Talk:The Purge: Election Year

Where's the mention of the death cult?
The most terrifying part of the trailer was when a woman (presumably the Senator wanting to repeal the Purge) was hauled into a converted church by a death cult dedicated to the totalitarian Party in power. As they played a rewritten version of "America the Beautiful", the cult leader unveils knives and surgical tools to torture her to death. This scene was considewred controversial because of its obvious religious setting and is unquestionably notable. Where should it be added? --2602:306:368B:ECE0:D506:38F1:26C6:19B7 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sergeant's name
If you search Leo Barnes (I) on IMDB and the first option and then click 22 more articles, it lists articles that state his name is Leo Barnes.--Donovan Ellis (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not what we go by. The name Leo Barnes is not on the Cast list. It's not in the previous film. Various websites using the name is not a reliable source as to whether the name will be used in this film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The film's setting.
So, we know that the first film was set in 2022 (With the beginning prologue set in the years between 2017-2021). Anarchy was set in 2023. In the second film, NFFA leader Donald Talbot mentioned that the NFFA came into office "nine years ago", which would be in 2014. In 2017, the 28th amendment is ratified, legally ensuring civilians right to Purge, and thus the annual Purge began (In Anarchy, the 2023 Purge is referred to as the "Sixth Annual Purge", thus providing another source for the Purge's beginnings).

However, in Election Year, no year is explicitly given, unlike the previous films. However, the film states the NFFA have been in power for 25 years. Meaning that the film would be set in 2039, and then the Purge Games Prologue would be in 2021 (as it would be eighteen years between the prologue and the main events of the film.

So, going by these calculations I think we should stick with the 2021 and 2039 dates for Election Year. - User:1morey July 2, 2016 2:49 AM (EST)

Social science fiction?
This film cannot be classified as social science fiction, given that there is absolutely no science fictional aspect to it. It is, however, speculative fiction. And, stretching it, it could be considered social speculative fiction. (And, to be honest, most speculative, non-sci-fi fiction tends to focus to a large degree on the social differences between our world and the fictional one. Also, let me point out that this film is about as interested in social commentary as the 1987 film The Running Man was: not that much. It is merely its backdrop, nothing else.) But, as I pointed out above, this is most certainly not science-fiction. Oulipal (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Murder Tourists
"Roan and Barnes try to seek shelter elsewhere, but are ambushed and taken captive by a group of Russian Murder Tourists." In fact, these tourists speak two related, but different Slavic languages, Russian and Bulgarian. Digital worm (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the NFFA ???
What is the NFFA ???

How come it is not defined anywhere in this article and only appears as an abbreviation with no background or context as to what it is???

69.50.70.9 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) The New Founding Father of America. It was full displayed once in Plot section. Also a oftenly use in this franchise. Nnq2603 (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary
This article's plot summary section is in need of work. User:Binksternet justifiably rolled back the size of a previously excessively-detailed plot summary here. However, the editor did so not by trimming the section down to leave a more concise plot summary, but by rewriting the section and cutting it off at a certain point, leaving a no less excessively-detailed summary of only the first portion of the movie. An attempt to summarize full plot of the movie was undone by this same editor a few days later to restore his/her previous incomplete plot summary. This is an insufficient response to the original problem. LoveWaffle (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem started on July 1, 2016, when over-expanded the very small plot to 1100 words. We need to stick to the 700-word limit set by WP:FILMPLOT. I support any attempt to make the plot more useful to the reader while keeping it under 700 words. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears replaced a plot synopsis with a plot summary once the movie was released. While that summary is excessively detailed, the appropriate response to that would be to trim out minutiae to focus on the important details, not to abruptly cut it off before it reaches 700 words. The solution you put in place makes the summary less useful to readers than it was previously. LoveWaffle (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, I will support any effort to make the plot section more useful to our readers while keeping it under 700. I haven't seen the film so I'm not the person to do it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You undid an attempt to do so on 30 May. It wasn't a perfect fix (it's still ~250 words too long), but it was at least a complete summary another user could edit down to a more acceptable length. Rather than let that happen, you reverted the section back to the previous inexcusably poor plot summary that fails to address the problem of excessive detail. Since you haven't seen the movie, you should have used the appropriate tags to highlight the problem so another editor who has seen the movie and thus is better able to write and edit a summary of its plot could do that. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like you want me to be contrite but I'm not sorry about reverting to an old version which complies with WP:FILMPLOT's length restriction. I would do it again. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Abruptly cutting off a summary before it reaches 700 words doesn't comply with WP:FILMPLOT, either. Nowhere in the Manual of Style does it say to do that. What it does say is to be concise and avoid minutiae. You replaced an excessively detailed plot summary with one that is both excessively detailed and incomplete. That is not an acceptable solution. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that restoring the 950 word summary and then tagging it until such time as the summary was brought into compliance (or better yet, you could bring it into compliance at the same time you were restoring it) would be reasonable. Simply rejecting an evidently significant improvement because it's still overly-long, without any attempt at improvement, doesn't seem productive to me. DonIago (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is worse to have a plot summary that cuts off abruptly than to have one on the long side. The length is not so onerous as to warrant such a cutting-off. If anything, it is easier to keep the long version, tag it, and request other editors to shorten it (and keeping the long version makes it much easier for anyone to work on). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. Binksternet should maybe consider exactly what the difference is from a readers perspective between an article that's had the plot summary vandalised and one that's been cut in half by someone who believes that the guideline WP:FILMPLOT should be enforced without question. The previous plot summary was bad, and too long, agreed. I'm assuming good faith from your comment in this conversation that you didn't actually realise that the version you rolled back to one year ago was missing half the plot, but you've indicated here that you're not sorry and you'd do it again. Please don't. Consider this thread and the one at film plot as representing consensus that if you haven't got time to improve it yourself, half of a bad written film plot is worse than an complete badly written filmplot. Now, I've never seen the film, but I've attempted to use some common sense. My first edit restores the 950 version. My second edit attempts to trim it. I've left the tag here because it's still not very well written, but someone else who's seen it can polish it up. Scribolt (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good on you, Scribolt. Thanks for taking the 950 word plot and doing something constructive with it. Question: How does one quickly do a word count when editing a section? Huggums537 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe if you add "importScript('User:AlexTheWhovian/script-plotlength.js');" to your common.js page, it will add a TV Tools section to the toolbar on the left side of your screen with a word count option (it's the one I use), but this could depend on your specific layout and such. You can get to common.js by viewing the subpages from your userpage. I expect this may be rather confusing direction...if you need additional help with it, you might try messaging Alex directly, or I can see if I can dig up something better. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but sounds rather advanced for me at the moment. I believe .js is an extension of javascript? Huggums537 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really not that complicated. Better instructions can be found at User:AlexTheWhovian/script-plotlength. JS is Javascript, but it's not something you're installing on your side or anything. DonIago (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Huggums537 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank for correcting my grammar (I suck at spotting my own mistakes and reworking someone elses prose is fiddly). And for what it's worth, I used the caveman approach for word count analysis; copy and paste in Word...Scribolt (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I used to be like you. :p DonIago (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, Scribolt. I'm not positive I got everything exactly right, but I did my best and we're all here to help each other. So, I'm sure somebody will come along and fix anything we missed. Using Word for the count analysis, now that's what I call ingenuity. BTW, how many words did you end up with? Huggums537 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * About 650 I think after I hacked away at it (there were an awful lot of 'gunned them downs' to prune). One thing you have to be careful with the Word method is that if you copy from the editor window, it'll usually double count words with wikilinks. Scribolt (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary now appears to cover everything, the last edit added some useful clarifications. I've removed the tag, let's try and keep it at this length from now on. Thanks to everyone who assisted. Scribolt (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a test
No why won't we 173.66.46.79 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect information
Donald Trump did not use “Keep America Great” as his campaign slogan. This portion should be removed, it is incorrect. “Make America Great Again” was the campaign slogan 2601:584:101:B0D0:F473:9217:4AD:F448 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)