# Talk:Men Against Fire

I have removed this: "It is clear from the video recording, which Arquette promptly confirms, that Stripe was drugged or under some controlling influence, hence why Stripe does not recall the event." Not at all, he gives it as much thought as anyone agreeing to the terms and conditions on their iPhone. He says "that's like a whole essay" as he doesn't bother to read it and digitally signs it with a thumbprint and says "that's dope!". He is told that the signing will be erased from his memory. The point of the episode is that we do not have to be coerced into agreeing, just ignorant of our own ignorance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It was stated in the plot section that soldiers are exterminating mutated humans in Denmark, a woman was mentioned to be Danish, and the category "Denmark in fiction" was added to the article. Is there any reliable source that states that the episode is set in Denmark? While taking a look in the script of the episode i was not able to find any mention to the country, besides the fact that some characters were speaking Danish. This site also confirms that some characters are speaking Danish, and states that it is transpired that "the nondescript barren landscape is Denmark", which is not decisive evidence. In the article for the Danish language we read that the language is spoken principally in Denmark and in the region of Southern Schleswig in northern Germany, where it has minority language status. Also, minor Danish-speaking communities are found in Norway, Sweden, Spain, the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. Due to immigration and language shift in urban areas, around 15–20% of the population of Greenland speak Danish as their home language. -- Radiphus 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It most certain is set in Denmark. They visit multiple areas where everyone speaks Danish. Lifesence (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

what does mass STAND FOR?!
i've googled all over the place -- wiki, fan sites, reddit -- and just can't find it.  "Mental Activity Supplemental Stimulus" or somesuch?
can't believe it's so hard to find!  198.147.225.22 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Men Against Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is in very good nick, some comments:

Michael Kelly is linked to different targets, just use Michael Kelly (actor) .
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Original Score by" why is Score capitalised?
Because of my oversight in not checking the infobox properly. Per the infobox documentation, the parameter is for the "most notable" songs of the episode (if any – in this case not), not the composer, so I've removed the parameter entirely.
" he and Hunter open fire" they kill the roaches, but also doesn't Stripe grimly stab one death, which is shown to him later?  (Stripe killing two on his first outing seems to be of note to his colleagues...)
Yep, that's a thing cut out for the word count, but I've changed it to One of them points an LED device at Stripe, but he shoots one roach dead and stabs another to death. and with the changes below it's still sub-400 words (396, discounting actor names). — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
" but his MASS glitches during it. It continues to glitch " repetitive.  Maybe "during which his MASS glitches.  After further malfunctions, Stripe has his MASS tested ..." or similar?
Yep, done (... but his MASS glitches during it. After further malfunctions the following day, Stripe ...). — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Third para of plot uses Stripe and Medina lots times.  Any chance of some variety (he/his/she/her etc) when the subject isn't ambiguous?
Little bit tricky but I've done some rewording. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"soldier's senses" shouldn't this be "soldiers' senses"?
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Should all instances of "roach" or "roaches" be in quotes?
It's a tricky one. I think it makes sense from a narrative standpoint to describe events chronologically using only language that matches how the viewer is intended to interpret that scene in that moment. They see the creatures as roaches at that point when they watch the episode; then, post-plot twist, the word "roach" isn't used outside of quotation marks again. Were it to be in quotes before, it would sort of give the plot twist away. Ideally, I would like to reword everything to avoid using the word entirely (outside of once in the first sentence in quotes), but this isn't possible because the ethnic group aren't given a name and aren't described as anything other than "roaches". Other than "the hunted", "the genocide victims" or "the marginalised group", none of which come close to fitting, I can't think of any other options. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
" the "roach" creatures. " just "the "roaches"." would be fine.
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"We then see the ..." this seems unusual in a plot, to say "we" do something.  Wouldn't it be more like "The house is then shown as a ..."?
My aim was to keep as much ambiguity as possible as to what the ending means but yes, "the house is then shown ..." achieves that better. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"The trailer for series three of Black Mirror." frag, no full stop.
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Dave Grossman's book, On Killing, which is about the psychology of killing and based on Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall's work.[10][11]"  this sentence doesn't appear to be complete?
Indeed it wasn't. It also didn't make sense to have that sentence before introducing S.L.A. Marshall's book. Reworked that section and that sentence now reads For research, Brooker also read Dave Grossman's book On Killing, which is about the psychology of killing and based on Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall's work. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Arquette's dialogues in the episode.[13] Arquette's character" no need for the quick repeat of Arquette.
Yep. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Jakob Verbruggen directed the episode" you already mentioned him by unlinked surname in the previous para...
Moved to the paragraph above. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No need to link London.
Okay. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
" of time and money" replace money with budget.
Done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"eugenics" is piped to a redirect back to itself.
Fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Captain America: Winter Soldier" our article calls it "Captain America: The Winter Soldier".
... because the source made a mistake and omitted the "The". Fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Back momentarily. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"military[22] and dystopic science fiction.[19]" never a big fan of wedging in the references in such a manner, I'm certain our readers could handle waiting for four words before being able to verify the claim.
Reasonable, so I've changed it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"of the 23 instalments in the Black Mirror series" perhaps I didn't notice this in the previous review, some of these sources came out before season 5 and Bandersnatch, didn't they?  I think the publication dates and archived versions probably need updating at the least?
Arrgh, so much metadata to change on these things. Yes, fixed the dates and archive versions and a couple of URLs (and in one case, added a new byline credit), and fixed in "Shut Up and Dance" too. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Check all refs are fully and correctly populated, e.g. ref 2, publication date/access date?  Ref 3, accessdate?  Ref 4, The Guardian is a work, not a publisher etc.
Yep, checked them all and they should now be consistent and fully populated. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
That's all I have for now, so I'll put it on hold for a bit while we negotiate our way through them.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(Incidentally, the two sections in the talk page above are quite interesting, anything useful from those comments you could incorporate? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC))

Brooker doesn't say where the episode is set and the sources don't really analyse it either. Denmark was added as original research by a user who wrote the plot summary (the subtitles say the villagers speak Danish, but that's certainly not conclusive proof the episode is set in Denmark). As for what MASS stands for... completely at a loss. I'd guess its explanation was cut from the script or the final edit, but I couldn't even guess at what it means. Addressed all your other comments and thanks for the review! Really good to get one looked at this speedily. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A pleasure.  If you'll allow me, I'll take some time to re-visit the episode tomorrow and make one last pass over the article and these comments before signing it off.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah of course, no problem. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with the article, it easily surpasses the basics required for GA, so I'm passing it.  As before, if you do any more Black Mirror work, don't hesitate to give me a shout if you think I can offer anything.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the Nazi flag really necessary? The story might have some reference to their ideology (about the so called "subhumans"), but it's not about Nazis. So the flag is just a redundant symbol in the article. We can all understand the references without the symbol being prominently placed before us.--2003:EE:3F39:5832:F52B:1B00:A196:3E51 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nazism is mentioned extensively in the Analysis section as it forms a significant part of critical analysis of the episode, so the image is relevant. This article has recently passed a good article review, and a key criterion is for the article to be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". — Bilorv (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not buying that argument and I've removed the flag. It was a pretty gratuitous image. Since guns feature heavily, we might as well have a picture of a rifle awith the caption "A gun, yesterday". Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
A picture of the Nazi flag is not relevant to the article. Please don't restore it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Guns haven't been the subject of critical analysis in the episode. I've read dozens of reviews of the episode and about 10 mention the Nazi party and none commented critically on how guns are portrayed in the episode. What exactly is the image "gratuitous" to? And since this article is a good article and criterion #6 is that the article should be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio", what do you suggest we replace the image with? — Bilorv (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Although i do not personally find the image offensive, i can see why some people might. According to MOS:IMAGES#Offensive images, an image "should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic". Perhaps, a Nazi symbol would not be expected on an episode article for a science fiction series. I agree that the article needs to be illustrated by images, but i believe the Nazi flag is more of an eye-catcher than an "illustrative aid to understanding". Indeed, critics have drawn parallels to Nazi Germany, as one would expect with a topic dealing with genocide and eugenics, but they have done so broadly (someone could have mentioned for example Philipp Bouhler, gas chambers, propaganda posters, etc.) which makes it difficult to think of another suitable image, whose use would not constitute editorial synthesis. In any case, i believe that attention is given to military paranoia and dehumanisation more than anything, but that's hard to illustrate.
I suggest merging the first two paragraphs in "Production" (the external video will be moved next to the new paragraph or removed completely, until a "Marketing" section is created), adding the non-free book cover of Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command to the right side in  "Conception and writing", as it clearly meets the contextual significance criterion, and restructuring/splitting the "Casting and filming" sub-section so that a reduced-size image of Kelly is placed to the left side, in order to avoid making the right side of the article look like a sidebar. If we must also put an image in "Analysis" i suggest this German propaganda antisemitic poster. In the caption we could mention the Jewish parasite idea, in reference to the whole "roaches" thing and the Entertainment Weekly review that says "it’s hard not to remember Nazi Germany, where most German citizens went along with the Nazis’ rhetoric about Jewish people being insects who needed to be expunged for the health of the country" (this passage should be quoted in the article). Yes, the new image could still be perceived as offensive, but i believe it is more relevant and it would be presented in a more encyclopedic way. Radiphus (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Some good points Radiphus—thanks for the comment. I don't believe the Men Against Fire cover does meet our NFCC criteria—I think we're pretty strict about only using book covers on articles about that book (or possibly the author) when they're in copyright, but if we consulted a talk page where people had more expertise and they said it was within the rules then it would be a welcome addition. The German propaganda poster is interesting and I think we'd have to be careful to avoid original research, but it's worth considering. But until Absconded Northerner gives a meaningful explanation about what is wrong with the Nazi flag being used to illustrate a paragraph of critical analysis about Nazi Germany and why exactly they "don't buy [my] argument", there's no reason to exclude the Nazi flag. — Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the license template {{Non-free book cover}}, which says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" (instead of ..."about the book in question") and the rationale template {{Non-free use rationale book cover}}, which permit as purpose of use the options "section" and "other", allow us to use the book cover in the section of the article that discusses the book. Radiphus (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Book cover on television article to get a third opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has decided that Bilorv was right regarding the use of book covers on articles whose main subject is not the book itself per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Using an image of S.L.A. Marshall, the author of the book, has been suggested as an alternative. Radiphus (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Radiphus. I've added an image of S.L.A. Marshall. — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The Nazi flag is entirely tangential to the episode. Nazis are not mentioned in Men Against Fire and the fact that some critics have compared some aspects of its message to those of Nazi Germany isn't close to meriting the flag's inclusion. The flag is widely considered to be offensive to the extent that its display is illegal in some countries.
I totally agree that the article should be illustrated but there are surely more suitable and less controversial images? I picture of one of the cast members, perhaps, as used on several other Black Mirror episodes. Michael Kelly's picture is already included because of the praise he received for his performance. How about using a picture of Malachi Kirby to celebrate the praise he received? Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Stripe is already depicted in the infobox and we don't have any free images of Kirby so that's a double no. You say "surely" but I'm asking you to provide examples because you're the one claiming that they exist. As the person who's re-written almost all the Black Mirror episode articles from scratch, let me tell you: it has never before been controversial to include something which is "not mentioned" in an episode when "critics have compared some aspects of its message" to the thing. Take Frankenstein in Be Right Back#Analysis or the bisexual flag in San Junipero#Analysis. They are depicted because they are useful to illustrating critical commentary; why on earth should they need to be mentioned in the episode in order to be depicted? None of the cast members are mentioned (or exist) in the episode, for instance.  As for the illegality of the Nazi flag, it's not illegal in the U.S. so it's not forbidden from Wikipedia. We are not censored so we don't hide images of unpleasant symbols merely because they are unpleasant. You say that the flag is "controversial" but I don't understand what the controversy is. Surely we're all agreed that it's a disgusting symbol of a terrible, fascist state. Critics are saying that implicitly. I'm saying it and I assume you agree. Something needs to cause disagreement to be controversial. The flag is a symbol of a horrible thing which we should include because the episode has close thematic similarities to that period of history. In the same way, we mention the Nazi state and the Holocaust in prose even though these are troubling and disturbing subjects. But Wikipedia comes uncensored and without content warnings, for better or worse. — Bilorv (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the legal situation, thank you. I mentioned that it's illegal in some countries to show how controversial it is, not to say that we can't use it for that reason. As for the use of other images on other pages, I'm also well aware that Other stuff exists. If you want to use an image to illustrate the themes of the episode then I believe Radiphus' suggestion has a lot of merit. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
OSE doesn't apply when the pages have passed two GA reviews and an FA review between them. I'm willing to change my mind here but you've got to give me some more reasoning than "I don't like it". — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
To be honest at this point the fact that three users have suggested that the image be changed and only you have suggested it shouldn't is enough. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Absconded Northerner: In an attempt to de-escalate the conflict between you and Bilorv, i would like to note that this discussion is not a vote, so an effort to explain your position is expected of you and anyone else participating in it. Both you and the IP have noted that: a) Nazi Germany is not mentioned in the episode itself, b) the flag of Nazi Germany is offensive. Both of these two points are accurate, but you need to elaborate on their relevance to this discussion. Regarding the first one, the story of the episode is one thing and the analysis of it is something completely different. Nazi Germany is mentioned in the section "Analysis", so illustrating it with relevant images should be expected, if not encouraged. Regarding the second point, i will accept that some readers will find the image in question offensive, though as i've stated above i personally do not. However, material on Wikipedia is not removed solely because they are offensive per WP:OM. You have to prove that the image is not used in an encyclopedic manner, in order to support your position in this discussion. Radiphus (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with Wikipedia. It shouldn't be necessary to explain why the inclusion of Nazi symbology on an article unrelated to Nazism is wrong and yet because one guy has serious ownership issues, we find ourselves here. The fact that a couple of critics have mentioned Nazis when talking about the episode doesn't justify using that flag. It's not that I don't like it; it's that it's totally unnecessary. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
because one guy has serious ownership issues — Yet again you seem not to have noticed that you're conversing with two users here, but I'm more concerned by the personal attack against me. I haven't edit warred to include the image and I've taken part in discussion, said I'm open to changing my mind etc. Now you can't provide a policy-based reason or even a substantive non-policy based reason why you don't like something and instead want your opinion to be taken to be more important than my opinion for no other reason than that you hold it. The article is clearly related to Nazism and if you don't see how then try reading the five sources cited in that paragraph. Personally, had I written a review, I wouldn't have compared the episode to Nazism. I don't believe the two are strongly related—I would have said any number of genocides from history are equally comparable. But my personal opinion doesn't matter; critics say they are related so they are.  If I'm honest, I think the real issue with Wikipedia is that we've spent 2000 words discussing one paragraph of one article out of 25 or so articles related to Black Mirror, when that time could have been spent improving the rest. Oh well. I don't have "ownership issues"; I'm simply the only one who was willing to put in the effort to improve Men Against Fire. If you want to take it to FA standard, I've got some notes on that: you'll want to tighten the prose in the Reception and Plot sections and see if there are any more good sources for Production and then expand that section and shuffle its content around so it flows better and make sure all the paragraphs have topic sentences, then relabel the subsections. You're welcome to make any edits to the article that you want and I'll only revert them if they worsen its quality. Or of course, you could use one of the GA-standard episode articles as a model to expand one of the non-GA articles; I've already added the Inside Black Mirror Production details to episodes up to USS Callister, so all the remaining sources you need are freely available online. — Bilorv (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the Nazi flag itself might've come off as a bit sensationalist, but the current Nazi propaganda poster with the cockroach is utterly fantastic. Cyanurea (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

German antisemitic poster, 1942.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

'Casting and filming' section should incl. the Silverstone Formula 1 race track pit lane and garage. The 'unused army barracks' might be a mistake. Can someone update, add a citation if needed... then delete this talk entry. Thanks. Jim
1min 57 sec into episode shows the Silverstone pit lane and garage exterior
2min 6 sec in shows a view from inside a garage, across the pit lane, and the pit wall w/ stairs . The link below shows the same pit wall w/stairs and should be adequate proof.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0704269,-1.0202112,3a,45y,256.95h,89.05t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipN8Zjyiyo2v_zgCNMk6yMq3j768C8lCttwoajfj!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipN8Zjyiyo2v_zgCNMk6yMq3j768C8lCttwoajfj%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya92.331505-ro-0-fo100!7i5760!8i2880?hl=en  — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-100Commando (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC) 
also - south end on the pits (can be seen at 19min, 42 sec)
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0678997,-1.0222312,48m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en  — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-100Commando (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC) 

This needs a reliable source that says "the episode was filmed at part in location X" or whatever; it is original research to just link to a map and say "this looks like the same place". As for "unused army barracks", this is a comment from the Black Mirror crew themselves, in the reliable source Inside Black Mirror. — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)