Talk:Black Hawk Down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 Image 2 West Point Claim 3 Criticisms POV 4 Copyright violation 5 Unneded repetitions 6 Cast 7 Controversies and inaccuracies section 8 Information that needs to be added.

[edit] Image

I changed the image to one relating to the film. Saopaulo1 18:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Point Claim

As I said before, my brother is a Lieutenant with the 3rd ID and graduated from West Point last May. He assures me that this book IS NOT required reading by cadets at the academy, regardless of whether they choose infantry or not. If is an assigned book, he said, in one or two courses but not a required book of reading by the whole or even a substantial portion of the cadet corps. Students who elect to take a certain course are asked to read the book and provide a synopsis of the situations overall influence on modern day urban warfare. Stating that the book is "required reading at West Point" is misleading and incorrect. If you can find a source somewhere that disputes the above...then repost the trivia item with the source. Until it can be reputably sourced, it shouldn't be included here. 4.224.162.170 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's your source:[1] It's considered required reading for infantry branched firsties. It doesn't really matter what your brother says, when it can be sourced. Just saying it's not so because your brother says so is not verifiable as per WP:V.

No no no, you see...that's not a source that says its required reading. Follow these steps and you'll see how this is NOT a source that says it's required reading. http://gradstore.west-point.org/ click that link.

Next you'll see on the left a link that says "Books reccomended by Graduates to New Officers" click on that.

Next you'll see a letter from the Amazon.com staff stating that the following lists are compliations of books that THEY feel will make a good library collection for graduating cadets.

Click list "9" and you'll be linked to the page that you sent me.

This is not a West Point reading list...this is an Amazon.com reading list that was compiled as "books that will form a great library for officers." Additionally, a quick google search for "West Point+Required Reading List" brings the very same list that says "The various titles on the list also complement each other and the required reading found in the formal study of the officer and enlisted schools" Not that these books are the required reading, but that they compliment the required reading at the varios schools.Batman2005 06:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, delete the edit, must have misread it. I still say it's required reading, based off first hand reports from multiple infantry officers who graduated the point that I'm close with, but since that's original research, it can't be used here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms POV

"The film neglects the wider political context in which the battle took place thereby reducing it to a simple story of good vs evil.The truth is more complex."

This seems fairly POV. I haven't seen the film, but I'm pretty sure it was meant to be from the soldier's perspective, where political context wasn't a huge deal. We shouldn't have that in here at all unless a reviewer has said it somewhere. -LtNOWIS 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

The following text in the article also appears on the imdb page for this movie:

The massive shoot of the "target building insert" sequence was intended to be among the first sequences shot in principal photography, due to its complex nature. However, negotiations to borrow four Black Hawk helicopters from the United States military were so arduous that an agreement was not reached until a month after shooting had commenced. Director Ridley Scott had prepared a rental of four Hueys from Germany that were ready to be painted black and work as substitutes in the event an agreement with the US Department of Defense could not be reached. Fortunately, the US Government was eventually satisfied that the film would portray the incident in a positive light, and shipped the helicopters to the location in two C-5 Galaxy transports. Ridley Scott says this was very fortunate for the film, since the title is "Black Hawk Down" and Hueys have no resemblance to Black Hawks.

[edit] Unneded repetitions

The Making of the film section unnecessarily repeats many of the points from the Trivia section. Should the "making of" be deleted and merged with trivia? --Mikael Grizzly

No. It should be the other way around. Ideally, wikipedia articles should not contain Trivia sections. ~ Flooch 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

• Tom Hardy - SPC. Lance Twombly (as Thomas Hardy)
• Tom Guiry - SSG. Ed Yurek (as Thomas Guiry)

why leave this ("as Thomas...") on the page ?Rob1bureau

[edit] Controversies and inaccuracies section

Some of the paragraphs seem to be either misinterpritations, or need fact sources. Some we're either creative liberties I'm sure, or someone's own belife of X matter. Despite factual problems it's also very POV oriented.

--ShortShadow 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information that needs to be added.

I am not so good at the whole editing thing, but I have some information that needs to be added to this article. The helicopters (and soldiers flying them) were from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne). I looked all over the place, but this didn't seem to be included anywhere. In fact, the only divisions mentioned were the ones that were involved in the rescue. I would appreciate it someone a little more technologically savvy would add this to the article!

It's in there already.

The Directors enlisted the help of the US Army, and all Black Hawks and Little Birds used during the filming were from the 160th SOAR, (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) and most of the pilots were involved in the actual battle on 3/4 October 1993.

--Habap 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that it was already in the article, but more attention should be paid this fact than to mention it in the production notes.

Why should it be emphasized more? How could it be emphasized more? Where would you put it? Keep in mind that you can also edit the article as you see fit. --Habap 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, valid point. I am in the infancy of my WikiEditing, and am not sure exactly how it should be changed. My point in posting this here was only a suggestion, to be followed through by someone a little more knowledgeable in both the correct format for the appriate edit, and in the actual subject itself. Lawilkin 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, welcome aboard. Always good to have a new editor. If you have an interest in military history, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The folks on the project try to work together to improve military history articles (and create new ones!) Feel free to ask questions of anyone on the team. I'm also willing to provide personal assistance as needed. I've only been on for a year, so am vaguely new myself.

In regards to where it could go.... I can't see including that in the opening paragraph, or the section on Plot or Controversies and inaccuracies, which puts us at... Background and production, where it is. So, I'm stuck as to how we would emphasize it more.

The bigger question for me is why emphasize it more? It doesn't determine whether one can understand the movie or the real story behind the movie. This is not to deny their valor or importance in that operation or others, but in reference to the movie, it's not a major piece of information. --Habap 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about its relevance to the movie. After a little research and a little "epiphany" of common sense, I realized that there is an actual article devoted to the Battle of Mogadishu. Which leads me to another concern: is it necessary to include an entire history on this movie page of the events in the battle when there is already a page of the actual events? Should these things be included in the movie article? Because it is possible that information relavent to the movie may be added to the page for the battle but not the movie page, thereby leaving the movie page not as accurate. I guess this might just be food for thought, or it is an issue that should be addressed if it hasn't been already! Lawilkin 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)