Talk:Saving Private Ryan

message: See reversion here. I'm frankly mystified at this reversion. Upham's rank is quite clearly displayed on his sleeves. The fact that T/5s were addressed and referred to as "corporal" is clearly stated and referenced in the Technician fifth grade article. This is, I think, the first time I've ever seen an edit to a film article which attempted to clarify an historical detail reverted because "it's not a historical reference guide". Usually such things, if they are clearly sourced, are accepted as a valid addition to Wikipedia. I'm also a little mystified as to why this particular edit has been reverted when the reverter has allowed "Technical Sergeant" (he's referred to simply as Sergeant Horvath in the credits) and various privates first class (all referred to simply as Private in the credits) to stand. What's the difference? These ranks too have only been determined by the rank insignia worn by the characters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the two previous edit summaries would have made it clear, they're reliably sourced and they match the film's end credits. I don't know anything about the random ranks and mentions of private first class so I went off what was there and found sources for it, you just added a note with your own commentary. The others as well, from a cursory glance, match their credited ranks, the ones referred to as privates are still credited as privates here, whereas Upham is credited as a Corporal, and your edit changes it to a technician fifth grade which is not how he is credited or referred to and is contradictory to the sources present. I'm quite happy to remove the technical part of sergeant and the first class part of private, I really don't care about ranks for fictional characters, but I work on facts and sources, not adding a note that I saw a T on the guy's lapel. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise that a film, as a piece of media, is a source in and of itself? If something is depicted then it may be mentioned. It doesn't have to be written about in another source for it to be valid (otherwise a large number of our plot summaries would be deleted out of hand). You are taking the film's end credits as a valid source, but not the rest of the film, which is just weird. The whole film is a source. If someone's rank is clearly depicted on their uniform then there is no reason for that rank not to be recorded (unless it is contradicted by the dialogue or another valid source; however, this is not, as I have stated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing you're allowed to have unsourced in an article is the plot. Cast needs to be sourced, this is standard for featured articles and that is ultimately where this will be going in the next couple of months. Your observation of pips or Ts means nothing, he could have put the wrong jacket for all you know during filming. What we know is that he is credited as Corporal Upham, and there are two sources there saying he is Corporal Upham. The underlying specifics of his rank are not important because, again, this is not a historical document or reference guide. This argument is bizarre because you've openly said that Corporal is the correct way to refer to him but you're trying to get into some underlying technicality of his role that isn't relevant to the article or the film. But yes, I don't know what articles you work on, but cast sections should be sourced. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_people, any ranks mentioned in running prose should be lower case. Regarding the film, the exact ranks are not critically important to the plot or character sections. The film is fiction; we are not trying to teach the reader about military rankings. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Upham's rank

message: , per WP: BRD, discuss instead of edit warring. I'm not sure if you had a hand in the previous plot and that is why you're so adamant to restore it, but it skips over relevant themes and plot points for focus on military terms and equipment, which given your page bio suggests an interest in bias over benefitting the article. You made similar edits last month and I gave the same reasoning again so it's strange you waited a month to just undo it again for no reason, not even modify it but just blanket revert it. The plot is within the word limit but vastly more comprehensive about important aspects that are touched on in the rest of the article to the benefit of the article, and my hope is to send this to Featured Article status soon. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of this discussion, Billmckern performed a 3rd revert after being asked to discuss and showed a bizarrely emotional response. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just tossed out a lot of argle-bargle and insults in the note you left when you reverted, so it's pretty clear you're not interested in a discussion. I left my commentary in my revert note, too. Your claims are off base and your personal criticisms are misplaced. Billmckern (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not insulted you? If you wrote that previous version of the plot and that is why you're trying to restore it, then yes, I'm afraid it's not a great plot section. You've come in weirdly amped up, and after I asked you to discuss it your edit summary was "How long was the previous version in place before you came along? If time is the criteria, the previous version wins. And I don't normally get irritated or take criticism personally, but I'll just say here that your criticism is misplaced and you're probably not the best one to give it" So restore the entire article to before my work then? I mean it wasn't doing well under your auspice before and you weren't making the effort to expand or improve the article, but now that I've done so you are arguing it was better before? You restored this old version of the plot this time in January 2023 and I reverted it because the new version is an improvement and covers much more of the themes and elements of the film that are also discussed throughout the article. At the same you said, per your talk page, you weren't inclined to argue about it and I even came to your talk page to discuss it with you. Now a month later you reverted it with the same reasoning, I restored it, and now you are edit warring to keep it in. If you wrote that version, I apologize, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and just because that's your version doesn't mean you can keep it there forever, and using word limits is not a sufficient excuse for a complete revert of the newer plot version. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Bill I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning but you shouldn't be taking it out on the guy who put a lot of effort into improving the article you do seemingly have an interest in because noone else was doing it. I have not insulted you, I criticized that version of the plot, I didn't know you wrote it, but looking through the article history you do have form for reverting changes people make under the guise of reducing the word limit of the plot. The version you have removed is only 170 words longer than the current version, but it covers, as mentioned, themes and character beats that are discussed elsewhere in the article. The version you have put back robs the reader of a lot of insight into the actual point of the film. Your reason for reverting is not that your version is better, you've said it's just shorter, that isn't a sufficient reason and that you brute forced it through is not really acceptable behaviour. It's difficult to discuss because you're talking about goalpost shifting and personal insults, but I've not set or moved any goals and I've not personally insulted you, even if you have decided to take it that way, and you're not really addressing any of the actual comments I make. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Billmckern, the plot section you are reverting has improved with the form you are opposed to. It is within the word limit, visits the most important story notes and introduces characters that are not even mentioned before their deaths in the revision you favor. Saying that you are too busy, don't have time for Darkwarriorblake or basing how long people did not edit the page previously will not gain favor for what you are pushing. BOTTO (T•C) 20:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: No need to poll as far as I'm concerned. I had forgotten about the earlier discussion re: plot summary edits on this article. If I had refreshed my recollection before reverting today, I wouldn't have done it. I had decided after the first round that it wasn't worth arguing over. It's too bad that initial back and forth slipped my mind, because it's not worth going round and round with someone who deals in name calling, etc. Moving on. Billmckern (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Find better phrasing for whatever this was trying to express. There have been 0 moments since WWII where its veterans weren't honored or respected in the US, even though Slaughterhouse Five and Catch-22 were theoretically based during that war specifically instead of any other. There was no cultural shift where people suddenly remembered that they owed a debt of honor to the WWII vets. — LlywelynII 05:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So many professional historians here on Wikipedia. What does the second sentence say after the one you edited? Or did you not read that far? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cultural shift"

message: The name of the movie reviewer mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the movie, "Saving Private Ryan" is misspelled. The name should be (Gene)Siskel. Not Schikel. 2600:1700:2920:1C10:D9B2:A151:487:E7CF (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's very much Richard Schickel Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving Private Ryan 

message: books of Stephen E. Ambrose and accounts of the deaths of members of a single family such as the Niland brothers
There are 4 record of'es in this main article section. 182.253.54.87 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at me @Darkwarriorblake 182.253.54.87 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammar is correct. Graham Beards (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much "of"-ing?