Talk:Black Hawk Down (film)

message: Why is 90% of the talk section and half the article just people complaining about the "accuracy" of the film? I put accuracy in quotes because this is a movie not a Thesis paper. This is Wikipedia, not a scholarly publisher or doctoral committee. This movie could portray Somalis as actual cartoons and take place in space in 1932 and it wouldn't remotely justify all this. This isn't a movie mistake database and an article about a movie set during a historical event is not the article for the event itself! That page already exists and this film, nor this page by extension, has any obligation to square away the inconsistencies. That's not the point of this website. This article should be trimmed. J1DW (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: U Mad?

message: The "plot" section of this page reads as though it were written by a 12 year old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.224.194 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to Be Bold and fix it!--SeaphotoTalk 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: "The film neglects the wider political context in which the battle took place thereby reducing it to a simple story of good vs evil.The truth is more complex." 
This seems fairly POV. I haven't seen the film, but I'm pretty sure it was meant to be from the soldier's perspective, where political context wasn't a huge deal. We shouldn't have that in here at all unless a reviewer has said it somewhere. -LtNOWIS 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms POV

message: The Making of the film section unnecessarily repeats many of the points from the Trivia section. Should the "making of" be deleted and merged with trivia?  --Mikael Grizzly
:No. It should be the other way around. Ideally, wikipedia articles should not contain Trivia sections. ~ Flooch 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneded repetitions 

message: Some of the paragraphs seem to be either misinterpritations, or need fact sources.  Some we're either creative liberties I'm sure, or someone's own belife of X matter.  Despite factual problems it's also very POV oriented.  
--ShortShadow 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section could use some clearing up. I am happy to work with anyone on it. As far as your comments go... The whole plot is that US forces are in the area to help distribute aid and Aidid's militia wants to stop US forces so Aidid can have all the power and food. How is that not evidence of "basically humanitarian" intent? It's not a rhetorical question, I just think I don't fully understand your issue with the article.Monkeyman334 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My issues have much more with the movie plot itself, actually.  It works under the assumption that superior firepower is a need for overcoming such militias, which I find rather naive and misleading.  To the best of my understanding such displays of firepower only manage to make the other side all the more ruthless and desperate in its attempts to acquire comparable advantages.  It is very hard indeed to see such juggernaut forces as "humanitarian aid"; their first and foremost effect is to intimidate and create panic.  And that panic hinders any moral brakes that people may have. Luis Dantas 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying. That the problem wasn't necessarily lack of force. That there were other ways to solve the problem then blowing stuff up (and when that fails, blowing more stuff up). However, I think the plot and the article don't contradict that. The problem claimed in the movie and the article is the US decided to use force, but didn't use enough to handle situations when they got bad. The problem could have been solved without force, but if we commit forces, we need to commit enough to really get the job done.Monkeyman334 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies and inaccuracies section 

message: :The film also portrays the delays in the rescue mobilization of UN forces as stemming at least in part from spite on the part of those forces at not being informed about the mission, suggesting they were willing to let US soldiers die for petty politics. Bowden's book can be interpreted as arguing that the delay was more due to inadequate contingency planning on the part of all parties involved.
My understanding (don't have references, sorry) is the film conveys the idea that it was petty politics quite strongly. But the reality of the situation was it was largely because the Americans decided to heard of on a mission without properly telling anyone. You can't blame the Pakistanis and Malaysias for not doing proper contigency planning when they weren't properly informed of the plans. How would the Pakistanis and Malaysians (and perhaps US 10 Mountain divison?) be expected to do contigency planning when they weren't informed of what the plans were? It would seem to me that it's common sense if you people to be able to quickly respond when the shit hits the fan, you need to tell them what your planning and hopefully work through a contingency plan beforehand not suddenly given them a call later and tell them your in deep shit and need their help and expect them to come up with a plan in 1 minute. Given the lack of this consultation and planning, my understanding is the Malaysian, Pakistanis and others had to spend time coming up with the rescue mission rather then implementing a pre-existing contigency plan as would occur in an ideal situation. Presemuably, heading off like cowboys (like the earlier US mission perhaps did) was more likely to result in another blood bath so they spent the time to come up with a well planed rescue mission which they apparently implemented with a resonable degree of success Nil Einne 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: The recent addition on the lack of Somalis in the film is interesting, but I'm not sure what should go into the article about it. I can imagine it would have been rather difficult to get enough actual Somalis to serve as extras without going to Somalia. I'm not sure that would have been possible, even if the Somalis aren't the faceless bad guys of the film. Some things might have been done to humanize them, but it was based on the book, which I imagine didn't draw on extensive interviews of Somalis who participated in the battle. --Habap 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film has a very American point-of-view, depicting Somalis as anonymous enemies or "zombies". This was clearly evident in the original "spoiler", that was de-POVed a year ago. This was a serious mistake. We should restore the original tone of the spoiler, with its description of "American heroism". -- Petri Krohn 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was interested in seeing the caption at end of the film... it reminded me of what Frankie Boyle said in a comedy sketch: "A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis." 109.176.211.111 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK but your displeasure with tone is utterly irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about a film. Wikipedia is not the tone police. J1DW (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Somalis in the film

message: I removed some info regarding the "omission" of khat involvement from the film. Actually, Tom Sizemore's character briefly mentions khat being used and at the time when it is already afternoon. He says this soon after the mission briefing and when he is asked 'what's the matter'.ResurgamII 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.Monkeyman334 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Khat

message: *There was only one actor in the movie that was actually Somali, the other actors were not nor did they resemble Somalis and the basic Somali linguistics were missing
^ Whoever added that gave a misleading IMDB.com source which was only a list of the cast/crew of the film. Identifying who's actually Somali from that source is beyond me, unless you're relying on the sounds of the names (to find out the nationality). 
I've watched the "On the Set" special features of the Black Hawk Down DVD, and the extras who play Somalis are only labeled as extras, nothing more. Unless this very short section of claims, especially the 'linguistics part' which is original research, can be verified it should be removed immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ResurgamII (talk • contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't why someone would expect extras to actually be the people they are playing. I heard the Ben-Hur extras weren't actually Romans...Monkeyman334 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Monkeyman334. I'll remove it as it is a totally pointless section without verification. Anyone who disagrees discuss it here please. ResurgamII 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only that, but whomever wrote that appears to insinuate that the film is compromised, "it is not clear whether the U.S. military asked Scott to modify or censor the film..." Puh-lease! Insinuations do NOT belong in an encyclopedia. That it is controversial is worth leaving, but the rest could be chucked in my opinion. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Absence of Somalis" and other Controversies

message: The paragraph that starts "The film also takes creative license when it comes to Sgt. Eversmann's role in the battle" is more of a typical change made in order to make the movie better, and wasn't a part of "propaganda" nor was it a controversial change (the paragraph doesn't claim it is either) could the paragraph be moved to the production notes or some more appropriate place? Monkeyman334 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eversmann's

message: I watched this film at least five times (including extended version), still have no idea where he appears.--Mato Rei 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He plays Lt. Beales, the guy who has the epileptic seizure. ResurgamII 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, now you remind me of the character. A little bit hard to recognize him without moustache, huh? Thank you. --Mato Rei 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ioan Gruffudd Cameo

message: Pakistanis may have been accurately represented for their role as US-soldier rescurers, but Pakistan was leading military involvement there before the US even showed up. So I think the comment there is appropriate, no movie was every made about them. Monkeyman334 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistani Involvement

message: Article stated that the movie ranked 154th on its opening day (possibly true, the dollar amount is correct, it was only on four screen on opening day.) For its first weekend of wide release it made $28M USD, but this only places it at 24th in box office for the weekend? What were the other 23 films being screen in theatres that weekend (for a minimum US box office total of $644 million in that weekend) Or is that for the year? Or is that a comparision of opening weekends? I'm not up to tracking down the info, so I trimmed it down to just dollar amounts and if someone else wants to get the right citations, please do. Zotdragon 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Box office

message: Is there anyway to turn this section into a 'non-list' writing? It's very difficult to ready bullet by bullet, like some sort of random info. Maybe someone can fix this in their spare time. Let me also add that it is also overly long.ResurgamII 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Other Production' 

message: :Image:Black hawk down poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Black hawk down poster.jpg

message: "...Mohammed Farah Aidid was killed on August 1, 1996 during a battle with the militia of his rival and former ally Osman Ali Atto..."
I just recently watched the movie again and, according to the movie, Warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was killed in Mogadishu on 2 August 1996, not 1 August 1996. The exact text from the movie was:
"Major General William F. Garrison accepted full responsibility for the outcome of the raid. On August 2, 1996, warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was killed in Mogadishu. The following day, General Garrison retired."
Now I don't know if the movie is wrong or the warlord's death is wrong, but it should be looked in to.
Fiver2552 03:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? Just your word isn't really enough, I'm afraid. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact error? 

message: Perhaps some mention of the Hans Zimmer soundtrack?  Just an idea. 70.130.139.144 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack

message: In the movie Hoot was talking to a superior officer callsign Kilo 64 never shown in the movie , but i read some where that kilo64 was pilot of super61 , can any one confirm this ?--Max Mayr 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't watched the film - or read the book - in several years. But best I recall (from the book) the "kilo" callsigns were command elements. Probably not a pilot, but a controller or commander in a helo. The communications connectivity seemed to be that ground forces contacted the helo's, who relayed to base (when necessary), who answered back thru the helo's to ground elements. In fact, the delay caused by relays is specifically mentioned in the book....anyway, I'd bet you'll find the answer in the book rather than the movie. Engr105th (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: KILO 6-4 represents a command element not present in the movie itself, the general thought is that KILO 6-4 is a Delta Force commander and Hoot was  going through his command rather then that of the Rangers ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilo 64  

message: I readded the section which was inexplicible removed by User talk:Russell731 here . While this section needs work (weasel words and it can probably be trimmed), it is mostly sourced so it's removal was even more unacceptable particularly considering the large trivia section most of which is unsourced. If someone wants to re-write it from scrtach, feel free but please actually do it. Don't remove a section and then don't re-write it. Nil Einne 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point! It does need serious editing as the weasel words are nauseating. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Some people think that..." Again another horrible criticism/controversies section that really stinks of POV. Even if the language is trimmmed a bit and sources are provided to the John Doe opinions, the whole section is way too long. And does it have to be the second paragraph in the article? Medico80 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: Bob Dylan's song "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" was used in the first version of the movie trailer. This changed when the next version of the trailer got released.
88.215.155.90 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan's song used in the trailer 

message: :Image:Blackhwdnphoto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blackhwdnphoto.jpg

message: There's a tag at the top of the page saying the plot is too long. It's not just that, either. It reads like a narrative, very unencyclopedic ("on that fateful day"). I'm in the process of rewriting it to what I believe to be an appropriate length, then if consensus is that it should be longer, it can be gradually built up from there. Briefplan (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew, that was difficult. My edit got reverted by a bot mistaking it for vandalism, so I had to do it in stages. All done now though. Briefplan (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section too long 

message: The "Other production information" section is getting ridiculous. Most if not all the information in it is unencyclopedic. I would just remove it, but I think it would upset a few people who have contributed. But I really don't think it should be there. Can we have a few opinions? Briefplan (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other production information 

message: Wow, talk about a whitewash. Does Ridley Scott have a full-time staffer blanking material from this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.1.78 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "Controversies" or "Critical Reception" section? 

message: There is an edit war over the accusation of racism directed at this movie in The Daily Princetonian. Whether this publication is notable enough to warrant the inclusion of the accusation, I am not sure. I suggest the two parties discuss it here and everyone else joins in. Personally, I think the newspaper is a bit insignificant and its inclusion here is a little odd. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A report has been filed here as to the reliable source argument.  A quick search shows the DP has been successfully used as a RS in AfD arguments.  Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusation is very contentious and may need further sources to back it up. or at least some balance to the argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually I just updated the page to reflect the charge of racism thrown out by the New York Times review. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an account of organized protests based on the supposed racism in the film.  This could probably included in the Controversy section. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another touching on the racism issue. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An interview with Bruckheimer defending against the allegations of racism, this time leveled from a reviewer at Entertainment Weekly. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are decent sources, then it's prudent to remove the significantly less notable DP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it's been sufficiently established that the racism charge is one that's widely-held (and thus not "an extreme POV"), I couldn't agree more.  Now the question is to what extent to add in all these sources I just found.  As an aside, I'd still be interested to see what consensus is reached over at the RS noticeboard regarding the student newspaper. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: As a member of the Daily Princetonian, I'll confirm Pmbma's assessment that we are independent of the university, and the editorial department basically has the freedom to write what they want (within reasonable bounds). I think this is less a question of WP:RS (the claim in the article is correct – the author obviously wrote that rhetorical question), but rather whether this really constitutes something that should be included in the article. It's one thing to include the opinions of professional film critics and bloggers and quite another thing to include a student opinion piece from a college newspaper. This is a visible result of the controversy the article mentions? Not really. It's a single student taking the time of out his likely very busy schedule (we go to Princeton after all :D) to write a piece on a film he had strong opinions on. I don't ever recall a case in which a college opinion piece was considered something that constituted significant reception (for anything past campus-centric affairs). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be several sources, and I would think the DP could be included as one of them. I would think the reception of the movie and allegations of racism/ different perceptions would certainly be notable. I recall reading that viewers in Somalia clapped when the helicopters got shot down.  So I think different perceptions of the film, like perceptions of the foreign policy actions itself, are varied and should be included as notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've ignored Pmbma's and my points completely. It's not a matter of whether covering this controversial aspect is important, it's whether an opinion piece in the Daily Princetonian constitutes an item of critical coverage, which it really doesn't. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  I readded, please do not act unilaterally agaisnt the above consensus. It has been thoroughly established that there is no issue with the source any other reasons need explaination. Nicholas Guyatt is a noted author, journalist and professor of American History. He has written many works on the subject of US foreign policy, including several books and articles in both The Nation, New Humanist, London Review of Books and Journal of American Studies. A google scholar search shows his works are widely cited in other journals. His expertise on this particular subject makes his opinion of far more important than an entertainment magazine. --neon white talk 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was to replace the quote.  You are acting against it unilaterally.  If you want to reverse the decision you will have to make you case here and see if the other editors agree with you.  Respected film critics are more relevant in terms of film criticism.Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remind you that asserting a false consensus is considered poor etiquette, the above conversation and at the reliable sources noticeboard conclusively prove that this is considered a reliable sources and there are no other reasons stated for removing this info appear to have been discussed. An expert on foreign policy is certainly a relevant opinion and as there is no restriction set and how many opinions are allowed in an article, in fact WP:NPOV suggests that all opinions should be represented rather than a few personal favourites. If you can find a policy or guidelines that forbids this addition then please provide it here. I also think it is worth a reminder that an editor does not have to justify the addition of info to the encyclopedia as long as it is well sourced, as a collaborative project it is encouraged. It is the removal of sourced info that you will have to be justified. --neon white talk 06:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was disputed and the outcome was to replace the quote with one from a more clearly recogised expert from a more widely recognised source, rather than an obscure academic.  A resolution was achieved and you are going against the outcome of that.  You need a consensus to add anything to an article and you clearly don't have one. If you wish to restart the debate fair enough, the outcome might be different but as it stands now the consensus is to remove the quote and replace it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there was no such outcome here. Please stop asserting this false consensus, your decision alone is not a consensus and the discussion above including the third opinion clearly shows that the source is considered fine. The info is clearly relevent to the article and reliably sourced the only stated objection was ignorant of the fact that this was not written by a Princeton student but by a well published author and journalist on foreign policy. I have explained this quite thoroughly above. You do not need a consensus to add anything to an article, wikipedia is an open project. Please review and update your understanding of the project and it's core policies and rules. Please do not continue to assert a false consensus and personal rules or you will become a disruptive editor. --neon white talk 14:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion pieces by college students simply don't stack up to the sources that were found and added to the article the first time this issue came up.  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There was clearly discontent over the DP source and the consensus was to find sources that were agreeable to all editors involved.  The three editors involved in the dispute all agreed to a new set of sources and everyone else was happy to go along with them.  Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. A decision over the content of the article was ultimately made and agreed upon.  After all it's not as if the allegation itself was dropped, just backed up by major publications that are far for widely respected, and one of them including a response by the film's producer. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Princetonian

message: A request was made for a 3rd opinion on this topic. I hope my thoughts can be helpful.
For a source to be considered reliable, there should be an expectation that its providing incorrect information would lead to negative consequences. A normal news journal or TV organisation will usually have staff who earn their living by working for such an organisation - write a very poor article and such a journalist might possibly expect their boss to want a discussion, or even a change in employment status. A person employed by a university who acts contrary to the institution's rules equally expects negative consequences. Someone employed by a company who gives unauthorised and incorrect information to the public expects trouble. A person working for a voluntary organisation or NGO would normally be a member because it's a cause in which they believed and will usually remain associated long-term - being thrown out is rarely desired.
A college newspaper staffed by students is inevitably a highly transient organisation. I understand the DP is independent of Princeton University, and thus the university would have very limited sanctions against its published articles. This is different to those school newspapers which have a formal association with the school. The students acting as journalists will normally do so on the side, with studies at the university taking the focus of their time. The consequences of writing a bad article are limited - one can still carry on with the degree course. The readership will have a high churn rate - perhaps 30% or more per year by virtue of university enrollments. Further, existing enrolled students would expect the editorial team and their policy to change on a far more regular basis (perhaps every semester) compared to other newspapers or media organisations.
For these 2 reasons - both the absence of significant penalty for articles that could be ill-considered, and the highly transient nature of the editorial team and their policy, I would have difficulty treating a the DP as a reliable source. Pmbma (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a member of the Daily Princetonian, I'll confirm Pmbma's assessment that we are independent of the university, and the editorial department basically has the freedom to write what they want (within reasonable bounds). I think this is less a question of WP:RS (the claim in the article is correct – the author obviously wrote that rhetorical question), but rather whether this really constitutes something that should be included in the article. It's one thing to include the opinions of professional film critics and bloggers and quite another thing to include a student opinion piece from a college newspaper. This is a visible result of the controversy the article mentions? Not really. It's a single student taking the time of out his likely very busy schedule (we go to Princeton after all :D) to write a piece on a film he had strong opinions on. I don't ever recall a case in which a college opinion piece was considered something that constituted significant reception (for anything past campus-centric affairs). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be several sources, and I would think the DP could be included as one of them. I would think the reception of the movie and allegations of racism/ different perceptions would certainly be notable. I recall reading that viewers in Somalia clapped when the helicopters got shot down.  So I think different perceptions of the film, like perceptions of the foreign policy actions itself, are varied and should be included as notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've ignored Pmbma's and my points completely. It's not a matter of whether covering this controversial aspect is important, it's whether an opinion piece in the Daily Princetonian constitutes an item of critical coverage, which it really doesn't. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion 

message: Well there seems to be support for this citation to remain and be removed.  All the relevant points have been made, and we should perhaps just vote on it and go with the majority.  At least then the issue will be resolved one way or the other - at least then a sole party hasn't got a legitimate basis to alter it if a vote has been taken:
* REMOVE Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I readded, please do not act unilaterally agaisnt the above consensus. It has been thoroughly established that there is no issue with the source any other reasons need explaination. Nicholas Guyatt is a noted author, journalist and professor of American History. He has written many works on the subject of US foreign policy, including several books and articles in both The Nation, New Humanist, London Review of Books and Journal of American Studies. A google scholar search shows his works are widely cited in other journals. His expertise on this particular subject makes his opinion of far more important than an entertainment magazine. --neon white talk 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was to replace the quote.  You are acting against it unilaterally.  If you want to reverse the decision you will have to make you case here and see if the other editors agree with you.  Respected film critics are more relevant in terms of film criticism.Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remind you that asserting a false consensus is considered poor etiquette, the above conversation and at the reliable sources noticeboard conclusively prove that this is considered a reliable sources and there are no other reasons stated for removing this info appear to have been discussed. An expert on foreign policy is certainly a relevant opinion and as there is no restriction set and how many opinions are allowed in an article, in fact WP:NPOV suggests that all opinions should be represented rather than a few personal favourites. If you can find a policy or guidelines that forbids this addition then please provide it here. I also think it is worth a reminder that an editor does not have to justify the addition of info to the encyclopedia as long as it is well sourced, as a collaborative project it is encouraged. It is the removal of sourced info that you will have to be justified. --neon white talk 06:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was disputed and the outcome was to replace the quote with one from a more clearly recogised expert from a more widely recognised source, rather than an obscure academic.  A resolution was achieved and you are going against the outcome of that.  You need a consensus to add anything to an article and you clearly don't have one. If you wish to restart the debate fair enough, the outcome might be different but as it stands now the consensus is to remove the quote and replace it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there was no such outcome here. Please stop asserting this false consensus, your decision alone is not a consensus and the discussion above including the third opinion clearly shows that the source is considered fine. The info is clearly relevent to the article and reliably sourced the only stated objection was ignorant of the fact that this was not written by a Princeton student but by a well published author and journalist on foreign policy. I have explained this quite thoroughly above. You do not need a consensus to add anything to an article, wikipedia is an open project. Please review and update your understanding of the project and it's core policies and rules. Please do not continue to assert a false consensus and personal rules or you will become a disruptive editor. --neon white talk 14:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion pieces by college students simply don't stack up to the sources that were found and added to the article the first time this issue came up.  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was clearly discontent over the DP source and the consensus was to find sources that were agreeable to all editors involved.  The three editors involved in the dispute all agreed to a new set of sources and everyone else was happy to go along with them.  Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. A decision over the content of the article was ultimately made and agreed upon.  After all it's not as if the allegation itself was dropped, just backed up by major publications that are far for widely respected, and one of them including a response by the film's producer. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: How about this:
" Sean Burns, film critic for Philadelphia Weekly, wrote the following:
"
I think it complements the other quotes without being redundant, I think it is pertinent to add it and I believe that the fact its source is "alternative" is quite a shallow argument to bring about -- and one that would just obliterate most other quotes by film critics of other sources, such as Village Voice or Ozu's film reviews. 
I know it explicitly accuses Bruckenheimer of being a racist, but you see, racism isn't just an abstract phenomenon going on in the stratosphere, but something done and thought by people with names and surnames. It is a bold attempt by the author to make a point, and I stand by it. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that neither Elvis Mitchell or Gleiberman accused Jerry Bruckheimer personally of being racist in their reviews, just the film.  The accusation of the film being racist is notable by virtue the subject was raised by several respected film critics.  The personal accusation here is made just by one film reviewer so I don't see how it is noteworthy.  If you can find other reliable sources where Jerry Bruckheimer is accused of being racist then it can be considered for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind, I just hadn't seen the complete final edit as it is. It includes a link to Burns' article, so that's fine with me. Calling PW alternative would probably warrant a source (I know there is one, but other readers might not), but that's not important anyway.Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, let's try to arrive to a civilized consensus: 

message: There's no cite for this claim, and the Entertainment Weekly's movie review was by Lisa Schwarzbaum and the DVD review was by Erin Richter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gliberman comments come from the The O'Reilly factor reference where Gliberman's criticisms are put to Jerry Bruckheimer. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, but sometimes interviewers can make mistakes. Can we find the actual source where Gliberman makes this comment?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's out there somewhere.  If it can't be traced though then it should perhaps be stressed that the accusation was attributed to him in an interview he wasn't present at, that's how it works in acadaemia if you are not referencing someone directly. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, without corroborating sources, I tend to think that maybe we should remove it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Gleiberman made the accusation or not is irrelevant. You don't need a corroborating source for what occurred in the programme itself.  It just needs to be clarified that the accusation wasn't made directly by Gleiberman, it was attributed to him on the programme.  Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I've had a go a re-writing the paragraph to make it clearer Gliberman that didn't make the accusation in person.  I think the important part of that sentence is Jerry Bruckheimer's response rather than the accusation itself, so if you're still uncomfortable with it then I suggest removing Gliberman's name but keeping Bruckheimer's response. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Owen Gleiberman accuse Black Hawk Down of racism? 

message: Although I've proofed the section and removed the subheads, I have not removed any statements as currently represented, despite some dodgy sourcing.  This is not to be taken as condoning the section as it exists now.
Most films are not shot where they are set, don't capture the look or feel of the places and people to suit those who live there, and star actors who do not share their characters' ethnicity.  Most people portrayed on the screen feel the film does not do justice to the reality, with reactions from dismissiveness to humiliation to deep-seated resentment.
To the general issue, show me the war film that doesn't condense characters and oversimplify details.  How many war films present both sides as noble human beings?  Even when one side could be said to be "right", does that mean all its soldiers were fine and upstanding individuals?  There are complexities in war that could never possibly be examined in a film that also has to tell a story in two hours.  That some films do a better job than others is one of the facts of moviemaking and could be said about films on any subject.
None of this is to say that the accusations are wrong, and in fact I have not seen the film.  I'm simply raising the logical point that every article on a film based on a true story could have a section where people point out all the things that the film got wrong (often intentionally, as dramatic license or budgetary and screen-time constraints).  There is also a degree to which all films could be (and in some circles are) called racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., because they focus on the experience of that society's straight men.  Notice I don't say American men, because the same phenomenon exists in other cultures.  That we note this at Wikipedia when it is notably and reliably sourced is reasonable.  But to give it undue weight is against reason, perspective, and Wiki's own guidelines.
I would point out that one of the articles currently referenced for that section includes this:
I point this out to counter the point made by the Philadelphia alternative newspaper's writer that Americans cheered at American "successes" in the film.  The young Somali man seemed to understand and accept the limitations of the film better than these critics, and didn't get in the way of them enjoying it, even if Somali audience response was the mirror image of a Western audience response.  Is either side right to cheer?  This isn't a basketball game.  Personally, I'd say no.  Then again, there is a long history of war movies being made to rally public nationalism.  I'm sure it's due in part to the way the films are made and in part to the fact that the majority of us are raised to be blindly nationalistic regardless of what we're shown.  Why am I sure?  Because both sides cheer this movie.  That gives me no comfort.  In fact, it seems like part of the problem.  But to write this section of the article like the other half of this truth doesn't exist is to miss the point.  Nationalism is racist, to some degree, no matter what your nation, and particularly in issues of war, international casualties and attacks on your own soil; war films just bring that point home.  Something tells me those reviewers might well be saying the same things if they watched any of a number of war films generally considered classics today.  Then again, they could simply review the news...  Abrazame (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I just read through the entire New York Times review, and there's only one paragraph on alleged racism.  The same article also talks about Ridley Scott's talents as a filmmaker in terms of creating moods through pictorials, the "vibrating melancholy" of Hans Zimmer's musical score, etc..  Are we cherry-picking two sentences out of a review to manufacture a controversy?  Is there even much of a controversy to begin with? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The NY Times review has certainly been "cherry picked", but ultimately the accusation is in there and it's a good source. Is it notable enough to be commented upon in the article?  Well it's probably not everyday a producer is invited to respond to criticisms that his film is racist, but Bruckheimer was and did respond, and the NY Times review does go some way to justifying that there was a view among some critics that the film had a racist tone.  I actually disagree with the criticism - is using non-Somali black actors to portray Somalis any different from American and British actors using cod German accents to portray Nazis?  Is it racist for an American film to depict the conflict from an American point of view?  Personally I think the balance at the moment is about right.  I'd just like to see the article settle down if I'm honest.  Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General issues regarding controversies 

message: I removed the follwoing ELs because they seemed inappropriate per WP:EL, but they might be appropriate to work in as inline references, so here they are:
*Somalis cheer Black Hawk Down
*The Philadelphia Inquirer
*Warlord thumbs down for Somalia film
*Medal of Honor Recipients on Film
*Black Hawk Down: naked propaganda masquerading as entertainment
Novaseminary (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for placing them here! Erik (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELs removed from external links section 

message: We need to find a reference for the real life identity of characters portrayed in the movie that are not in the credits.  I'll check back in a while to see if any are added, but if they cannot be verified then the information should be deleted. SeaphotoTalk 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanderson was based on Paul Howe.  Hoot's character is a composite of Hoot and another D-boy, I'm drawing a blank on his name at the moment.  Grimes' character was based on a guy in almost every detail, but they had to change his name as the ranger he was based on is doing time for being a chomo.  What's really sad is on Veteran's Day in the US, we have people deleting links to the real men who lived and died on that day as heroes because they think this is "just a movie", whereas those same editors edit other movie articles based on scripts with far less factual accuracy than BHD.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fictional film inspired by real-life events, but it is still a work of fiction.  The character names should not be linked to the articles about the real people, giving the false impression they are one and the same. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree, then so is evey movie and TV show based on real people like Deadwood, Tombstone, Patton, etc.  You want to take this to arbitration?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Composite Characters / Real life identities

message: Did this movie made any profits? I heard that a movie needs to gross three times its production costs in order to make any profits. The gross of this movie is less than twice the production costs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The theatrical rentals equate to about 60% of the gross (after deducting the exhibitor's 40%) which would equate to about $103 million. First run TV-rights usually get 10% of the gross, so the overall earnings would be about $120 million by the end of the theatrical run. The budget was $92 million, and the marketing $25 million so the total cost was about $117 million, so the film broke even by the time it came off general release.  All the earnings from DVD/blu-ray and second-run TV rights would be profit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing money ? 

message: The plot section contains some details, that are not mentioned in the film or wrong. I guess they might originate from the Book
*Durant is not meeting Aidid
*The circumstances of Aidid's death are not mentioned
*Eversman's chalk is not dropped wrong. They just have to carry Blackburn to the front of the building, as they have been dropped to guard the backside of the building.
--Murata (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I was wondering if you could put the real life characters look into it if they where true, but add pages, Matt Eversmann, John Grimes, Danny McKnight, Shawn Nelson, Mike Kurth, Kurt Schmid, John Beales, Ed Yurek, Jamie Smith, Dominick Pilla, Richard Kowalewski, Lance Twombly and Scott Galentine, Casey Joyce, Todd Blackburn, and Lorenzo Ruiz, and John Maddox, as well, if they are true could you add them if possible if they do have history, also Clifton Wolcott we forgot, 203.97.114.146 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History on the characters in real life 

message: No doubt this film was not an accurate representation of the situation in Somalia - for three good reasons: it was made ten years later, it was made for an American audience, and it was not made in Somalia. However the statement that "At one screening in Somalia, young men cheered whenever an American soldier's character was shot on screen" is irrelevant to the accuracy debate. It is no surprise that Somali's sympathise with their own people rather than invaders.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty relevant to me when half this article is just quoting people complaining about the movie as if it were a scholarly paper and this website was run by professors. You got all the complaints about POV, how about include an instance where some Somalians did enjoy the film? J1DW (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Black Hawk Down (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319014402/http://uncurledfist.wordpress.com:80/2010/11/21/black-hawk-down-and-down-and-down/ to http://uncurledfist.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/black-hawk-down-and-down-and-down
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The cast list is too long.  It is very rare to see a film article with every cast member listed.  In this case, most of these people are not even identifiable.  I propose that the cast list be reduced to the 10 or so most notable people. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Black Hawk Down (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910184534/http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/invision/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F14621-the-mogadishu-mile%2Fpage__view__findpost__p__120569 to http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/invision/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F14621-the-mogadishu-mile%2Fpage__view__findpost__p__120569
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207204108/http://blackhawkdown93.com/ to http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708011914/http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/invision/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F738-question-for-belman-or-anyone-else-who-ran-out-of-the-city%2Fpage__view__findpost__p__13410 to http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/invision/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F738-question-for-belman-or-anyone-else-who-ran-out-of-the-city%2Fpage__view__findpost__p__13410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207204108/http://blackhawkdown93.com/ to http://www.blackhawkdown93.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This has way too much detail about individual soldiers. The discussion needs more distance and summary - it is not supposed to replace the article Battle of Mogadishu.Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot section needs editing

message: Agree that reference to Bowden's articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer should be moved to the article on the book, not the film. It's not the point here. He could be described as an embedded journalist, if there is a source for that.Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Move journalism to book title

message: The article says there were two of them, but does not expain what they are. Nor does there appear to be any link to CSO. Rwflammang (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a CSO marine?