Talk:Sicario (2015 film)

plot question

Didn't Matt (not Alejandro) shoot Kate (bruising her as she was wearing body armor) after she pointed her weapon at him? This implies Matt and his team were slaughtering unarmed or unresisting people. Kate did a little more than just struggle with Matt. She walked up and slugged him in the face in retaliation for Matt shooting at her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongabonga11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kongabonga11: No Alejandro definitely shot Kate. I agree that Kate isn't part of unarmed/unresisting people. Matt's team definitely killed unresisting people (but not unarmed people). However, Alejandro did kill the unarmed cop. Tale.Spin (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would bringing back the Medellín Cartel achieve anything? They were one of the more chaotic cartels and they were based in Colombia, not mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:A200:580:CDF3:763E:7FDF:C2D9 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You must always remember that whatever factual elements there are in the movie only serve to bolster and give credence (however much or little that might be) to the rest of the movie.

The return of the Medellin cartel was, in the movie, suspected as a prime motive but immediately disposed of because it was immediately indicated that Alejandro was working on his own to avenge the deaths of his wife and daughter. That it might provide some kind of control over the various groups was valuable to US interests but merely a collateral effect of the success of his revenge.

2602:306:B83B:CC60:3D48:1C5:A2EC:3222 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Explain why it's original research

In the section over reaction from Juárez, explain what is wrong with Al Jazeera as a source- why is another source needed? The number of months given is stated in the TNYT article, it's not original research. The overall information included in the article is found in the sources. What exactly is original research? AuroralColibri (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made some edits addressing some of that section's more obvious issues. The opening statements need citing. Once that's done, I would suggest that the OR tag be replaced with an Undue Weight tag, since the section includes only negative comments about the realism of the events depicted. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then bring on some positive statements about the realism of this film. In a film with documentary style - other then Apocalypse Now mentioned in the article - showing corpses of murdered people hanging on bridges, beheaded, is either the sad truth or .. propaganda. I've not been to Juarez recently, but the citations from Mexican officials point in the latter direction. As well as the sources in the WP on the subject. By the way, in the context of a fiction film that is original research by nature, it's a bit funny to badmouth a paragraph with that warning for bringing in comments from reality. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's original research WP:SYNTH, clearly written in a one-sided way by someone with an ax to grind. I wasn't the editor who originally tagged it, but I can see why he or she did. I did my part in trying to fix that section up. It would be helpful of other editors to try as well. In the meantime, we don't unilaterally removed tags without addressing the issue and reaching consensus with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, next you are asking for an Undue Weight tag, 'since the section includes only negative comments about the realism of the events depicted.' As if the storyline of a fictional movie, naturally also an entertainment business, should be kept as the neutral ground on which to proove real facts. With that kind of reality construction it would be a bit difficult to reach consensus. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talking aboutWP:SYNTH, which warns to 'combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Have a look into the ProPublica article (citation #6), where a 'veteran border correspondent' reports: 'Officials in Ciudad Juarez were upset about scenes showing cadavers hanging from downtown viaducts and firefights and explosions lighting up the night.' Where is the conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? How much clearer do you want to get this? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point: It's not just me. Another editor placed the tag, and other editors have left it without comment. If you want a consensus, you need to get other editors involved, either through a notice on the WP:FILM talk page, or by calling for an RfC, or by contacting the last, say, 10 registered editors of this article with a neutral note saying, "As a past editor of this article, you may wish to join a discussion at Talk:Sicario (2015) film," among three ways I can think of. Frankly, I don't believe the section should be there at all — it's a fictional movie, not based on a specific nonfiction book or article, But rather than unilaterally remove the section, I've tried to work with other editors ... up to the point of going out of my way to contact other editors. But if you want to achieve consensus on the tagged content, that's the way to do it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Currently, it is you and me who seem to be interested in the subject. Where did you get the idea that a Wikipedia author should have to contact former editors before changing an article? That violates the Wikipedia spirit completely. Consider Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Five_pillars. And then, what would you derive in the case that none of the 10 registered authors would answer to my or your call? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually follows the Wikipedia spirit completely, which is not to edit war but to reach talk-page consensus. Without consensus, the status quo remains. I suggested three different ways you could try to generate editorial discussion to reach a consensus to change the status quo. In doing that, I'm trying to help you even though I disagree with you. That is part of the collaborative Wikipedia spirit. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about the WP spirit, and the links given and tons of discussions on the topic could tell you why. Arguments in the direction 'others did this, they are not involved in the current discussion, but we need their approval before we can change anything' are clearly out of bounds.

But let's look into the details of the dispute. The sources-warning relates to the sentence 'Officials of Ciudad Juárez criticized the depiction of that city...' - and right, the article does not name sources for these offcials words. So the original editor jumped one step too far in presenting the ProPublica author's report on the Juarez offcials' position as a fact. Then again, we have an article about that author, Sebastian Rotella, and the reader can thus derive her own assessment into his reputation. Edited the paragraph accordingly - please explain remaining reasons for a sources warning. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please realize that the timescale for discussions here at Wikipedia, Bernd, need to be weeks, and not days. We all have responsibilities outside of this charitable venue that consumes our time. If another editor, like Tenebrae, notes that there is a two-to-one editor perspective on a matter, you cannot claim an immediate one-to-one lack of consensus because the original concerned individuals cannot rush back in real time to enter the fray. As for the matter here, regarding the OR and other original issues claimed. As is often the case, the matter moved on quickly and then died off. I will look to the section and issues there, to see if I have perspective to offer. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILM discussion

Look also here for further discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Sicario --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article about a fictional movie include a section critiquing its realism? 23:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - Why are we singling out this movie for special treatment, and not critiquing the realism of every other fictional detective movie, spy movie, etc.? Aside from that reason why it's inappropriate in this article, the section cherry-picks sources in way that seems designed to promote the real-life locales as being "not as bad as the movie makes it out to be". I've tried working to improve this section, but the fact is that its whole reason for being is to push a WP:SYNTH agenda. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - The headline is not important. We could rather integrate the paragraph currently named 'Responses regarding realism' into the existing 'critical responses', or a sub-chapter of it. The content on this topic remains relevant and provides a number of sources. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed the title and chapter structure accordingly. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    • We do not unilaterally change a section under RfC discussion to the way one single editor prefers it. Please respect the RfC and go through protocol as we're all supposed to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Once again, please provide a link for us to that 'protocol' definition on WP. By the way, I reacted to your complaint about the presentation of the Juarez officials' remarks. So what do you actually want (except getting attenttion)? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, a protocol is not a published policy or guideline. It's inherent in the very process. There is no way to rationalize making contentious changes to a section under RfC discussion while we're awaiting consensus to make changes. We're not supposed to make changes without consensus. Do you really need me to point to where it says "Wikipedia operates on consensus"? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No A devoted section isn't needed. Rotella's comments can be incorporated into the critical reception section, while the Mayor's proposed boycott and the protest can be incorporated into the release section. The third paragraph that reels off the crime stats should be removed since they are a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No Wikipedia articles should not focus on opinion, but on fact. If a "critical reception" section is included, it should not be the main focus of the article, and should be a brief summary, not a detailed accounting of or a series of cherrypicked quotes from specific reviews. That level of detail would only be appropriate if the reviews themselves were shown to be notable, in that other reliable sources were writing about them. Certainly one short section is enough for such a brief summary. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please note, though this is added post hoc, it is important enough to state, since I missed this discussion. Editing a section that us under RfC, in any fashion, while it is being discussed, is in the poorest of form. One cannot have an unmuddied discussion if the object of the discussion is not clear, and it cannot be clear if people are editing the section (or other object) while the discussion is talking place. I will not take the time to find chapter and verse of WP policies or guidelines in support of this, leaving others to do so if they wish. To me, it is prima facie obvious, that it is simply respectful to leave a body of text alone while it is being discussed—particularly, in cases such as this, where an editor has taken the time to start an RfC, regarding the matter. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanish

I think it is a little unusual that this English language Wikipedia article includes the Spanish word Sicario over and over again, and that is explained only once in the Production section. I think the literal English translation of the word should also be included in the intro. Maybe that's a semi-spoiler which is why I wanted to bring it up for discussion before making the edit. It isn't ideal but I think it is necessary and I think it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to not explain the word in the intro. (I notice it now because the sequel article fails entirely fails to explain the words Sicario or Soldado.) -- 109.77.236.118 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I notice Wiktionary has a page explaining the word sicario which unlike the pages about Contract killing or Assassins actually explains that the word not only means hitman, but also that is used in the context of Latin American drug cartels. -- 109.77.236.118 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Adjusted formatting based on the example of another film, Incendies (French: [ɛ̃.sɑ̃.di], "Fires") is a French titled predominantly Arabic language film, by Villeneuve (French: "New City"). -- 109.76.169.117 (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Sicario (2015 film) → Sicario
• Sicario → Sicario (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Sicario". Of all the pages listed on Sicario, the 2015 film receives the most number of views. Sicario: Day of the Soldado is a partial title match, while Sicario (1994 film) and Sicario (album) are both stubs with low notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of associated disambiguation page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Support per nominator. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence that this first of the 2 films in the Sicario franchise is more long term encyclopedia notable than all other uses of the word combined. Particularly when we now know that Sicario 3 is in the works. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Those are WP:TITLEPTMs. And what do you mean by "no evidence" when I have presented the pageview stats in the nomination? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Tree Critter (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Sicario disambiguation page should be further flushed out to include the pages beginning and containing Sicario in the name. Based on your link for page views, it appears as though Sicario: Day of the Soldado gets a significant amount of views as well, having received 45,398 over the past 30 days. This page received 61,637 over the same period. Because of that, and the many other titles with Sicario in them, I oppose. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the primary topic with respect to usage [1], though it arguably comes somewhat close. Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To add to article

Shouldn't we add the fact that this film is an allegory of the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to this article? That's a pretty important aspect of the film and probably shouldn't be left out or glossed over. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Executive producer

Shouldn't we add the fact that Erica Lee was the executive producer of this film? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)