Talk:Fair Game (2010 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Plot[edit]

Is it sufficient that this just links to the real events page? phocks (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography[edit]

About a week ago 24.28.28.230 added Robert Baumgartner to cinematography field. IMDB only has one credit in Cinematography section "Doug Liman (director of photography)". IMDB has Baumgartner as "camera operator" "director of photography: second unit" and "lighting camera". Does the "director of photography: second unit" credit qualiy Baumgartner to be included in Cinematography field? --EarthFurst (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "lighting camera" credit that probably led to the listing. In some arrangements, a lighting cameraman has responsibilities that a DP has in other circumstances. —Kevin Myers 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the "Historical accuracy" section manageable[edit]

The editor at 76.182.42.242 has been adding a bunch more information to the "Historical accuracy" section, which I keep reverting. While I appreciate the effort to make the section comprehensive, I think it's mis-focused. This article is about the film, not the underlying events, and so I think every piece of information in the section, and every source cited, needs to in some way relate to the film. The new added text includes information like the details of Scooter Libby's jail sentence, and the State Department's view of the uranium allegations - interesting information, but I don't think it's usable here, because it's not mentioned in any of the commentaries/reviews of the film. Instead, it looks to me like classic synthesis - piecing together facts from different sources to make a point (here, about the film's accuracy) that none of the original sources do. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his above statement,Korny O'Near attempts to misrepresent that information he is deleting is not related to the film. As in his previous edits, he is again deleting referenced, accurate, relevant information from Wikipedia that does not conform to his theory of Liberal Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.42.242 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you were more specific than that, because I'm not seeing it. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you have reverted back to includes what all people knowledgeable on this subject would consider a false equivalency. I don’t have time to fix this so I will just attempt to document it in the discussion area. In looking at issues of historical accuracy, actual historical facts have a place as well as the spin submitted by political pundits trying to obfuscate the truth. If this were a history accuracy section for a movie that claimed the earth was round, you could simply quote two opinions from two sources, one that thinks the earth is round and one that thinks the earth is flat, and reject any new factual observations, such as photographs of earth form space, as attempts at “synthesis” between the two opinions. That is exactly equivalent to what has been done here.

The false equivalency here is the statement in the 2003 state of the union that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." vs. the conclusion of Wilson that this was not a fact “learned” by the British but a very weak theory that proved incorrect. The US State Department concluded the same as Wilson and the Bush administration eventually agreed and stated it was an error made by the CIA. Yet here the political pundits trying to rewrite history and portray the statement as correct are given equal weight as the reporters who have researched the facts. Sad that Wikepedia cannot do better.

You've exactly hit on how Wikipedia works, whether you like it or not. If there were notable, non-fringe sources that claimed the Earth was flat, then the article on the matter would ideally quote them - and using a photograph of the Earth as proof that those sources were wrong would, yes, count as synthesis - unless that photograph was mentioned as proof by one of the other sources. In this case, there are four reviews of the film's historical accuracy cited, and of them, two disagree with your assessment that the Iraq-Uranium connection was proved false - and one of those two is the editorial board of the Washington Post, hardly a fringe source (or even a right-wing one). So, for better or worse, opinion in mainstream commentary is still mixed, and we're bound by Wikipedia's rules to (a) show it that way, and (b) not include our own additional facts in the debate. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more lies from Liberal Fascism conspiracy theorist Korny O'Near, this time on how Wikipedia works. If you look at the Barack Obama Wikipedia entry it lists his place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii, even though the same proponents of politically motivated lies that Korny O'Near attempts to quote here claim he was not born in the USA. This is because Wikipedia choices to use facts when available rather than politically motivated lies from dishonest people like Korny O'Near. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.42.242 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to assume good faith, and not attack other editors. The sources seem to match what he's saying, and the sources do not seem to be fringe sources, (such as would be the case in your 'Barack Obama' example) so I reverted it back to that version. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove's involvement[edit]

Guys, before I start this, could somebody view this link in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302066.html

It claims that:

"Novak did not identify his sources, but Armitage admitted publicly for the first time last week that he was one. White House political adviser Karl Rove earlier confirmed he was the other."

Shouldn't we change the line in the article which says:

"There is however, no evidence of Karl Rove's involvement to date"

?

--Bertrc (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of filming[edit]

To add to this article: where the Niger scenes were filmed. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify in article[edit]

To clarify in this article: are the Mr. Tabir and Hafiz characters based on real people Plame was interacting with prior to her cover being blown? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]