Talk:Rules of Engagement (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Wasn't it Afghanistan where the actual event took place?

What year did this movie come out in theaters?

Off-topic

I was stating that the behavior in the fictitious movie is within the realm of possibility for real behavior as seen in the USA Today link.

Why are you even bringing this up? Please stick to the topic, this is not a discussion forum, nor a platform for you to explain the intentions of the creators of the movie and the actions portrayed in the movie or prove that the events are plausible. Please discuss the development of the article, and avoid making inappropiate statements, which are more likely to inflame than create constructive discussions.

Anyway, back to the topic, for this article to be neutral, we should not interject our own personal opinion about the movie, whether your opinion is that the movie is racist or your opinion is that it is inspired by actual events, thus not racist but accurate. We should avoid labeling the movie racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, but the article definitely should keep the section on criticism and controversy of the movie because there has been plenty and it is notable. I think the section should be expanded. --Inahet 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I probably shouldn't have let what happened on this page turn into an off-topic discussion. I also realized, later after User:Derex edited out a lot of what I added, that I was putting a lot of opinion in where I probably shouldn't have. I believe the edits I made since then are more along the lines of what was there, in the movie, than what people might percieve to be there. Thank you for taking a look. Deathbunny 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Well, happy editing. - Inahet 23:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

muslims are peaceful when they are an small minority in foregin counrty, as soon as they grow considerably in numbers they begin slowly to ram their rituals down everyone's throat!

opinion

This article contained an alarming amount of unsourced opinion. I have deleted it. I have also deleted a lengthy quote from a non-notable critic in a non-notable outlet, as violating undue weight and notability provisions. It is not the role of wikipedia to "call a spade a spade". Derex 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#918.%20ART.%20118.%20MURDER

http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ1.html

Deathbunny 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a random person coming across this site, I don't see what's on the page that constitutes an opinion, besides the bit of criticism at the end. All the facts about the movie seem to be just that -- facts. Including the bits about military law and what-not.

Was it different before the deletion?

yes, it was. you can see former page versions by useing the page history. Derex 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did get carried away and then realized my source was likely as opinion-based as the quoted material you edited out... Only it was in the wrong section. Thanks for catching that, BTW. Deathbunny 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, the last line in the Critisiscm section "Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory" was clearly written by someone who hasn't actually watched the film. The action is centered around a trial, whose purpose is to determine if the Samuel L Jackson character ordered his men to fire into a crowd of civilians, or to return fire on armed combatants, who were seeking cover amongst the civillians. Perhaps a subtle point, but I thought it was pretty blatant.

Set the record straight. Made it clear the "criticism" ("Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory") was only an opinion shared by some, and then stated the actual facts of the movie which directly contradict the quoted statement.
This statement is completely false but is clearly representative of how some people feel after watching the movie. I thought it better to rebut it by stating the actual facts than to remove it.

Well the criticism ("Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory") Is not only true but totally accurate in my opinion , Yes indeed the final morale of this motion picture is that US forces "enjoy" the right of slaughtering anybody whether unarmed or not in order to "secure" US interests. To be honest , I can't explain how a movie that represents such a racist , quasi-fascist and human degrading mentality , found it's way into the box office!

The above comments are heavily opinionated, and the "criticism" section of the article is embarrassing, at best, and offensive to the academic community, at worse. The "review" quoted is nothing more than a poorly written rant about the film by some BA wielding student, and in no way should it qualify as sufficient to be quoted as a source.

The scenes of the Arab crowd in this film might as well have been taken from actual footage of anywhere from Pakistan to Palestine. Mobs such as these are all-to-common in the Middle East, and calling the film "racist" for depicting such, while an opinion, is the sort of literary tripe that turns people off wikipedia. I strongly suggest an editor remove the section, for the sake of this websites objective integrity. 76.174.66.220 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "The 'review' quoted is nothing more than a poorly written rant about the film by some BA wielding student, and in no way should it qualify as sufficient to be quoted as a source," per above.

Rudy Breteler (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as nobody have voiced disagreement with this, I have removed the mention of this non noteworthy film critic. Rudy Breteler (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I began this article 4 years ago, I mentioned the parallels to a real-life incident in Fallujah, as well as the military ethics regulating confrontations between the US military and civilians. What happened to this information? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer my own question, maybe that's because the 2003 incident in Fallujah occurred 3 years after the film was made. So the film could not have been based on that particular incident.

Nonetheless, the theme of armed US troops confronting civilians is not going to go away. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that I have this straight... this article "probably the most racist film ever made against Arabs by Hollywood" and yet 9/11 happened less than 1 year after the film was released, and then an incident in Fallujah happened not even 3 years after the film? So, isn't the only logical conclusion is that the film was "probably the most ACCURATE film ever made against Arabs by Hollywood?" Either that, or we'd need some proof that Arabs used this film as an instruction manual.

based on a true story

The end says it's based on a true story.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the end doesn't say that, and it isn't.--193.160.157.241 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ending says what happened afterwards as if it was a true story which is very misleading imo and should be noted in the article. Lame propaganda film Simanos (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]