intcmp=hpbt4#sp=show-clips (with Bill O'Reilly) where they note avoiding politics. Michael Bay answers these questions. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is NOT Conservapedia and the point of this page is not to weed out anyone with a "liberal bias". Vox is a reliable source and therefore the content should stay. This article is also not an advertisement for the movie and just because you think the movie was good, does not mean everyone else agrees with you. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC) ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Properly sourced opinions and biased sources are perfectly proper content at Wikipedia. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and that obviously includes opinions of all types. To make it clear that biased content is not from editors, attribution is essential, and that's why Beauchamp's name is used. The more strong and biased a statement, the more likely it should be an exact quote attributed to the author. These are situations where paraphrasing is usually not appropriate. We don't leave out such content, we simply frame and attribute it properly. Censorship is not allowed, and all significant POV should be mentioned. We don't write hagiographies or sales brochures here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And let's quote the 'secret soldiers' that were there as to the accuracy. There are numerous reliable interview that can be quoted. WP readers can decide for themselves which encyclopedia information is to be believed, IMHO. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Although the film creators intended "13 Hours" to honor the secret soldiers and not be political, in light of the HRClinton Campaign, it is highly political, and as is said, the victors write the history.

To quote from the section: "Former Special Forces Officer Kris "Tonto" Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night ..." (He is quoted on the "Stand down" order.) -- AstroU (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Zack Beauchamp is a Think Progress blogger who just recently graduated poli-sci from a budget ivy league college and then got an MS in international relations. He's no expert or heavyweight and his credentials are no better than hundreds or thousands of other lefty bloggers. Sourcing policy requires us to look at the author, not just the publication, and to explicitly attribute and identify the source where appropriate. I have done that here. Also his single opinion piece was being used to "refute" claims in a very inappropriate point/counterpoint style; I have collected Beauchamps claims into one place where they are explicitly attributed, to avoid presenting them as fact sources and giving them undue weight.

TL;DR this guy is a hack who uses "TL;DR" in a piece that purports to be serious analysis.Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a master's degree in International Relations is exactly what does make him an expert. Wikipedia is not censored and you can NOT remove content just because your own political ideology doesn't agree with it. Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a master's degree does not make someone an expert worth referencing ...there are millions of people in the world with Masters degrees. And to contradict your absurd statement that "Wikipedia is not Conservapedia" perhaps you need to be reminded that it isn't "Liberapedia either" so commentary by far left wing bloggers doesn't belong either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.202.37 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

None of your arguments are based on policy. The political POV of an author is not a reason to not use them. We are required to include opinions from all significant POV. The author need not be notable either, but in this case he is. (Notability does not apply to article content, only to article creation.) This also applies to Korny O'Near: I don't like it is not a legitimate reason either, and that's basically what your objections boil down to. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If that were the case ANYBODY'S OPINIONS could be thrown onto wiki pages. 98.113.202.37 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If the article states that the accuracy is in question by journalistic sources, perhaps it should be stressed that the accuracy is attested by the people who lived through it and eye witnessed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.9.195 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Washington state shooting

The section was originally added on January 23 by VictoriaGrayson.

I removed the section (only one sentence, so definitely undue weight) 14 hours later as trivia.

VictoriaGrayson restored it over a day later.

Since my objections have not been met, I have now removed it again, and, requesting that BRD be followed, will let the community decide whether it should be restored. Let's discuss this.

Here are relevant links:

• The section: #Washington state shooting
• The source: Toxic gun culture at work: “13 Hours” theater shooting accident a sobering sign of our concealed-carry times
• The policy: WP:TRIVIA

A parallel situation is worth considering: Trainwreck (film)#Shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana. I think it happens to be relevant for inclusion. It's a totally different situation and isn't trivia. It even has its own article: 2015 Lafayette shooting.

I still consider it trivia which doesn't belong here. Let's discuss this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed! Two incidences that are totally irrelevant to this movie and Behghazi. Keep them out! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zack Beauchamp quote

The following quote, from a piece in Vox by Zack Beauchamp, has caused a lot of edit warring; it has been removed by various people, including myself, and restored by others:

“ The movie's attempt to make a real-life event into an action movie, and raise the stakes by telling an audience what they're seeing is a 'true story,' requires it to distort the events of September 11, 2012 — in some cases twisting it beyond recognition. And in doing so, the movie lends credence to some of the most pernicious conspiracy theories about Benghazi out there. ”

There are several issues with this quote, one of which is that it's not clear how notable a pundit Zack Beauchamp is; that's covered above. But the more relevant issue to me is simply that the quote doesn't add any new information. He's basically just saying that he doesn't think the movie tells the truth. But anyone reading the "Historical accuracy" section already knows that there's controversy about the truthfulness of the film, and they can see the specific breakdown of which specific claims have been supported/disputed, and by whom. This specific quote doesn't tell us anything more, other than that this one person strongly believes one side. You could add in ten more such quotes, on both sides of the argument, but it wouldn't improve the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No legitimate arguments. See my comment to you above. I don't want to deal with this in two places. I will say this though: it is the only source we use which mentions an important point, that the film panders to right wing conspiracy theories, and that's an important reason to use the quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is two separate discussions - the one above is about the author, this one is about the quote itself. I do agree that "conspiracy theories" is an interesting phrase, though I think we can all agree that it would be better if someone could find a more notable author who said it. But in the spirit of compromise, how about shortening the quote to something like: 'Zach Beauchamp wrote that, in its retelling of events, "the movie lends credence to some of the most pernicious conspiracy theories about Benghazi out there."'? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)