Talk:We Were Soldiers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): War films task force

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority 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 summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): War films task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Southeast Asian cinema task force

	Vietnam Portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.185.127 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.213.64 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarveyCarter (talk • contribs) 10 February 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.225.35 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.213.64 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006

Factual error in the film and in the preceeding article: Custer was a Lt. Col. at the Little Big Horn--same as Mel's character. He did hold the brevet rank of major general (two stars)in the Civil War. He also graduated last in his class at West Point. 69.179.40.119 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Daniel

To clarify it: Custer had ups and downs in his rank. He returned to the 7th Cavalry as a Colonel, but was court-martialed for being AWOL and returned as a Lt. Col. He was a Lt. Col when he led his troops into the Battle of Little Bighorn.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

mel gibson is a figgin idiot, but since when is "graphic depiction of the loss of life" anti-war? telling the truth means you are against the truth, wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.185.127 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006

I think some scenes towards the end of the movie were certainly anti-war. This might not be "Platoon", but it isn't "The Green Berets" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006

Gibson was just an actor, he didn't produce or direct the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.213.64 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006

He still chose to make right-wing films like this, The Patriot and The Passion of the Christ. Funny how he dodged the draft in Vietnam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HarveyCarter (talk • contribs) 10 February 2007

Well, he was like, 12 years old during Vietnam, so I'm willing to give him a pass for moving to Australia to dodge the draft. Also, don't forget to sign your posts.--Raguleader 19:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are his films considered "right wing" just because they don't portray Americans as scumbags? And Gibson was born in 1956. that made him 16 years old when the US was withdrawing from Vietnam in 1972. Explain how a 16 year old who isn't even eligible for the draft is a "draft dodger"? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

interesting movie about a challenging tactical situation, but the popcorn-throwing, movie-ending mass bayonet charge with helicopter support didn't happen. that was pure Hollywood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.225.35 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 One thing that has to be considered about the supposed "pro american" POV is that the film depicts the very first days of the war, when the whole deal hasn't yet spiral down into a clusterfuck. Vietnam in 1965 wasn't the same sitution as in the late 60's/early 70's, and the movie reflects that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.213.64 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006 I think this is a great war movie. But I think that despite the various inaccuracies, the point of the movie was accurately made: When the bullets start flying , as any soldier or Marine will tell you, You don't fight for your country - You fight to keep your buddies alive. There is no bond as strong as that shared between men who have faced death in battle. I saw the movie yesterday (to be honest i am re-seening it). IMHO: It's an ambiguous movie, to say the least: to me resemble, more than a 'FMJ/Platoon' or Green Berets, a sort of mix 'Black Hawk Down/Braveheart'. The final bayonet attack seems the Stirling battle, Gibson lacked just the blue painted face. This movie AFAIK is very mixed: it's full of ideology as 'God, family, country' all around, agiography etc. but also with some good moments that shows the battle nonsense carnage (just look to the jap guy that lost half face due to 'friendly' napalm). Overall cleary much near to Green Berets than FMJ as 'ideology'. Gibson and R.Wallace were from Braveheart movie. Not a masterpiece, perhaps, but not a bad one also.--Stefanomencarelli 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 This article needs to be cleaned up 2 Bayonet Charge 3 Crew 4 Debate 5 Documentary

[edit] This article needs to be cleaned up

The whole Debate section of this article is a mess. Any chance of cleaning it up and making it more encyclopedic in nature? At the moment, it reads like some of my Livejounal postings.--Raguleader 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayonet Charge

Someone wrote in the article that the bayonet charge at the end never actually happened. Please reference Chapter 16 (pages 249-253 of the movie tie-in edition). It may have been a little over-dramatized and over-emphasized as compared to the book, but Moore did lead two of the companies out with fixed bayonets.207.103.48.49 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, the bayonette charge apparantly did happen, but it was pretty much entirely different (ie: right on the heels of a concentrated air strike and against forces near LZ X-Ray, rather than against the enemy base camp with only helicoptor support).--Raguleader 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew

Whats the point in listing the entire crew of the movie? Cilpot 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, there is no point. It's all redundant with the standard IMDb link. I've removed the crew section. -Phoenixrod 04:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

I can't believe the "Debate" section. It is completely unreferenced and is probably just one editor's opinion, in other words original research. I think the whole section should be deleted. Anyone disagree? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - I think it's a good summary of how the movie differed from the actual battle, and probably 90% of that section would be fine after being referenced. There is a website about the book that could be used to reference individual claims. For example, this page references the presence of the 2/5 and 2/7. -Sgorton 18:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the movie just yesterday, and i think also that the debate section is overall correct.--Stefanomencarelli 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be correct, but this was first noted as unreferenced over two months ago, and is written in a manor that is not even remotely encyclopedic. Being both poorly written AND unreferenced, this qualifies as WP:OR. If someone wants to take a stab at rewriting it with references, feel free. Until then, I'm removing it. Justin ^chat 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, if you're going to remove a section, make sure you remove all references to it too. I was looking for a section that didn't exist! (Deleted the reference myself.) -- Lampbane 06:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary

The second para in the lead section said 'while the book is a documentary work' with a wiki link to the disambiguation page for 'documentary'. Documentary is not usually used that way to describe a book so I've changed it to 'non-fiction'. This may not be the best way to describe it but it's the best I can do. Also, this is the first mention of 'the book'. There is no actual citation of the book being referred to before this mention. Needs cleaning up I think. Sterry2607 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm blind, it is cited. Sorry. However, the reference to the book being 'documentary' or 'non-fiction' probably does need better clarfication. Sterry2607 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)