Talk:The Patriot (2000 film)/Archive 1

Grammar Nov 2005
There are some glaring grammar and spelling errors in this article. You did a good job capturing all of the critics' different views, but the errors are just plain blatant. Also, please lengthen the detail of each movie to close to the detail of the 2000 Patriot. At least add one of those information boxes with the movie cover and main actors. Use www.imdb.com to fill in the missing producer information and such. As a last suggestion, please organize the character analysis section and make it flow better. At times it seems like a 7th grade essay.

I added some details about the characters and what role they play in the movie    --Tnguyen3 20:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added in more of the public reception and the movie info box--Lillysn

I edit a portion of the movie info box, and add new information into the public reception column.--Lillysn I rearrange the content, and edit the character analysis body, condensing the individual characters under the heading of character analysis.--Lillysn

I did a series of revision to the site. I added heading such as awards, actors' site, rearrange the orders of the page under the heading of Character analysis, added information into the controversial issues, and also trivia.Lillysn 03:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Addition of Themes and Character analysis
I did the character analysis and added themes and I will be adding movie bloopers I added some quotes and bloopers from the movie --Tnguyen3 06:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the character analysis to the discussion page until it can be cleaned up. It is unencyclopedic and very poorly written. When it is cleaned up, it should be restored to the article page. 155.84.57.253 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Crazy

I added a site directed to where the viewers could listen to samples from teh soundtrack, or to purchase the Cd, and i fixed the soundtrack section a little.Lillysn 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some some enhancement and additions on the Plot summary area, hopefully this describes a little more detail into what happened. User: Romanom Edited: Tuesday 24 July 2007

Character Analysis
Benjamin Martin plays a centralized character in the movie. The film main focus is on the Martin family. Benjamin is spiritually scarred from his French and Indian war experiences, and is opposed to going into war. Benjamin has no desire to particpate in the war because he has a large family to care for since his wife died. In the end, Benjamin joins the fight so that he can keep his family together.
 * Benjamin Martin

Gabriel Martin is considered "The Patriot." He is very patriotic about his country and freedom. By April 1776, he is eighteen and has impatiently waited for his father's consent to join the fighting. He shows defiance to his father by enlisting against his father's wishes.
 * Gabriel Martin

Gabriel spends some time fighting in the North. He goes home as the fighting has moved to the South. He returns to his home as the fighting has come to the South. As an officer under Col. Burwel,he gets wounded near home and gets arrested by Colonel Tavington for spying because he bears dispatches.

Charlotte Selton is an independent urban women who supports the Patriots through various home-based efforts.although Charlotte is the the aunt of Benjamin's children. Charlotte acts as a surrogate parent to her nieces and nephews in Benjamin's absence. There is an attraction between Benjamin and Charlotte, but it is restrained
 * Charlotte Selton

Col. Tavington has a need for the approval of Genral Cornwallis in his actions. Tavington stives to gain Cornwallis approval. He known for using brutal tactics in war. Tavington is the chief nemesis of the Martin family sinces he kills most of Benjamn's family.
 * Colonel William Tavington

Burwell served alongside with Benjamin Martin and John Billings in the French and Indian War. He is the leader of the continental congress and the continental army. He is friends with Martin and has a lot of respects for him, he also defends him even when he opposes him in dabate over Burwells plea for support for the South Carolina Assembly.
 * Colonel Harry Burwell

Anne is Gabriel Martin's love interest. Her family helps viewers see the perspectives of the people who remained at their homes and businesses. Anne's presence helps keep hope alive for a relatively happy ending for the Martin family. That is, until she is killed when the entire population of Pembroke is locked in the church, which is then ordered burned by Colonel William Tavington. In an earlier version of the script, she was with child, which would have heightened the emotion for Gabriel even more in his quest for revenge.
 * Anne Howard

Cornwallis was born into new British nobility and spent all his younger years in noble circles. He purchased a commission in the British Army and then actually studied for it. He proved to be a successful and competent officer.
 * General Charles Cornwallis

John Billings is an Indian fighter who fought fought along side Benjamin Martin in the French and Indian War. John Billings is rought and uncivilized and he personifies a savage brand of fighting.John Billings lost his wife and son by one of Col. Tavington's patrols and so him and Benjamin faces similiar circumstances. Billings has lost everything and eventually gives up by taking his own life.
 * John Billings

Thomas Martin is Benjamin Martin's second oldest son. He is a few years younger than his brother Gabriel and is unable to join his older brother in enlisting to fight because he is underage. He hates the face that he has to remain on the farm and not fight in the war. He is like his brother Gabriel in the sense that he wants to fight in the war.
 * Thomas Martin

Historical Inaccuracies
The two biggest criticisms of the film were the portrayal of the British, and the complete ducking of the slavery issue by making the Martins unrealistically open-minded. As a tobacco farmer in South Carolina, the idea that all of the blacks working on Martin's farm were free and not slaves is ridiculous. The only explanation for that is that the filmmakers didn't want to introduce shades of grey by admitting that yes, the hero was still a slaveowner, and that the "bad guys"--the British--actually did free slaves who fought for the Crown.nmw 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's ok to pretend that the blokes who got the enigma from u571 were Americans, but don't mess with the revolution :) --203.206.64.106 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've forgotten the the capture of U-505 by Capt. Daniel Gallery, USN.Solicitr (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazed there is no section regarding the British. Church burning? Thats a line too far to take. Not to tar the americans with the same brush but I don't like the idea of people watching this a thinking British people are like that. Marcbaldwin27 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. Some British people were very much like that.Solicitr (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a serious omission. The film caused a furore when it was released and the section discussing the criticism appears to have been suppressed and removed. For the article to be balanced it ought to be restored. Lachrie 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

no mention either in this article of the likes of spike lee callikng for a black boycott.--Gothicform 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because Spike Lee doesn't really matter. He boycotts anything that doesn't have a starring black actor.Zchris87v

I agree that pistols are depicted too accurate in the movie, but the muskets (not rifels!, rifles weren't used in this war) are not. Simply because the fighting distances are much shorter than they had been in reality. In the movie the lines progress until they are 40-50 yards close to the enemy and then they open fire, in reality they opened fire at 300 yards or so. Ther common ranges for muskets were 100 - 300 yards. At such short ranges as shown in the movie, muskets were highly accurate!! PS: And usually the British didn't let the rebels fire one volley, before self opening fire. .Kai-Arne Actually, the ranges used for musket volleys were between 40-50 yards. The musket was smoothbore and lacked any accuracy beyond that point. Rifles, having rifled barrels which spin stabilize the bullet were accurate to approximately 300 yards at that time. I will be removing the section on this in the article --216.6.189.132 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC) on this

-Well, you are mistaken, sir. I do know that muskets are smoothbore, I know almost everything about muskets and I have shot with them myself and I know people who have shot regularly. Have you ever used a musket, sir? I guess not, because you only repeat what most authors pretend. I agree that muskets are much less accurate than rifles like the Baker Rifle or even modern guns, but 40-50 yards for volley-fire?? That's like an execution. A good shooter is able to hit a single man from approximately 80 yards, he might even hit at 100 yards, but beyond 110 yards it's next to impossible. BUT, that does NOT count for volley-fire, shot at big infantry-formation!

Have a look at the musketry-trials at this page: http://www.irons-assoc.com/larry/musketry.htm

In very short (200 men firing at a 30 metres long and 1,80 m high aim):

75m – 60%  hits, 150m – 40% hits, 225m – 25% hits, 300m – 20% hits,

Similar tests were done by Scharnhorst in 1810, results were quite the same.

So, you see: in theory 300 yards is a dangerous range, when 2 whole formations are confronted to each other. Of course these results are not to be achieved in a battle. Various factors like nervousness, lack of training, smoke, moving aims etc... would heavily reduce the muskets efficients, but we are talking about THEORY here. Therefore your statement: "Actually, the ranges used for musket volleys were between 40-50 yards. The musket was smoothbore and lacked any accuracy beyond that point." is not true, you see?

If 40-50 yards would have been the common range for volleys, the casualties would have been MUCH worse! In fact, they weren't THAT high in most battles. The reason is, that most volleys were shot from long ranges, 300 yards and even more! Not many muskets hit from a that long, at least not in battle. I have even read about the Prussian 18th century-army, that there officers sometimes ordered the men to shoot when the enemy was still 600(!) metres (not yards) away. But I have absolutely no idea what these "Officiere seiner königlichen Majestät" expected! :D

I would like to put my part back into the article but unfortunately the whole part about historical mistakes is missing now. :( What a pity, as the battles shown in "The Patriot" have nothing to do with real 18th cenutry-battles. - Kai-Arne

"The film has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies, including the alleged invention or exaggeration of British atrocities. Most criticized was a scene depicting the torching of a church containing a town's inhabitants." Shouldn't the word "alleged" be removed from the sentence, unless someone can present some evidence that the scene was based on real events? -86.133.247.156 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The events were fiction and invented by the film makers, alleged suggests that this is in doubt. There should probably also be some mention of how, in Britain, this was seen as a comparisson to similar nazi war crimes. There were stories in the newspapers in Britain at the time attacking Mel Gibson and the moving over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.144.57 (talk) 19:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Although not as controversial as some of the mistakes, it should also be noted that Tavington's "Green Dragoons" do not fight as dragoons. Dragoons were mounted infantry, riding to the site of the battle, or a place on the battlefield where they were needed, would then dismount and fight as footsoldiers. The dragoons in this film seem much more like regular or light cavalry. (sidenote: rifles were indeed used in the Revolutionary War, but not as standard issue weapons. Guns like the Kentucky rifle had been around for some time prior.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varlet16 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2 points about a campaign I know fairly well, and in which my ancestors fought:

1) The church-burning was indeed based on a real event, although Tarleton was not involved (the people were saved by a providential rainstorm). Sorry, Brits, but the war in the Carolinas was nothing like the gentlemanly affair Washington and his opponents conducted in the North.  It was savage, brutal and cruel.  The film is far too kind to Cornwallis, who himself conceived the "scorched earth" strategy from day one. Tarleton was not in any way defamed by his film alter ego; he not only massacred surrendering soldiers, hanged suspected rebels without trial, and wantonly burned houses, barns and crops and slaughtered livestock, but on one noteworthy occasion had a deceased rebel officer's grave dug up and forced his widow to serve the corpse a meal.

If desired, I can insert the details of the historical (attempted) church-burning into the article.

2) Although in theory dragoons were mounted infantry, in the American Revolution (and on other occasions) they were indeed employed as battle cavalry since they were the only horse available. One good example is the running mounted fight between Tarleton's and W. Washington's dragoons at Cowpens. I cannot, however, forgive the film-makers for putting "Tavington's" command in green-faced red jackets: the British Legion wore forest green like all Loyalist regiments.Solicitr (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just watched this movie for the first time last night. EVERY pistol shot fired in the movie, up to a dozen or so, fatally and truly finds its mark, even at great distance.  Those pistols were horribly inaccurate. jaknouse (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's a generic Hollywood thing- the good guys never miss, and the Imperial Stormtroopers can't hit anything. Solicitr (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the movie...sadly instead of being a good story like We were Soldiers or Apocalypto; it ended up being a 18th Century Braveheart with addition of heroic/evil types movie clichés....no matter how "Accurate"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.158.46 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti Semitic?
Is there any proof that some people see this movei as antisemitic??? By my knowledge there are no Jewish people in the movie nor are they mentioned. Or is this why? Jorgenpfhartogs 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please go see the film and decide for yourself. By the way, FYI, it's about the "American Revolution", and there are no Jews to be seen in it. ResurgamII 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sentence about "underlying themes of anti-semitism" removed. No citation or proof given. Zchris87v 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Themes?
Can anyone give a link or source for this? I'm no fan of the guy, but somehow i don't think he blame the Revolutionary War on the Jews.

Also, Mel Gibson didn't direct the movie, nor did he write the script. Why should he be held accountable for it?

First, be sure to sign your name. Second, I don't know how this film would be anti-semetic considering it has nothing to do with Jews or the Jewish religion/culture.ResurgamII 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no surprise that this would come up. I personally think Shrek II is anti-semitic. The Wizard of Oz too, as the flying monkeys are obviously a negative stereotype depiction of the Jews. ;)118.208.180.16 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of South Carolina to categories
South Carolina films was added to the categories, because if you look it up you can see that this movie, in its entirety, was filmed in South Carolina.Zchris87v 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Martin based on Thomas Sumter?
Does anybody know if Mel Gibson's character Benjamin Martin is inspired on the life of Thomas Sumter? (Caracas1830 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Mostly he is based mostly on "Swamp Fox" (Francis Marion). If you read about Francis Marion and then note the similarities in the movies, they are quite similar characters. Zchris87v 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie title?
I do have to wonder if there was any conflict with the movie title, as there was another movie called The Patriot released just two years before, and the movie had an entirely unrelated plot.--71.156.60.219 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the Steven Segal movie? Yawn. It probably helped Segal's movie, as people would watch it by mistake thinking it was actually good. - BilCat (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous hatchet jobs
Whoever took it upon himself to edit this article on 11/14/08- you don't just chop a section out of an article without raising it in Discussion first- or without leaving your name. This goes trbly for one who obviously knows little or nothing about the Carolina campaign 1780-81- since if you did, you'd know that atrocities and war crimes were widespread.--Solicitr (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism tag
I don't know who put the tag on, but I don't think the suggestions on it are quite what the article needs. The tag may be the best thing we have to describe the problem, though (which doesn't seem like it would be too hard to fix). If we kept the section limited only to describing historical inaccuracies, rather than railing on the movie or getting unencyclopedic in tone, it wouldn't really be a criticism, and would be alright (maybe an unencyclopedic tone tag would be better). Wrad 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a film generated controversy, and it is noted in many citations and referrences, then it should be included regardless of your personal feelings which to be fair don't have any reason for being here. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Richnep, I dont know where to start with your post! Asside from the fact no one in Britain calls the war "the Insurrection" (a term for it I have never even heard before!), your arguement that "all sides do lots of bad things in war" does not hold water. The atrocities in The Patriot did not happen during the American Revolution. To claim they did is lieing. You say that people back then had a different moral code to people today, which is true, but how does that make made up war crimes any more true? You seem to be using generalities to cover for the fact that the movie makes claims for which there is no evidance. You are obviously okay with a movies that are historically inaccurate (and in this case poorly acted, predictible and too long), which is fine. But numerous other people responded badly to this movie and it did indeed cause controversy. To pretend otherwise is to be as historically inaccurate as this crappy movie!217.44.185.177 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The atrocities in The Patriot did not happen during the American Revolution. To claim they did is lieing."
 * Nonsense. They did very much happen. I suggest you consult Dr Edgar's history before you indignantly deny that the British did what they, in fact, did.Solicitr (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Richnep

1. "Any movie that depicts any people being evil except the Nazi's will of course upset the people" ……..well the key point here is that the evil deeds were made up for the film, they didn’t happen.

2."The move is set in the 1700's. Some actions that are now considered crimes against humanity were not considered serious crimes on the battlefield in those times. Being a traitor was still considered worth a summary execution in the battlefield" well what’s your point, this happened in some countries during WW2, so what, just because you say times have changed doesn’t justify a made up story pretending to be grounded in reality, if this is a docudrama it should be based on truth.

4. "write about all the controversy that the british press had made over the film" ……critics from both side of the pond make comments about the inaccurate nature of the film, read the article to see the quotes from the US press. hang on lets just look at this whole sentence

"If you really want to write about all the controversy that the british press had made over the film, you might want to be accurate yourself and refer to the war in the controversy section nto only as "The Revolutionary War" but also as "The Insurrection" which is how that perticular war is known to the british."

Let me see, first off, how do I "accurate" myself? Secondly what does this sentence mean? if i really want to write about the controversy over the film then accurate myself over how different countries label the war of independence? Why? How will that help anything. I concur with the user above that this war of independence is now called the war of independence by all involved. How is or are any of the comments in this talk applying modern day values to the film, what users are saying is that the film is very biased and inaccurate in a way which is offensive to many people, including anyone effected by America's slavery and by the British. The film is meant to be about America's history but is insulting to many, as the hero of the film was of questionable character and a reputed slave owner. None of the above complaints against the film are based on anything other then fact therefore your strange defense of the film and idea to rubbish the controversy section baffles belief. Please consider the structure of your comments, make your points clearer and use a spell-check. Sams37 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the neutrality tag on the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richneps (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a freaking documentary. Now shut up, all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now the criticism section reads like some British history nerd watched the film, was offended, and decided that the best way to release his anger was to write an annoyingly long criticism section. I'm changing it. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy
Jesus! The "Controversy" section is longer than all the other sections of the article put together! And, as my title suggests, the repeat of the word "Accuracy" gives me a headache. All those sections of criticism could all be condensed into three sentences. Obviously someone has a problem with this film. I suggest we work to condense it. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I saved the controversy section. I did it for the following reasons: 1) It was too long 2) There was not a NPOV 3) Nobody cares about the Battle of Cowpens and how it is depicted inaccurately in the film 3.5) Nobody cares that the Spanish weren't represented at the end of The Patriot. Basically, there were way too many irrelevant specifics (slavery, for example) which had very little to do with the film, and should belong in the articles about the historical war itself and not about an artistic/Hollywood reworking of the events. The criticisms should (and hopefully now are with my edits) be clear and general to give the reader an overall idea of the controversy that the film caused and not delve into how the Battle of Cowpens historically lasted 9 hours but in the film was only 4 minutes. This stuff really doesn't matter/is very unobjective/is totally irrelevant to the FILM itself, which is not a DOCUMENTARY but instead a HIGHLY FICTIONAL depiction of some events of the war. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the edit history for the past six days, but there's still a lack of sources on some claims, and some of this stuff is presented as fact while it's debateable. I added citation and neutrality tags. - Jombage (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed subsection
I've removed a subsection from the artcle and moved it here; the parent source of the statements doesn't appear to have a lot of editorial oversight, and appears to be a personal one. As well, the statements aren't really cited. Now. simply removing the section would be counterproductive, so I've brought it here, so that folk can cite the facts using a far better source. Remember, the source of the citation must speak to the historical inaccuracy of the film within the context of the film. In other words, if the article you are citing isn't primarily talking about the film, then you are synthesizing the info, connecting the dots that cannot be connected.


 * Depiction of Andrew Pickens and the Battle of Cowpens
 * The movie depiction of the final battle has been described as a melding of the Battle of Guilford Court House and the Battle of Cowpens, a battle in which Francis Marion never played a part. The Battle of Cowpens occurred two months before the Battle of Guilford Court House.   In the Battle of Cowpens, Andrew Pickens convinced his commanding officer, Daniel Morgan, to stand and fight British Regulars and Picken's militia stood and fired two shots, then retreated. This is the basis for the scene in the movie when Mel Gibson said "All I ask of you is to give me two shots before we withdraw." The British Regulars under Banastre Tarleton advanced into the waiting Continental Regulars, who routed the British army. The Cowpens victory has since become legend as "the great American tactical masterpiece of the war".

- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for protection
There's a revert war brewing, and I suggest that the article be locked until the matter of British atrocities is hashed out. Some Brits apparently want to whitewash history.--Solicitr (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've provided no evidence for the comment you've added thus it's been deleted. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the anon here. There is a lot of uncited or synthesized info that simply shouldn't be in the article. I've added a dispute tag and would urge folk to come here to hash out a compromise or find a consensus. Edit-warring a preferred version isn't going to work - it never, ever does. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, as per my request at RfPP, the article is now locked. Hash it out, me hearties. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, before heading off to the library for dead-tree sources, here's one or two quick links to at least set the stage. (I would point out that rebel militias also committed atrocities- the essential point wasd that the Carolina campaign was ugly and brutal, and the laws of war weren't respected by either side. But the *facts* clearly run counter to those folks who just flatly deny that Redcoats could ever behave badly). --Solicitr (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 Appears to relate how the British stripped Americans of their clothes, and even hit them.
 * 2 The indirect comment 'have one's wife and family turned out at best.' But the main comment is having property destroyed.
 * 3. One butchering. All the other 'atrocities' seem to comprise buring houses, turning people out of their property - and bullying prisoners.
 * 4 The Wraxall killings, discussed above as triggered by confusion as to which side first broke the truce.

These constitute your proven atrocities?


 * a Church with no one inside. Afraid your going to have do a little bit better than that. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, to "62.49.20.179"-- you don't just chop out bits of articles you don't like without first discussing the matter on Talk or directly with the author, my good chap. It's Wiki protocol: and also what we uncouth Colonials call "manners."--Solicitr (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid good chap it's wiki protocol to provide citations for pieces of POV your trying to pass off as fact, which you didn't do, hence your comments were removed. I'll leave others to hash out the finer points of history suffice to say that the piece you posted your comment after was talking about the complete fabrication regarding the church burning which never happened. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to my above comment if you believe that posting this: "However, notwithstanding modern Britons' reluctance to admit any possibility that their forbears were capable of atrocities, there are too many contemporary accounts of brutality and war crimes committed during the Carolina campaign to dismiss the film as a "blood libel." in the section refering to the oradour massacre and then not citing any sources is acceptable then maybe wikipedia isn't the place for you. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The socalled Oradour massacre is of course a story of it's own, having been distorted for the purposes of Anti-German propaganda. --41.151.201.169 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Need for protection - arbitrary break
(ec') Whoa, whoa whoa. Gentlemen (or ladies, or some combination thereof), please remember to keep the discussion polite and professional. Pinching each other's asses isn't going to help matter. Focus on the edits, and not the editor. In regards to the edits, please remember that, before anyone head off to the library to look up sources on the Revolutionary War/America's War for Independence/That Crazy Period When the Colonials Got Rowdy/whatever, every single one of the sources to be used in this article about the film must be noting historical inaccuracies within the context of the film. Allow me to repeat that: unless your source is speaking primarily about the film, we cannot use sources that denote the actual history. There is an excellent citation within the article that reviews the film and points out the historical inaccuracies. We can use citations like that. We cannot use citations that list the actual history of the War for Independence, as that is something called synthesis - a violation of our No Original Sources core policy. We cannot connect the dots between the period film and real history, because we are not notable sources for citation. External, reliable, verifiable, and notable sources that explicitly mention the film and the inaccuracies therein can be used. I hope that is going to streamline discussion, as we don't have to argue about real history as presented in a film. I've seen this smae argument pop up in both Braveheart and 300, and the problems with the article became far more clear once the craziness of confusing a film depiction of a historical period was not confused with the actual historical period. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Arcayne. The atrocities section quite rightly points out the inaccuracy of the church burning (with people inside) as such a thing never happened during the revolutionary war. The section was fine until it was edited by Solicitr. I'd leave it as it is now in my opinion. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, Arcayne: are you seriously saying that the article can cite ill-informed critics of the film, who (however erroneously) attack the film as ahistoricasl or a 'blood libel'- but introducing actual history in rebuttal is out of bounds? That' can't be what you mean--Solicitr (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've yet to provide a rebuttal of anything because you haven't shown the massacre in the film is historically accurate. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) No, I am saying that two different matters are in play here. First - and to my reckoning, foremost - is the introduction of actual historical references into the article. The article is not of a historical event; it is of a film of a historical event - two very different animals. The secnd issue, which you (Solicitr) address is the accusation of the film as blood libel. Is that a widely held theory? If not, one could argue that the opinion's presence within the article is of undue weight, meaning, it is being given disproportionate space in the article relative to its perception in the whole of the film's consideration in the real world.
 * Pointedly, I am saying that we do not get to add citations that disprove or counter what a cited source has to say about the film. As editors, we are not of sufficient notability to counter any citation. Ever. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's back off, cool down, and go back to square one:
 * First- is anyone here seriously trying to claim that British and Loyalist (and rebel) forces did *not* commit atrocities? And if not, then why should the 'criticism' section contain cites only to indignant but misinformed folks who maintain that position, without balance?
 * Second- Arcayne- when we include a "source" (however ignorant or biased) who *asserts* the inaccuracy of the film, surely that assertion should be balanced. As it stands, all we have is a lengthy section which conveys the unmistakable message that the film's depictions of atrocities are completely baseless- which they are not.
 * Third- "62"- leaving aside the church burning (on which more anon)- you seem - correcdt me if I'm mistaken -determined to edit out any mention of the unassailable fact that Cornwallis, Tarleton, Wemyss, Ferguson, Houck and others carried out atrocities. This is a whitewash of British crimes.
 * Fourth- Yes, the church-burning (with congregation inside) did occur. I'm digging through old ill-indexed books to get the date and location. the Presbyterian meeting house in question was more of a log cabin thatn a pretty steepled church, and no lives were lost because a sudden rain doused the flames- but the Tories certainly intended a massacre.--Solicitr (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.patriotresource.com/factfiction/events/page9.html thats good enough for me unless you can find something to contradict it. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the problem- the website you link to supposedly represents "truth", even though it doesn't. But somehow it becomes a "source" as far as this article is concerned- and, if I read Arcayne correctly, nobody's allowed to bring up actual history in place ofr false denials.  Would the article on the film "The Wannsee Conference" include Holocauset deniers as "sources?" The existing section is almost entirely the piece written by Salon's film critic.  This however is a fallacy known as the "false appeal to authority:" he may be an excellent film critic, but he's not an historian.--Solicitr (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then provide us with a historical link Solicitr. Still waiting... 62.49.20.179 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I will address the point you asked me, Solicitr. You are correct that the article needs to present an accurate picture of how the subject (ie: the film, not the history) is in real life. There is a source speaking to the atrocities - that is inarguable. What you need to find are sources that either dismiss these arguments, or discuss the film without addressing these issues at all. Both would serve to place the atrocities citation in its proper context. The balance you speak of is actually a policy of objective neutrality - we take no position as to the historical accuracy or inaccuracy, but add the comments that speak in regards to the film, without prejudice or bias. If no one has written any reviews of the film's historical inaccuracies, then all we have left is the ones speaking of blood libel, atrocities, etc.
 * One thing is absolutely for sure: the section will not remain in its current state. There is too much devoted to the historical inaccuracies, and it needs to be trimmed back.
 * Lastly, could I impose upon the two of you to use the proper indenting tags to differentiate your replies from one another, and to show a progression of the conversation? Take a look at how I've altered the indents of your posts so they show a clear path of discussion; could you both do that, so I don't have to? :) -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: no, that source isn't useful, anon62 - there is no provenance as to where the information came from, therefore no reliability or verifiability. We cannot use that. However, if you wish to contest the matter, head to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and ask for their input. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that source for citation I am simply pointing out that no evidence exist for the massacre as shown in the film to Solicitr. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, what about this:

Though critics faulted Roland Emmerich's recent film The Patriot for attributing actions to the hated British Legion that were in fact those of the SS in WWII, Edgar (History/Univ. of South Carolina) writes that atrocities were many in the South Carolina backcountry: women and children slaughtered, prisoners executed without trial, whole towns put to the torch. Revolutionary Whigs, he allows, were likely to commit excesses in the name of their cause, but the British and their Tory allies were particularly bad actors; as Edgar writes, "if [their] actions had been committed in the 1990s instead of the 1780s, Lord Cornwallis and a number of his subordinates, such as Banastre Tarleton and James Wemyss, would have been indicted by the International Tribunal at the Hague as war criminals." --Solicitr (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hated British legion"? POV. and Please provide a link for Edgar? 62.49.20.179 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just quoting the blocked passage. And, yes, in South Carolina even 2 centuries later, "Bloody Ban" and his British Legion are *still* hated. Almost as much as Sherman.--Solicitr (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a little bit tired with debating with you. You are quite clearly coming from a POV thats clear and you've still yet to provide evidence that the massacre as shown in the movie happened. Oh and South Carolina doesn't solely constituent Wikipedia's target audience. 62.49.20.179 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (↔dent) Again, tone down the personal stuff, anon62, or it will result in a civility block. Consider it your warning on the matter. The next time it goes personal, there will be time-outs.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute-arbitrary break 2

 * Okay, let's try this again: Solicitr - does the information about the atrocities come from a source speaking about the film? If not, we cannot use it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Arcayne, that simply doesn't reflect Wiki practice. Nearly every article on an historical film contains an "Inaccuracies" section- and those sections necesarily cite, yes, historical references. Here's one of the most extensive examples, one which became an article on its own: Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu. It's entirely appropriate, I believe, for that article to point out that the real Henry Hook was a model soldier, CS Bourne's stripes are on the wrong sleeve, Chard and Bromhead are carrying 1915-vintage Webley revolvers, and the 24th Foot wouldn't become a Welsh regiment for another two years.
 * What's even weirder is that, by the strict rule, this article is left with the "factual" assertions of movie critics and a Lord Mayor- but we can't cite an actual *historian* on the topic of "historical accuracy."
 * I may be misunderstanding you. I *think* I take you to mean that the only acceptable "source" is some person outside Wiki (no matter of what qualifications) writing some piece like "The Patriot Is Accurate, So There." I don't know if any such exists- but if it did, it would be no more authoritative than the site Anon62 ref'd.
 * Maybe it would help if you culd sketch out what the section ought to look like, if written according to spec. The passage at the heart of this revert controversy,
 * However, notwithstanding modern Britons' reluctance to admit any possibility that their forbears were capable of atrocities, there are too many contemporary accounts of brutality and war crimes committed during the Carolina campaign to dismiss the film as a "blood libel."


 * Is hardly out of line, if a source is added. That Cornwallis' troops committed widespread war crimes isn't POV, it's fact. Without something of the sort, any reader of the article will be left with the impression that what various movie critics have to say about history (not film) is true, when it's in fact false. Otherwise this article should be confined to film- period- and not bring in history at all: especially not by the back door of nonexpert hearsay--Solicitr (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, here is one of the three church-burnings which apparently inspired the movie incident. I'll repeat that no people were actually burned to death in any of these, but certainly that was the Tories' (not Brits') intent at Fishing Creek (this one) and IIRC at Providence.  Indiantown Church was burned empty out of sheer meanness- Wemyss was the most wantonly destructive of the British/Tory commanders. This troops at Fishing Creek were a troop of the British Legion with some Tory militia, under the command of Capt Christian Huck, a Pennsylvania Loyalist:  http://books.google.com/books?id=f_t_IScv4z0C.   Page 216ff.


 * Yes, I know: it's actual history and not film criticism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs)


 * Edit conflict:


 * My problem with the suggested insert is not what it is saying about the movie, but what it is saying about Britons. I'll leave to Arcayne what is citable or not, but to me it would be appropriate to indicate somewhere (maybe before the quote) that neither side was saintly and provide a bit of background about atrocities that might have occurred on both sides during the war.  But the text as you are suggesting is more than that: its accusing Britons of being holocaust  (small 'h') deniers.  Such a statement (whether true or not) doesn't belong here. The quote is not claiming that the Britons think the atrocities didn't happen, but that they think the comparison of the British Troops with the Nazis is extreme.  (John User:Jwy talk) 04:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a good point, Jwy. How about something along the lines of "The war in the Carolinas was a savage, brutal affair, in which most of the contending forces on both sides were local militias rather than Regulars, the legal niceties were often ignored, and atrocities were not uncommon. It remains the fact, however, that Cornwallis personally, and certain of his subordinate commanders including Tarleton, were responsible for a deliberate policy of savage reprisals aginst 'disloyal' colonists."


 * This topic heats me a bit because this was the "forgotten war"- history textbooks, all published up North, seem to pretend the Revolution never happened south of New Jersey, until Cornwallis popped up in Virginia (for no apparent reason) in time to surrender to Washington. Gibson's movie, for all its Hollywood nonsense, for once tried to tell "our" story to a wide audience- and was promptly shouted down not for all the many things it got wrong, but for what it got, in its essentials, right: Cornwallis lost the Colonies by foolishly using force and brutality against upcountry farmers who hitherto had taken little interest in the war.Solicitr (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to wait a little bit before posting again, so as to let the dust settle a bit. Clearly, there are some historical issues regarding what Solicitr (likely taking his cue from published sources) is calling the forgotten war. While the movie seems to address some of that, an article about a film is the inappropriate place to address those issues. The Patriot is not a history documentary; it is a feature film, and anyone who cannot distinguish between the two needs to snip the power cord to their tv and renew their library card.
 * I propose the following: someone start and populate a new article regarding the Revolutionary War's actions in the south. We cannot call the article Forgotten war, as it is already taken and is a bit judgmental, but it could be part of the larger article already in existence, Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
 * What the article is called is less important than the content of that article; it can always be retitled later. If an article seems unfeasible, then that article can always be expanded - with sources and not synthesis - beyond its current scope. Clearly, the folk in here know their history, and this would be an excellent way for the folk here to interact constructively with one another and put together an ass-kicker of an article (and remember, new articles can be nominated for WP:DYK, which tends to draw more editors to contribute to the article)!
 * That's my advice. Well, that, and "be excellent to one another" (w/thanks to the Wyld Stallyns). ;) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent idea, Arcayne. However, it doesn't solve this article's problem.  In a nutshell, it's this: the 'historicasl inaccuracy' section has nothing to do with history.  It's based on what a few movie critics think they know about history.  Strictly, they shouldn't be used as sources. But they have been- while no sources that actually know what they're talking about are permitted.  In other words, either the rule should be applied strictly, or loosely: but not both. Either remove all discussion of the film's historicity, or include it with the same sphere of sourcing that would apply to a separate article on "The Patriot: Fact or Fiction?" Instead we have "sources" that boil down to indignant denials of British atrocites, where, in your words, "there is no provenance as to where the information came from, therefore no reliability or verifiability." One footnote is to an article in the Guardian which (jawdroppingly) asserts that there is "no evidence" that Tarleton ever violated the laws of war, and goes on to repeat old British propaganda about Francis Marion.  This isn't a *source*.  It's *gossip.* While it's germane to mention that this sort of thing was said in response to the film, the article as it stands gives the decided impression - a non-neutral impression- that these criticisms were well-founded. Which they were not. That *must* be addressed- but you'll have to tell us how within Wiki rules that can be done.--Solicitr (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another observation: while the article properly points out that the fictional "Benjamin Martin" is a composite character, drawing from Marion, Sumter, Pickens, and even Daniel Morgan, it doesn't, as I think it should, point out that the demonic "William Tavington" is also a composite: not just Tarleton but an amalgam representing several of Cornwallis' flying-column commanders, Tarleton, James Wemyss, Patrick Ferguson and Christian Huck. I think this is a point to be made of some importance, because, while Tarleton himself didn't do all the things depicted in the movie, one or more of these British/Tory officers did (Wemyss was probably the worst). Solicitr (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I understand where you are coming from, Solicitr; that said, the litmus for inclusion to the encyclopedia is verifiability (of the source, not the accuracy of the statements contained within the source), and not truth. If a reviewer wants to write about how the British were aided by the Telepathic Mind Witches of Viltvodle VIII, it's his/her career to cast away - we just cite it.
 * If a reviewer or academician speak to the historical accuracy of the film, it can be included as a citation, whether it is correct or not. You can take comfort in the fact that where the is "jaw-droppingly" stupid commentary from one source, the Law of Balance says that someone will almost assuredly present a counter-argument. The trick is to find those counter arguments. Rest assure that they do in fact exist, and start your search. Another way to address the matter is to leave the citations as is; it will draw folk whose readings include information from Rotten Tomatoes (or wherever), and they will feel Christ Compel them to respond. It worked for you, didn't it? :)
 * So, the way this perceived imbalance can be addressed is to see out reliable, verifiable and notable sources that restore it by countering the claims. What we cannot do is to add our own perceptions of history and good judgment to act as a filter. Some info is common knowledge, but here, it needs citation. The best recipe is to find countering sources - that speak in context of the film, and not to the actual history. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that we can't use our own judgment of "truth" as a filter. The standard *is* verifiability.  But therein lies the problem- as you and the guidelines state over and over, you can't cite as a "source" some webpage of unknown provenance that makes assertions of fact without saying where they came from. Yet the movie reviews here do just that. I'm not sure why those "sources" are allowed to stand.


 * What we have therefore is a disjuct between two levels of ontology.


 * Would the solution be a separate Article "Historical Inaccuracies in the film "The Patriot?"" This would *not* be a POV fork.  It would be a source-level fork: in other words, since the subject would not be simp0ly the film, as here, but rathetr the intersection of the film and history, and thus citations to historians would be within the rules.Solicitr (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute- arbitrary break 3
Here's a proposal, then:

On the other hand, some reviewers defended the overall accuracy of the film's depiction of the war in the Carolinas as exceptionally brutal. For example, Kirkus Reviews quoted South Carolina historian Dr. Walter Edgar on the subject: Though critics faulted ... The Patriot for attributing actions to the hated British Legion that were in fact those of the SS in WWII, Edgar (History/Univ. of South Carolina) writes that atrocities were many in the South Carolina backcountry: women and children slaughtered, prisoners executed without trial, whole towns put to the torch. Revolutionary Whigs, he allows, were likely to commit excesses in the name of their cause, but the British and their Tory allies were particularly bad actors; as Edgar writes, "if [their] actions had been committed in the 1990s instead of the 1780s, Lord Cornwallis and a number of his subordinates, such as Banastre Tarleton and James Wemyss, would have been indicted by the International Tribunal at the Hague as war criminals." (with citation of course)

I also suggest that the section "Historical Inaccuracy" be recaptioned to the more neutral "Controversy."--Solicitr (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How does that sound to other folks? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm generally okay with it, except that with two long quotes will put too much emphasis on this aspect of the film in the article. Can we reduce the quotes to more essentials. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. I'll try to come up with "trimmed" versions.


 * While I'm here,I'd like to say (for Discussion) that by no means all the Brits conducted themselves like the British Legion (which was an *American* unit under British officers) or Ferguson's command. I'm not aware of any charges made against troops under Lord Rawdon; nor did Cornwallis' main army go beyond confiscating foodstuffs and especially horses.


 * Part of the problem in the upcountry was religio-ethnic: most of the frontiersmen were Scotch-Irish, indeed the British despatches frequently refer to the "Irish settlements" and occasionally engage in rather racist invective. The Presbyterian clergy and their churches were singled out for particular oppobrium- "sedition shops," Wemyss called them, and accordingly burned all he came across. This was, after all, barely a generation after Culloden, and sandwiched in between various 'pacifications' of Ireland (Cornwallis himself would do so after Yorktown). Whereas the lowcountry planters tended to be "respectable" Anglicans of English descent and, I suspect, were therefore treated less harshly. Solicitr (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I actually knew some of that! Again, the problem is that none of this was utilized in the film. Let's stick to what we can cite. Solicitr, seriously consider writing that article; you can't use your knowledge there, either, but you can certainly evaluate, balance and guide the article. You need to be careful about what you use here. Here's a tip. If you can find an interview with the screenwriter, or the novelist who's book serves as the basis, you might find something useful about what went into the writing of the book. That would be useful and useful. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OOOH, there's another view I wasn't aware of. Certain commentators hold that the church-burning, and Cornwallis 'plausible deniability', refer not to WWII at all but to the Waco siege in 1993.--Solicitr (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as there is a reliable citation at the end of that rainbow, we can kick the crap out of the leprechaun guarding iT. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Box office
On the bottom it states that this was the number 1 movie in America, between Shaft and The Perfect Storm. This is not really the case... as it never reached number 1. Ehccheehcche (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is about facts not personal opinion. For blog and debate there is other forum. The smear comparing Emerlich with a nazi is unacceptable.

I will ask for serious editor to deal with people who try to publish thoses personal comments again. (Plains2009 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Controversy and Criticism
Why is there no criticism, critique or controvery section on this article? The film HAS ruffled feathers, worthy of being noted especially as it depicted a psycho Briton who set fire to innocent men women and children. Yet there is no mention at the objections it received. Why is this? There are PLENTY of film articles on wikipedia with controversy/criticism sections. Cut it down if you must but to omit it entirely surely goes against the purpose of an online encyclopedeia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.132.102 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We would love to add a criticism section, so long as it was a reviewer or academic speaking about the controversy arising from the film, or noting the film's inaccuracy. As well, any historical inaccuracy must speak in terms of the film; ie, an editor cannot add the historical facts and compare them to the film. You must find a reliable, notable third party that says that, and cite them. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lat time I checked here, the controversy section was somewhat bloated, however I find it odd as it was removed altogether as many did have their complaints (British critics, Spike Lee, historians etc). Stabby Joe (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is odd. The entire section headed "Historical Inaccuracy" was deleted (twice) during December 2008 by the same editor, with the comment "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not propaganda from british Royalist apologist". Since most of the material removed met the criteria spelt out above, the wholesale deletion does not seem to have been warranted. Any concensus for restoring it - at least in reduced form? Buistr (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to those deletions, pls? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See under Article History for revision 22:18, 13 December 2008 by editor Plains2009; followed by reversion as possible vandalism by ClueBot; followed by repeat reversion 22:29, 13 December 2008 by editor Plains2009. Buistr (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case we should bring it back again, here are some of the links in the previous section:

And for those who kept on removing these must remember that your personal opinion is not a good reason to remove referrences from well known, respectable enough sources already used throughout wiki. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * - New York Times complaint over accuracy.
 * - Complaint of fictional atrocities.
 * - Spike Lee complaint over slavery.
 * - Guardian complaint over protagonist.
 * - Telegraph complaints over antagonist.

To Stabby Joe
When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Your contribution is based on unsigned article who present a tiny minority view and comments about a fictional movie. This movie article is not the place to debate the american revolution events. And it is not a blog of movies critics personal opinion either.

Accusing Roland Emerlich of being a nazi and a fascist is a serious accusation against a living person and this is subject to immediate deletion according to wikipedia rules. Don't put that online again.


 * There is no majority view anywhere that pretend that a child with an axe is like Hitler youth; like Jonathan Foreman pretend. This is clearly a tiny minority view.
 * Spike Lee complain about slavery all the time, since the movie is not about slavery this article is irrelevant.
 * David Hackett Fisher is not a specialist of the american revolution in South Carolina; this is an article about a movie, not about a book pretending to be acurate. The article is irrelevant personal opinion about a movie.
 * Mel Gibson's latest hero: a rapist who hunted Indians for fun ?; this unsigned lying article as no value whatsoever.
 * Another unsigned article who tell that a fringe gang in Liverpool have Tarleton as a hero; it is again an irrelevant fringe minority view.

Using those article would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view. from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The whole section was a crusade of personal opinions using the fringe opinion of a minority of sore losers in unsigned article. This is not what a wikipedia article should be. Plains2009 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but you don't need to insult other members to make your point (it would also show bias on your part which no one wants). Secondly all I was doing is bringing back links that were previously used, and I haven't read them as others wanted to know which were used last time and I didn't put them back into the article so I'm not sure why you seem to respond like I've vandalized the article. Not to mention also is that you're expressing your personal opinion about the sources, unless I here an admin or project leader, edittors can't go on your word alone, and keep in mind we're happy to hear your reasons. I mean seriously, if you want to dispute them then fair enough but why make it personal? Stabby Joe (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Plains2009 is a little uncivil, but I think his frustration is fair. Just as it is important for us to provide citations for anything in the article, it is equally important to stay neutral about it. If we take a source like Foreman's review, and only add the bits about nazis and hitler youth in it we are lending undue weight to that part of the film review, and doing a disservice to both the reader and Foreman - we aren't communicating what was actually said. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view Stabby Joe's comments were completely valid. There was no excuse for the response by Plains2009, much of which appeared inaccurate and poorly reasoned. It should not be forgotten that this editor deleted the entire criticisms section of the article twice without coherent explanation and that Stabby Joe's reasoned response was concerned with an apparent attempt at censorship. One has only has to look back on the previous exchanges on this page to see how emotional some of the feelings raised by this film are. Some British editors have been offended by fabricated atrocities, which will be taken as real history by many who saw the film. Some US editors feel that the brutality of the fighting in South Carolina was down-played in trans-Atlantic views of "The Patriot". Both are probably correct. The New York Times review by a respected American academic, who has published several books on the American Revolution, makes valid criticisms of the film (and does not suggest that anyone is a Nazi). The letter to the NYT editor by Jeffrey Abelson makes an equally valid response. It is not however a rebuttal - he states that he was impressed with Professor Fischer's review and that his concern is with standards of education which serve to make fictional misrepresentations of history of any importance.(210.246.12.196 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)).
 * It was not my opinion that Stabby was wrong; only that we needs must make sure that we are not only adding the bad reviews whilst downplaying the good ones. For my part, being a Yank who has lived in the UK, I never considered the silm to be a documentary. I think that a lot of editors come here thinking they are are going to fix the mistakes of the filmmaker. We don't do that; we present the info neutrally.
 * On a side note, I reverted your edit again; the writing is better he other way. I did, however, concede in noting that the statement might not be considered a rebuttal in that it agreed with the op-ed letter it was responding to. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the complaints over history as reception to the piece as a film but a seperate issue that would have a seperate section. I understand your concerns of neutrality and by all means keep it that way in the reception, it just seems to complaints made should be mentioned at least. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A great deal of the problem with this article with its history of edit wars is that, while historically the film is largely rubbish, the loudest criticisms seem to be leveled at the one thing that, in principle at least, it got more or less right: that troops under Cornwallis' command really did engage in atrocities of a sort virtually unknown in the more civilized campaigns up north, and it was that brutality which spurred previously neutral civilians to form partisan militias.  But apparently in this article one can't bring up historians, only attacks on the film no matter how ill-informed.Solicitr (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually I'm not sure whether it matters if anything happened elsewhere as the film is about another part. For example if there was a film that showed the Nazis doing something horrible in Africa that never happened, in some film, there would be complaints that its not historically correct regardless if Nazis did something elsewhere (so I'm sure how its ill informed really). BTW I hate edit warring and consider this talk a good way not to. Plus I'm not sure where people get the idea this is some hate campaign against the film, its just there were complaints about the aspect which seems valid, I'm far from advacating we trash it or make it out to be a pile of whatever. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion
No offense to Stabby Joe (and man, that name still cracks me up), but this discussion isn't about him, so ease up, everyone. What we have determined thus far is as follows: I think that about sums it up, yes? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We cannot add in historical evidence that contradicts the plot of the film, or actions depicted in the film. It is called synthesis.
 * 2) We can add in those historical inaccuracies that are mentioned by reliable, verifiable and notable sources speaking about the film.
 * 3) We need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to various arguments, pro or con. It wasn't a stinking pile of anglophobic trash, as some might contend. It is a Hollywood movie. If you are looking for a documentary, please head to the local library and check out a documentary or a book. Feature films are not supposed to fulfill one's educational gulf.
 * 4) Toward that end, we need to ensure that we provide a balanced view of the film, without excessive criticism or praise one way or the other.


 * I would like to re-propose this addition, which I think provides needed balance within the context of this film, rather than history generally:

On the other hand, some reviewers defended the overall accuracy of the film's depiction of the war in the Carolinas as exceptionally brutal. For example, Kirkus Reviews quoted South Carolina historian Dr. Walter Edgar on the subject:

Though critics faulted ... The Patriot for attributing actions to the hated British Legion that were in fact those of the SS in WWII, Edgar (History/Univ. of South Carolina) writes that atrocities were many in the South Carolina backcountry: women and children slaughtered, prisoners executed without trial, whole towns put to the torch... "in the 1990s instead of the 1780s, [officers] such as Banastre Tarleton and James Wemyss would have been indicted by the International Tribunal at the Hague as war criminals."
 * Solicitr (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who?
'A response to the opinion was voiced by Jeffrey Abelson: "If our children were taught history instead of demagogy and if they read more than they watched TV, historical inaccuracy in a piece of $9 entertainment would be mere distortion by another storyteller.'

Has anyone actually checked that link? It leads to a letter sent to The New York Times viz. David Hackett Fisher's criticism of the film. So essentially the source of this quote is a letter, sent to a newspaper, by a member of the public. The fact that someone has linked to the 'Jeffrey Abelson article' (which does not exist obviously) indicates they're trying to lend the quote greater credibility. I suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.132.69 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Abelson is a film producer. While he doesn't have a wiki article yet, we usually provide linkage anyway, as it serves as motivation to create the article. As a notable film producer, his opinion isn't just one representing a member of the public. He is speaking in the context of his profession for which he is known. NYT included it (as opposed to one by your or I) because they were aware of the man's credibility in speaking in regards to his own field of work. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but a quick check of imdb.com reveals that Jeffrey Abelson had in fact only ever produced/directed one short film at the time of that letter's publication, and he has hardly been prolific since. A rebuttal of Mr. Fisher's criticism by a big-name producer or director such as Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, etc. might have been noteworthy, but, although Mr. Abelson works in the industry, his printed letter to a newspaper, written in a non-professional capacity (his profession is not credited, leading me to believe the NYT was not aware of it - and why would they be, given his CV at the time?), hardly constitutes a citable source apropos of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.132.69 (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you perhaps you might wish to expand your quest for knowledge outside the crufty confines of Imdb. The fellow apparently makes more than just short films. As well, consider your logic here: NYT picks out a reply to an editorial, out of the blue, and that person just so happens to be a film producer? Really? Sorry, I am not convinced by that argument. Even if I was, the fellow has produced/directed at least one commercial film - presumably more than you and I combined. Therefore, he has a right - and notability - to comment.
 * I guess I am a at a bit of a loss to understand why you wish it culled. Do you take exception to his comments? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've a better online resource for information about the film industry that's free, then by all means direct me to it. I certainly feel that most people would put more credence in imdb.com than in a Wikipedia article yet to be written.
 * If I'm coming across as somewhat facetious it's only because this Jeffrey Abelson character is quite obviously NOT noteworthy enough to merit an insertion in this article. The fact that his comments have been shoehorned into the 'Criticism' section, apparently as an afterthought (how often do you see 'criticism of criticism' in film articles?) makes me wonder if someone hasn't got a personal agenda to push. Furthermore, I believe it detracts from the otherwise high quality of the article. Certainly, from the point-of-view of a humble reader it jars, which is what brought me to this discussion page in the first place.
 * You say you're at a loss to understand why I wish to have the disputed lines culled. I'm at a loss to understand why you're defending them so vehemently. With that in mind, and also with respect, perhaps you should swallow your pride and refer to the Wikipedia Guidelines.

Historical ranks and names
Arcayne, I appreciate your desire to keep this page on the straight and narrow, but it's a bit much to exclude the actual names and ranks (inconsistently) of historical personages portrayed in the film. Nathanael Greene held the rank of Major-general, and to misrank him "General" simply leads to confusion, not rigor. The film never specifies that Cornwallis and O'Hara were Lieutenant-general and Major-general, respectively; moreover, Cornwallis, O'Hara and Washington and for that matter Greene are in very this cast list given their first names, which appear nowhere in the film- are those to be removed too?

As for Burwell/Lee: early drafts named him Lee, but were changed to give the screenwriters more flexibility, just as early drafts used Tarleton. I'll find the source: an interview with Rodat.Solicitr (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Solicitr - on closer inspection, this seems a much finer line of OR than many others I've come across. I think its important to remember that we are talking about a film about a historical event, not the historical event itself. It is generally understood that characters within these historical films are dramatized versions of themselves, and are often even composites of many sorts of fellows, just as the film composites different events into an overall dramatic feel.
 * I am open to suggestions on how we draw the line; we do need one however, as it helps us separate what is clearly identifiable from that which requires an interpretive and evaluative stance on our part as editors. What are your thoughts on the matter? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a Rule of Reason, a sort of de minimis "OR" that covers that which falls into common knowledge or stuff that's very close thereto. The movie never mentions "General Washington's" first name, but everybody knows it was George.  While not quite on the same plane as the First President, everybody who knows who Greene and Cornwallis were also knows their names and ranks. It isn't a matter of 'synthesis' at all. There is a point of absurdity, after all, where we'd not be permitted to say 'bayonet' because no character specifically calls it a bayonet- but of course everyone knows that the long pointy thing you stick on the end of a musket is called a "bayonet."
 * So I would suggest that in an article on a book or film based on historical events, which includes 'real' personages, there shouldn't be a problem including the elementary matters which appertain to them (so long as the film doesn't actually contradict them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs)


 * Again, I see your point, but am concerned that what seems crystal clear to you might not be clear to the average reader. Yes, when a historical person is used, we should link the mentioning of that character to the actual personage. However, I think that we need to remember that films - even historical films - are not the same as history. There is the understanding that we are viewing entertainment, not education. By attempting to fill in the historical deficits of the film, we are going too far.
 * That said, allow me to suggest an alternative. If the specific title or rank is not used in the film, we do not add it. Instead, we link to the real-life person's article and the average reader can see the actual person's rank and title. This allows us to be accurate without making expicit claims that the film does not. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok- that would mean simply "General Washington," "General Greene" and "Lord Cornwallis." But we would be stuck on O'Hara, whose name is never used in the film.  Do we just call him "British General"??? n the other hand, if the film's own website/promotional materials/ director/screenwriter interviews give more information than appears onscreen, shouldn't that be usable? Solicitr (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the film's credit roll name him? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)