Talk:Zero Dark Thirty

Propaganda

The only thing preventing this movie, as well as others such as the recent Lone Survivor, from being designated as an "American propaganda film" is the fact that the propagandizers are the status quo. If these films were made in any other nation, their obvious-to-anyone-with-a-brainstem nature as propaganda would be readily visible for everyone to see, rather than the word "propaganda" being completely absent from the article altogether.

Moving the article to new Place

The temporary title Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film for the project is quite accepted until and unless their appears a official acceptance for the new title. Zero Dark Thirty is working title till now so it should not be moved to that name unless you a very good sources of information. Jpmeena (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty was used as the title at the BBC today:

Gary Oldman 'thought he had lost' Batman film script

Varlaam (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film → Zero Dark Thirty – Now that sources have confirmed the name of the film, we should get rid of the placeholder title. bobrayner (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite the sources(which have confirmed the title)? It will be help a lot to confirm the movement of article.JPMEENA (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] bobrayner (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first day of reporting TOI(from which cited 3 out of 4) has been referring it as 'Zero Dark Thirty', the first source is slight confirming but it still doesn't say that it is official/announced by management of movie. Still I don't have issues in movement of the article to other name, it's working or else it has been widely referred to as zero Dark Thirty and this might be final title. Since I believe what Wiki provides should be streamlined with time, I will support the move(despite poor source you have given).JPMEENA (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sources give the film an actual name. An actual name is to be preferred over ridiculous filler like "Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film" which no reader is going to search for.
• We don't need to get too hung up on names that are "official/announced by management of movie"; per WP:COMMONNAME we should prefer the name that sources use. A number of sources use "Zero Dark Thirty". No serious sources use "Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Osama bin Laden Film" although it's possible to get a few google results which are scraped from this article. bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I have also made and surely we should use widely accepted title. If official etc comes we can move it there again.JPMEENA (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed material

This was added:

OPSEC's president is Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL who ran for but failed to win the Republican nomination for a Virginia congressional seat in 2010. Its spokesperson is Chad Kolton, who worked for the Bush administration and who was hired to perform media relations for OPSEC in July 2012 through HDMK, a Republican strategic communications firm. Another spokesperson and former SEAL, Ben Smith, was also a spokesperson for Tea Party Express. Critics of the "documentary" have compared it to the "Swiftboating" television commercials attacking the war record of Senator John Kerry just prior to the United States presidential election, 2004. See related article for details: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

some of it is repeated as well. --Mollskman (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, any avoidable repetition can be fixed. The problem is that this material belongs in the article and there have been repeated attempts to remove it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify: some overlap with the article about the makers of this film is unavoidable and good. The material also specifically mentions criticism of this movie, not of the group, and provides some basic background about the group that made it. All of this is extremely relevant, and the removal of criticism violates NPOV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That material can go in the Dishonable Disclosures article. --Mollskman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure can, and it can stay here, as well. I've seen no hint of a plausible reason to exclude it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it doesn't belong. Again, you have a history of edit warring and have been blocked for edit warring, and it be blocked again if you keep edit warring against consensus. --Mollskman (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, lots of people have been blocked for edit-warring, and not all of them edit-warred. Mistakes happen, but we should move past them instead of holding grudges or constantly bringing up old incidents. Don't you agree?

Now, could you explain why you say it doesn't belong? The conclusion all by itself isn't very persuasive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to lie about your block not being proper, but that won't change the fact that it was a good block based on your edit warring. --Mollskman (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How notable is this controversey anyways? I probably wouldn't even include it. --Mollskman (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say a word about my block, but you broke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA just now. Maybe you shouldn't do that, right?

Anyhow, I did ask why it doesn't belong, but you didn't answer. That seems odd. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have a record of edit warring and have been blocked for such is ok, just so other editors are aware of this. --Mollskman (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You still didn't answer, and you're poisoning the well. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for deleted paragraph

With this edit [5] and this edit sum "Here are the citations you wanted" StillStanding claims to have properly sourced the addition of BLP-related material. This is false.

OPSEC's president is Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL who ran for but failed to win the Republican nomination for a Virginia congressional seat in 2010. Its spokesperson is Chad Kolton, who worked for the Bush administration and who was hired to perform media relations for OPSEC in July 2012 through HDMK, a Republican strategic communications firm. Another spokesperson and former SEAL, Ben Smith, was also a spokesperson for Tea Party Express. Critics of the "documentary" have compared it to the "Swiftboating" television commercials attacking the war record of Senator John Kerry just prior to the United States presidential election, 2004. See related article for details: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

This is an analysis of StillStanding's misuse of sources:

1. HDMK does not say anything about Scott Taylor
2. HDMK does not state that Kolton worked for the Bush admin
3. Politico does not say that Smith is a TEA spokesman, not does it say anything about swiftboating

This behavior is completely unacceptable and contrary to the ethical standards here at Wikipedia. Equally disturbing is the fact that StillStanding is edit warring to keep this content in the article. Apparently his block from a few weeks ago has had little impact on his behavior. The community must impress upon StillStanding the seriousness of misuse of sources and disrupting the encyclopedia by edit warring. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, you claim that I provided an inaccurate edit comment. In fact, I said "Here are the citations you wanted", as I was providing the citations whose absence justified the deletion of the paragraph.

You also claim that I was edit-warring, when in fact it is business as usual to restore with new citations what is deleted for lack of citations. You claim I am at 3RR, which is false. Provide diffs if you still support this claim.

Finally, you can quibble that I could have had better citations, but it turns out that I've found the original location of this paragraph, in Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, where it is complete with all original citations.

On the whole, I see a lot of smoke, but no fire. If anything, it looks like you're using this minor matter to grandstand for an RFC/U. Well, feel free to quote this, because I'll just deflate it by quoting my response. Have a nice day. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is material which is about the subject of the article. Then there is material which is about something which is about the subject of the article. IMO that should be more limited. But this attempted insertion doesn't even fall under EITHER of those. It's about something which is about something which is about the article. IMO should not be in there. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there's a typo or two in here, but I'm having trouble understanding. I do get that you oppose this paragraph, but I'm not exactly sure why. Are you saying it's not about the subject of the article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not only is it not about the subject of the article, but my point is its two steps removed from being about the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy against multiple steps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called "relevance". The material should only be in OPSEC, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does, at least on Wikipedia. If material is more relevant to article C than to article B, then to article A, if it were to appear in "A", it would only be in a summary section on B or C, if at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this like the rule that says each word must be used in only a single article? :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also part of making a quality article. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A December release will qualify the picture to be nominated for an Academy Award.

Can this be sourced or removed? I am not going to edit the article again for now. Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced to the article on Academy Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi ArdenHathaway, we usually don't source to other wiki articles. Also, it doesn't really make sense. It sounds like the Dec release means it gets nominated or something. Is there a citation that directly deals with this material? If you could post that here, that would help. --Mollskman (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense and the citation for the source doesn't even talk about a December release. I am removing it as not relevant to anything. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Potentially, some producers/distributors schedule a movie for a December (limited) release specifically to make it eligible for the Academy Awards for that year. For inclusion in Wikipedia, we would need a reliable source for the connection, which is unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant but synthesis. So I agree that we'd need a source to point this out. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article locked

I have locked the article for 3 days because of the protracted content dispute involving multiple editors. It's now your job to achieve WP:CONSENSUS as to what material, if any, should be included in the article about the investigation, etc. Although I don't want to express an opinion on the substantive content, if the consensus is to include certain material, please pay some attention to the wording. The current version is poorly crafted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section more than 1/2 of article

The section really doesn't need to be that long compared to the whole article. Just hit the highlights or lowlights. --Mollskman (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the controversy section was getting a little over-long, but I'm not sure that we've kept the right content. The Judicial Watch item seems to be of questionable value, since we've already given Bigelow's denial. Belchfire-TALK 18:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, maybe add one sentence about the other movie and get rid of that part. If this was some huge full blown article, then the controversies section wouldn't look so unbalanced. --Mollskman (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

also, hate to make the section larger, but the bit about Indian protests above belongs in there as well. --Mollskman (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? --Mollskman (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur, no objection to adding the Indian protests. Belchfire-TALK 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, nobody expected you to object. Nonetheless, I do object. I think it's extremely helpful to reference the documentary. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, now stop your edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 22:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, a single revert is part of BRD, not edit-warring, so your accusation is false. You need to redact it. Also, you do not have anything approaching a consensus; the two people who've responded are split on it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a single revert is part of BRD. Trouble is, you didn't stop at a single revert. I won't be redacting anything. Belchfire-TALK 22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• The article is heading for another lock. Starting on August 31, I see 7 reversions by 5 editors, two of whom are not contributing to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted an SPA. --Mollskman (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to tell from this section's header what the recent edit-warring is about, but I'll try to address the concerns that have been hinted at here and in the edit summaries.
1) Yes, the "controversies" section is long compared to the rest of the article, but that is to be expected at this moment. This is an article about a film that isn't even released yet, so the normal content we would expect to be in this article doesn't yet exist. Patience; it will come. The majority of reliably sourced information we have right now concerns all the political squabble about (a) whether the subject of this film is being used for political gain, and (b) about whether the makers of this film were given undue access to classified information. So, yeah, that will likely be the largest section of content until the film actually appears in theaters. Attempts to balance that content by weight to the rest of the article at this time won't be very productive.

2) I've also seen information removed (about OPSEC and their 22 minute video) with the suggestion to (→‎Controversies: keep it that article, scetion is already about 1/2 of article) -- That content is indeed already in "that article", in more complete form, while just the "Zero Dark Thirty"-relevant part was included here. Is there a specific reason you have to not include that relevant content in this article? As for the reference to size, see my comment #1 above.

3) I've noticed that same information removed with this edit summary: (Undid revision 510335114 by StillStanding-247 (talk) See Talk for discussion regarding this material, no consensus for this addition.) Well, reviewing the Talk discussion above as you suggest, there is no reason given to remove that specific content. In fact, your (BelchFire) only comment about that specific content above makes it sound as if you are unsure as to which content we should remove and which should be kept. Could you elaborate on if/why you feel it should be removed? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits to add content and remove some editing errors; but I've also replaced the "controversy" section with a more informative section. (Wikipedia frowns upon catch-all controversy or criticism sections when that content can be better incorporated into the article.) I also did some minor restructuring to standardize the format with other film Wikipedia articles, like The Hurt Locker, Avatar, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral or neutral content

Sourced or not, there are NPOV problems and accuracy problems with some of the newest additions:

1. "... formed in August..." OPSEC wasn't formed in August. We have other sources here that say it was formed earlier in the year, June I believe.
2. "A spokesman for OPSEC said the group intends to show a selectively edited video critical of Obama..." Uh, no. I'm pretty sure that OPSEC didn't say they intend to show a "selectively edited video". That's the sources commentary, and it either has to go or it has to be attributed to whoever uttered it, but it wasn't OPSEC.
3. "These allegations about the DoD and CIA's willingness to assist the filmmakers have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election season, and the charges that Obama is exploiting the bin Laden killing for political gain have even made their way into the Republican party platform." "Favorite" is an editorial comment, basically just an opinion. We can't say that in Wikipedia's voice. Likewise with "even made their way", which is value-laden phrasing. Stating the bare facts might be OK, but we need to omit the source's coloration. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Talk page. re: (1) I see two sources that say it was "formed" in August, and one source that says it was "incorporated in June in Delaware" -- and the Wikipedia article on the group still says August. It would be good to nail down a definitive date, but removing all indication that the group was formed during the past 90 days does the reader a disservice. re: (2) the fact that the video is "selectively edited" is not commentary; perhaps you misread. It's actually an assertion of fact by sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable-source requirements for the assertion of fact -- no commentary involved; and to apply attribution to it would violate NPOV policy. That doesn't mean it couldn't be worded more clearly; perhaps if we added some content from reliable factcheck sources that have examined the video and found edited sections that are "very misleading" (their conclusion, not commentary). re: (3) Facts are fine (I note that you removed some facts from that sentence that you do not mention here, i.e.; 'conservatives', 'willingness to assist'), but your assertion that "favorite" is "just an opinion" is itself an opinion. The reporter does not express it as his opinion, nor does he attribute it, so it could very well be that he/she found it to be a demonstrable fact that this particular meme is a favorite of conservatives. The Republicans did, after all, give it a favored spot on their Party Platform, to be unveiled at the convention.

If we can resolve these 3 concerns, perhaps then we could move on to the unexplained components of your edit, such as the removal of reference citations, or the purging of content conveying that an examination of the documents showed no evidence that classified information was leaked to the filmmakers, and the CIA records did not show any involvement by the White House. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Given all of these issues, including the ones involving changes he didn't mention, I suspect that it would be easiest to revert back before this change and then merge in each of his recommended changes once it's shown to be a good idea. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I copy edited per the above concerns as well. --Mollskman (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed "long after the election" since I didn't see that mentioned in the citation and its also non encyclopediatic. --Mollskman (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mollskman. I've left your copy edits, with the exception of some edits that went counter to what the cited reliable sources conveyed. Take your removal of the content that the film release date was rescheduled to a date long after the election, for example. If you haven't read (or "seen") the source, then you can't possibly conclude that the information is not "encyclopediatic" -- it is actually the central point being conveyed. The source material says, "Distributor Columbia Pictures was sensitive to the criticism that the film might be viewed as an effort to remind the public about Obama’s decision to authorize the strike, and decided last fall to move the film’s debut from October to December, well after the upcoming election." I hope that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually did read the cite but missed that. I can't for the life of me understand why you reverted some of my other changes except I wonder if you have ownership issues with this or are editing from a POV, which is what it looks like. --Mollskman (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you say you don't understand, perhaps I can help. I reverted changes that you made that contradicted what the cited reliable sources conveyed. If you feel I have ownership or POV issues, you can find your concerns addressed at the Complaints Department, or you can raise them at an appropriate noticeboard. Meanwhile, I'll ask you to kindly refrain from commenting about contributors. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Like "selectively edited" video shows your partisanship POV pretty clearly which doesn't help. All videos are "selectively edited". Parrotting talking heads doesn't help. --Mollskman (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Partanship"? What's that? Did you mean partnership? It still doesn't make sense to me. Did you have a specific, policy-compliant reason for deleting that reliably sourced information? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, "partisanship POV"! Thanks for correcting that, but you still aren't making sense. The group that selectively edited the video claims to be non-partisan. Showing that a group "selectively edited" a video is critical and negative, yes, but how can that criticism be partisan if the group is non-partisan? That's an impossibility. So are you claiming that group isn't non-partisan after all? Something that significant should probably be added to the article. Do you have a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

same goes for "favorite" As pointed out, that is an opinion and if you want to attribute to the writer, go for it. --Mollskman (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"As pointed out, that is an opinion"? Incorrect. Please re-read the above. Now if you have another reliable source that contradicts, disputes or refutes that content, please produce it for review and we can discuss it. But simply removing reliably sourced, neutral content based on your personal, unsubstantiated claim that the cited factual source inexplicably became an opinion piece for just that one sentence -- that's disruptive. As an alternative, you might try raising your concern at the RS noticeboard to obtain a little clarity and input on the matter. As I mentioned above, attributing an assertion of fact is against NPOV policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "long" after the election since that is what is said in the Chicago tribune citation. --Mollskman (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; that's not what the cited source said. It said "well after the election" -- wording that I see you mistakenly omitted. I'll correct that oversight for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See this.--Mollskman (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; that content isn't cited to the Tribune. Oh, look! You have caught your error and have now added the Tribune as a citation for that content. Nice try, but you do realize that edits are time-stamped, right? Retroactively correcting your error does not make me incorrect. It's nice that we are all on the same page now. All of the cited sources (including your new addition) have now been incorporated into the "rescheduling" content. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your latest round of changes seem counterproductive, in that they veer away from our sources and towards an obviously conservative POV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, we have or had ...the film release for December 19, 2012, long after the election. Sources differ here on this point in using "long". The source in question actually uses "well after". Another just says "after". Maybe use ...distributor Columbia Pictures, sensitive to critical perceptions, rescheduled the film release for December 19, 2012, six weeks after the election. My point about encyclopediatic was related to the word "long". How long is "long" and who decides that? That seems pretty subjective so just leave it out. People can decide if 6 weeks is "long" or "shortly after". --Mollskman (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Of the two cited sources, one says "well after the election", and the other source gives the date (it does not say "after"). I've returned the exact wording from the reliable sources, to alleviate any confusion. If you have additional "That seems..." feelings about what the reliable source is conveying, could you please support your personal feelings with reliably sourced information? Contradicting reliable sources with only your personal feelings is not productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing with a clear partisan agenda also isn't helpful. --Mollskman (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

100% Agreed, but that falls under "your personal feelings" mentioned above, so I felt it would be redundant to state it. I see that you added an additional source, and all sources have now been incorporated in that content. Let me know what you think. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of OPSEC has created a selectively edited video critical of Obama. Does the source call it a selectively edited video or does it talk about editing practices as you point out above? Call it what RS have called it and then talk about its editing style and practices. --Mollskman (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cited reliable source did indeed convey that the OPSEC video was selectively edited, but if you wish the article to also convey more detail about the selective editing that was done, we can certainly do that. My preference was brevity in that section, but let's give your suggestion a go. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. --Mollskman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Per your request, I have "called it what the RS have called it". Selectively edited video. Also per your request, I have "then talk about its editing style and practices". Let me know what you think, and if we should add more. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We have ...have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election season. This could be a fact but it reads more like an opinion in the citation. Have other sources made this point about it being a favorite? --Mollskman (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting personal observation, but that isn't a valid reason to purge a reliably sourced assertion of fact. Have you a citable reliable source that disagrees with, disputes or refutes the content? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just try to answer the question. --Mollskman (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. You asked me what every source in existence has said, and there is no possible way for me to answer that kind of question. I have provided a required reliable source, and asked you if you have just one reliable source that disagrees with it. If you do not, you are left with a mere hand-wavey personal objection without any substantiation. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mollksman. I've noticed you've been doing consistent reverts on this material and have now pushed past WP:3RR. It can be easy to lose count when you repeatedly oppose other editor's additions, but since it's a bright line rule, would you mind taking care of your latest revert? If you need help seeing the reverts, they go like this: First, you revert "long after the election" and "selectively edited" out of the article here. Next, you revert "long after the election" and "favorite" out of the article here. Next, you revert "long", "selectively edited", and "favorite" out of the article here. Next, you revert "well" after the election and "selectively edited" out of the article here, putting you at 4RR in less than 24 hours. Let me know if you need further help seeing how this happened, and please self-revert while you have the chance before someone else changes the text back again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rescheduling of the release date

We give the readers the release date. I thin that they know how to understand a calendar. I see no point in trying to describe it in terms of a second date, much less trying to characterize the time interval between them. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no point...

Ah, then that would be the source of the problem. Perhaps I can help explain the point so that you can see it. You are correct that in most Wikipedia film articles we simply give the readers the release date. In this instance, however, the release date was rescheduled after controversy arose (or was manufactured ... your choice) over the timing of the release. The controversy was notable enough that many reliable sources reported on it, as well as the subsequent rescheduling -- a rescheduling that was characterized by the specific motivation behind it: to alleviate any concerns that the film's release would be used as a political tool. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments during block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just stick to the facts rather than injecting your non NPOV opinions. --74.97.18.207 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Also, nice work in editing this talk page and other people's comments after the fact. This type of misrepresentation does not help your cause. --74.97.18.207 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Xenophrenic, would you be open to having a RFC with maybe the top 3 or 4 issues that seem to be in dispute with this article? Thank you, --74.97.18.207 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC) You need to wait for the block to expire. Even posting comments here on the Talk Page while you're blocked is a violation of WP:EVADE; be careful or an admin may extend your block. Give it just a bit longer and your block will expire naturally... also, coming here immediately afterwards and reverting like you just did will likely be seen as returning to edit warring. Think this through... just trying to help you here... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Who are you talking to? --74.97.18.207 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I'm talking to you, obviously. With each comment you post here while blocked, you put yourself further at risk. Stop now and maybe there's a chance they won't extend your block. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC) You are not making sense. I am not blocked, how else could I post here? --74.97.18.207 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC) When you're blocked, you're blocked. Best to use the time to read up on WP:BLOCK; until then, let's close this thread. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits that removed material

I'd like to open up a discussion about this edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(→‎Pre-release political controversy: clean up wordiness, remove irrelevant material about Bergen and Politifact, which are wholly unrelated to Zero Dark Thirty. Resequence for coherence.)

That was the edit summary. After reviewing the edit, I see that most of the material removed wasn't "about Bergen and PolitiFact", but was actually from them; and they are certainly reliable sources for the content with which we're dealing. The content is certainly related to Zero Dark Thirty. That relationship is explained nicely in this source, which was removed in the above edit without explanation (care to address that?): A component of OPSEC’s effort is the accusation from some Republican lawmakers that director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal were afforded access to classified details about the killing of Osama bin Laden, which is the subject of Zero Dark Thirty, a feature film Sony will release in December. In the video, titled Dishonorable Disclosures, OPSEC member Fred Rustamann, a 24-year veteran of the C.I.A., complains of Obama taking credit for killing bin Laden... So, yes, the information on OPSEC and their video is certainly related.

If your concern is that there is excessive text devoted to describing OPSEC and their video, I can see some merit in that complaint. Some of that content was significantly expanded at the request of another editor who wasn't satisfied with just noting that the video was selectively edited; he wanted more detail added on the specific nature of the deceptive editing style and practices (see above discussions). I'd like to see further input on that aspect. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm likewise open to concrete suggestions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that editors are trying to use this article - about the movie Zero Dark Thirty - to litigate all sides of the political claims concerning the alleged security leaks. That creates a huge amount of topic-drift. All we need to have here is a bare mention that there were accusations and subsequent denials. We shouldn't be engaging in a full-blown debate about the merits of everybody's claims and counter-claims. We should mention that there was a controversy, not attempt to resolve it. Belchfire-TALK 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Building on your observation, I agree that claims/allegations were made. Can we agree that the most significant of those claims were 1) that the film release was scheduled to have an impact on the upcoming election, and 2) that the filmmakers were afforded access to classified information? If we can agree on that, then we can move on to your next suggestion that, "All we need to have here is a bare mention that there were accusations and subsequent denials." I partly agree, but your observation is incomplete. There were accusations, subsequent denials, and finally refutation after 3rd party examination. I agree with you that "we" should not attempt to resolve the controversy, but if the controversy has been resolved by reliable third-party sources, that should be conveyed. Otherwise, we are guilty of misinformation. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but refutation is going pretty far considering that there are still FOIA documents coming out (a new batch came out last week) and articles on the subject are still being written. It's clearly not been resolved yet. However, in my edits I tried to follow your general format. I pared away everything that was not explicitly relevant to the movie, and made sure we had the claims, counter-claims, and third party evaluations. Really, this ought to have two short paragraphs. One dealing with the release date (which I think is perfect as-is). The other dealing with the alleged leaks of classified information (which definitely needs work). Wellspring (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By refutation, of course I meant only in reference to information presently available -- not information that you indicate may be still coming out. Based on present information, the allegations have been soundly refuted. We certainly can revisit that content if information to the contrary becomes available. What part do you feel has not been clearly resolved? I've added back some pared away content that is specifically about the movie, or about the claims lodged against the movie and the making of it -- which I'm sure you will agree is relevant. I fully agree with you that that section needs work. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Vickers admitted to outing the SEAL's identity to Bigelow and Boal, though the name appears to be as far as it went. Boal later met with the team's translator (also a covert agent-- the articles aren't clear as to whether his name was disclosed).

As it stands, this section is trying to litigate a public issue that just doesn't belong in the article. Quotes like "A 501(c)(4) group lead by some Republicans and calling itself OPSEC" when by "some Republicans" we really mean "retired special operations soldiers and CIA field agents" seems unnecessarily loaded. What you really need to do is pull this out into either a page on OPSEC's video or the leaks controversy.

Where I'd like to go with this is something like:

The Obama Administration also came under fire for alleged disclosures of classified information to Bigelow and Boal for the purposes of making the film. Congressman Peter King, a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, requested internal investigations on whether the CIA or Pentagon had improperly leaked classified material for political purposes. The CIA denied any improper release of classified materials. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained CIA and Department of Defense documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, and alleged that "unusual access to agency information" was granted to the filmmakers, a claim widely criticized in the media as inaccurate.

A later release of Department of Defense documents included transcripts that indicate that Michael Vickers, a senior Pentagon intelligence official, did offer Bigelow a member of SEAL Team 6 to act as a consultant on the film, referring to the covert operator by name; however, Vickers later claimed that the man in question was actually not an actual SEAL Team member and that offer was never accepted. Boal later met with the SEAL Team 6's translator, who had been on the mission and was operating under cover but was not himself a SEAL. Other documents have shown little evidence that classified information on the mission was shared.

OPSEC, a non-profit advocacy group composed of retired special operators and CIA agents, began a media campaign in August claiming "that the Obama White House released classified details of the raid for the making of a Hollywood film", as part of a larger claim that the White House had engaged in improper leaks of classified materials. Senior special operations soldiers, Democratic politicians, and third-party media have been critical of the video.

It removes the politically loaded language, strips away everything that isn't specifically about the movie, and includes the charges, counter-charges, and fact checks. Add in the references, and we fully explore the issue without giving it undue weight. If you want, a "Main Article: bin Ladin Leaks Controversy" link could bring a user to a main page that lays out the whole case in glorious detail. Wellspring (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It almost appears as if we have reviewed completely different, contrary sources. Addressing your assertions in order: No, Vickers didn't "out the SEAL's identity", nor did he "admit" to doing so. No, we didn't "really mean" to convey something else when the article notes the group is lead by "some Republicans". That is actually very tame, but accurate wording. We could be more specific and note that the group is lead by Taylor, a Republican; it is run out of an office shared by two other Republican political organizations; and every member of the group thus far able to be identified by reliable sources is a Republican (some are even Republican candidates, Tea Party spokesmen, Birthers, etc.). Your proposed change doesn't "remove politically loaded language", it completely buries the reliably-sourced fact that this is a partisan controversy based on partisan allegations. (Those are factual, reliably sourced descriptions ... not mine.) Your proposed language also introduces accuracy problems: Your wording conveys that the allegation was widely criticized, and THEN documents were later released. That timeline is backwards. Your wording also incorrectly conveys that the criticism was "in the media" -- what does that mean? Can you give me the dates of two (or more) specific FOIA document releases? I'm not seeing it in the source you previously cited. There are more issues, but I'll stop here.

After the election has passed, and the film has been released (and re-released on DVD), I'm sure this content will have withered down to a mere footnote saying something like: "During the run-up to the 2012 election, attack groups and political opponents of Obama made unfounded and disproven claims that this film's producers were given classified information." But until then, details specific to the allegations against this film and it's producers will comprise a significant segment of the article. If you would like to describe the case in glorious detail, that would probably be better handled in one of the other existing articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the comments are below. I'm glad you seem to agree now that the section needs to be pared down. Please review my comments and re-read the source, which draws on the Pentagon's own transcripts. You asked for specific factual areas that hadn't been resolved and I produced some. It seems a little silly to complain that your question was answered. I'm not sure why you repeated my last sentence (as you did in the post below) but since I specifically don't want to litigate the case in glorious detail, I'm asking you to move all the unrelated partisan stuff to a more relevant article. I've done a few searches, and Dishonorable Disclosures seems to cover the video adequately. A simple link would eliminate a paragraph of unnecessary material. Wellspring (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded below, in the section titled "Bold edit - last paragraph isn't relevant".

BLP/NPOV claim

This revert falsely claimed BLP/NPOV violations. I insist that the editor specify what parts they believe are in violation of these policies. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just one of many of the severe problems with that material, see my previous edit summary for another. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

North, your previous edit summary only stated: (Are you kidding? Immensely wp:npov-violating choice of non-neutral wording) ... and that tells us nothing. In addition to the above request that the editor specify what parts they believe are in violation (and more importantly, why), I'd like to extend that same request to you, North, so we can actually address and resolve the concerns. Your revert-warring backed only by unexplained, non-specific, hand-wavey references to various policies are not helping to resolve the situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It was so blatantly non-neutral wording (bordering on a rant) that I'm sure it was obvious to you. So to me your question looks disingenuous, and probably attempt to make it look like an unexplained revert of the edit. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please specify the wording that you feel was non-neutral. We can take it one small segment at a time, if you prefer. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Second lock

I've locked the article again for 3 days. This lock was more complicated because I was unwilling to accept the version in place at the time of lock, which would be the usual thing to do. I was troubled by some of the material in that version because of copyright infringement mainly and possible BLP issues. The following sentence in particular was a problem:

"Allegations about the DoD and CIA's willingness to assist the filmmakers have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election season, and the charges that Obama is exploiting the bin Laden killing for political gain have also made their way into the Republican party platform endorsed at its National Convention."

This is a sentence from the source ([6]):

"Questions surrounding the Defense Department and the CIA's willingness to assist the filmmakers have become a favorite political talking point of conservatives during the election."

And here's a second sentence from the source:

"The charges that the Obama administration was exploiting the bin Laden killing for political gain have also made their way into the Republican party platform, which the GOP is set to endorse at its National Convention in Tampa this week."

The now-locked version has one problem that needs correcting. I'll try to fix it myself later. The last paragraph in the problematic section is unsourced. I believe it should be sourced, at least in part, to this article. But I need to make sure that all the material in that paragraph is supported by that one source.

Back to the lock. I was invited to lock the article by User:Xenophrenic. They told me to pick my "favorite" version. I didn't do that, of course. As explained above, I picked a version that was most recent that didn't appear to violate policy. It happened to eliminate Xenophrenic's latest contributions. This continuing battle over the content of this ill-fated section has to stop. You have to reach a consensus as to what belongs. If you can't, then you need to take it to dispute resolution. Any battling after the lock expires may result in another lock or sanctions against individual editors, if appropriate. There is no substitute for civil discussion. It may be hard, but it's the only reasonable, permissible approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to pick your "favorite" version. :-) Thank you for the lock, and do I look forward to your later edits. You mention, but don't explain, "possible BLP issues" -- could you be more specific? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just been informed that a specific explanation of alleged "BLP issues" will not be forthcoming, so I guess that concern can be considered resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've updated the unsourced paragraph as promised, although I didn't feel comfortable doing so. As explained in the edit summary, I added a cite for the first sentence. I substituted a phrase for one that came right after the quotation because that phrase was lifted directly from the source. I couldn't find anything fully supporting the second sentence (I didn't look hard), so I just slapped on a fact tag. For the last sentence, I put in the NYT cite. Just so it's clear, I'm not saying this paragraph should or should't be included. I was simply unhappy it wasn't sourced, and although I didn't review the edit history, my guess is at one time it probably was.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire pointed out in his edit summary here that we should probably attribute "favorite" to avoid using Wikipedia's voice, which may have merit. What do others think? Should we attribute it to the Reuters article it came from? Or is it okay as it stands? Other options could be to reword "favorite" as "recurring", "repeated", etc, or add in more sources and/or content that make it apparent that had indeed become a "favorite". AzureCitizen (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that "favorite" is not the best word. I'd settle for "prominent". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the word is problematic. Had he said "the favorite" instead of "a favorite", then I would agree, as that would be attributing an absolute quantifier to a large body of people, and I would need to see how that was calculated. But he didn't; he said "a favorite", as in prevalent, popular, common, repeated, etc., -- a qualifier easily ascertained and verified through observation and minimal research, and important enough that the reporter felt compelled to use it. It is no more an opinion than the statement "Republican lawmakers are asserting it" and "it's also now part of their platform". That said, I don't object to an alternative word of equal meaning, but "attributing" it as if it is an opinion is a violation of policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an astute point, the difference between "a favorite" and "the favorite". I'll leave it to others if they want to argue the attribution point as I'm now convinced it really isn't appropriate in this context; as far as swapping out the word, I'm still open to that. On the other hand, there is certainly value in simply retaining the original word the source used too... we routinely defer to the source's word choice in articles lest it be said that we've changed the meaning. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion, but I have no strong preference. So long as we don't contradict our sources or confuse our readers, I'm satisfied. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag and replaced "favorite" with "prevalent" for a trial run. I still see no problem with "favorite", however, or many of the suggested alternatives above. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bold edit - last paragraph isn't relevant

I decided to edit boldly here. The entire last paragraph isn't relevant to the movie, it's about alleged disclosures made to the media in general, especially the press. None of that belongs in this article. I re-read the sources linked, and removed claims that the citations don't actually make. (Incidentally, when the controversy and edit wars die down, we need to clean up the citation syntax, because the editing has made a mess of it.) Clarified the platform statement; it referred to a mess of allegations that aren't germane to this article in addition to Zero Dark Thirty, and I wanted to be clear that the line isn't all about this movie. Added a more recent citation (2012) that includes analysis of subsequent FOIA dumps. The OPSEC group is made of retired spec ops troops and intelligence agents, calling them "Republican leaders" is manipulative. Added a line from one of the existing sources where current spec ops leaders condemn the group.

Much of this was good research that belongs on a page, but not this page. The article is veering way off course, and once the movie is out I think this whole section will need to be pared down so as not to give undue weight to the controversy. Until then, of course, focusing on this probably is appropriate given all the media attention. Wellspring (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the last paragraph isn't about the movie, it is about the allegations made against the production of the movie -- so it is relevant. Good point about the Republican Platform section being about media leaks beyond just collaborating with filmmakers; I reworded your text on that to more closely conform to the cited source, but still conveyed the point that there were other charges of media leaks. As for some text you added that began "A later release of documents resulted...", I removed that because the report you cite is old, and predates by many months the more current reliable sources used earlier in that paragraph. Was this an oversight? I left in your addition of Lujan & McRaven criticizing the guys in OPSEC, but I think that shares some of the same traits as the other content you are saying isn't specifically related to the film. Bergen eviscerates the whole video and every claim made in it as dishonest, but only a part of that video actually relates to Zero Dark Thirty production, so the Bergen material may be excessive. But you do know that Bigelow is misleadingly referenced in that video, right? We should discuss how to tighten that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The citations in the paragraph are mostly from 2011. The cite and additional data I added were from May 2012, almost a year later. Vickers clarified his involvement (which the source includes and I mention as well) but the Pentagon transcripts themselves were not challenged.

The Lujan/McRaven quotes definitely have the problem of being relevant to the leaks controversy rather than specifically Zero Dark Thirty. I added it because if we're going to mention OPSEC at all (and I'm not sure if it belongs in this article) then we ought to mention pushback from others.

I think the challenge here is that you want to explore the entirety of the controversy, but this is too specialized a page for this to be the forum. I think an Osama bin Ladin leaks controversy page would be quite appropriate considering all the coverage it's gotten. But it doesn't belong here. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The OPSEC video depicts the Zero Dark Thirty filmmakers, and alleges they were given classified information, and even alludes that this was done to "promote" the Obama administration. That video also delves into several other fantasies, but only the part about the filmmakers and classified information is germane to this article. If you wish to explore the entirety of the controversy, you should consider doing so at one of the other existing articles. You are, of course, welcome to create a new article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to both your posts) The article clearly states that Vickers disclosed the name of the SEAL. Their source, not that it matters, was a transcript of a meeting w/ Bigelow and Boal provided by the Pentagon listing (and redacting) the name. Vickers acknowledged that the name had been revealed but explained that they never took him up on his offer and that the name referred to a planner, rather than a SEAL team member. It's all in the article, from a reliable source, and more recent than the 2011 articles that source the bulk of the paragraph.

The timeline is accurate... it's the order the articles were released in. The CIA's statement denying impropriety to King came out last year. The first document dump was dated May 22, 2012 after Judicial Watch got a court order. It includes the outing of the SEAL. On August 28, 2012, the CIA and DoD explained that certain documents had been overlooked the first time and gave a second document dump. Each time, a flurry of articles has reviewed the disclosures and administration statements against JW's allegations.

The group OPSEC is made up of retired spec ops soldiers and former covert CIA agents. Insofar as we mention them at all (I'm not convinced we should bother), we need to include that. Every source mentions it, and you've yet to produce a source which denies it. If you want to list their party affiliations as well, that makes perfect sense and is also well supported by the sources. But this is a movie article, not a forum to fight the 2012 election or the disclosures controversy. The paragraph you restored starts with a tangential reference to the film, and then quickly veers off into a discussion of the leaks controversy.

What I'd like so see coming out of this is a consensus on how much we can remove from those last three paragraphs, with my vote being "most of it". Your offer to remove most of this after the election is over is nice, but if should be removed then, then it should be removed now. You're welcome to re-post this material to an article about OPSEC or the leaks controversy, but it doesn't belong here. Wellspring (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

• I'm glad you seem to agree now that the section needs to be pared down.

There was never a time when I didn't think that section could be reduced. "Now?" Another oversight, or are you seriously attempting to say that my position has changed somewhere?

• I'm asking you to move all the unrelated partisan stuff to a more relevant article.

I don't know what that "stuff" would be, or if there is any -- and I've no intention of working on related articles at the moment.

• The article clearly states that Vickers disclosed the name of the SEAL.

No, it does not. "Disclosed" is your word. I see you've toned it down from "outing", also your word, but it is still inaccurate. Vickers gave the filmmakers the name of a potential contact who could help them with details, since he was a planner for the operation, not an actual member of SEAL Team Six. Other agencies also provided contacts to the filmmakers. They couldn't make accurate films without these contacts.

• Vickers acknowledged that the name had been revealed...

There you go again. Vickers acknowledged that he told the filmmakers the name of a knowledgeable contact (duh, they aren't mindreaders); "revealed" is your word. Outed - disclosed - revealed - you really appear to be making it sound like a bad thing, which makes you sound like King, JW and OPSEC.

• The timeline is accurate...

No, it is not. All of the documents obtained through FOIA have been reviewed, and then the conclusion is that the allegations are without merit. According to multiple RS published after August 28.

• You asked for specific factual areas that hadn't been resolved and I produced some.

I'm not seeing them.

• The group OPSEC is made up of retired spec ops soldiers and former covert CIA agents. Insofar as we mention them at all (I'm not convinced we should bother), we need to include that.

I'm aware OPSEC claims that, and it is likely at least some of their members are, but given the quality of other information coming from that group, that would have to be attributed. There is also some recent RS information regarding some rather colorful (to put it mildly) pronouncements about Obama from these gentlemen, as long as we're describing them. As for if we should mention OPSEC at all:

A component of OPSEC’s effort is the accusation from some Republican lawmakers that director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal were afforded access to classified details about the killing of Osama bin Laden, which is the subject of Zero Dark Thirty, a feature film Sony will release in December. In the video, titled Dishonorable Disclosures, OPSEC member Fred Rustamann, a 24-year veteran of the C.I.A., complains of Obama taking credit for killing bin Laden... So, yes, the information on OPSEC and their video is certainly related to the making of Zero Dark Thirty.

• But this is a movie article, not a forum to fight the 2012 election or the disclosures controversy.

That's what I've been telling you. You can wage those battles in more appropriate articles.

• The paragraph you restored starts with a tangential reference to the film, and then quickly veers off into a discussion of the leaks controversy.

Correction: a discussion of the leaks-to-the-filmmakers controversy. There are other aspects of the leaks controversy (software viruses, drones, stealth-copters, Pakistani doctors, etc.) that aren't really appropriate for this article.

• Your offer to remove most of this after the election is over is nice...

I've made no such offer. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, your passion about this subject is obvious, but you need to get a little distance from it if we're going to create an objective article. I'm not sure how much further we can get if your response to well-sourced information is to just ignore it. The reason the sources use phrases like "don't reveal much of a smoking gun" rather than "disproven" or refuted is that while many of the claims remain unsupported, there is some support for some limited claims. Polifact's summary of the Vickers disclosure goes into even more detail than the Bloomberg article and is consistent with my revision. They rate the claims of the video "Mostly False" on this basis. Each source takes a similar tone, consistent with my proposed wording, that the allegations appear to be mostly but not entirely unsupported.

Every source describes OPSEC the same way. Polifact, the New York Times, the Bergen column on CNN, and the Hollywood Reporter-- all citations that were already in the article, describe OPSEC in the exact same language that my proposed revision uses. None use your language. The New York Times article supports assertions of their partisan affiliations but the description of the group itself is consistent with all the other sources and my proposed language (which mentions both). The claim that there's no sourcing for their group's composition runs counter to every source that examines them, including the source you just used now.

You can hardly write a long partisan screed on a tangentially related subject and then claim that the reason not to delete it is it's own irrelevance. Dishonorable Disclosures already provides all the information you've added in even more depth and in an appropriate place. A link is certainly justified (allowing readers to explore the issue to their heart's content), along with a brief summary of the issues, but the wall of text currently on this page is not. If you want to contribute to this page, you need to stay on-topic. If your main interest is OPSEC and the leaks controversy, you need to be working on pages where those subjects are of primary interest.

Finally, I'm guessing that your offer to convert it all to a footnote after the election is withdrawn then? I know you're saying you didn't make it but I mean it's written right there. Wellspring (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The primary function of Wikipedia editors is to take reliably sourced information and to accurately convey that information in our Wikipedia articles. "Accurately" is the key operative word here. I've reverted some of your edits because they did not accurately convey what reliable sources have conveyed. This happens every day, and shouldn't be taken personally; the descrepencies between sources and Wiki-article text can usually be worked out, and the mischaracterizations cleared up, through discussion on Talk pages. We made a good start on that process. This routine article improvement process is disrupted, however, when that same disregard for accuracy is carried over into the Talk page discussions. Not only have I had to explain how to correct some of your representations of what sources actually say, I am now having to correct your misrepresentation of what *I* have said. (i.e.; "your offer to convert it all to a footnote" -- an offer I never made) This is indicative of a problem much more serious than simple misunderstanding or confusion. Couple that problem with your latest excursion into personal attacks ("passion"? really?) and I feel you're entering territory into which I'd rather not accompany you without the assistance of administrators. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wellspring, I recommend that you accept what Xenophrenic is saying here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The challenge I'm running into is that it doesn't seem like Xenophrenic is reviewing the sources (both the Bloomberg source I added and the Polifact, NYT, and other sources that were already there). The funny thing is that we largely agree that the JW/OPSEC allegations are mostly unsupported. Where we part ways are on two issues.

First, his contention that they are disproven, refuted, or entirely unsupported. That is a much stronger position than the Polifact, Bloomberg, and NYT articles that are used to support it take. The only article that goes that far is the Bergen article, which doesn't examine allegations relating to Bigelow, Boal, or Zero Dark Thirty at all. Additionally, several of the characterizations (OPSEC membership for example) don't match the language used by any of the sources-- and again use stronger, more POV-laden terms instead.

Second, the decision to go into a lengthy discussion about the merits of the Dishonorable Disclosures video in this article at all. Typically, the policy is to summarize the key points and link to the relevant article-- whose content is very similar to the big paragraph we currently have in this article.

The quote from above is: After the election has passed, and the film has been released (and re-released on DVD), I'm sure this content will have withered down to a mere footnote saying something like: "During the run-up to the 2012 election, attack groups and political opponents of Obama made unfounded and disproven claims that this film's producers were given classified information." Anybody hitting CTRL-F and searching for "footnote" can see it, and the article diffs are associated with Xenophrenic's login. Was that not intended to be taken at face value? I'm happy to apologize if I misinterpreted his offer. If you substitute "mostly unsupported" for "unfounded and disproven", then the footnote as written by Xenophrenic (with a hyperlink to the video article) would be a fine replacement for the third and fourth paragraphs.

And to Xenophrenic: Regarding whether you find me referring to you as "passionate" on this issue personally insulting, I certainly didn't intend to offend you. Wellspring (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Still? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Without checking this particular edit, Xeno is not entirely correct. In some cases, if we, as editors, can determine that information in a nominally reliable source is inaccurate, then that source is not reliable for that information. We still may not inaccurately describe a reliable source, but we may choose to omit information which is inaccurate, rather than accurately describe the inaccurate information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the RS issue here is that we disagree about what the sources actually say. Wellspring (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If equally reliably sources conflict on specific information, then yes, we, as editors, may (and should) choose to omit the inaccurate information; and I've never said otherwise. But Arthur is not entirely correct. We can't make the determination that reliably sourced information is inaccurate simply because we think it is inaccurate, or because we know the "truth". It's best to have other reliable sources that clear up the contradiction. (Or we can wait for a retraction/clarification.) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words versus accurate descriptions

What is the rational for allowing the WP:WEASEL word of "Claiming" to be used in WP's voice in this edit? Furthermore, where is the discussion allowing the "without proof" statement (also in WP voice)? This has been again removed, but Xeno claims that it has been talked about. I am not seeing it here. Arzel (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, who are the "Republicans" that are supposedly "Leading" this group? The source being used does not make that statement, it simply states that its members have ties to Republicans. How can we make the statement without a source to back it up? Xeno claims that this has also been talked about, but I am not seeing it. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Xeno claims the latter is from the sources, but has been unable to provide quotes. I have no idea where he thinks the first one has been talked about. We (and reliable sources) haven't found any proof, but we can't say that they didn't think they had proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly one month to the day, and the same crew is back at it again. I should have known the calm would not last. I really should create a set of templates just for these increasingly frequent occasions. Let's have a look at the latest parade of incredible morphing performances:

• Mollskman tried deleting the reliably sourced fact, and pretended that the deletion was a copy edit. (Sneaky, but it was discovered.)
• Arzel tried to delete the reliably sourced fact by claiming That is NOT in the source. (Yeah, it really is in the source.)
• Belchfire tried to delete the reliably sourced fact by pronouncing "claimed, without proof" is redundant! (No, it's not redundant, it's emphasis.)

Here is what the cited source says:

The group also claims that the Obama White House released classified details of the raid for the making of a Hollywood film, a claim that has not been proven.

Here is what our Wikipedia article says, as reworded by Bbb23:

...OPSEC was formed, and began a media campaign in August claiming, without proof, "that the Obama White House released classified details of the raid for the making of a Hollywood film".

A previous version was written like this, but Bbb23 thought the wording was too similar to wording used by the source:

...OPSEC was formed, and began a media campaign in August claiming "that the Obama White House released classified details of the raid for the making of a Hollywood film", a claim that has not been proven.

To answer Arzel's mischaracterization of the word "claiming" as a weasel word: Wrong. It might be a weasel word if it was our word, but it is not our word; the reliable news sources are calling it a "claim" (which tells us they are calling OPSEC's "credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence").

To answer Arzel's other question: Scott Taylor (still a Republican as of his publicity puff interview 5 days ago with Daily Caller's "Leaders" series), the CEO, President and Founder of OPSEC, is the leader of the group. The treasurer, attorney and lead spokesperson for the group are also all Republicans. While it is true that sources have also noted the Republican (and Tea Party, and Birther...) ties of the other members of this Republican-led group, do you really think we should expand on that in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that Mollskman got topic banned until October 28 on all 2012 US presidential politics articles. Arzel got topic-banned from Paul Ryan. Belchfire barely dodged a similar bullet, but not for long if silly season reversions continue to be part of his stock-in-trade. The edit warriors have got to read the sources before claiming that article text is not accurate. They have got to edit collegially. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That goes for you, too, Bink. It's not "collegial" to misuse sources and make false claims in your edit summaries. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bink, do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trying to poison the well? Arzel (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we can use the term "claimed" except in a quote, even if the source uses it. Xeno claims that "has not been proven" is in the source; however, it may be puffery, rather than part of the actual text of the article. Furthermore, I seem to have found a flaw even without reading the article; even if the source didn't find proof, it doesn't mean that OPSEC didn't find proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• "without reading the article"

That explains a lot. Please get back to us after you have reviewed the sources? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, OPSEC thinks it has proof. Just because they didn't prove it to somebody who won't believe it no matter what, doesn't mean they made "a claim, without proof". It's POV-ish in the extreme to use that verbiage here in the article. And it's redundant. We already state that it's a "claim", meaning an assertion that is not accepted by all. That's enough. Belchfire-TALK 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly OPSEC thinks...

Clearly just the opposite. But if you have reliable sources to support your conjecture, please present them.

• they didn't prove it to somebody who won't believe it no matter what...

More of your personal analysis, or did I miss something in the reliable sources? Please, enlighten us! Who is this "somebody"?

• It's POV-ish in the extreme to use that verbiage...

Incorrect; it is the verbiage used by reliable sources. Are you questioning the conclusions of sources deemed by Wikipedia as reliable for the assertion of fact? If so, you should raise your concerns at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and I will eagerly join you there. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I looked for the "without proof" statement in the article and was unable to find it. As Arthur notes, this is not the same as saying it has not been proven. The implication from Xeno in his wording is that it has been found to be be a false claim, however the source makes no such assertation. Also, as Arthur states, the word "Claimed" is a weasel word because it is being used in WP voice. We could attribute the phrasing to show that others are making the statement of claim against OPSEC or simply follow WP:MOS and use a neutral word. The whole section is little more than an attack on OPSEC, so I don't see why there is an effort to make it even stronger than the source is stating. Arzel (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I looked for the "without proof" statement in the article and was unable to find it.

Why would you expect to find it? As explained in the recent edit summaries, and further explained just above in this section, "without proof" is the way Bbb23 reworded "has not been proven" from the cited source.

• The implication from Xeno in his wording...

STOP. I'll repeat it a 4th time: That is Bbb23's wording, not mine. However, I'll return the actual sourced wording to alleviate any further misunderstandings.

• the word "Claimed" is a weasel word because it is being used in WP voice.

That is an absolute misreading of WP:CLAIM. If reliable sources of assertion of fact (not "opinion", of course) describe an assertion as a "claim", then Wikipedia's voice will do so as well. The word "claim" is only potentially weasely when it comes from a Wikipedia editor, or from a source that doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirement for the assertion of fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin of title?

I'm wondering where the phrase "zero dark thirty" came from. I first heard a similar phrase used during 2010 for television advertisements for the Ford Super Duty truck in the United States, where the announcer referred to hard-working Ford truck owners starting work at "o-dark-thirty," where the announcer pronounced the first part as the letter "o." Bill S. (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong!

the term does NOT mean 30 mins after midnight, either in the military or in general use! it means "random late-night hour". it is, in fact, a coinage making FUN of military pronunciation, since 0230 would be "oh two thirty", 0430 "oh four thirty", etc. it means "middle of the night" in the way that "east overshoe" means middle of nowhere or "joe blow" means some random nobody.

a typical use would be someone complaining that they were "up till oh-dark-30" last night, or "got a phone call at oh-dark-30".

the article has it flat-out WRONG, but since the director is the source, i am hesitating to change it. how does one handle the PRIMARY PERSON INVOLVED having his facts wrong?

oh, and, yeah, it's pronounced "oh". pronouncing it "zero" presumes that the original military usage is "zero two thirty" "zero four thirty" etc. WHICH IT AIN'T. 67.150.80.200 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bigelow came up with the title, so she knows best what she herself meant with it, regardless of whether that is the most common meaning or not. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

or ANY meaning.

i'd suggest the sentence(s) be reworded a bit to clarify that her use of the term is nonstandard, if not flat-out wrong. see my comments below as well. 67.150.84.55 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the military and everyone I've come across say it "zero-two-thirty". You are the first person I've come across who says it "oh-two-thirty" instead.  daintalk   12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

hmmm. you are the first person I've come across who says it "zero-two-thirty"!! is this a recent change?

would you actually call 0600 "zero six hundred"? i can't imagine that being anything but "oh" either.

back to the main point, does anyone use it to mean 1230 specifically? back in my day oh-dark-thirty meant dead of night. which fits the movie just fine -- why's the director gotta go and muck it all up claiming that it means 1230? A) it's wrong and B) it fits the movie LESS. 67.150.84.55 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the pronounciation "Zero Dark Thirty" (instead of "Oh Dark Thirty") was also used in the first season of Homeland (TV series) (used by an FBI agent when speaking with Carrie in a café), which aired a year before this movie came out. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

During my 21 1/2 years in the US Navy, I never heard anyone say "zero dark thirty" - it was always "oh dark thirty." Real times, however, sometimes began with "oh" and sometimes with "zero" (eg, "oh three hundred" or "zero three hundred" for 0300), according to the speaker's preference. 24.61.4.237 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the release date

The article goes on and on about the release date here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Dark_Thirty#Allegations_of_partisanship, moving the date to December, then January 2013, each time citing the reasons for the move, but then does not say why it released this year. Anyone reading this article in - say - July 2013 will get the feeling that the film was released in January 2013, becaus that is the impression that this section creates. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

James Gandolfini does NOT specifically portray Leon Panetta

He is simply credited as "CIA Director." Yes, Panetta was the CIA Director at the time of the operation, but none of the actors in the movie are playing actual people. Gandolfini is NEVER referred to as Leon Panetta in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.29.254 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless a more reliable source can be found for it's inclusion, I am fine with it being removed. MisterShiney ✉ 23:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The official shooting script was posted on the Sony Pictures website. It too refers to the character ONLY as CIA Director...no name is ever given. It can be presumed to be Panetta, but it certainly isn't named such in the movie. Ergo, I agree, it shouldn't refer to him as Paneta. 99.169.250.174 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Prose problems with Reception section

The Reception section has massive paragraphs, and it makes reading more difficult. Please consider splitting up the paragraphs, or paraphrasing/summarizing the information. Otherwise the readers have to navigate through a massive wall of text, which is not fun. • Jesse V.^(talk) 18:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Have used blockquote on some of the longer quotes and tried to break it up. There are simply too many quote, and everyone who wrote an opinion does not have to be cited, especially if they do not add anything to understanding of why the movie is powerful or significant. Having a gazillion people cited does not really help; it's absurd.Parkwells (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

This article is lacking a Historical Accuracy section - I find there is definitely a use for one here. The "Political controversy" section is an absolute MESS, and about half the information could be moved to a new section. If there is disagreement about creating an accuracy section - at least someone for the love of god clean up the controversy section. Too busy to do it myself at the moment but will get back to it if nobody has within a reasonable time. Nimloth250 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Nimloth250

I agree this article could definitely benefit from one. Camyoung54 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd want a pretty deep array of reliable sources specifically analyzing the movie's historical accuracy, as the scope of the piece; or at least a principle component thereof. This means non pop-culture, subject matter experts. In other words, not just a hash of talking heads writing ad revenue baiting political pieces on Salon, MSNBC, Fox, TNR, et al. That's unlikely for a contemporary film of historical fiction. What most traffic coming to this page really wants to know is if KSM & Co. spilled the beans on actionable intelligence before or after they had their heads flushed. Answering that doesn't require a tangential section all its own. It's also worth noting that "political controversy" sections are always a mess, because they're not encyclopedic. They're simply ad space for people with a political agenda who want to use wikipedia to shape cultural and political discourse. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You could start here. 128.187.97.18 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a historical accuracy section. I will mull it over and hopefully try to implement something over the next few days. Myster Black (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the startings of a "Historical accuracy" section, which includes a general overview and specifics about comparisons between the detainee Ammar and real-like detainees. I believe there can be multiple other sections to this, including but not limited to Maya, Abu Faraj, Terrorist attacks (Khobar Towers, Islamabad Marriott bombing, Camp Chapman bombing), surveillance techniques, bureaucratic deliberations about going after bin Laden, Operation Neptune Spear, etc.,:

==Historical Accuracy==

"Dark Zero Thirty" states at the outset of the movie that it is “Based on Firsthand Accounts of Actual Events.” Director Kathryn Bigelow explained that her goal was "to make a modern, rigorous film about counter-terrorism, centered on one of the most important and classified missions in American history." There is generally a wide opinion about the movie's historical accuracy. Historian Steve Natoli said the movie "was accurate, with a few major caveats." Steve Coll has called the film 'disturbing' and 'misleading'. National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said, "The compelling story told in the film captures a lot that is true about the search for al Qaeda's leader but also distorts the story in ways that could give its likely audience of millions of Americans the misleading picture that coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA on al Qaeda detainees -- such as waterboarding, physical abuse and sleep deprivation -- were essential to finding bin Laden." (See above for discussion about controversy over the potentially pro-torture stance of the movie.) Three former CIA agents said that "Zero Dark Thirty" may be an entertaining film, but it fails to capture the true nature of the work of those involved in his hunt and capture.

===Ammar===

Much of the controversy over the historical accuracy of the film is attributed to the treatment of the detainee Ammar near the beginning of the movie, his giving information about Osama bin Laden's courier, whose nom de guerre in both the movie and real life were Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (see a discussion about the torture controversy below), and its importance in finding bin Laden. Screenwriter Mark Boal has stated that Ammar is a composite character. He has been explicitly linked to three real detainees.

Steve Coll and others compare Ammar to former CIA detainee, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, whose nom de guerre was Ammar al-Baluchi. Ali is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was arrested in 2003 in Pakistan, and held in secret CIA prisons before his transfer to Guantanamo in 2006. He is accused of sending, at his uncle’s instructions, as much as $200,000 to the hijackers and providing them with other logistical support. In "Zero Dark Thirty," Ammar is described as KSM's nephew and someone responsible for transferring $5000 to the 9/11 hijackers.

The character of Ammar has also been compared to Mohammed al-Qahtani by Peter Bergen. Al-Qahtani is a Saudi whom al Qaeda was grooming to be the 20th hijacker in the months before the 9/11 attacks. Between November 23, 2002, and January 11, 2003, al-Qahtani was interrogated for 48 days at Guantanamo more or less continuously, kept awake for much of that time by loud music being blasted when he was falling asleep, doused with water and subjected to cold temperatures, kept naked and forced to perform tricks as if he were a dog. However, he wasn't waterboarded or beaten. At some point, though it is not clear when, al-Qahtani told interrogators about a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was part of the inner circle of al Qaeda's leaders. Bergen also said that another al Qaeda detainee named Hassan Ghul was also subjected to coercive interrogation techniques in a CIA secret prison and told his interrogators at some point -- when, it is also not clear -- that the mysterious Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was one of bin Laden's couriers. In "Zero Dark Thirty," Ammar is subjected to multiple coercive techniques including being beaten, waterboarded, kept awake with loud music, stripped naked in front of a female interrogator, forced to perform dog tricks, and put in a small box. After all of these events, he is tricked by CIA operatives Maya and Dan into providing information about the courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. Myster Black (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

===Maya===

Screenwriter Mark Boal said that while researching for the film, "I heard through the grapevine that women played a big role in the CIA in general and in this team. I heard that a woman was there on the night of the raid as one of the CIA's liaison officers on the ground – and that was the start of it." He then turned up stories about a young case agent who was recruited out of college, who had spent her entire career chasing bin Laden. The presence of a female CIA analyst in Jalalabad during the mission targeting bin laden has been reported by both the Navy SEAL who shot and killed bin Laden as well as fellow SEAL Mark Bissonnette in his memoir No Easy Day. In that book, Bissonnette describes a real CIA agent "Jen", who was “recruited by the agency out of college,” had been “working on the Bin Laden task force” for five years, that “she’d worked to put all the pieces together” in tracking bin Laden to Abbottabad, Pakistan, and was “our go-to analyst on all intelligence questions regarding the target.” In another sequence in the book he asked Jen, “Honestly, what are the odds it’s him?” “‘One hundred percent,’ she shot back, almost defiant,” Bissonnette wrote, which earned her the nickname "Miss 100 Percent." Both of the SEALs also reported that the CIA agent sobbed when she identified bin Laden's body. Much of these details are similar to the story of Maya, though in "Zero Dark Thirty," Maya is recruited out of high school, works in tracking bin Laden for a decade, and does not cry when she identifies bin Laden.

Boal further stated that the tough-minded, monomaniacal persona of Maya is "based on a real person, but she also represents the work of a lot of other women." Former CIA agent Nada Bakos said that, "The movie’s ‘Maya’ appears to be an amalgamation of women I knew and worked with." Peter Bergen has reported on the large influence of CIA analysts in the hunt for bin Laden, which started in the mid-1990s in a unit founded by Michael Scheuer. The high number of women in the Alec Station unit gained the nickname "The Sisterhood." Jennifer Matthews was one of Scheuer's top deputies, and appeared to inspire the character of Jessica in "Dark Zero Thirty." She was critical to the arrest Abu Zubaydah, who first identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Like Maya, she sat in on coercive interrogations in secret CIA prisons overseas. Two former CIA agents who worked with Matthews were critical of her portrayal in "Dark Zero Thirty." Cindy Storer said, "I was so angry at this heated depiction of Jennifer as some fluffy-headed schoolgirl ... I just lost respect for it right there. Bakos agreed, stating, "The portrayal of who we're supposed to assume is Jennifer Matthews is not accurate. This was not representative of who she was as a person."

Another key female agent in the search for bin Laden was Gina Bennett, who wrote a paper that was the first strategic warning about bin Laden in 1993, In 1996, when bin Laden moved to Afghanistan, Bennet wrote, "His prolonged stay in Afghanistan — where hundreds of 'Arab Mujahidin' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate — could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum." Another female analyst wrote a key paper titled "Inroads," which would play a key role in the search for bin Laden in the following years, including identifying bin Laden's couriers. The same agent also identified a potential source in doctor Humam al-Balawi, who untimately turned out be a double agent and led to the Camp Chapman attack where Jennifer Matthews was killed along with 6 other CIA operatives. This event parallels scences in "Dark Zero Thirty," where a double agent attack at Camp Chapman leads to the death of Jessica and other CIA agents. Myster Black (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

===Other Character Comparisons===

Joseph Bradley, who oversees Maya's work in Islamabad in "Zero Dark Thirty," has been compared to a man named Jonathan Banks, who was the CIA station chief in Pakistan until December 2010. Banks was named in a lawsuit by a Pakistani journalist who sued the CIA over a drone strike that killed his relatives, which led to the CIA pulling him out of Pakistan due to his blown cover. The outing of Banks in Pakistan parallel events surrounding Bradley in "Zero Dark Thirty."

The National Security Adviser in "Zero Dark Thirty" has been compared to John O. Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Assistant to the President. Peter Bergen described an interaction between Brennan and CIA analysts in the months leading up to the bin Laden raid where Brennan pushed the analysts to come up with intelligence that disproved the notion that bin Laden was living in the Abbottabad compound, explaining, "I'm tired of hearing why everything you say confirms your case. What we need to look for are the things that tell us what's not right about our theory. So what's not right about your inferences?" Bergen also attributed to Brennan the creation of a "Red Team" whose role was to see if there were alternative explanations that could explain the "pattern of life" of the mysterious residents of the Abbottabad compound, such as the presence of some drug lord who was keeping a low profile or an individual on the fringes of al Qaeda but unrelated to bin Laden himself. These events have similarity to scenes in "Zero Dark Thirty" when the National Security Advisor meets with CIA anlaysts to discuss who inhabits the Abbottabod compound. Myster Black (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The CIA Director in "Zero Dark Thirty" has been compared to the CIA Director at the time of the raid on bin Laden, Leon Panetta, and the character of the "The Wolf," a practicing Muslim CIA employee in "Zero Dark Thirty," has been linked to a CIA agent referred to as Roger. Three former CIA agents agreed that the U.S. Navy SEAL team raid scene on bin Laden's Pakistan compound was well done. A Navy SEAL who is attributed with shooting bin Laden has stated that, though they were all minor, there were multiple inaccuracies with the portrayal of the raid, including the excessive amount of talking the team did on the raid and the calling out of Osama's name outside of his room, which did not occur. Myster Black (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the creation of a "historical accuracy" section. This is a fictional film, not a documentary, and takes many liberties with the facts with the purpose of creating drama. I have made the same objections on the talk page for Argo, which is burdened with an overly-long "historical accuracy" section which nit-picks trivial inaccuracies in a Hollywood film. These are fictional films, people, and we need to have some perspective here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OldJacobite, I disagree. Yes, it is a fictional film, but it starts by stating "Based on Firsthand Accounts of Actual Events." That makes the actual events, and their comparison to the movie, important. The historical accuracy section is not to nit-pick trivial inaccuracies. If you think there are trivial inaccuracies that should be left out of the section, by all means, edit them out. However, comparing Ammar to actual detainees, discussing how accurate Maya as a character is, discussing who the main players in these events in real life were, comparing the actual raid to the one depicted, are all relevant discussions to have on this page. I do believe that the section I added can probably be shortened, but when a film fictionalizes such important historical events, the comparison between fiction and fact is relevant. Do you not agree? Myster Black (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If it is that notable then perhaps it should have it's own article? However, in it's current form it is far too much information for an article about fictional film - based on factual events or not. MisterShiney ✉ 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney, I submitted the Historical Accuracy page and it was denied as a potential hoax. This is all quite ridiculous. The historical accuracy of this story is relevant. Wikipedia is the worse without comparing the movie to the real events when the story states "Based on Firsthand Accounts of Actual Events." The actual events matter. It appears the person who reviewed it does not even have a User page. Do you know FactsRUS1? I need to speak with this user.Myster Black (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiction, not fact

As the film has been shown and claimed to be fiction, not fact, most of the characters should not be linked to historical figures. Steve Coll's article in The New York Review noted the errors and inaccuracies, saying it appeared the filmmakers were suggesting "Ammar" was a historical figure, but points out several anomalies that mean the historical figure should not be linked to this character. It should probably be the same - delink - for all but bin Laden. Parkwells (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. We need to keep some distance between discussing this film as a work of fiction and any resemblance between people and events in this film and people and events in real life. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This (the movie being fiction, not fact) is especially true since bin Laden actually died in December, 2001 as a result of a chronic medical condition involving kidney failure. This entire film, and the story behind it is nothing but pure fabrication and anti-Muslim war propaganda. 64.134.45.104 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Where there are real names, such as Abu Faraj, or McRaven, those should obviously link to the corresponding article for the real life counterpart. "CIA Director" should not link to Panetta, however. As for the commenter above me, bin Laden released a video at the end of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui saying that he never assigned "Brother Moussaoui" to the 9/11 plot and that he himself was in charge of the "19 brothers." That trial wasn't over until 2003. There was never ANY reputable source that bin Laden had kidney disease. Quite the contrary, actually, as his personal physician says he never saw any indication of kidney disease. Nobody ever had a reputable source for his supposed 2001 death, and he continuously released video and photos that could only have been released AFTER 12/2001. Furthermore, his own organization confirmed that he was killed in the raid, and promised retaliation. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion of opinion and analysis

There is too much quoting of a wide variety of people's opinions, without basing the article in secondary sources that assess/evaluate what is going on. These are a lot of primary sources, and the noise of chatter is not any more enlightening than when it took place. Let's cut down on the opinions stated and try to use sources that give some insight or evaluation.Parkwells (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Too much material about campaign

The 2012 presidential campaign is over - there is too much detailed info here about Republican complaints and statements against Obama in relation to the movie and campaign. Pt more of that in the campaign articles, not here. I deleted a detailed content about Republicans making a video to carry their complaint and kept a summary reference - enough already. Just because someone said it, especially for political purposes, does not mean it has to be used or referred to in this article. Summarize the position; don't have these endless first-person quotes of everyone chattering. Readers can hardly learn what the issues were that the controversy was about, much less what the movie is like. Use cites to refer to things - don't repeat every date and TV program.Parkwells (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Very difficult to tell what people thought was actually good or bad about the film, the actors, the production - way too many quotes about political issues and a couple of elements; they should not overwhelm the article about the film.Parkwells (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Torture allegations and whether or not it helped get bin laden

This article is about a movie. It is not about what torture is or isn't. It is not about whether waterboarding helped the good guys get bin Laden (but just for the record there is ZERO consensus whether it did or didn't, Panetta says it did, Feinstein says it didn't). There is way, way, way too many quotes from film critics that have personal point of view on torture, waterboarding, Bush, bin Laden, Obama, etc. All of these movie critic comments are way, way, way off of the point also. Film critics do not have some kind of magic insight into whether waterboarding was helpful in catching bin Laden. Please, we need to carve this out of control article down to what is supposed to be about. As it is right now it is a coatrack to hang every single comment about waterboarding, torture, Bush and Obama conceivable--even though the article is not about those things. Those things are part of the story, but they are not the main story and in this particular article they have become the main story. Please tone it down.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a fork, moving most of the coverage over reaction tothe film's depiction of torture to something like Zero Dark Tirty torture constroversy? Geo Swan (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Emphasize film

Given that the film must eventually stand on its own, I moved the "Political controversies" sections to the end, and moved "Critical reception" forward. Although political attacks started before the film was completed, these will eventually not be as important as the qualities of the film. They should be reduced more.Parkwells (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Consider D.W. Griffith's 1915 film, Birth of a Nation. While, technically, it is considered to be one of the best films of the silent era, the most widely remembered things about it is how deeply racist it was, and the idea that its popularity triggered a rejuvenation of the vigilante death squads of the Ku Klux Klan. I think it is proper that our article on that film makes that clear. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reduce comments on controversy

Delete comments by people who have not written substantively on the topic of the Bush administration's programs or do not have a position that gives them insight - deleted Naomi Wolf.Parkwells (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with the section, but your criteria for deleting Wolf is nonsense. See The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot as only one example. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant Michael Wolff? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that criteria; either the sources or notable and reliable or they are not. One does not have to be a political commentator to have a valid opinion on this matter. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I looked through the page history and I could only find Parkwells deleting content from Michael Wolff not Naomi Wolf. Either the guy is totally confused or I missed something. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you restore the content? Until this is settled, the information should be restored, especially considering Parkwells's apparent confusion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not. I think the article does need a bit of pruning and rewriting to focus more on the film. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The description of Naomi Wolf as someone who has not written extensively substantively on Bush administration policies surprises me. Geo Swan (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Description of controversy is in error?

The description of the controversy in the Lead is in error. It's not simply that the torture is portrayed graphically; it's that critics believe the film suggests that torture of al-Qaeda members resulted in the finding and killing of bin Laden, and was therefore worthwhile. Many people do not believe that is true. That's the main point of The Guardian article, used as one of the references.Parkwells (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say that the controversy is that torture is portrayed graphically. The lead says the controversy is over whether the film portrays torture as useful and successful, or whether the film doesn't. The previous lead, which was definitely in error, stated simply:

The film has generated controversy because it depicts torture as being helpful in finding bin Laden. Critics liken it to propaganda for torture.

See how that statement makes it sound like a fact that the film "depicts torture as being helpful in finding bin Laden"? Many of the critics say the film certainly does not depict that, and call that assertion "preposterous". The present lead states:

The film has generated controversy because of its graphic depiction of torture, with some critics describing it as pro-torture propaganda, and other critics describing it as an anti-torture exposure of interrogation practices.

I'll move the "graphic depiction" wording within the sentence to make it even more clear. Let me know what you think. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I reverted an edit I think was the work of a sockpuppet, and initiated an SPI [7]. Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence, fourth pagagraph

″Other critics describe it as an anti-torture exposure of interrogation practices.″

This sentence is about as clear as mud. It has no citation. I tried to be bold remove it and it got reverted. The reason given was this was mentioned later in the article, which it is not. I am going to revert again. Please reply here before reverting with where in the article this is mentioned. Timteka (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

From the article:

• The writer Andrew Sullivan said, "the movie is not an apology for torture, as so many have said, and as I have worried about. It is an exposure of torture. It removes any doubt that war criminals ran this country for seven years".

If you feel the wording is unclear, could you propose alternative wording? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That is one critic, not "other critics". Timteka (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Since as mentioned in the preceeding, this this statement is not factual. I will remove. Timteka (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply saying that a statement is not factual doesn't make the statement non-factual. You are correct that Sullivan is one critic. The text in our article doesn't say otherwise. Moore is also "one critic". There are other "one critics" as well. As I suggested above, If you feel the wording is unclear, could you propose alternative wording? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not factual, but now you've found another critic, it is factual. Maybe you should link the article about Michael Moore's opinion. Timteka (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Historical accuracy" section

Um, why is the "Historical accuracy" section blank?108.207.39.39 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bin Ladin spelling error

In paragraph four of the first section, Bin Laden has been spelt incorrectly with an I

What's with the "C.I.A." nomenclature?

It looks really, really weird. Everybody else on the planet call it the "CIA". RenniePet (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)