Talk:Ukraine on Fire (2016 film)

Music

I wanted to track down the name of all the music that are recorded for this film. Can you give me some advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferocious (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the composer is John Beck Hofmann, according to IMDb. Eurekaed (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Redacted text on history omissions

Below is text redacted from the article; while possibly topical and accurate, it seems plainly to be OR-

” It, however, conveniently omits very important events of Ukrainian history such as Holodomor genocide (1932-1933) - a terror-famine inflicted on Ukrainian population by Soviet government [which Russia denies, and made an extensive effort to destroy all evidence of] taking away over 4 million of Ukrainian lives in slow starvation torture. The very horror of Holodomor is what caused western Ukraine collaborate with an occupant Germany, thus chosing what seemed at a time a lesser evil. Film also fails to mention various crimes commited by pro Russian Yanukovich before, during and after his presidency and severely distorts entire Ukrainian heritage portraying it as shameful due to the aforementioned collaboration with German nazi government when latter came to occupy Ukraine.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the removal of this text is appropriate per WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. However, it seems to me that a similar observation if cited to a reliable source could potentially be added as relevant content on the film. I have seen the film and I agree it omits the Holodomor, which provides important context for understanding Ukrainian behavior after the outbreak of the WW II. However, I think it is a stretch to assert the "Holodomor is what caused western Ukraine [to] collaborate with ... Germany". My read of the evidence is that the suffering and deaths attributed to the Holodomor were primarily, though not exclusively, the result of Soviet class warfare in the form of Dekulakization, which also caused starvation at about the same time in Northern Caucasus, Volga Region, Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that the criticism of not mentioning the Holodomor could be added to the ‚reception‘ or a similar paragraph, if a reliable source says that this is a major flaw in the selection of historical events. However, the film’s main purpose is to depict the events from autumn 2013 until February 2014 and following months. --Gunnar (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here I may have found something appropriate to cite: Armano, Antonio (2016-10-26). "Oliver Stone's Ukraine". Collectible DRY. Collectible Media Ltd. Retrieved 2022-06-13. But this reconstruction lacks something, and that lack penalizes our understanding. We see no mention of Golodomor, the genocidal famine Stalin imposed on the country in the 1930s, killing millions of Ukrainians. There's no mention of Stalin's collectivization of lands, nor his persecution of religion. These oversights make it hard to understand why the Nazis were welcomed as liberators. They weren't welcomed because the Ukrainians were Nazis too, but because the population was desperate for salvation.--Gunnar (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Topicality of Subsequent Productions and Related Politics of Filmmakers

The following text was redacted, citing a lack of clear topicality. I propose that a comprehensive consideration of the referenced material speaks directly to the production and reception of Ukraine on Fire, and connection to more recent productions by the same filmmakers:

===Involvement in Contemporaneous Politics==

Director Igor Lopatonok was cited in documents submitted to the US Federal Election Commission as part of an investigation into possible violations of law surrounding the 2016 United States presidential election, in which Stone was alleged to be "a top Kremlin propagandist", and Lopatonok of propagating "Russian and far-right propaganda".

Mavigogun (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the information on Lopatonok obtained by the FEC investigation, if verified and properly sourced, belongs in the article. A reliable, secondary source would be preferable. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda or Documentary

How do we make a categorical determination for this film? While a propagandist may invite editors to view a production as a documentary, it seems incumbent on us to make that determination independent of any such wish. Practically, there are a great number of sources that pro-forma accept and repeat the label applied by the film makers- I would remind editors when considering the question that mere volume is not our criteria. Nor are the confines of the film industry our guide. I contend that Ukraine on Fire is no more a documentary than it is a romantic comedy. Mavigogun (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be editorializing in the article about whether the film is propaganda or not. However, it may be appropriate to include properly cited claims from reliable sources about the nature of the film. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that- our job is not to synthesize meaning. Propaganda characterizations may be cited in this instance; any such citation would be in contest with the label applied by the filmmakers. How shall we determine which to use? A child pornographer may label their cinematography "art" and have that label repeated by others without scrutiny; when some recognize the same as pornography, there is a contest of perspective. I suggest such is our circumstance here, ask for the reflection of peers. Mavigogun (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As quoted in the article on propaganda film, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." From that perspective, Ukraine on Fire compared to Winter on Fire encourages more Western viewers to think critical about the role of western powers in the Ukraine crisis according to the propaganda model (Herman & Chomsky 1988). The important information given in Ukraine on Fire is the fact, that the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and her ambassador in Kiew, when both discussed the optimal structure of a new government bench, occurred ca. two weeks before the Maidan massacre and regime change happened. This is highly suspicious as usually first you have the cause and then consequences are following, and critical thinkers are encouraged by this detail in the sequential order. Under regular circumstances, it is perfectly normal that after a break-off of a government, other countries which conduct diplomatic relations, conduct a scenario analysis, but if you do this prior to the event, then the probability is much higher, that there is some involvement into the triggering events. We will know for sure if this is only a speculation or a matter of fact, after historians are allowed to evaluate unclassified internal documents (e.g. details of Operation Ajax have been made public 60 years after the coup happened). --Gunnar (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the comment on this diff page I'd like to suggest to have a discussion about what propaganda is and what not. A feature is not automatically granted if a couple of people say so, a feature is assigned if arguments show that the characteristics and requirements of that feature are fulfilled. For example the term propaganda was used in the 1928 book by Edward Bernays as a non-pejorative synonym for public relations, and the concept was widely used in the advertisement business. The discussion should take place here on the talk page and not on the main page by an edit war which is short of breaking out. --Gunnar (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Plot

Re: diff A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make descriptive statements of facts, including the content of a poem, book or movie. Thus, there is no reference needed to explain the content of a film under the prerequisite that no interpretation takes place. For the latter purpose including critical factchecking, the section 'Reception' can be used. Example: Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Elizabeth (film), Cocaine Cowboys (2006 film) --Gunnar (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a documentary. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Documentaries it has a “Synopsis” section, not a “Plot summary,” and can also have an “Analysis” that refers to secondary sources and experts’ opinions.  —Michael Z. 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A synopsis is a summary [1], therefore there is no difference if you talk about a synopsis or summary of a movie. It doesn't matter if it is a drama, comedy, tragedy, scifi, a biopic or a documentary - any movie content can be summarized. --Gunnar (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The documentary was financed by Russia State Media through Another Way Productions Ltd (whose only production was Ukraine on Fire).

Why is this important information getting removed? There is widespread evidence that this company was financed by Russia and that this documentary is not more than Russia propaganda. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:D4EC:EB1:EDED:67F1 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My thinking was this.....the lede of the article is a summary of the body of the article. This information is not contained in the body of the article.

Second, regardess of the positioning of this, your information is uncited. Where is this from?

Third, it is not correct as a thorough reading of the article and it's citations/references.

I have no opinion on the subject other than this.

Unnecessarily (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Purpose

Although this media production asks you to decide if events in Ukraine over approximately the past 10 years are a result of Russian aggression or American interference, anyone who is fully apprised of Ukrainian history will understand that this is an extremely edited portrayal of the facts. If you are not apprised of complete and factual Ukrainian history, pick up a book from your public library that will inform you of such. Then, ask yourself what the purpose of this media production is. It was not produced to let you make a decision. It was produced to convince you, falsely and through cunning editing of facts, that problems in Ukraine are not due to Russian manipulation, passive aggression or active aggression. AlwaysBeBookish (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please name the facts which have been wrongly depicted. The film claims at 7:37 [[2]] that in the beginning of the German-Soviet-War, more than 80.000 people enrolled in SS-Division 'Galizien'. The number of 80.000 troops is certainly exaggerated, as Wikipedia says: "Of these, 42,000 were called up during the first 'recruitment phase' which took place in May and June 1943 from which only 27,000 were deemed fit for military service and 13,000 were enlisted." (Quoting Michael O. Logusz). What else do you think is not correct? --Gunnar (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I recently removed two sentences

I recently removed two sentences from the “Synopsis” section. These edits were quickly reverted and the sentences were returned. The sentences were, “However, the film does not provide data or analysis to support this critique.” and “However, no western perspective is discussed regarding the trade agreement.” These sentences are not a part of the synopsis of the film, rather they are the insights and opinions of the wikipedia editor who entered them. That editor can hardly claim to be neutral since their user page hosts a

This user supports a free, independent, undivided,
and fully restored Ukraine.

tag. I do not believe that these sentiments belong in this article, however I am also not interested in an edit war, so am posting this here to try and get some feedback. Carptrash (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Please have a look at the talk page guidelines, WP:TPG, and "comment on content, not on the contributor". Neutrality on WP means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say, it doesn't mean to be personally unaffected by the crimes committed by the current government of Russia (which are attested by reliable sources). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:Point taken. But you have not responded as to whether the two sentences should remain. Please do. Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The two sentences that were removed from the article by Carptrash were:

However, the film does not provide data or analysis to support this critique.

However, no western perspective is discussed regarding the trade agreement.

These sentences are editorial comments on the film and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia unless mentioned by a reliable source. Both sentences start with the word "However" which is a WP:word to watch. The second sentence mentions something called a "western perspective" without explaining what that means. Should we mention whether the film includes a Latin American perspective, a New Zealand perspective, an African perspective? The synopsis is the place to tell readers what the film is about. It is not the place to list the many things that editors think the film should have included but did not. That would involve editorial judgement. Find a reliable sentence which supports those sentences and then include them in the Reception section. Burrobert (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

this article is propaganda

this has a clear pro russia bias and white washes the conspiracism it engages in Monochromemelo1 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The article presents a fringe theory, see WP:FRINGE, i.e. that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup, under the guise of the synopsis of the film. My suggestion would be to remove the synopsis (which is strange for a film claiming to be a documentary, anyway) and to add a sentence to the lead on how the Revolution of Dignity is seen by RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Maidan Revolution to which we have linked in the article. We would only include information about the Maidan Revolution from sources which were talking about it in relation to the film. Burrobert (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Which makes the article in effect a WP:COATRACK, seemingly talking about the film, but in fact supporting a fringe theory. I really don't understand why you think that Carptrash's removals improved the "neutrality" of this article[3]. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is a fringe theory? [4] Gunnar (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert, you didn't reply to my suggestion to remove the synopsis altogether. According to WP:FRIND, Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. The film is notable because of Oliver Stone, not because of its content, so I think we cannot base the synopsis on the film itself. Removing the synopsis would also solve the problem discussed in the previous section. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that the film is only notable because of Oliver Stone. I believe that compared with Winter on Fire, "Winter of Fire is hagiographic, partial and a bit naïve." [5], so Ukraine on Fire is more a "journalistic product: less narrative and emotional". And if you are afraid of conspiracy theories: the may last decades in the shadow until the secrect archives can be evaluated. For operation Ajax, it took 60 years. --Gunnar (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral regarding whether the synopsis should be removed and will defer to the view of other editors. This is largely because I have not seen the film so can't comment about whether it is a fair summary of the film. It is quite detailed and the lead paragraph already provides the reader with a good idea of the film's content. Editors may decide to remove the detailed synopsis and replace it with the summary from the lead. In any case, I think the article needs restructuring. Currently the lead consists mainly of the film's content. I think it should give a very brief description of the film (the first two sentences of the current lead would be enough) and then a brief summary of its box-office performance and reception. Regarding the point about neutrality, the two sentences that were removed are criticisms of the film by a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source. Editors should not insert their own views into an article. Burrobert (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a list of film documentary stubs and the first three that I looked at all had a “Synopsis” section so they are not that “strange”. Secondly, the idea that the CIA and other “Western” involvement in the Maidan Revolution is a Fringe perspective is similarly ludicrous, it is the position held by the Russian government among others. We might not agree with it but it is not “Fringe.” The CATO Institute, hardly known from pushing Russian propaganda, reprinted an article from the American Conservative (ditto) entitled, “Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War: The magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent.” The reason I even started this discussion is that I picked the film up at the library bookstore, watched it and came here to have a nice relaxed movie discussion, not a political one. I found the the Synopsis section to be a quite neutral presentation of what was in the film. Except for the two editorial sentences that I attempted to remove, and still might unless I get a compelling discussion as to why they belong. Does someone want to point out something in that section (Synopsis) that misrepresents what the film says? Carptrash (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a Synopsis section is standard with films. You are in a better position than I am to judge whether the current one is appropriate, since you have seen the film recently. What is your opinion of the current Synopsis section? Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Carptrash, you want to have a "nice relaxed movie discussion" about a film supporting a narrative that is used to legitimize a war that forced millions (sic !) of children to flee their homes ? Two of those children are studying in my class in Germany now.

The idea that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup is fringe. That has been discussed at that article several times, and you can read any historian (e.g. Andreas Kappeler, a Swiss historian who taught in Austria - both non-NATO countries - or Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy) or any other RS (governments are not considered RS, and I don't think a Koch-financed thinktank is). OK, maybe I was wrong about a synopsis for a "documentary", but this one is clearly supporting a fringe theory, and that is my main point. The whole synopsis is based on the film itself (as a primary source), and should be removed as pro-fringe. Of course, that includes removing the two sentences. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well then let us start by removing those two sentences again.Carptrash (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those two sentences should be removed Monochromemelo1 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with what Burrobert is saying here, but just wanted to quickly respond to Carptrash point about something not being fringe because it's promoted by the Cato Institute and The American Conservative (TAC): Cato is a bad source that publishes pro-Russian conspiracy theories and TAC is listed in RSP as an opinionated and inaccurate source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is also John Mearsheimer, being from the realistic and not idealistic side of international relations tradecraft. [6] Gunnar (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I can probably find a half dozen RS that say the so-called geopolitical realists are often not realistic.  —Michael Z. 17:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is how science work – even in the social sciences and not only with hard sciences where you can do experiments. "Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster." [7], page 4f. The procedure is not to find a dozen sources who say: 'no, that's nonsense' but to doublecheck the claimed details. Nuland was there: check. McCain was present: check. The telephone call between Pyatt and Nuland happend and was intercepted: check. In this call, Yatsenyuk was declared preferred candidate for the role the new prime minister: check. The interesting piece is not the "Fuck the EU" part, but the fact that the whole conversation happened not after the collapse of the government but 3 weeks in advance. --Gunnar (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

funny how the Victoria Nuland phone call doesn't mention regime change at all that is categorically false information Monochromemelo1 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Funny you mentioned that no no regime change is mentioned. She clearly points out that her top candidate is Yats, not Klitch. Can you tell me who was prime minister when the call was intercepted? I am not sure, could be Arbuzov or Azarov depending of the exact date of the recording - but it was neither Yats nor Klitch. How do you call it if you discuss a different prime leader than the politician who is currently acting and if you don't want say regime change? And by the way, in the end Yats became the new prime minister after the mass shooting on Maidan had happened. --Gunnar (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is how several "reliable sources" (by Wikipedia's standards) reported on the Pyatt-Nuland phone call:

• Mardell, Mark (7 February 2014). "Victoria Nuland: Leaked call shows US hand on Ukraine". BBC News.

Swearing scornfully about your allies isn't great diplomacy - but it is the revelation of the depth of the US involvement in the Ukraine crisis that really catches the eye. [...] But it's the larger conversation, which shows the US is manipulating Ukraine just as much as Russia, that is the real diplomatic disaster.

• Dreyfuss, Bob (February 10, 2014). "The Not-So-Secret Ukraine Phone Call". The Nation.

The transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt phone call, which apparently occurred sometime last week and was released on YouTube on February 6, reveals how deeply the United States is enmeshed into internal Ukrainian affairs. The two diplomats banter about which of the Ukrainian opposition figures ought to go into the government, perhaps as prime minister, if a deal can be struck with Viktor Yanukovich, the president. [...] After going back and forth, in which the two Americans decide on who’ll make what phone call to give Yats and Klitsch their apparent marching orders, and after they note that Oleh Tyahnybok, who represents an outright fascist-nationalist party, might be a “problem” (but, still, it seems, someone they can work with), it gets worse.

• Mearsheimer, John J. (August 18, 2014). "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault". Foreign Affairs.

As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster.

I'm not exactly too sure what the dispute is. Opposing inclusion by baselessly calling the phone call in question "propaganda," coupled with the fact that the edit appears in the context of a synopsis, i.e., summarizing the documentary's POV regardless whether that POV is accurate or not, it seems like the editors opposed to Gunnar's just simply WP:DONTLIKEIT. While Gunnar's edit could be refined, there is nothing inherently wrong with it: The Pyatt-Nuland phone call is evidence of US involvement in Ukraine's internal political affairs, that's not "propaganda." Skornezy (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What change to the article’s text is it that you think we’re discussing?

I am opposed to presenting a conspiracy theory as factual while relating the story that Stone presented. At least two of your sources have no bearing on it: this is obvious without even reading them, because they were published before the imagined event was supposed to have taken place.

And they seem to be opinion pieces. What are their writers’ credentials on Ukrainian history? Radio presenter and news editor. Journalist on the Middle East. International “realist” who’s become the darling of Russian propaganda (to be fair, he did predict 30 years ago that Russia would invade Ukraine if it gave up its nukes).

So it seems this discussion is off the rails, because none of us seems to know what the other is arguing about.  —Michael Z. 01:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"We do not generally view propaganda as an euphemism for critical thinking: in fact, propaganda, as viewed in the context of mass persuation that benefits the manufacturer and sender, often begins, where critical thinking ends." (Nancy Snow: Information war – American propaganda, free speech and opinion control since 9/11, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2003, S. 22)

There is a difference if you use the label "propaganda" in a pejorative use or as categorisation which holds after holistic scrutiny. Calling something propaganda, only because you don't like it is a kind of ad hominem attack - you still need to look into the details. See also propaganda model. Gunnar (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

the reason I called it propaganda because it originally stated straight up propaganda of the Russian state to justify their ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's assume the Russians had a set of motivations for their invasion into Ukraine, no matter if this were good, bad or ugly reasons. By the way, I was shocked when this happened on 24th February last year. But why would you call it propaganda as this dilutes the whole picture and adds extra layers of blurry vision to the fog of war. I think the notion that the Russians want to reinstall the former Soviet imperium and take over Ukraine as a whole is not standing on firm ground if you consider that the Russian military started with 190 k soldiers (all Ukraine forces were 3 times that big). Blitzkrieg 1939, the invasion of Poland by Germany took 1,5 million soldiers to accomplish, and Blitzkrieg 1940, the invasion of France by Germany even more than 3 million. By the way, I borrowed this argument from Mearsheimer who said: "Not even close." about the troop you need to conquer and occupy the whole of Ukraine. [8] --Gunnar (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You introduced Friedman as a reliable source. He says “The reason for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was clear: Moscow wanted strategic depth.”[9] And “From Belarus to Kazakhstan, Putin has tried, in the only way he sees fit, to rebuild Russia brick by brick. Ukraine is the biggest brick. He believes he had to take it.”[10] He goes on to explain exactly why Russia invaded with only 190k: because it royally screwed up, and “Nothing Russia has done since, however, has been clear.” Friedman is not an Ukraine expert or a particularly good source on this subject, and second article above in particular is just a recitation of stereotypes. But he is right in these conclusions.  —Michael Z. 14:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Friedman is an experienced geopolitical analyst. So it is worth listening to his statements and arguments, even if you don't like what he says. But he adds an important facet of of the whole picture. Friedman once referred to the Heartland Theory: "For the United States the primordial fear is German technology and German capital, Russian natural resources and Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." [11] From this perspective, it is a clever move to isolate Russia from the rest of Europe. --Gunnar (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As to Mearsheimer, he warned in 1993 of the likelihood that Russia would invade Ukraine,[12] he said that Russia, not the West, wants to forcibly impose régime change on Ukraine, and his only evidence that Russia doesn’t want to annex Ukraine is that it would be a “blunder of colossal proportion”[13] (he was wrong about Russia not wanting to annex eastern Ukraine, and George Friedman discusses that exact blunder in his articles). And Mearsh really shows his lack of integrity in a later interview.[14]  —Michael Z. 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If this logic was true, then each of the ~200 United Nations should have nuclear weapons. I don't believe that increases the security of mankind, but some kind of mishap could much easier result in a nuclear tragedy. On the contrary, I believe that there was a missed opportunity to close Pandora's box when in 1946 the US offered to dismantle their nuclear weapons, if the rest of the world would agree to a treaty ('trust and verify') that no-one would develop those. Gunnar (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The assertion is that this movie presents the false fringe theory that the USA conducted a coup in Ukraine. In opposing it, you’ve gone from citing sources (that do not say this), to trying to prove it yourself with factoids (WP:SYNTH and bad logic), and now to general WP:CHAT. Sounds like we are done here.  —Michael Z. 19:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

All edits that were changed should be reverted back due to its promotion of the fringe theory. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I still have not understood what you mean by "fringe theory". It cannot be to prohibit the description of an idea or theory that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, as this would contradict the freedom of speech approach. Especially if we are talking not about hard sciences, where experimental results clearly can state how a certain physical law is effecting the outcome, but in social sciences like history where we still are in the process of putting pieces of the puzzle together. --Gunnar (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE  —Michael Z. 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that and I still don't understand how Wikipedia avoids that the "fringe theory" accusation avoids that freedom of speech approach is undermined, avoids that the (formerly) fringe theory of quantum mechanics is not ridiculed and how to access the option that the fringe theory of a politic scandal actually turns out to be true (e.g. Watergate). So please explain what you interpret as a fringe theory and how that relates to this article. -- Gunnar (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guideline, this is not the place to discuss it. If you’re the guideline about fringe theories is wrong because they will be proven in the future, sorry, but we don’t have WP:CRYSTAL balls. See also WP:FREESPEECH on what that means.

I’ve already identified “the false fringe theory that the USA conducted a coup in Ukraine.” You’ve brought sources that don’t actually say that, except when manipulated by pro-Kremlin websites. Now you’re disputing long-established guidelines. This discussion is unproductive and starting to circle back on itself.  —Michael Z. 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I just asked a more experienced editor for advice. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I reread the Synopsis section. Afaict, when the synopsis describes a contentious claim that the documentary makes, it attributes that claim to the documentary and does not use Wikivoice. Some examples:

"It argues that the free market economy ..."

"The film claims that the Maidan protests ..."

"The film argues that the impeachment procedure concerning Yanukovych ..."

Afaict, there are no contentious claims in the Synopsis section that are presented as facts. We do need to tell readers what the film is about and that includes claims that the film makes. For those editors that consider this a propaganda film, have a read of the Synopsis section in the Triumph of the Will article. Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert, you are evading the problem that the film is not just propaganda (as Triumph of the Will), but also promotes a fringe theory. The synopsis presents that fringe theory like a respectable theory, using expressions like "argues", "raises questions", "historical overview", "the events" (instead of "some events"). Carptrash, you reverted to your preferred version without obtaining consensus here. I'll try to work on the problems of the text, hoping to find a solution in line with WP guidelines. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all editors agree with you about what, if any, labels to apply here. Burrobert (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be presented that the claim is fringe and because right now it presents its self as its a believable theory when its a fringe conspiracy theory . Phrases like "falsely" should be used. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted anything from the Synopsis section that was not a synopsis of what was in the film. Surely we can all agree that the purpose of the Synopsis section is to inform the reader what is in the film, not what is not in the film. Carptrash (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes that seems like common-sense. If a reviewer has pointed out things that they think should have been included in the film, but were not, then that view belongs in the Reception section. Burrobert (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:MOSFILM. Mellk (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not the only one. We have also to apply the guidelines regarding fringe theories, as I pointed out above. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fringe theory. It is only a theory in social science many people will not like to hear. But some experts in the field share this opinion, such as George Friedman, who explained in late 2014:

At the beginning of this year there existed in Ukraine a slightly pro-Russian though very shaky government. That situation was fine for Moscow: after all, Russia did not want to completely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history. [15] Gunnar (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Your source is an “antiwar” organization literally founded in Russian-occupied Ukraine right after the 2014 Russian invasion,[16] while Ukrainian political prisoners like Oleh Sentsov were being deported to Russia and tortured: The New Cold War: Ukraine and beyond is a project of the international delegates who attended the antiwar, anti-fascist conference that took place in Yalta, Crimea on July 6 and 7, 2014.

That “about” page also links to a blatantly anti-Ukrainian “Manifesto of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Ukraine, Novorossiya and Subcarpathian Rus”[17] that was issued at the same meeting, an antiwar declaration that serves as a guide to the information assembled and presented on the new website.  —Michael Z. 18:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My source is George Friedman. I am pretty sure he has enough integrity, that he will confirm that he said so back in 2014 - maybe he has changed is opinion, but that's what he said back then. Please be cautious about giving ad hominem arguments. You should look at the payload of the message first, before attacking the messenger. Gunnar (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, your source is a December 2014 interview of Friedman by Yelena Chernenko and Aleksandr Gabuev of Kommersant, apparently translated and republished by a chain of several iffy websites. If this clearly non-neutral source is the best you have to offer on something is supposedly not a fringe theory . . .  —Michael Z. 04:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

When a person says something, such as "ich bin ein Berliner", it the person who is the source, not the newspaper which reprints it. By the way, what's bad with Kommersant? "In 2008, BBC News named Kommersant one of Russia's leading liberal business broadsheets." --Gunnar (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Friedman wrote an article on his own website explaining how you are misinterpreting g his words from that interview.[18] Nowhere in all his writing does he seem to actually say what you say he says or believes.  —Michael Z. 14:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The quoted article is from November 1, 2022 about 8 years after the relevant interview. It is his right to change his opinion, especially if an old quote is somewhat embarrassing after Russia has further escalated with the invasion. The interesting piece is at the end: "Putin has since released a statement through his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, offering to negotiate." This is contradicting the conventional wisdom of the West that you should not and cannot negotiate with Putin because he refuses to do so. --Gunnar (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think this looks like borderline canvassing. Mellk (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Carptrash: If you think that there are good reasons to believe in the film's version of history, you should provide reliable sources. Since there are a lot of RS refuting the idea that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup (see above, where I mentioned two academic historians), those sources should meet WP:REDFLAG. If you don't provide those sources you should stop editing in a way that gives credibility to the film's claims. Especially expressions like "to point out" or "recounts" imply a certain credibility. In private, you can of course choose to believe a movie, but as WP editors we have to follow RS, preferably academic ones. Where are your sources ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not an article about whether or not we "believe in the film's version of history." It is an article about the movie. So let's get on with the three reverts and get some admins in here. I wrote in several different places, "The film starts by recounting historical events', "The film points out", "It then maintains", and "The film states." All of these are facts. I don't have to prove that what the film says is true to say what the film says. You replaced all of those (I think) with the weasel word "claims." There is a claim somewhere around here that the movie is "propaganda." You are making sure that this claim is accurate. Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Are you sure that the film “presents events of the following months, . . . . . . the Russian-fuelled conflict in eastern Ukraine” ? I don’t remember a “Russian-fuelled” anything, but I could check. Carptrash (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Armed Russians entered eastern Ukraine and started capturing government buildings on April 12, 2014. Courts have made legal findings that Russia had “overall control” of its DLNR proxy forces from May 2014. Russian battalion tactical groups fought Ukrainian forces from August 2014 to February 2015 to establish the Minsk line of contact.  —Michael Z. 17:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

And that is what the film presents? We are not talking about a version of what "really" happened, we are talking about what the film says. Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

So you want a synopsis written in the propagandist’s voice, and not Wikipedia’s. I disagree with that. This is a “documentary,” whatever its value, not sci-fi fantasy.  —Michael Z. 17:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, it should go further and shed light on the subject of the article by noting its inaccuracies, omissions, false balance, etc.

To cite concrete and unambiguous examples, in Stone’s outtakes there is a scene where Putin shows Stone a video of “the Russian Air Force attacking terrorist in Syria.”[19] Our account of this should not repeat Putin’s lie, but say that he actually showed video of Americans fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It should say it was actually a lie when Russian forces said a Russian radar tracked a Ukrainian aircraft following flight MH17. It should say that “Carlos the Spanish air traffic controller” that Putin mentioned was actually a con man in Romania who said he’d been paid tens of thousands of dollars for his lies. These are encyclopedic facts about Putin and Stone’s “documentary.”  —Michael Z. 17:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the film shows only what is given on screen during its 1h37m duriation. Everybody can check if the synopsis is correct or lacking a lot of important content. How others see this film, is part of paragraph 'Reception'. Gunnar (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That is an illustrative example. The point is that Stone has a POV, reliable sources identify it as problematic, and we should not obscure that. Thank you.  —Michael Z. 17:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Outtakes are not part of the film, and therefore the synopsis shall not describe what may or should have been part of the movie. I believe all documentaries have a POV, as the filmmaking includes the decision which scenes shall be included and which not. For instance, this BBC clip [20] from early January 2014, filmed in Kiev, shows a large torch march. It does not show all the other places in Ukraine where no such torch marches were organised to celebrate Bandera's birthday. Gunnar (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful to read MOS:SAID. On the one hand, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. On the other hand, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. We should therefore stick with more neutral terms, e.g. The film describes..., The film states..., The film portrays... etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have learned years ago that when I am discussing an article with another editor who says that in a film's synopsis we should " go further and shed light on the subject of the article by noting its inaccuracies, omissions, false balance, etc." that it is just time for me to remove the article from my watchlist and move on to something else. Carptrash (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion we should change the word "film" and "documentary" to "propaganda film" because the film knowingly spreads conspiracy theories and false narratives that Ukraine is a Nazi state and that the Revolution of dignity was not a popular uprising in Ukraine. It would be inaccurate to present it as an actual documentary. When the creators took funds from the Russian government for their benefit. The director of the film has worked on behalf of the Kazakh government. https://khpg.org/en/1480891067 https://uacrisis.org/en/the-sinema-of-russian-propaganda-how-kremlin-narratives-go-west https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/sidebar/oliver-stone-documentary-about-kazakhstans-former-leader-nazarbayev-was-funded-by-a-nazarbayev-foundation Monochromemelo1 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the suggestion, considering sources describe it as “Kremlin-friendly,” “pro-Kremlin” and “attacked as [a] propaganda vehicle,” a “dictator suckup,” just plain “propaganda,” and “undistilled Kremlin propaganda.”  —Michael Z. 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My personal view is that it is a propaganda film, but this is an encyclopedia and we aim for a neutral point of view. We should describe the film neutrally and then include the reception based on reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Portraying the Revolution of Dignity as a coup has virtually no support among RS, so we can be sure that the film is propaganda. According to WP:FRINGE, we cannot present a theory that is rejected by consensus of RS without making clear what the consensus says. I see three possible ways of doing so:

1. Calling it a "propanda film" just at the beginning (as in the current version). Here the question is whether the sources calling it "propaganda" are good enough for saying it in wikivoice. I personally answer in the affirmative in line with the comment by Michael Z. of 00:54, 6 July 2023.
2. Adding something like "a portrayal that is rejected by virtually all experts" after "The film portrays ... as a coup d'état ...". That's the way we do it when writing about outdated racist theories, e.g. Mongoloid.
3. We could add sections "Oliver Stone" and "Revolution of Dignity", in which we mention that Stone has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories before and that the revolution was a popular uprising against Yanukovich's kleptokratic (that term is used both by Kappeler and Plokhy in their respective books) régime.

Rsk6400 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources. But I understand why other editors would give up here in this discussion. Mellk (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, do you have any suggestions how to solve the fringe / NPOV issues brought up by at least three editors in this discussion ? Rsk6400 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the synopsis now does not have any significant issues. Aside from yourself, I see a new account with no mainspace edits and another editor who arrived here due to canvassing. Mellk (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE for what is not considered canvassing. You might also consider to read the reasons we gave for why we think that this article has serious issues. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You notified a certain editor because they share the same POV as you. You have interacted with them before and know this. They did not edit this article before or were involved in any previous discussions. They are not experienced with film articles. As WP:CAN says: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. You did this after Carptrash left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film (where there is feedback) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Documentary films task force. Mellk (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk, the certain editor is experienced in dealing with the subjects of Ukraine, Russia’s war and its lead-up, and pro-Kremlin propaganda.

I recall you were very demanding about how it was that I arrived at some other discussion. Is it that you don’t think it’s fair for me to participate in discussions? Say, how did you end up participating here, anyway?

You seem to object to me, personally, and not to anything I’ve written. But let’s stick to the subject. So what’s the problem? —Michael Z. 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, still canvassing. You did not give an explanation last time so I do not have to give you one. If you wish to see other opinions about how the synopsis should be handled, take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Plot or Synopsis section. Mellk (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so explanations are not obligatory as I recall you had implied. Alright.

I took a look. Thanks (I hope you don’t get dinged for canvassing). Editors there refer to guidelines about works of fiction as subjects, and don’t seem to be aware this is a documentary. —Michael Z. 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I participated in this discussion before you participated, if that is what you are questioning. Also, Rsk6400 removed all instances of "documentary" with the reason being that it is not actually a documentary film. If we are to still follow the guideline on documentaries, it says: The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). Mellk (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Let’s read the rest of the paragraph too when we resolve to follow the guideline.  —Michael Z. 20:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the paragraph refers to an analysis section and controversies section. This is about the synopsis. Initially you said the synopsis should go further and shed light on the subject of the article by noting its inaccuracies, omissions, false balance. Mellk (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hm, no. I count four more sentences following that before any mention of other sections.  —Michael Z. 20:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What, wikilinks? Mellk (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The following applies to the synopsis or presumably anywhere else in the article:

Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful. See the guidelines on link clarity and specificity, and link to terms that match the topic precisely if not closely. If coverage from secondary sources focuses on a specific aspect of the documentary, that aspect can be elaborated to provide context for the coverage. For example, the documentary may mention some statistics, and there is coverage from secondary sources analyzing these statistics, which are not detailed in the synopsis.

The synopsis can help understand the documentary’s subject. This refers to verifiable facts about the real subject, and not perpetuating any misrepresentations by the documentary.  —Michael Z. 21:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is specifically for the synopsis. For example, it gives statistics as an example and says: An "Analysis" section can be written to detail the statistics from the documentary and to report the analytical coverage from secondary sources, which you missed out (though you included which are not detailed in the synopsis). It also says the synopsis should follow WP:FILMPLOT. Mellk (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It says the description of “the on-screen events of the film” should follow the advice in FILMPLOT.

It says wikilinks can be provided for the synopsis, and along with the links we can also elaborate from secondary sources, for example analyzing statistics. This can be done “wherever useful.” Optionally, an “Analysis” section can be used too.

And it links to advice on controversies, which tells us “Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.”  —Michael Z. 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't interpret it this way because it does not say it can elaborate on a certain aspect in the synopsis itself. Just like it does not say the reviews by an authority other than film critics can be referenced in the synopsis. Because then this is not a synopsis. And yes, controversies gives examples of how to do this, without needing to create a section that is POV. It says: For example, a film that is based on historical events and has elicited contrary views may warrant a neutrally titled "Historical accuracy" section and complaints about a horror film's poster being too gory could be reported in passing in the article's "Release" section. Mellk (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And looking at the WikiProject talk page, it is not just me who interprets it this way. I have not seen it done this way before. Mellk (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And yeah, it’s a reasonable commonsense response to denigrate blatant propaganda as not a documentary, which is normally considered “for the purposes of instruction, education or maintaining a historical record.”

But there are controversial documantaries and propaganda documentaries whose purpose is to influence opinion. So I don’t agree the above is technically correct in this context; see my note below stating with “by the way.”  —Michael Z. 20:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV “means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” So if the lead is to neutrally summarize the article text, it should say the subject is pro-Kremlin propaganda. Not saying so is a POV violation. —Michael Z. 14:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the lead than the synopsis I think most of the language is fine as long as it is not presenting it as fact but rather claims. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What is your definition of pro-Kremlin propaganda? Any kind of film reviewer saying so might be cited by you. Is a nice picture of something you hate already propaganda? What exactly is wrongly represented or displayed in the wrong context? What does your brain tell you about the fact that the infamous phone Nuland-Pyatt phone call [21] - as shown in the film - was not happening after Yanukovich left the scene and a new government was needed, but actually ~3 weeks before the Maidan mass shooting. Is William Burns a propagandist, because he wrote in 2008 "Nyet means Nyet" memo: NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. [22] No, you just have to face the fact that the world is not black + white but covers many shades of grey. --Gunnar (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition of propaganda: things that reliable sources say are propaganda.  —Michael Z. 20:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael, that is not how terminology works. The definition of a term should comprise some verifiable characteristics, so anybody with a little bit of logic can confirm if an entity falls under this term or not. Otherwise it would be that you rely on a higher institution (if you are catholic maybe the Pope) who tells you what is good and what is evil. --Gunnar (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re saying you want Wikipedia to endorse a theory or definition of propaganda, so that you can conduct your own research to determine the propaganda status of anything yourself?

No. That’s not how Wikipedia works. Please be familiar with WP:No original research, based on the principal of WP:Verifiability, which means “other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a WP:reliable source”.  —Michael Z. 21:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael, I know how Wikipedia works. But there is a world beyond Wikipedia and in this real world, the definition of propaganda or fringe theory still should hold. The following quote has been attributed to Journalism Studies lecturer Jonathan Foster: "If one person says that it's raining and another person says that it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. It's your job to look out the window and find out which is true." — and I believe a similar task needs to be done also by Wikipedia editors.

The question regarding the term coup is one of these. Ray McGovern [23] a former CIA analyst, uses this term and he know how coups smell and taste. He was also involved in the 2003 demasking of the justification for the Iraq war, which he described as a "very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war". Therefore, I believe that he has some credible experience in this field.

But let's not forget: this article here is about a documentary film, whose prominence comes from the fact that it seeks to prove this thesis with selected visual and audio quotes. It is not about the event itself. I believe the quote from Rod Dreher is quite useful: "I expected 'Ukraine On Fire' to be propaganda, and indeed it was. But that doesn't mean it is entirely a lie, and in any case, it's important to know how the other side regards a conflict, if only to understand how they are likely thinking." --Gunnar (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth.  —Michael Z. 02:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the verification, that the explosiveness of the Nuland-Pyatt phone call was not only detected by the filmmakers and Ray McGovern, but some journalists just a few days after the leak occured: "Rarely has the sheer arrogance and manipulative game-playing of the United States in foreign policy been more clearly highlighted than in the recent episode involving a phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine."[24] The article on the documentary is not complete if the part of the film is omitted in the summary when this "manipulative game-playing" is explained, which gives some background information about the film's theory that there are elements of an US backed coup d'état in the Maidan revolution. (See timestamp 56:52 [25]) --Gunnar (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn’t say that the USA conducted a coup in Ukraine. It was written while Yanukovych was in office. I’m going to try to decline spending any more time on this discussion, because it is leading nowhere.  —Michael Z. 16:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope editors have seen the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Documentaries. This article might benefit from references to secondary sources with facts about the documentary’s subject in its “Synopsis” section. And subject-expert commentary belongs in an “Analysis” section, not “Reception.” This is how to deal with contentious “facts,” conclusions, and undue weight in the film. —Michael Z. 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t think “propaganda is not documentary” is an accurate assessment. Documentary film is the form, meaning documenting real events. Propaganda is its purpose, and affects the message and storytelling methods, and if it is distortion of the truth then that is not good documentary (although it may still be skillfully produced documentary). Anyway.  —Michael Z. 20:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree to this assessment. Any kind of action movie that needs some fancy fighter planes and maybe some shots from carrier starts and landings (one famous example is Top Gun), may ask for help from the Department of Defense, after they have proof-read the script. If the script is ok, and the military is depicted in the right way, the filmcrew may be invited to have their real takes with the expensive stuff (without digital fakes or mockup models). One can argue this is PR (100 years ago this was called propaganda) for the military because critical depictions will not become support. --Gunnar (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Top Gun’s main purpose wasn’t promoting the US DoD. This film’s main purpose is demonizing Ukraine’s popular revolution and thereby promoting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 17:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think so? The director tells a different story. [26] Are you aware of Manufacturing Consent and that self-synchronizing propaganda is possible in the so called free press? Gunnar (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Gee, why would a producer of what reliable sources identify as pro-Kremlin propaganda tell a different story?

Appropriate that you quote Chomsky, who literally says the Ukrainian nation has no agency and should be abandoned to be destroyed by the Russians. Your agenda is showing.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, above you quoted Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis. I think from the context it is clear that this refers to film critics that discuss the artistic qualities of the film. We are discussing the historical inaccuracies of the film, and I think there is no rule forbidding to summarize those. BTW: When you accused me of cavassing, you probably didn't see this. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You have lumped all of this under "historical accuracy". Much of this does is about the reception of the film as a whole. So there is still synth in the lead. Also, you stated you started to feel a bit lonely even though there were multiple participants (but with opposing opinions).[27] Why? The thanks does show up in the thanks log and I am not aware of previous interactions, so it does not look nearly as blatant. Mellk (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH would be noting historical accuracies based on sources that didn't mention the film. We can note inaccuracies if RSs have; otherwise we shouldn't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this in reference to any specific inaccuracy?

My understanding is that WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. If sources say the film is propaganda that adheres to Kremlin-friendly narratives, we can point out which of its narratives are common in Kremlin propaganda.  —Michael Z. 22:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gunnar.Kaestle: Of course, we can easily find some third-rate experts who tell us that the earth is flat, COVID-19 is a myth, and the Revolution of Dignity was a coup. I named some of the leading experts on Ukraine and they all agree that it was a genuine revolution. I also said above that we had this discussion many times at Revolution of Dignity. You can quote as many Valdai Discussion Club participants, Russian propagandists, or non-experts as you want, that won't change consensus among experts. I won't reply again unless you manage to find much better sources than Friedman. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you deny that Friedman has expertise in the field? [28] By the way, my understanding of terminology is that a "Revolution of Dignity" shall not comprise something were people were slaughtered by their own party. [29] Gunnar (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Katchanovski’s Maidan theories are fringe. When his papers on this are cited, they are often being used as examples of the extreme range of opinions: literally because he is on one frindge.

Friedmen says it was not a coup and all those pro-Kremlin websites cite him because they don’t understand ironic speech.[30] He says Russia invaded Ukraine to enlarge itself.[31][32]  —Michael Z. 14:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More fun ahead?

Imagine my surprise when I discovered (you might already have known about it) that Oliver Stone and Igor Lopatonok and the rest of the gang produced a follow-up documentary to “Ukraine on Fire” in 2019, still several years prior to the Russian invasion of 2022. I notice that there is no wikipedia article about Revealing Ukraine so I am wondering who wants to take a shot at it? I just watched the whole thing on YouTube, so it is out there for free. Any takers? Carptrash (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That is good news. Perhaps we could create a "Sequel" section in this article to inform readers about the updated doco. If the section gets too large we could spin it off into its own article. Since you have watched the doco, you could add the synopsis section, which does not require citations. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That subject doesn’t warrant an article or synopsis unless it meets WP:GNG. Please don’t bypass the requirement by piggybacking it onto this article.  —Michael Z. 03:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Me write it up? Not a chance. The wikilawyering has already started in advance of anything even being written and they have already proven that bullying me works. Carptrash (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that comrade. Keep up the good work. Hope to see you around other articles. Your input is appreciated. Burrobert (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Carptrash, I re-read the whole discussion and couldn't find a single person "bullying" you. The comment preceding yours was certainly no "wikilawyering". If you feel that a certain comment or edit by a fellow editor didn't meet our standards, please be specific and clear, but don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Escalating tensions

There were two clarification tags in the synopsis on escalation of the protests, which I removed and added some content from the movie: "The film states that the Maidan protests, initially peaceful, began to escalate with the involvement of radical elements. According to an interview with Robert Parry, Right Sector activists were purportedly brought to the Maidan to "muscle" the peaceful demonstrations. The film introduces the concept of the holy sacrifice: Tetiana Chornovol, who was beaten up at Christmas, and Serhiy Nigoyan, who was shot on 22 January. Both were useful as Maidan martyrs in the sense of perpetuating tensions. A month later, the gun violence escalated, with deaths on both sides starting on 20 February. Shooting took place from the conservatory, among other places, which was under the control of the demonstrators." I am irritated about the reverting, this looks like vandalism to an improvement to me. --Gunnar (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

the claim that Ukrainians were killing themselves to frame Russia is insane no reputable organization supports that claim. the government paid thugs to crackdown on Maidan protesters along with the Berkut (special police force) https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/30/ukraine-police-attacked-dozens-journalists-medics Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Videos presented at the trial confirmed my previous study findings, which showed that specific times of shooting of the absolute majority of the protesters did not coincide with times of shooting by the Berkut and the directions of their shooting. This visual evidence alone shows that the Berkut did not massacre at least the absolute majority of killed and wounded Maidan protesters. Synchronized and time-stamped videos confirmed that at least three protesters were killed before the special Berkut police unit, which is charged with their massacre, was even deployed in the Maidan." [33] Propaganda begins where critical thinking ends. Usually the balistics report can confirm which weapons have been used. Which guns were issued to Berkut - Kalashnikov rifles? --Gunnar (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Gunnar.Kaestle, don't call another editor's actions (in this case, mine) "vandalism", except in clear cases, see WP:VANDNOT. The reason why I reverted is that WP has a clear stance on fringe theories, see WP:PROFRINGE. And I gave enough reasons why the "coup theory" is fringe, see #this_article_is_propaganda. You may of course disagree, you may try to build consensus for your changes, but you should refrain from edit warring. I personally think that you also should stop using a WP:BLUDGEON. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"The film states that the Maidan protests, initially peaceful, began to escalate with the involvement of radical elements,[clarification needed] including Right Sector activists who were purportedly brought to the Maidan[by whom?] to "muscle" the peaceful demonstrations." - This was the content of the article where two markers indicate the need for clarification. As there is no dispute about the content of the film, this was simply added. You just need to watch the film and write down what this film states in the form of the Parry interview beginning at 39:30 [34]. If you only redo this improvement without saying why it is wrong or how my improvement can be even improved itself, this is vandalism. If you point towards WP:ONUS, then you have not understood how logic works. "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." is not a rule which prohibits correct and true content to be included. --Gunnar (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS very clearly says that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Your inclusion is disputed by several editors. Read more attentively next time before accusing someone of not understanding how logic works. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is getting vandalized by pro Russian activist

the page should be locked and all edits promoting the Russian narrative on the revolution of dignity should be reverted Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean me? I don't think you can argue that I am vandalizing. These are foul claims. And yes, if it proves to be correct, I am promoting any kind of narrative. Ray McGovern points out that the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, which was also covered by the documentary, was published 18 days before the eclipsing massacre on the 4th of February 2014, and that he assumed that the coup was blown. [35] Gunnar (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes you have a clear bias in validating the unfounded claims about Ukrainian snippers when the government supported by Russia was killing Ukrainian protesters who wanted and agreement with he EU and the Obama administration even urged Ukrainian protesters to negotiate with the government but they kept protesting because they wanted political independence and freedom from corruption. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this article is about the movie "Ukraine on Fire", which means who has created the film and when, what is the content, how was it's reception, etc.

Regarding the Maidan massacre, some victims were killed and wounded by the Berkut riot police, some policemen were killed themselves, but some protestors were killed with equipment which was not issues to the riot police and the bullet trajectory shows that the lethal projectiles were not coming from Berkut positions but from houses occupied by the Maidan protestors themselves. "The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings. To date, however, due to the political sensitivity of these findings and cover-up, no one has been convicted for this massacre." [36] But you may add this piece of information to the relevant article on the Maidan revolution, this is nice to know, but it does not belong to the question about the documentary film. If you find a source, that critiques the film says 'left' and the reality turns 'right', then this may be added to the reception paragraph. --Gunnar (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)