Talk:Hostiles (film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Michael Parks
[edit]Michael Parks is not in this according to imdb? wtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.128.129 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Revisionist western?
[edit]Jack Sebastian, there are plenty of sources calling this film a "revisionist western":
I will revert. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, I appreciate you saying that there are plenty of source calling the film such, but none of them are in the article. And we are both very well aware that if it isn't in the body of the article, it doesn't get to be in the Lede, as per WP:LEDE.
- Perhaps a better course would have been to add one of those sources into the article noting the film as "revisionist western", instead of reverting. Clearly, though, the article suffers from a balance of sources; not one of them notes how the revision being done is by the director, and doing it poorly. Even Bale's performance is shellacked.
- What do you think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, you asked for talk page discussion and I started the discussion, offering five possible sources. You select the best one and I will format it and add it to the article. If you want to chastise me, then I will ask you why you removed easily verifiable content from the article instead of finding even one of the several sources that I found in less than a minute? We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia not tearing it down. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- What the heck. I did it myself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, Cullen328. All I had done was pointed out that you had reverted incorrectly, suggesting that you could have simply added the source and re-added the genre. Could I have done the sourcing? Sure, but there is a lot wrong with this article, and I don't have time to fall down this particular rabbit hole. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not remove content that is exceptionally easy to verify and reference. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello pot, meet kettle. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not remove content that is exceptionally easy to verify and reference. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, Cullen328. All I had done was pointed out that you had reverted incorrectly, suggesting that you could have simply added the source and re-added the genre. Could I have done the sourcing? Sure, but there is a lot wrong with this article, and I don't have time to fall down this particular rabbit hole. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- What the heck. I did it myself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, you asked for talk page discussion and I started the discussion, offering five possible sources. You select the best one and I will format it and add it to the article. If you want to chastise me, then I will ask you why you removed easily verifiable content from the article instead of finding even one of the several sources that I found in less than a minute? We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia not tearing it down. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)