Talk:Argo (2012 film)/Archive 1

Not Mexican

Mendez has Mexican ancestry; he isn't Mexican (or 'part' Mexican) -- corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.108.85 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrapping up Filming

I work for the State Dept and was in charge of logistics for the shoot. They filmed at the CIA on 11/19 and State on 11/20, and the crew said that was their last day filming on this movie. Gumboz1953 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not hostages?

The "Premise" section refers to the individuals who were rescued as "hostages" - I thought the whole point was that they were getting out of the country to avoid becoming hostages. 174.88.78.22 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Film US rating

Should the US rating of the film appear in the opening paragraph? It is very country-specific and doesn't really help to describe the film. To have the information somewhere on the page may be good but I don't think it deserves such a high billing. Lcohalan (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Involvement of Canadian government

I can understand how "Involvement of Canadian government" can be a mouthful, but I think "Critical reception" tends to mean film reviews rather than critical statements about the film and the response to that statement. Are there any other section headings we can consider? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

One similar example I can recall is The Dilemma#Language in advertising. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Word of caution

I recently changed the "Premise" section into a "Synopsis" section based on the film's official synopsis. The previous draft referenced this website, which engaged in POV pushing. For example, it says, "I revised the Wikipedia article on Argo to reflect Mendez's admissions as a result -- only to discover that my minor revisions and links to this page were taken down by Argo publicists two days ago! Incredible - this is actually happening Right Now!!!" This is not a reliable source, and it does not belong in the plot summary for the film. Perhaps a reliable source like this could be used instead in a different section. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that covers the slight I discussed above. We can implement it to resolve the matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section as a synopsis based on just seeing the movie. No source is needed as the implicit source is the film itself. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical Controversies

The end of the Historical Criticism section of the article gives an account of the electoral status of Iran's Prime Minister. It says "He was elected by the Iranian Parliament and his position was confirmed by the Shah. Iran has never had free elections specifically for a prime minister in its entire history." While this is technically true, I think we can all agree that the tone demonizes the position of Iranian Prime Minister for not being popularly elected. In fact, the Iranian Parliament, while having it's power hemmed by the "supreme authority" of the Shah, is popularly elected, and they select the Prime Minister. This is how Prime Ministers are selected in most countries that have the position (the U.K. for example, selects their Prime Minister in just this fashion). For the article to say "Iran has never had free elections specifically for a prime minister in its entire existence," disingenuously demonizes the Iranian electoral process by comparing the position of Prime Minister to a popularly elected position like a Governor in the United States. While the Iranian government is of course a single party state that tolerates very little dissent, the actual framework of their government does have mechanisms of accountability that theoretically (but not in practice) can control abuses of power. The worst part about the comment is that it cites sources to lend an air of credibility to the claim. What it leaves out is context, like the fact that Prime Ministers are almost never elected by popular vote, and that the absence of a popularly elected Prime Minister is by no means evidence that a country lacks civil liberties or respect for human rights. It indicts the governmental system used by most of the free world by equating the way Prime Ministersare selected with evidence that Iran has a sham democracy. Iran may have a sham democracy, but it is not because of the way it selects a Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.89.205 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you mention the UK, that's not at all how the Prime Minister is appointed over here. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch, who selects the 100% democratically elected Member of Parliament that is the leader of the party that can command the confidence of the House (ie. has the most seats). No matter what, the British Prime Minister will have a direct democratic mandate. This is the case in all countries that use the Westminster political system. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This section is in serious need of an English speaker's re-write, especially with all the hits it's likely to get after the Oscar win (I'm personally not an authority on the matter, just a reader). Some parts of it are very difficult to decipher. For example: "The then reigning Under Secretary of State of the U.S. State Department David D. Newsom had warned Rockefeller and Kissinger most forceful before this step. According to Iranian intelligence reports would the U.S. embassy and the lives of U.S. Embassy staff be the target of Iranian countermeasures if the U.S. grants the Shahs care." Nehebert (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not correct that the film was "heavily criticized for its claim that British and New Zealand Embassies had turned away the American refugees". Firstly, they were not refugees, and secondly the film didn't "claim" anything. It is a work of fiction!203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is correct - the nz parliament were so pissed about it they actually raised it during parliamentary sessions and issued a formal statement condemning the film and praising the nz embassy staff who in reality assisted the hostages at great risk to themselves. The film is marketed as a retelling of actual historical events, so it is certainly significant. If the film is mere 'fiction' then why not create some completely fictional countries to demonise rather than real ones?

Controversies

Really this section, whoever wrote it sounds like an ass and really doesn't service the page in a helpful way. Especially with all the arrogant "I know more" line inserted into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Passports

I removed the word "fake" from the phrase "... fake Canadian passports ...", since as I interpreted the film, the passports used were in fact real passports, provided by either the relevant US or Canadian agencies, i.e., whoever actually prints "real passports". So the passports, by definiation wouldn't have been "fake", just made up for the relevant ostensible identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.130.242 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Although it should be pointed out that the relevant visa WAS fake and it is shown that Ben Affleck's character faking a visa on one of the passports. (Although how he managed to do 6 in less than a day I dont know. MisterShiney (✉) 14:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Recursive use of word "Argo"

The movie Argo is about a "movie" Argo. Sure it was an rescue plan, but to everyone else it was a movie production. Just sayin'.  ;-) Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possible error

I have seen the film only once (and in french, which is not my language...), but I am quite sure that there is another error. While in Instambul, the main character enters the Blue Mosque (it courtyard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Mosque_Courtyard_Dusk_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg is very famous and already used in many films), but the internal scener were taken inside Hagia Sophia Mosque (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/HagiaSophia_DomeVerticalPano_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg/200px-HagiaSophia_DomeVerticalPano_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg, please note the suspended green medaillons with arabic words on it, cleary seen in the movie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33andrea33 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that unless it could be cited, then it cannot be included in the article, as unfortunately that counts as original research. If however you can find a reliable citable source then it can be included. It should also be noted that many films use different internal/external shots depending on what they want from the scene and if they were included in every movie the articles would be huge! MisterShiney ✉ 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed two lines that were written in poor English and based on a bogus source. 80.33.158.121 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that the exterior is Sultan Ahmet and the interior is Hagia Sophia. However I don't remember the characters naming the place. --Error (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Persian community and Iranian reactions

The OldJacobite should be reminded that Wiki regulations state that properly sourced and cited material cannot be removed. Therefore the article from the LA Times which is a direct reference to reactions in Tehran needs to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.113.76 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) This paragraph is necessary to ensure the partiality of this article.The story relates strongly to Iran and Iranians so we need information on how they have reacted and what they think about it. If The old Jacobite believes it should rewritten then make the changes and restore the modified paragraph. The deletion conveys the sense that some one is trying to prevent an objective approach on the film and its subject. ---- Who determines consensus? I see only 3-4 people here making the changes they personally deem appropriate this does not comply with Wikipedia policy, deleting the whole paragraph indicates other intentions are involved. If the paragraph need corrections or proper citation that is acceptable.----

I removed the following from the article and brought it here so that we can discuss its appropriateness. There is some good information here, but much much of it is uncited or poorly cited. This would need to be rewritten before it can be put back in the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some Persian-language dialogues in the film which have no English subtitles. Also some Persian speakers have American accents which shows the filmmaker has used Persians who grew up in the United States. According to iranian.com, after the film screening of Argo, "some Persians have felt ashamed about what their fellow countrymen did back in 1979 at the US Embassy in Tehran, some believe the movie gives a negative impression of Iranians to the world and some just found it an entertaining film." The Los Angeles Times did an article claiming that Argo did not get any buzz in Tehran. The article referred to a review done by Massoumeh Ebtekar, since she has appeared in the film and her memoirs are yet the only Iranian narrative of the event.

Reactions to the film coming out of Iran? Unless somebody can refute otherwise, I don't think this is any different from the stink the Iranians raised over 300 years ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Iranians always kick up a stink. You are right though, this section does need to be re written if it is to stay in the article. It is poorly cited MisterShiney ✉ 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The first two sentences are simply opinion, and should go. The rest could be salvaged, if properly referenced. This begs the question of whether iranian.com is a reliable source. The L.A. Times article should be a good source. The amazon.com link for Massoumeh Ebtekar's memoirs is of no use, and should be removed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential Lawsuit

I'm posting here a link to Guardian UK article about Iran "supposedly" suing "Hollywood" ( ? ) about films such as "Argo" that slander Iran and give a false image of the country http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/iran-sue-hollywood-distorting-image?INTCMP=SRCH The article states that it is not clear if this is merely state propaganda - it's uncertain at this time ( 13th March 2013) whether the lawsuit will proceed. 101.171.85.56 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

The historical accuracy section is an absurd 1,551 words in length. This film is a fictionalization of real events, which means there are going to be numerous inaccuracies for the sake of storytelling and drama. We need not point out every single instance in which the historical facts are altered. This is really ridiculous. Much of it has to do with the prologue, which accounts for less than five minutes of the film. I suggest that this section be pruned to half its current length. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, and since the lead clearly states the film is a "dramatization" I wonder if there is any need for any of the "historical inaccuracies" pointed out- such as the Hollywood sign being repaired, and the whole section on whether or not the diplomats were in imminent danger. It's as if some editors don't understand what the word dramatization means. It's not a documentary!Batvette (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. What's worse is that this section has only gotten longer and more detailed since I posted the message above. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm of totally the opposite opinion. Movies such as Argo, form a large part of the general public's understanding of history. These films are historical propaganda as well as entertainment for the simple reason that such propaganda sells very well in the U.S. When a movie deliberately slanders, misrepresents, or attributes achievements to the wrong country or group, it is precisely these inaccuracies that become part of the public awareness of the event, in large part because they are "dramatic". If we were to survey the American public in a few years about this crisis, the CA will be remembered as the heroes, the Canadians barely recalled, and the British will be known as having abandoned America in its hour of need. Those distortions should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.150.122 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the movie and as an Iranian.even ordinary people(''''not pasdars)i mean people in the streets and even Sahar the woman who helped them have weired reactions and behavior!!! i lived 40 years in Iran and i have never seen people like that.all women wear extreme hijab and are like savages!!! i have never seen any one in Iran who treats foreigners like that.the old man in the bazaar behaves really strangely and unbelievable.Iranian people don't hate anyone but it seems that this movie is made to make us hate USA!! we are not savages we are not weired and our generation doesn't defend what happened at that time.the movie is biased and the people who attacked embassy are not representative of most of the Iranians.they attackers were just a few university students who were extremists.even at that time the majority of people didn't support what they did.i hate this movie and sure most of the Iranians do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.146.5.92 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the major criticism this film received too is because of the factual inaccuracies. Audiences are leaving thinking this is true, true true. The film was even changed after it's first screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, because the original cut barely gave Canada any credit and suggested that the CIA did all the work. LenaLeonard (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Roger Zelazny's classic novel, Lord of Light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.88.51 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Mossadegh was even more inaccurate than currently described. He had been elected, but then rigged re-election, and was actually neither the legal nor the elected PM when he was removed by a popular revolt. The CIA may have assisted with this coup, but the extent of their responsibility was greatly exaggerated.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical accuracy? The problem is that the film is basically "yet another american propaganda movie", with almost ZERO historical/factual value. As far as I know does not put propaganda in an encyclopedia, we try to put facts as best as possible. That's why in propaganda movies like this is essential to make clear that it is a propaganda, through a section of "historical accuracy." 200.189.118.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical accuracy is the most interesting part of the article - the rest of the article can easily be found on a number of websites, but Wikipedia is the best source for good, reliable information about historical accuracy. So it should not be shortened. Lova Falk talk 08:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary

The article has "Reflecting the time period of the film, the opening credits use the "triple slash" W Warner Bros. logo (originally used by Warner Communications), which was used by the company from 1972 to 1984, instead of the contemporary "WB" shield logo. [edit]". The word 'contemporary' *means* of the same time period (as in reflecting the time period of the film) - it does not mean 'current' or 'modern'. Suggest replacing 'contemporary' with 'current' or 'modern'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.186.66 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New information on subject

see video file http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/argo-iran-hostage-crisis-film-fiddles-with-the-facts-1.1167994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.168.249 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies

I decided to be bold and remove the bullet point list of tedious historical inaccuracies. Most of that is utterly trivial (i.e., that a seal on a passport was inaccurate), some was not sourced at all, and most was sourced to one article on the BBC website. These tedious lists of trivialities are not encyclopedic. A discussion of inaccuracies in the context of critical reactions to the film is another matter, and that has been addressed in the article, but a bullet point list of every minor detail is simply not necessary or useful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What's not sourced should go. But, what has a source should be more carefully edited. That part of the article is pretty poorly written, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The part about whether or not the character of Mendez should have been cast with a Hispanic actor does not even belong in the inaccuracies section. If someone claims it's an inaccuracy, then that someone doesn't know what an actor is. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Entirely your opinion. As typical for this site, a deranged, power-mad editor comes along and decides, for example, who cares about historical accuracy in a movie - despite the fact that Americans are so poorly educated they get their knowledge of history from such films. The marginalization of the Canadian role in the rescue - about 90% of the work, to be precise - is abhorrent.142.177.139.119 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the issue of roles of Canada, Britain and New Zealand are something to be discused, as the critics did. But, most of the "historical inaccuracies" are trivial; just because someone reported them does not mean they have to be repeated here, and they especially do not have to be repeated here in every last detail.Parkwells (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Best Picture" at Academy Awards, 2013

Just watched the presentation and acceptance speeches for 2013. Congrats! — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Argo won Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Ahcievement in Film Editing.[1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are great pictures/info. [2] Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Another write up and list of winners, including Argo for Best Picture, Best Adopted Screenplay, and Film Editing. [from WSJ] [3] For improving this article on Argo, read also 85th_Academy_Awards (Oscars). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Such chit-chat is not what this page is for, Carrie ... it's for improving the article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it not improve this Article by discussing how it was Best Picture? — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards except in the Director category" doesn't make any sense. Argo also wasn't nominated for Best Actor, Best Foreign Film, etc. The sentence should simply read "The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won three..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.121.166 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reasons stated for the taking of the hostages

I don't have time to dig into the details, but I believe this article has been changed from claiming that the hostages were taken "because of the U.S. harboring the Shah of Iran when he was ill," to claiming that it was "in response to CIA involvements in Iran." I would like to suggest that it be changed back. It seems reasonable to suggest that the harboring of the Shah is a well-documented cause that led directly to the taking of the hostages, whereas "CIA involvement," while sounding feasible, sounds like it would be difficult to document and is speculative and vague at best. 68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The CIA was involved in the running of the U.S. embassy as it had been used as a regional headquarters of the CIA, which is documented because CIA documents were seized (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Documents_seized_from_the_U.S._Embassy_in_Tehran) during the Green Revolution (it is said that the embassy was seized while CIA operatives were in the middle of shredding them). 85.130.96.169 (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fiction

Why call the film a "fictionalised thriller"? I cannot recall any thriller movie that is fact - they are all works of fiction, to a greater or lesser degree. Argo is not a documentary or a docudrama, but a work of fiction, based very loosely on real events. The Amityville Horror was loosely based on true events as well!203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Argo deals with well-known actual events and persons, while fictionalizing them. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar and English

These need some attention. CIA involvement in Iran, for instance, not "involvements". I doubt Mendez was inspired by "watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes on the phone with his son". No one watches movies on a phone, even now!203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Williams quote

Is there really a reason to have a four paragraphs long direct quotation in the inaccuracies section, which is already a long section? It just seems lazy to copy edit four paragraphs in a quote instead of summarising the content, and quotes that long are not usual in Wikipedia. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Argo fuck yourself"

To me, one of the conspicuous and notable features of this film was the running gag of the line in the title to this section. It's obviously meant to be pushing the boundaries a little, and seeking attention with its naughtiness. Having seen the movie with some teenagers, most of them felt free to shout that line at each other after leaving the cinema. It certainly had an impact on audiences, even if it's not a major part of the story.

It's not mentioned here, or at the major film reviewing sites. Why not? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the teens you watched it with need to be taught how to act appropriately... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.180.112 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The line probably comes from Hollywood (invented) not from reality in the rescue. That would be my guess. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is from an old knock-knock joke, and was used at the embassy as "a battle cry of sorts when the workload was heavy and we had a lot on our minds", according to the 2012 book Argo: How the CIA and Hollywood Pulled Off the Most Audacious Rescue in History. Some joke books from the 1970s include the joke; it predates the hostage taking and the rescue operation. In the film, it is misused in a fictional way. It is not so very important to the film. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editor, I don't care what you think of the teenagers with whom I associate. Your intolerance is irrelevant. To the others, the history of the term is also irrelevant. I too have heard it many times previously, but never in an obviously deliberately concentrated usage as in this film. It was obviously no accident. The scriptwriters chose to emphasise it. It DID gain attention among certain demographics (even if our IP editor disapproves of such people), and no doubt contributed to the film's classification. I say it is important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo we can't really do anything with the idea unless a reliable source WP:RS covers it. The book above would likely qualify but it basically reiterates its non-importance (it's essentially presented as trivia). SO we'd need another source covering it and touching on something with more notability (such as your classification hypothesis) to develop any text related to the idea. Millahnna (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all true, and I did note in my initial post that none of the major film reviewing sites mentioned it. I sometimes think our demands for sources gets in the way of realistic reporting. Can't change it though. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. We don't Report we RECORD. One person's opinion is hardly enough justification. Yes it was memorable...but no more than any other memorable line from a film. MisterShiney ✉ 17:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies in lead

I noticed that this section is one of the longest in the article, yet there is no mention of it in the lead. I tried to include a short mention of it few days ago, another editor tweaked it a bit, but then a third editor removed it. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead? perhaps even has it's own paragraph? WP:lead is a relevant guideline. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your edit, right? I think that you could discuss historical accuracy apart from that sentence; it seems a little non-neutral to me to make that juxtaposition. We could add a couple of sentences at the end of the second paragraph in the lead section that highlight the key points. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed that wording, which, like Erik said, seems non-neutral. Beyond that, though, the very fact that the historical inaccuracies section is the longest in the article is a problem. This is a fictional film, inspired by true events, and we have gone overboard in describing its divergence from reality. Some mention should be made, but this article goes to absurd lengths, and that wording in the lede only exacerbates a bad situation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Erik: That sounds fine. We could also add a fourth (short) paragraph. Since the section is at the end of the article, it would seem logical for it to be at the end of the lead, don't you agree?

@TheOldJacobite: I think Erik found it's position wrong rather than its wording, but it's good that we agree it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that the section is excessive; other sections such as "Production" need to be more developed. We cannot dismiss all the coverage about the film's historical accuracy and especially not leave mention of the discussion out of the lead section. It is true that this is a work of fiction, but the conflict of history and fictionalization of history is a common topic. Argo represents the latest case of this topic. I agree that the previous wording does not work, but we should be able to encapsulate the "Historical accuracy" discussion in a couple of summary sentences. (Also, Mohamed, I did not know about the {{replyto}} template! Will have to use that going forward.) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I only used it few times myself :) Now we just need someone bold enough to include the bit in the lead. I tried before so.. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony Mendez casting controversy

Various people criticized Argo for having a Caucasian actor playing Tony Mendez, who is half-Mexican by ancestry. It's apparently controversial whether to include this fact in the article, though I don't know why. Whether or not the criticisms are justified, they got a good deal of press, and some notable people weighing in. Why not include this information? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably because it's not an issue with Mendez, who does not think of himself as Latino. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but I think it doesn't change the noteworthiness of the controversy. The paragraph that was there before mentioned that fact, for what it's worth. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I support a brief mention of the controversy in the article. I would not give it a lot of weight or detail. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not from the North American continent. I know Mexico is a country. I'm not aware of what Mexican means apart from someone from Mexico. Do Mexican people have a particular look about them that uniquely identifies them? I would have thought they would be a pretty visually diverse bunch. What's really the controversy here? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can tell the basic problem here is a classic one regarding race vs. ethnicity. People commonly regard Mexican people specifically, and Latinos/Hispanics more generally, as being of darker skin tone than those regarded as White/Caucasian. Indeed, it's not uncommon for people to think of Latino as a racial designation when it's actually an ethnicity. Latinos are, by very nature, generally mixed race. There are white, black, and Asian Latinos. Folks from Mexico typically are of white (Spanish) and Amerindian decent with a variety of skintones (possibly statistically darker than non-latino Whites though a similar range to various North Amerindian people in my own purely anecdotal experience). That Mendez does not self-identify as Latino is probably adding fuel to the fire of the controversy but that doesn't pertain to your question specifically. Binksternet seems to have the right idea; a brief mention but avoid WP:UNDUE. Millahnna (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to get even more sidetracked here, but - in addition to the racial aspect, there are those who argued that Ben Affleck's cultural background, not just his appearance, prevented him from playing the role accurately. You can see the references here for people's thoughts on it in relation to this movie. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who think the issue should be mentioned without giving undue weight - I agree. The "Casting controversy" section, before it was deleted, contained three sentences. Is that undue weight? Korny O'Near (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for this to be a separate section. Two sentences in the inaccuracies section would be sufficient. Nor does it require six sources to make the point. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Three sentences, move to inaccuracies section, simplify sources... sounds good to me. Millahnna (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh - I thought part of the reason the content was originally removed was because a casting choice is not really a historical inaccuracy. That was at least one editor's opinion, and it does make a certain amount of sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. It's not exactly an inaccuracy in the "historic" sense, though I can see why someone would think of it as such. Honestly, I'm fine with its three little sentences in its own little section and the simplified sources. But I could go either way on the section issue. I don't think having it in its own section gives it undue weight but we could always rephrase a little (if the sources support a change in wording) if someone really wants it in inaccuracies. "Some critics felt that Affleck's casting didn't accurately represent the ethnicity of Mendez" or something like that, if you see what I mean. Millahnna (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he's "half-Mexican" that also means he's half not. Why shouldn't someone of European ancestry play the role? Such discussions are the "one-drop rule" reversed, especially if Mendez does not even identify as Latino. No one should assume they have the right to decided who should "play" him.Parkwells (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)