Talk:Battle in Seattle

Merge

Hey guys .. There´s a similar article in : The Battle in Seattle (film) 200.158.47.125 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true I've seen it!!! Who are you???

Alright we need to choose which article will get deleted, why can we not just site one to the other? on a side note I was offered to be an stand in extra in this film but why would I want to do that and not get paid? plus I was on duty at work at the time too. any ways who are you? at least he signed with his IP address Jedi canuck 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I merge the two similar page

I merge both The Battle in Seattle (film) and Battle in Seattle together. I pick Battle in Seattle over The Battle in Seattle (film) because the previous one has more info than the later one. Chris! _{my talk} 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to imdb, the name of the film is Battle in Seattle, not The Battle in Seattle. Chris! _{my talk} 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why this film is not included in Charlize Theron's page??? You have to update it, it's kind of old, looks like you forgot it. Greetings!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary POV

I realize that there some editors who may have a political axe too grind with this issue, but mispresenting a plot summary so it fits your political POV is wrong. There is nothing at the myspace summary of this movie that mentions the protesters turning violent. The summary also describes the protestors as being peaceful and unarmed. We can debate what actually happened in seattle on another page, but this is part of the official summary of this movie and it is wrong to mispresent it.annoynmous 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think you have kind of forgotten about updating Charlize Theron's page, it's kind of old, just check it out. This film is not even included in it. I really hope you all work on it. Greetings!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews.

I can't wait to include reception from the reviews of this steaming pile of fictional hollywood box office bomb. Did you know that they gave Gary Locke the first Asian-American governor a chop-sockey accent? --8bitJake (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The film is racist. Gary Locke has no accent. I know the governor and have been a supporter of him for years. His family has been living in Washington for over a hundred year. The film gave the character of “Governor” a extremely demeaning and quite racist accent. --8bitJake (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While understanding the political passion in response to the film, the reality is it has been well-received at numerous festivals and received countless standing ovations. Blogger reviews have been mixed, audience reviews however have been seemingly highly positive, even in Seattle itself. When the time comes for professional critic reviews to be published within the media, the "Reception" section must remain fair and provide an accurate representation of the critical reactions without the presence of user POV or biased political or personal affiliates. Hopefully this can be achieved. 2012Dance (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The only "Seattle Media" that I would trust are the reviews on the Seattle PI, Seattle Times, The Stranger, the Seattle Weekly, Seattlest. I would avoid any PR astroturfing "reviews". --8bitJake (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The professional news source reviews should be trickling in after release, for now though I have to say the audiences themselves have seemed to be very impressed. I had the pleasure of attending a festival screening and have had an inside look at all of the rest, and at every one of them, there is an audience reaction that is something to behold. In Seattle, people were cheering at key moments and the energy was amazing. In it's premiere in Vancouver, it received a ten minute standing ovation. In other cities it also received standing ovations, and at smaller festivals like Dallas and Sarasota it was very well-received and definitely the highlight of the festivals. For any "political" film of course reactions will be mixed, and usually said reactions vary from one extreme to the other. It's actually one of the positives when you think about it. If people were not passionate, then the film would have something to be worried about. Indifference is probably a worse sign than hatred. 2012Dance (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait until The Stranger review is published. They HATED the movie at SIFF. --8bitJake (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Many love it and many might hate it too. To each his or her own. 2012Dance (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but The Stranger, Seattle PI, Seattle Weekly and Seattle Times are actually based in Seattle and was actually there for the real protests. They can tell the difference between actual factual history and well this movie. I think that counts for something. --8bitJake (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Balance

2012Dance (talk · contribs) has done a great job adding reviews and references to the article, possibly with the intention of balancing the mostly negative criticism from the anarchist media. The problem is that we shouldn't really care what the anarchists say about the film's artist merits any more than we should take Entertainment Weekly seriously as an authority on the film's factual accuracy with regard to the political content. For film articles, we usually include specific reviews in proportion to the critical consensus, so for this film which has roughly 50% approval on RT, roughly equal amounts of positive and negative aesthetic criticism should be included rather than the entirely positive selection here. Likewise, if there was support for the film's factual accuracy from, for example pacifist or anti-globalisation entities critical of the anarchists, that would be appropriate to append to the factual protrayal section. In this version, it almost as if someone is responding to the criticism "Dave is a liar" with "Dave has a pretty face". the skomorokh 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fictional?

I don't see how this film is fictional- it's based on the events of a true event that took place. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well all the characters are fictional, their dialog and actions are fictional. Most of the movie was filmed on a movie out of country. None of the film makers were there at the real event. Pearl Harbor was not a documentary. The lines between fantasy fiction and historic reality are much more black and white. --8bitJake (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Woody Harrelson is in it -- since he's not exactly a "pro-STATE" guy I am guessing that the film does not make the so-called "rioting" protestors out be the simple black+white bad guys... Hopefully I am correct in my hopefulness :) 199.214.26.194 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's based on some events does not make it any less fictional. There never was a Jim Tobin. There's most likely no Jay, Lou, Ella and all of the other characters. It's a fictional movie loosely based on real events. --76.22.10.29 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious if there is any further clarification from those who maintain that this is not a "fictional" account. After reviewing the article, I think it would be worth mentioning that it is a fictional account (as I assume it is, based on briefly reviewing some of the existing press). I don't believe this is clear. Could someone please elaborate on the perceived "controversy". I don't think I totally understand the nature of the argument. ./zro (⠠⠵) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly quote

The following comment was added to the article by IP 68.35.245.207; it has been moved here for discussion purposes: --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly also praised the film, citing its multi-faceted portrayals in which the director "captures the idealism of the anti-WTO agitators, the anxiety of the cops, and the smugness of the anarchists who made the protest violent".

I highly object to the way this quote is uncritically presented and how it singles out and stigmatizes the anarchist protesters. Of particular note, it also includes a factual error by saying that anarchists specifically turned the protests violent. Anarchists may have introduced the strategic destruction of corporate/private property, but even this rather mainstream-oriented film acknowledges at one point that destruction of property is not violence. Including this quote uncritically perpetuates the idea and violates wikipedia's aims of neutrality. Sorry that I don't know what to do about that other than typing this memo here. Others with the wiki-knowledge can hopefully figure out the logisitics of how to rectify the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.245.207 (talk • contribs)

As such, I have removed the quote until consensus emerges as to how to treat it. the skomorokh 01:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you personally are offended by what was said doesn't mean a quote from a magazine's movie review can be removed. The quote was their quote and was presented as such. If you have a problem, take it up with Entertainment Weekly. You cannot dominate what quotes are featured on a Wiki article simply because you disagree with the author's perspective. Another self-proclaimed "anarchist" previously inserted a quote from their own magazine/online publication's review, which criticized the film, and now you want to remove one that praises it? That's ridiculous, you cannot apply POV to the reception section by inserting what you find flattering to your own and deleting the rest, based on your own perspectives. There are positive quotes and negative quotes and should stay as such to present an even look at it's reception (especially since the RT rating is split afterall). 70.243.221.107 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If this edit needs consensus to be made then it should be left as it was originally as we discuss. As stated above, you cannot dictate what quotes are used simply because of personal opinion. To say that the quote implies lack of neutrality is silly since reviews aren't meant to be neutral in the first place, and if that was the rule in fact then you would have to remove the quotes from the anarchist reviews. If you have a problem then write in to the magazine, don't prevent it from appearing here. It was a legitimate major review about this film. There's nothing to really be discussed. You're going off of your personal opinion here. That is like me going to an article on Hitler and deleting quotes because they offend me. A quote is a mere statement of another individual to express their perspective, as it is a page on them, not you. And that is what a reception section is for, opinions from critics, whether you like them or not. If you disagree with all of this, then feel free to bring a neutral moderator/administrator into the discussion for their decision. Until then, the quote should be left as it were before mere personal opinions deemed it dismissive, otherwise the entire reception section should be deleted if we were to go with what you are suggesting. 2012Dance (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't object to the quote because I am personally offended by the quote itself, but because I am offended that someone could think it has any place in an objective encyclopedic entry. I don't mind if there are reviews praising the film or anything else. I simply object to adding inaccurate information to the article... the fact that it is added via a third party does not make it any more acceptable. Yes it is accurate, verifiable fact that EW printed that sentence, but the content of the sentence itself is not. If I included a review for any other historical movie (say, the Martin Luther King biopic) that contained inaccuracies both about the actual history AND about the content of the movie, it would be removed immediately. But because the people in question aren't widely admired civil rights leaders but widely despised anarchists, it is okay. That is silly - anarchists deserve accuracy and fairness too... even if you apparently find it necessary to talk about them in quotes... as if you believe they don't really exist or something.68.35.245.207 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources Self-Publshed and Non-notable

Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources reads:

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

* When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

*As sources of information about their author, especially in articles about their author, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. This usage is subject to specific restrictions outlined at WP:SELFPUB.

WP:SELFPUB reads in part:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;...

In both pages above opinions only allowable from mainstream highly WP:RS sources.

• Anarkismo.net: it seems like once you are accepted as an editor you can publish whatever you want, which would be self-published. That's ok if they are well known experts in their field but the authors are members of a group whose web site has since gone dead. If a non-self published source was found, they should only be quoted once, not twice.

• Crimethinc's self-published pamphlet can't be used as an opinion about third parties or their films. And what they write is obviously propaganda, especially since just watching the film barely anything was said except that there were a bunch of people calling themselves anarchists smashing things up and that the central characters objected. So POV is another big problem.

Of course, I found an obnoxious Reason Mag. blog entry quote that would just barely comply with wiki rules, and if the above is wp:rs that sure is too and will be added :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The film in question is a fairly mainstream film depiction of a marginalized group. It would seem that any article about such a film would want to include the reaction of that marginalized group - no matter what that marginalized group might be. If there was a film made that depicted a historic NAMBLA event, it would make complete sense to include reactions from those within that community. So you seem to be suggesting that these people who are out there trying to fight for social justice don't deserve the same voice as a bunch of pedophiles?? The objection you raise appears to be a rather transparent politicized attempt to unduly silence the community in question. And your tool to accomplish that is to call the material "self-published"? Ridiculous. Anarkismo and Crimthinc are the two biggest anarchist activist resources on the internet and the only expertise they are offering is about their own impressions and reaction to their own depictions. And to try to disqualify them as "propagandistic" seems equally clueless - they are an activist community - of course they have a point of view - that's their entire reason for existence! If there was an article about moveon.org that included quotes from moveon.org would they also be dismissed as propaganda? Please use your brain before you post. 74.62.99.61 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080827070356/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp? to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=9826

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Although the protest began peacefully with a goal of stopping the WTO talks." How exactly were the WTO talks to be stopped "peacefully"? It was a goal that could only be achieved by violence, as was the plan from the start. his is a nonsense sentence. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)