This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
-I would put this in myself, but I wouldn't know how to reference it or where to find it. The 2002 first-person shooter known as Command and Conquer Renegade has a level in which there's a fenced off area with a movie projector in one tower and a bunch of pens in there housing POWs and a Nod propaganda film playing. It openly references the same scene in this movie where Patrick Swayze's character finds his father. Would that even count or no? Vgamer101 (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV issues
- I'm not a frequent contributor, and so I didn't want to just change the wiki unless people higher on the totem pole agree with me, but there was a line in the "plot" section that I don't think belongs in there. It is a POV synthesis (or whatever) issue relating to whoever authored at least part of the plot section. It seems biased and more related to how said author percieved a particular scene scene than perhaps what was actually MEANT to be percieved by the filmmakers. After pointing out that a Cuban soldier looks for a particular form, one relating to BATF regulations and firearm registration, the author felt it was necessary to add this gem of a line, "suggesting the inherent danger in laws that require firearm registration." Ok, I am not a fan of gun control, but to me the point of that scene was not to demonstrate the "inherent danger" (as said author so eloquently puts it), of gun registration laws. I believe it was just a plot tool to help explain why there wasn't MORE armed resistance, and not some warning about gun control. Since this is my personal opinion it shouldn't be included in a wiki, correct? So it should be with this entry, perhaps deleting that line and finding another way to segway into the last line of that paragraph. Coincidentally, one might be able to make the argument that the gun itself posesses more "inherent danger" than the piece of paper that ties it to it's owner... And this is coming from a registered gun owner who owns assault weapons, so I am not some bleeding-heart on here with an agenda. However, I do think that the person who authored the section or phrase I am talking about typed it with an eye towards their own political beliefs and not towards accurately stating what the writers/director were actually trying to do or say. Since this is supposed to be some form of encyclopedia, lets keep the bias off the pages as much as possible and stick to what is known and proveable. Does it say IN THE MOVIE that it was a warning about gun control laws? Is there audio or video of one of the filmmakers/writers stating that a warning of the "inherent dangers" of registering firearms was their intent here? If so, then leave it in, but if not then it needs to go. I'll correct it myself and make it un-biased if I have to, but as it stands it is definitey slanted towards a certain author's POV.
- Also, because of the nature of this film (a fictional communist invasion on American soil) and the current political climate (where dems are called commies and socialists by their right-wing counterparts), this article should be watched closely for bias slipping in, particularly right-wing bias. It's fine for right-wingers to love this movie, I just don't want them polluting wikipedia with any of their political dogma. I would ask the same of anyone with any political view who decides to post here. Leave your politics at the door when you make an entry, regardless of your POV. It's a damned encyclopedia, I want encyclopedic information... not how some random dumb-ass interpreted something. I mean, that's what the discussion session is for, right? Maybe these biased observations would fit in better here than in the actual article.
- Addendum; I was going to come and change the line myself, but someone already did a wonderful job of removing that POV issue, or Synthesis issue, or whatever it is, from the plot section for me! Thanks, whoever took care of that.
- Oh, I was playing Modern Warfare 2 today and because I had this on my mind recently I finally made a cartain logical connection. The level when the Russians paratroop onto American soil is called "Wolverines!" Seems to me like this movie gets a LOT of pop-culture references, so I don't feel that is a necessary addition to the wiki or anything, just an interesting factoid I was too dumb to realize the implication of until now. Anyway, thanks to all for keeping Wikipedia going as smoothly as it does, this place is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ-Joe1982 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting us know of this issue! This is not one of Wikipedia's well-tended articles. There may be similar problems elsewhere, so if you see them, be bold and make the change. happy editing! Erik (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's annoying, but i removed it for now. Meanwhile someone probaldly should block the guy who keeps posting it, for we have'nt agreed on it's verifiability.24.45.214.174 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. It's been added by several different IPs/people. IMO, the map itself isn't wp:OR since it is entitled "Approximate map of the events described in the movie". It is attributable to Tanner's monologue about the war, and it therefore verifiable. The map is NPOV, it does not make claims about any part of the world not discussed in the monologue EXCEPT for the inclusion of the Warsaw Pact nations. OTOH, I do believe that the beligerents section (& prior "losses" section,etc) were OR since neither the beligerency of Canada nor the Warsaw Pact are discussed in the film, nor are actual troop loses. If the map was redrawn to show the rest of Europe in green, I would be inclined to allow it. Markvs88 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The map is not only not needed, but completely inaccurate every time I've seen someone try to add one, and people should really stop the abuse putting them in especially if they want to keep being able to edit, because I WILL start reporting it as the vandalism it is. (FYI to the maker of the one map, the flights would more like gone north over the poles as the shortest route, not east into Alaska from the Soviet Union). 96.31.181.147 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen to the monologue, Tanner talks about the Russians sending troops across the Bering Strait. That's what the arrow refers to. Jrkarp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
References in the movie
This is a page to add factual information about the film. The film directly references two other movies as cited. Removing cited points is in and of itself opinion. Likewise, removing Red Dawn's effect on culture is also opinion -- it's a *real world* aspect of the film in society. Markvs88 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your source for the references in the movie is a trivia page on IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Check with any editor in good standing with Wikiproject Film and they will say the same thing. The effect on culture section was nothing but items that were already in the see also section, so I fail to see why that is helpful. And, removing these things, which are inappropriate according to policy, is not the expression of an opinion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Film is a part of Wikipedia and is therefore an unreliable source as well. Zero sum game. :-) But apart from that, I refer you to [[1]] Resources section, point 1. Or for that matter [[2]] Templates, Details. AND Cleap-Up, Trivia: "Trivia may be a useful section in a film article, as it can serve as a "Miscellaneous" area for important facts (not just fan facts) that may not yet fit easily elsewhere." I maintain that the fact that the writers of Red Dawn chose to reference prior films deliberatly that it is an important aspect of the film.
Further, the same Style Guideline page *has* a subsection for Popular Culture... and it's undefined. Thus there is no policy. But I'll tell you what: I'll provide non-IMDB sources if it makes you happy. By the same token, I think you should consider using [citation needed] tags and giving at least non-IP users a crazy amount of time (like a day? maybe *two* whole days?) to fix/ammend any additions you consider questionable. Does that sound fair? Markvs88 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on the editor to verify this kind of information. In addition, "Trivia" sections should be avoided. If you want to re-add information, it should be part of a section and not a stand-alone bullet. Erik (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the burden was met as my addition was cited! As for trivia, I agree. But this is not a Trivia section. I'm not counting times someone says "shut up" or something. These sections are aspects of the film (popular culture it draws on, and its own effect on popular culture), which are relevant and notable. Note that the information provided is neutral, is verifiable, and is not original research. If it is okay for Star Wars to describe its effect on culture, why not Red Dawn? Markvs88 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb's trivia page is not unreliable. It is user-submitted and has very little oversight. Red Dawn can certainly have a section about its cultural impact, but it needs much more compelling sources. This is a good start, for example. Erik (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "not reliable"? :-) Thank you. Note I offered to use non-IMDB citations above and will do so soon. I will revert the section back and put a tag on it for [citation needed]. If I don't get back to it with reliable sources by 00:01 GMT 18 March 2010, it can be reverted. Fair? Markvs88 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicanJacobite - While it's great that you take care of page vandalism, not every edit IS vandalism. You must assume [[3]] good faith for new points and allow TIME for people to cite sources. Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronize me. I never claimed that this was vandalism, and I did not revert is as such. Nor has this anything to do with assuming, or not assuming, good faith. This is absolutely trivial information. A video game about a war in which a couple of catch phrases from this film are used. The relevance is borderline at best. Why not leave it out until such time that a good reference is found indicating its relevance? The other items in that section are, without question, relevant to this film. This one is vague to say the least. That's why I removed it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it has *everything* in assuming good faith. I've already refuted you're claims of "trivialism" above, to which you've never responded. Your revert-edits for "too much detail" when someone goes crazy on minutae is one thing, but this is quite another. The relevance is that it is a popular cultural reference to the film[[4]]. As I pointed out above, other films have had an effect on popular culture, so does Red Dawn. This is a wholly valid point to expand upon. Since pages like [[5]] exist, *and is rated by* WikiProject Films IMO you're being a bit overzealous. All I'm asking for is that you use a "citation needed" tag and let the thing stay up for a reasonable amount of time (say week or so) if its not obvious vandalism. Otherwise, you're just stopping work on the page. Markvs88 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is add more trivia and you could not even be bothered to properly format titles and references. Yes, you are definitely doing good work to improve the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct formatting"?!? LOL! *What* is the "proper way"? Why don't you do something crazy and actually contribute something to this thing then? I am hard pressed to think of a single thing you've added to it. Heck, this article would be wholly unsourced without me, RJ! Again, it's not trivia it is CULTURE. So far you've put up exactly zero to refute any of my points, so I consider this debate closed until you do so. Markvs88 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russian poster title clarification
The poster uses the Russian word КРАСНЫЙ (RED), the same word which appears in Red Square and Red Army.
However, this is actually written КРАСНЫИ, without the "wiggle", if you will, on the Й. Why?
In Russian orthography, it is common to drop that from the uppercase letter, in much the same way that in French, an uppercase É is commonly written as E, without the accent.
It is not a spelling mistake; it is an orthographic convention. Varlaam (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? The site is not a wiki redirect, it is most certainly third party. It passes every aspect of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please bear in mind that *barring this one* I've added every citation to this article. The site has rated thousands of DVDs, ergo it isn't a self published source with an agenda on a specific topic. The article without this has no negative review, which in itself is a failing. Is the National Review a movie rating magazine? No, yet when I posted that it rated it #X conservative movie, that didn't raise any objections. Markvs88 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got another review that makes the same kind of comment for back up, though? I think the statement itself has merit since it's something that I've seen said about the film multiple times over the years. But I'm guessing that someone else will eventually come along and have the same idea that Kelly and I apparently had; "who the hell is that guy?" I know I've seen his links get pulled from film articles for being non-notable. So I'm thinking if we could find another review or source expressing the same sentiment, that would probably be good. Millahnna (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that's a little excessive? No one has yet stated why this link it not notable, so I'm reverting it until someone does. The burden is on the author, and he provided a link that no one has yet definitively challenged. Markvs88 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know. It's just something I've suggested a few times when the notability of a review has been questioned; "well let's find another one to back it up." It can't hurt. We could ask the WP:FILMS people for some more eyeballs on the issue. There may be a history with that site that I'm unaware of (in regards to why I've seen others revert it I mean) or someone may know of a source for the statement that's less likely to be challenged. At the very least I do think we should probably rephrase the sentence itself. I can totally see why Kelly put the who tag on it, in spite of it being, as you said, kind of obvious in conjunction with the source. I'm off wiki/light wiki (not sure which) for a couple of weeks so I won't be able to get back to you guys if this conversation keeps going for a bit. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all fair enough. I'll tell you what: I'll look for a backing source (I'm sure the Newsweek review wasn't very pro-movie), but it's not right for folks to just revert a negative cited point. Wikipedia is not a fan site. :-) Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. Markvs88 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the quote (the review said nothing about "reactionaries") and attributed it. However, I don't think it belongs in here - DVD Verdict doesn't seem to be a notable site per WP:WEB, I think I'll probably nom that article for deletion. If you're looking for guidelines on citing sources for film criticism, there is a style guide here. Kellyhi!14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that's just been started today... thus I can't see removing a cited point based on something you'd just begun to question notability on. Markvs88 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no rush - there is no deadline. We can see what the community says about the notability of the review site. Have you tried any of the other review sites mentioned by the Films Wikiproject? Kellyhi!16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
