Talk:Patriot Games (film)

Plot summary
This person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moovi) reverted my edits rather than revising the parts that he disagreed with or discussing them on the Talk Page. He has been blocked for Edit Warring in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moovi/Archive_1) and his appeal was rejected.

He makes contradictory claims that I added nothing new and that I added unnecessary details. The former isn't true because I added references to KCVO, Elizabeth II, and clarifications of action scenes. The latter, concerning what details are necessary and what are not, should be discussed in the Talk Page rather than left to his own discretion.

I am disappointed with Moovi's inappropriate behavior. Here is my version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Games_(film)&oldid=630496258) and here is his (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Games_(film)&oldid=630509634). I am asking for a Third Opinion. The question is not necessarily which one is better, but whether mine made any useful improvements at all, in which case Moovi's actions were obscene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed at WP:BRD, when your changes were initially rejected you should have initiated a discussion then, instead of reverting Moovi's edits with confrontational edit summaries claiming you "rejected" their "accusation" and threatening to report them. Wikipedia editing is handled through a process of WP:CONSENSUS, and there was no need to antagonize your fellow editor in such a manner.
 * In any event, in reviewing the edits I find the original version of the summary superior to the version that you created. Evidently so does Moovi, and I suspect they will make their opinion known here, meaning that this would not be eligible for a third opinion. If you would disagree with both of us there are other options, including asking interested editors at WT:FILM to weigh in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits are completely unconstructive to the page. Please see WP:FILMPLOT. Accepted Wikipedia policy clearly states, The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. Your edits appear to violate all those guidelines. There are numerous other issues with your additions too, such as grammatical errors throughout your sentences. Here is quick rundown of problem areas that should not be included which fall under the categories of scene-by-scene breakdowns and unnecessary technical details:


 * Miller screams that he will get revenge on Ryan because the attacker Ryan killed was Miller's brother.
 * The film ends with Ryan's family being safe again, and the doctor calling with results about his wife's pregnancy.
 * Lord Holmes's chief of staff kills one remaining DSS agent.
 * However, he is shot in the process and nearly dies.
 * Miller's group arrives with silenced automatic weapons and night vision goggles,
 * since he is bent on revenge against Ryan specifically
 * to give a guest lecture, bringing along his wife and daughter.
 * One of Miller's people tries to shoot Ryan as he is exiting the US Naval Academy, but is shot and killed by the guards.

It's not a question of the only 82 characters that you inserted. The additions fall into all the categories above. On top of that, your sentences are missing commas, they include redundant phrasing, contain Weasel wording, and offer no new information. You rewrote the entire plot summary for no logical reason. The plot summary tells us the exact same thing as was written earlier with more incorrect verbiage. These are pointless edits. There are only so many ways you can say the same thing twice. Like below:


 * Original version: Ryan develops a ruse                   Your Version: Ryan creates a diversion
 * Original version: Her car crashes into a concrete divider severely injuring them both.    Your Version: but Miller runs them into a concrete divider, which severely injures both of them
 * Original version: then impales him on it, killing him.   Your Version: kills him by impaling him

As far as the other issue I was involved with, what's your point? It was a similar circumstance, where I proved my point with factual Wikipedia guidelines. You haven't proved anything. Moovi (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I will accept your judgement if you give me valid examples each of the following:


 * Missing Commas
 * Grammatic Errors
 * Weasel Words

Otherwise, I will seek appeals with other editors, including those I have worked with in the past, and continue to press this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you decide to specifically seek out editors you've worked with before, I would advise caution. Deliberately seeking out editors with whom you have had prior interactions may be seen as WP:CANVASSING. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I confess that I don't have much experience with Wikipedia. To be honest, I have no idea how this paragraph below, taken from the Canvassing page, isn't a self contradiction:

''However, canvassing which is done **with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way** is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.''

That said, I will withdraw my claim to editing this page.

''The general editor who stays on Wikipedia (and most Wikia wikis) day in and day out making edits, is not someone adding content. People who stay there adding content always end up banned, and the ones who deeply care about Wikipedia end up banned with a public shaming, often with their real name associated with the shaming since they had once believed in the project so much they divulged it. Most of the people who still do add content then are anonymous editors and people who rarely edit.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Miller Going Rogue?
Since asked to explain, I shall, but will refrain from further edits on this issue. USN1977 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ryan's family is in London which coincidentally, Lord Holmes is there at a time the IRA attacks. Among the IRA members in the attack are Miller and his baby brother Patrick.
 * Miller dotes on Patrick for joining IRA and participating in his first attack.
 * Attack is foiled by Ryan, who ends up defending himself against Patrick and thus fatally shooting him.
 * Miller screams that he will get revenge on Ryan.
 * Miller attempts to get IRA to kill Ryan. IRA refuses and tells Miller that Patrick's death comes with being a terrorist.
 * Miller, without authorization, assembles a cell dedicating to assassinating Ryan.
 * Cell goes to the United States and proceeds with multiple assassination attempts.

Lord (William) Holmes
A note I added was removed as 'editorializing' (notwithstanding that, in terms of address [check your Debrett's Correct Form], my note reflected indisputable fact), so I shall repeat the observation here: in the film, a character is referred to both as 'Lord William Holmes' and 'Lord Holmes'; the latter is far more commonly used- including in a shot of an English newspaper- and 'Lord William Holmes' is first used by a female American reporter (who would be unlikely to understand the distinction). He cannot be both 'Lord William Holmes' and 'Lord Holmes'; the former indicates his father to be a peer, and the latter implying he himself is a peer (although the fact that 'Holmes' is a name implies a Life Peer, which would be unusual for a character such as this who is supposed to be a royal, and would be likely to have a locational title which is usually of far higher status). Given that 'Lord X Y' is the formulation for a younger son of a Duke or Marquess (the eldest being likely to bear one of the peer's lesser titles), perhaps he is supposed to be the son of a royal duke, in which case the more numerous references to 'Lord Holmes' within the film are misleading. We are unfortunate in this case in that the film is not based on a book, which might clarify matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.202.23 (talk • contribs)
 * Interesting, but how is it relevant to the article? We shouldn't add trivia. Have any reliable sources commented on this? DonIago (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a case of me wanting to add some interesting trivia; it's merely a fact that he can only be one or the other (or, technically, that he would only be ADDRESSED as one or the other; a younger son of a peer might well be created a life peer at some point, although I'm not sure which of the two he would be more likely to opt to use- probably the former, because it's indicative of his parentage... but that's by the by). The fact that both usages are represented in the article without some mention being made of the fact that the film refers to him in both ways despite it only being possible in reality to be one or the other introduces the unwelcome possibility that the article was written by someone who might have made a mistake/ might lack understanding of the state of affairs, rather than simply accurately reflecting the film's own erroneous usages. Aside from published sources such as Debrett's Correct Form, Wikipedia's own articles on 'Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom', the 'Courtesy titles used by sons and daughters' on the 'Courtesy title' article, and the 'Peerage' section in the 'Lord' article all clarify the state of affairs, but don't seem to include specific sources. I fully appreciate that, whilst I personally consider that a note observing this would be of benefit, I am after all only one person and no doubt the majority of people would be unaware of, and uninterested in, the existence of the distinction.