This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.253.119.205 (talk) at 19:12, 13 October 2010 (→Not Neutral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:12, 13 October 2010 by 96.253.119.205 (talk) (→Not Neutral)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Film: Baltic / Soviet and post-Soviet C‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Soviet Union Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Latvia Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
again: PROPAGANDA FILM?
I think we should consider this film as propaganda film. Once again my thoughts why it should be so: I think it is more correct to classify this film as propaganda since it's much more closer to the definition of propaganda film than to that of documentary film in wikipedia. Specifically, "A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." The following key points from this definition can be identified in the film:
- providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content - see Section Negative Response.
- convince the viewer of a certain political point - while the first part of the film pictures several historians (although their scientific reputation was reported to be very poor, I will try to find and incorporate direct link to a paper describing this), the second part features several contemporary Latvian politians presenting their own political views towards modern Russia.
- influence the opinions or behavior of people - the demonstration of the military personnel of Nazi Germany and USSR is followed by with mass-meeting of so-called Vlasovzi (members of Russian Liberation Army supporting Nazi Regime), which has no clue with the USSR military personnel being actually Nazi servants.
- no opposite views are presented in the film.
How this facts can be connected with documentary film which is "based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality" (the definition in wikipedia)? 129.173.66.208 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever Izvestia or Novosti ("Russia Today" cable channel) would like to say about whether or not the film is "propaganda" can be cited with references. The film presents itself as a documentary, it was funded as a documentary, it is a documentary. —PētersV (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
---How can there be opposing views presented in the film?? Should they have brought on a Soviet genocide denier?? Are there any movies about the Holocaust that would do such a thing? And are there any films about the Holocaust that don't try to persuade you that the event was bad?? Ofcorse not because that would be completely insane, so why should a film about soviet genocides have to do that in order for it not to be called propaganda?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not Propoganda but based on facts
Maybe some pictures are not from 1934 but in 1933, but still movie is based on facts. It is made to show W Europe, that Soviet Union wasn't so nice. Holodomor and Stalins fight against "secret jewish doctor conspiracy to kill all soviet leaders" is fact. Doctors' plot "Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they're indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists." As Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact alsou known as Nazi-Soviet Pact. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's clearly a propaganda movie and the list of falsifications in the movie will be expanded, don't you worry about that. Just stay tuned in. ISasha (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The real propaganda is the article itself. Partisans both for and against the film are constantly adding WP:OR material, either to discredit the interpretations presented in the film, or to discredit the people who don't like the film... If this continues, the article will be useless as a source of objective information about the film, as it will just reflect the edit-warring of the most active POV-pushers. Is this film actually so important, that it requires an article that mentions every person who ever uttered anything about it in cyberspace? It honestly think not. A single, matter-of-fact paragraph would probably suffice. To paraphrase Lenin, "Better less, but better". To show you all the way forward, I'm going to remove the reference I added to Dyukov's inflammatory blog entry. Then I'm not going to bother looking at this battlefield for soapboxing again. Trust me, this movie will be forgotten as quickly as Likteņdzirnas. —Zalktis (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The list of falsifications is an alleged list. For example the number of victims who died in the GULAG. That is a WP:OR contention based on an UNRELIABLE original source. Just as Dyukov insisting everyone deported from Estonia left on a coach train staffed with a doctor and nurse for the traveler's welfare, from "NKVD archives". Additionally, any allegation that is not properly referenced from a secondary source and specifically a statement in reference to the movie) will be deleted, otherwise it is WP:OR and/or violates using primary sources with an editor's own interpretation. —PētersV (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys. You can vandalize the article as much as you wish, but we'll provide enough reference for every point in the list of lies. Just stay tuned.ISasha (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you have a reliable secondary source (and frankly Dyukov, if you use his comments, is as anti-Baltic partisan as they come), "proofs" based on personal interpretations of primary sources are WP:OR. Cuts between 60th V.Day parades and dead bodies are not falsification: dead bodies are what Soviet "victory" meant to the Baltics, recall, the Soviet invaded and murdered and deported long before Hitler invaded, when Stalin and Hitler were the best of buddies. —PētersV (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Dead bodies shown in the movie are taken from Nazi propaganda films, so that it has nothing to do with what Soviet victory meant to the Baltic states. ISasha (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't seen movie, but it is falsification;) Soviet - nazi colaboration, gulags, deportations and holodomor isn't history falsification. That some pictures are from 1921 not 1934, don't change it. Of coarse it is made to look a bitt more impresive, and to a bitt clearly show what was Soviet regime. Discovery Chanel movies alsou often have problems with fact accuracy. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) "photos of deported Chechens turn out to be photos of Armenians in Turkey in the beginning of the 20th century" - there just aren't photos of deported chechens. (Soviets wasn't so accurate at documenting they crimes as germans did) But chechen deportation is fact. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are right - fact accuracy and falsifications "to make it look a bit more impressive" as you put it...that's what makes a difference between a propaganda and a documentary film.ISasha (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Most All documental movies are a bitt tendentious. Probably if film wouldn't mentioned modern Russia, by most it wouldn't be labeled as propoganda. Edo 555 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's right, but it's not only comparison of Nazi Germany with modern Russia that makes it a propaganda film, but most of the video footage in the film was actually taken from Nazi propaganda films in attempt to present this as Russian genocide or whatever. ISasha (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- In coments I found"Авторы картины, политолог Эдвин Шнере и продюсер Кристап Валдниекс считают, что к созданию 85-минутного фильма их подтолкнула демонстрация российской документальной ленты "Нацизм по-прибалтийски", которую власти охарактеризовали как направленную против Латвии пропаганду" ------ Вести сегодня." Just need to find article;) Edo 555 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's right, but it's not only comparison of Nazi Germany with modern Russia that makes it a propaganda film, but most of the video footage in the film was actually taken from Nazi propaganda films in attempt to present this as Russian genocide or whatever. ISasha (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How can you say propaganda film? How do we define what a propaganda film is... in this sense any wikipedia article written about a film on the holocaust should labled the movie as a propaganda film... and I would think that most of you would agree with me in saying that such an idea is crazy!!! I mean in the end if we are talking about bias any movie about the nazis could be seen as a propaganda film because i doubt anyone would try and give them an objective perspective. This movie is the same thing, it does not give the soviets an objective approch because any normal intelegent person can see that their actions need to be condemed and brought to light as crimes against humanity. The topics which the film covers on modern russia are the same, any rational person would condem these movements in russia as inhumane and unexeptable in the modern world we live in. How could you cover killings and terror created by the neo-nazi movement objectivly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ban the Vandals
Someone please BAN Ogomemnon from vandalizing this article.. (see article history) it's been going on almost since the protection for this article was lifted. may be you should add it back,as the only changes since then are by vandals like him and no major updates or contributions have been made(the minor ones that were, were made by registered editors anyway, and the protection does not affect them) He comes here every day.. sometimes even several times every day to do his dirty deed.. it would solve the childish "edit war" issue for good.. and the protection would keep away other retards and Ogomemnon as well, as I'm sure that after his ban he'd come back with many different anonymous IPs to continiue trolling
criticisms from Russia or false accusations
I mean, it's both.radek (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Russavia attempting to give the views of Dyukov more weight than other authors
Dyukov's views are already mentioned in the Reception section, now Russavia is attempting to insert his view in other sections as well, giving more weight than other authors. His edit comment is rather threatening too: "hardly undue and i will fight you to the death on this" --Martintg (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Must be cold down there in Tassie Martin, the cold has totally killed any inkling of get a sense of humour. But anyway, given that Dyukov is one person who is mentioned quite a lot in relation to this piece of propaganda, even going so far as to write a 120 page document refuting facts documented within the piece of worthless celluloid, therefore he is going to feature quite prominently in the article. Of course, I know that some of you would dearly like to whitewash the article of any views of Dyukov, and merely present the opinion of the Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A Minister of Dyukov being a lunatic, but that isn't going to happen. There will be more added from Dyukov, in particular in relation to the issues he presents in his report. --Russavia 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dyukov is Russia state media's poster boy for attacking the Baltics, starting with his whole "based on Soviet archives, Estonians rode comfy trains to Siberia and not in cattle cars, Estonians are liars" tome. He only deserves to have the weight of any other (smiled upon by official Russia) denouncement. He is not recognized as a mainstream historian anywhere except by those that push him here as an expert and, of course, his poster boy appearances on English language Russian state media (subtitled). Whitewash? You've got to be kidding, Dyukov is a menace to serious historical scholarship. Your vicious "Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A Minister" comment merits you being topic-banned from anything having to do with the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Dyukov is one of the most vocal critics of the film so he warrants some mentioning, but indeed his writings are overused. Do we need the long citation from him in the criticism section. It is mostly rant just showing that Dyukov does not like the film. Is his opinion of such notability? He is not an expert in cinematography and as a historian he is considered controversial in Russia and probably even lower in Baltics. On the other hand, his factual observations of errors in the films might be useful (I have no access to the "tissue paper" referenced in the article, so I do not know how useful it is). Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Bernard Shaw
I removed the passage about Bernard Shaw because of the following reasons: It violates the Misplaced Pages policy, namely WP:OR, which states: "Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." The passage about Bernard Shaw was also a classic example of WP:SYNTH. The user AlbertSM writes: "The film also makes celebrated author George Bernard Shaw out to be an inveterate Nazi sympathizer". This is AlbertSM interpretation of the film, which states, and I quote: "Bernard Shaw and the Left in general fundamentally opposed Nazism". Andora1 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Watching the film, I was very surprised to see George Bernard Shaw say:
- You must all know half a dozen people at least, who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there, and say, “Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you won’t, if you’re not producing as much as you consume, or preferably more, then clearly we cannot use the organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
(This is my transcription; others and the subtitle vary slightly.) The clip includes a cutting from an unidentified newspaper article titled, "SHAW HEAPS PRAISE UPON THE DICTATORS / While Parliaments Get Nowhere, He Says, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin Do Things." I Googled other sources, but they only link back to The Soviet Story; they do not provide independent corroboration, nor place and date. I also could not find the anonymous undated newspaper cutting sourced anywhere except to the same film clip. (The film's website does not provide a source, although it might be in the credits on the DVD.) I agree the excerpt does not fully support the deleted statement mentioned above, and the quote may be taken out of context, but it does look like him and it makes a startling impression.TVC 15 (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you were looking for this. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70810FA3C5513738DDDA90994DA415B838FF1D3
Isnt this documentary free public domain?
As someone goes around on youtube and deletes it all the time. I would like to know this documentary's status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Fox News style "journalism"
For clear discussion about the biases of the article and what should be included/excluded the following factors have to be considered, as much of what has been said in the documentary appears to be regarded as true by people on this talk-page forum.
This "documentary" is clearly classic propaganda. Claims are made and then linked together to paint phony comparisons based upon simplistic arguments. The most obvious is the claim (commonplace among the right-wing) that Nazism was "socialist" and "leftist". This is like saying that the USA, North Korea and East Germany are the same because Americans believe strongly in democracy and North Korea is called the Peoples' DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea, and East Germany is called the German DEMOCRATIC Republic. The National Socialists were not socialist - that was simply a buzz word of the era, somewhat like the terms "freedom" or "natural" are today. The Nazis were anti-union, rabidly anti-communist and financially supported by business people and property owners.
Furthermore capitalists like Pinochet used similar methods, yet Soviet methods are painted as socialist. And what if, say, Somalia was held up as a fair example of what free-market, minimal statists seek to achieve? - I doubt people on the right would like that comparison and would, fairly enough, find it a false representation of what they stand for. And what about if I was to point out that social psychology shows that authoritarian personalities and attitudes are vastly more the norm for people on the right than on the left, so therefore because Stalinism is an authoritarian system it must be right-wing? - there would be cries of protest - and yet this is the methodology of this film. As for ends-justifying-the-means thinking, the British and Americans bombed civilians throughout Germany remorselessly during the war to achieve their ends, so killing large groups of people to achieve aims you conceive as the higher good is hardly the preserve of communists - it is a human behaviour, not a socialist one.
Furthermore Stalinism and totalitarianism are linked with communism as if communism somehow endorses these things. Communism is fundamentally anti-authoritarian and anti-nationalist, unlike fascism which is a totally different ideology based on completely different fundamentals. A more genuine comparison would be to show how different ideologies can manifest similar outcomes when they become totalitarianism. The backlash against Stalin among socialists is because his behaviour was so at odds with core socialist principles.
I am not even a communist, I disgree with many (but not all) of it's fundamental principles, yet I find myself increasingly these days defending Marx, communist ideas and even social-democratic ideology from clear distortions and misrepresentations. This film is a perfect example of this pattern. Perpetuating these false caricatures is very unhelpful. It is also an attempt by the right-wing to disown a clearly right-wing ideology gone wrong, i.e. Nazism. Communism is clearly a left-wing ideology, yet few people on the left would agree with Stalinism. Nor are Soviet crimes simply the result of the Soviet Union being communist. As for Soviet anti-semitism, Russia has a long history of anti-semitism. This hardly appeared on the scene because the communists took power, yet this documentary blames socialists for it - once again creating misleading linkages. In fact the mainstream of communist and socialist teaching clearly oppose nationalism, racism and xenophobia and, post-Stalin, there were affirmative action campaigns in the USSR to achieve just that.
121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
"The National Socialists were not socialist" Yes, we all know how Hitler wanted to make Europe safe for a libertarian minarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.60.121 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuous removal of sourced text and POV-pushing by Ogomemnon
Ogomemnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing well-referenced text and pushing his own (completely unsourced) views. He has been reverted now literally dozens of times, by no less then five different editors. Yet he continues this edit-warring without any explanations. Hopefully he can explain his behaviour, otherwise I have no options but to report Ogomemnon to AN/I. --Sander Säde 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't agree with your agenda driven vandalism, for example your current erasing of Internal Soviet terror. It's counter-productive. You're an Internet bully and want it your way no matter what, without any sources. E. g. where is the source on Mr. Suvorov being a "former GRU member"? Ogomemnon (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let me note that attacking others is not an explanation of edit-warring. Please see WP:NPA. You've repeatedly removed well-sourced information without any reason. --Sander Säde 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Multiple issues with this article
- Neutrality is disputed - Positive reviews are placed first and foremost. Some of these so-called reviews are from subjects who were connected, either directly or indirectly with the production of the documentary. Criticism from Russian sources is not presented in an NPOV way - it is presented by way of trying to present those POV as being wrong. Take for example the Nansen photo which is used in the documentary to portray victims of the Ukraine famines in the 1930s. Words such as "alleged" and "according to" - it either is or is isn't portrayed in the documentary as such. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of POV problems with the article.
- Lead needs to be rewritten - This is a problem that I see in too many articles - as per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarise the article succinctly. In this article the lead has a little bit of information on the documentary, and then the article itself is simply a "positive" and "criticism" dumping ground.
- Tone and style is not appropriate - this goes along with the NPOV problems. The writing style of this article is not acceptable.
- Confusing and unclear - as the article only includes positive reviews and criticism, this makes it confusing to readers as to what exactly is this article about. This also goes hand in hand with other issues being raised.
- Copy editing - the article requires copy editing, especially for things such as style and tone.
- Cleanup required - cleanup of the article is required, as it is nowhere near beginning to reach any sort of quality standards as is expected on articles on the project.
As these issues have been raised, they need to be rectified before tags (which are not disruptive) are removed. --Russavia 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not Neutral
The above person does not seem to be a neutral source to make the claims he is making.
- If you have anything to add, apart from a personal attack, then I would be pleased to hear it. Concentrate on content not on editors. --Russavia 04:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you do claim to be a Russophile, so it would seem that your opinion on a film that portrays Russia and many Russians in a negative light would naturally be negative. Do we really care what the position of Russian state-affiliated organizations is? No governments, especially that one, should be considered credible sources. But I guess since I was born in the Ukraine to a Ukrainian mother and a Jewish father and lived so long in the decadent West, my opinion doesn't matter either. Why can't we just accept that Hitler, Stalin, they were all bad. Kill one person, kill a dozen, kill a million. All bad. Incidentally, Hitler probably didn't personally kill anyone (maybe in WWI), but Stalin actually did murder and rob banks for the revolutionaries. So if we want to get personal, who was worse? 96.253.119.205 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class Baltic cinema articles
- Baltic cinema task force articles
- C-Class Soviet and post-Soviet cinema articles
- Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Stub-Class Soviet Union articles
- Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Start-Class Latvia articles
- Low-importance Latvia articles
- WikiProject Latvia articles