Talk:We Were Soldiers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reception

I cut this whole part as it was not sourced. "The Vietnamese government did not greet the film with approval. In fact, Don Duong the Vietnamese actor, who played the Vietnamese commander Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An, was officially condemned as a traitor, subjected to interrogations to force him to sign a "confession" to "crimes" he had supposedly committed. Duong refused to give in. After months of negotiations between the Bush White House and Hanoi, Duong and his family were allowed to immigrate to the United States in 2003.<NO LINK TO ARTICLE>" If you source it it might stay, but sounds heavily POV right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

References

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Smith, Bradley (2009). "Narrative's Role in Constructing Masculinities in We Were Soldiers". In Watson, Elwood (ed.). Pimps, Wimps, Studs, Thugs and Gentlemen: Essays on Media Images of Masculinity. McFarland. ISBN 0786443057.

Anti-war?

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)

Moving to Australia just changed which country drafted you. 500 Australians, many of them drafted died in Vietnam 121.220.24.171 (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC) kim_dimsim

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)

I grew up during that time period. The speech was quite littered with God and country back then. In most of the land, it was that way. Down south, segregation was still going on, long after the military desegregated and I've been told by the older service members who served down south, it was QUITE ugly for them at times. I've since, grown up, served for over 27 years in the US Army. I did nearly 5 years downrange in this war. So, I'll agree with Stefanomencarelli, it shows what battle is like, in PG-13 terms. In reality, it's far uglier. Think when that artillery and mortar rounds came in, nobody flew a bit and landed intact, sizable chunks of body went flying in a different direction. At times, a body came clean apart. Any service member will flat out tell you, THEY don't get to select where they're going, our government does and they are ORDERED to go. So, you go. You fight, in part for the nation, but the reality is, you fight to keep yourself and your team alive. You collect your dead and see to it that they go home for their family to bury. War IS ambiguous in the extreme. You'll see men, women and children harmed, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. You'll see people survive when they had no right to survive what happened, but not complain. I've sent men in to accompany a unit and assist them, usually nothing of significance happened, but once, my team was blown apart by an IED and a good friend in the vehicle behind now is missing half of his face, one ear is gone, one eye is gone, he has half a hand and half a foot. I went forward and joined in the recovery effort. It took us 2 1/2 hours to recover all of my men's body parts. There is no God and country in that, everyone goes home. Period. If you need it explained to you, you'll never comprehend that concept.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Custer

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)

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)

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)

Transplanted question

This question was inserted into the article by another editor. I moved it here: Question? When did Rick see the movie and know his unit was not written in the movie? This movie was premiered on February 25, 2002 and released March 1, 2002 to theaters. Rick Rescorla died September 11, 2001 at the WTC. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Read the article carefully. It never claims that Rick saw the movie. Apparently, he read the script, which obviously would have been written well before Sept. 11, 2001. Harry Yelreh (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Crandall's nickname was Snakeshit

I'm tired of censor crusaders "fixing" it. It's is discussed in the movie why that is his nickname. It is shown in the movie when his flight helmet has "Snake" stenciled on it and "shit" written on a piece of tape after it. I provided a source from Joe Galloway himself, who was actually there, knows that man and wrote the book. So why are certain editors so damn bent on removing a sourced fact? Stop watching the censored for TV version and assuming it is only one. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is your point answered in the revisions of the article?

86.16.134.133 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes

I have found this page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/quotes that I think would make a useful reference. Anyone got any thoughts?

86.16.134.133 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Um, a memorable quotes section exists on most of the movies on IMDB. Regardless, they are user submitted, therefore not a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I note your point but I would like to make some more of my own. First, I remember these quotes from the film from my personal viewing. Second, wimpish as it may seem, a number of these quotes make me smile, or catch in my throat, even years on and give a flavour of the film. Finally, it's a film! It took me a while to find these quotes but I cannot see how a reference (not quotation) will have a deleterious effect.

86.16.134.133 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I loved the movie and it did have a number of memorable lines. But this article has a couple of them and according to the MOS, there should not be a quotes section. So I'm not sure where or how you plan to work these quotes in. Second, what you or I remember or know means nothing on Wikipedia (see WP:TRUTH), only what we can reliably source matters and IMDB isn't a reliable source for quotes. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you mistake me. I have no thought of adding quotes about the film, the only ones in the article, but a reference to quotes from the film. I respectfully request that you re-read WP:TRUTH yourself. Particularly 4.The Truth does not require verification through reliable sources. That sort of thing may be necessary for mere "facts", but we're talking about The Truth here, people!. Since there is already a section for Notable Musical Elements, I see no problem with a section for Memorable Quotes on the lines of "There are a number of lines in the film that many have found memorable" followed by a footnote reference to the IMDB page. Do you have some sort of proprietary interest in this article?

86.16.134.133 (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead changes

Hi

An ip editor pointed out, quite rightly, that the battle was not the "first major engagement of the US military".

I have amended the lead to "US Army" and left their statement in as a hidden messaage in case of problems.

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot Could Use a Correction

See the end of the 7th paragraph under the plot section, these two sentences don't make the most sense as they are. "they weren't able to reach the command post because it was to far up the mountains and their orders were to find the base camp and kill all soldiers the hidden entrance that would lead underground tunnels to Nguyen Huu An he had already retreated up higher in the mountains was block of badly with nettles & bushes they couldn't find it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.162.177 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Should it be mentioned that Major Bruce Crandall (depicted by Kinnear in the movie) was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions at Ia Drang? He also received four Distinguished Flying Crosses and 23 Air Medals in his career. 71.154.158.126 (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

production?

why not a section about the production of the movie? I know it was filmed in part at Fort Benning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.149 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have source citations, you can add in a section on that. Just don't get carried away with minutia. :) Wzrd1 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammatic error in first paragraph of the plot summary?

From the current revision of the article:

"Although the FFL unit kills many Vietminh, the unit is soon overrun. Nguyen Huu An (Don Duong) hypothesizes that if they do not take no prisoners the French will at some point stop sending troops to Vietnam, he then orders the execution of all surviving French soldiers."

I'm watching the movie for the first time and came in after this part so I can't attest to the veracity (hence not editing it myself.) But it seems to me that if the battle survivors were executed the reason would be because, "...if they do not take prisoners the French will... stop," or alternatively, "...if they take no prisoners the French will... stop," The double negative implies to me the opposite. Or am I imagining it. (Maybe it was meant to say that if they do not take any prisoners?)

Anyway, has anybody else who has seen the beginning of the movie want to edit that? LaughingVulcan 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Underlinking

You need to link in every new section. Incoming links and the table of contents bring you directly to article sections, and readers can skip the lede, as I did. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)