Talk:Russians at War

Is it possible to watch the film?

If yes, then how? Thanks,   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You asked on the talk page for the 'Russians at war' movie where you might be able to see it. I've deleted your question; article talk pages are intended for discussing article improvement, only. I say this without any snark - Google is the first stop. Second, the lede of the article states it premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival. Film festival entries are almost always shown before the film is released elsewhere. But you can probably visit the Venice festival website and learn more about where it may end up being shown - probably streamed, as it's unlikely to be a film that would earn anything at theaters (notwithstanding that documentaries almost never make it to theater release any more to begin with). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is about improving the article. Editors can better frame edits if they view the media. Making blind edits without viewing the media is less helpful than actually have watched the media in question. In terms of searching the internet, that has been done and have come up empty. I feel like anastrophe wants to censor the subject.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Editors editing the article based on viewing the movie would be presenting their own opinions. That's called original research. We go by what reliable sources have stated, not the judgements editors have made from viewing a movie personally. Removing the question has nothing to do with censorship; I'm baffled how you come to that conclusion. Asking if the movie can be viewed has nothing to do with directly discussing material improvements to the article, that's why I deleted it. Are you suggesting that the article should state that editors don't know if it's possible to watch the film? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Editors are allowed to use wp:common sense. All the of the criticism is one sided. We have not heard from other sources and viewing the media may bring some common sense to the article.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

More relevant is MOS:FILMPLOT. Most film plot (or synopsis) sections are written without references, i.e. with an implicit reference to the primary source: the film.

Also, distribution is an aspect we cover in film articles, so this was a perfectly fine and relevant question to ask. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a documentary, not a popular fiction movie. Common sense would generally suggest that if one searches the 'net and can't find any information about where to view a film that was just a few days ago submitted to a film festival, it's self-evident that it is not yet available for viewing outside of the film festival (where reliable sources - film critics - are often found). Using the talk page to ask questions about the topic of an article is generally 'frowned' upon. Quoting from WP:NOTAFORUM: In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

Simply asking Is it possible to watch the film? If yes, then how? offered no context for the query, and it, in itself, gave no clue as to intent or motive for asking the question. I do a lot of editing here, and I've run across too many instances of people pushing some general query about the topic of an article to the talk page, with no clear intent to improve the article (e.g. "Does salt water taffy have sea water in it?", things like that). It happens frequently, and often results in the question being summarily deleted per WP:NOTAFORUM. Perhaps next time, include the context for asking the question. As written, it looked like a random question that would be more suitable for a 'net search. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article

This isn't a general discussion about the subject of the article. I thought it would be obvious that knowing first hand about the subject, rather than relying on bias sources was a good thing.

it's self-evident that it is not yet available for viewing outside of the film festival

Irrelevant. When it becomes available then respond on the talk page. Also wikipedia editors are a smart bunch that have clever ways above what is visible in the first few pages of an internet search.

It's a documentary, not a popular fiction movie

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Documentaries

Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Critical" Response?

Much of the content in the "Critical Response" section seems to be political responses rather than film criticism. Should it be split up? Thrilway (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense. Adebax (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I even suggested earlier to split this section to the reception by industry, response in Ukrainian-Canadian community and reception by festivals but my proposed changes were reverted. I think it makes sense not to blend several types of responses. Plus a common reader might perceive the word "Critical" as something negative and not as "Analytic" even though "Critical" means analytic. So I suggest returning my sections. EVS-VR (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit [1] added Notable, during Ms. Bassel's press conference at the festival on September 4th, 2024, Ms. Bassel admitted that she didn't watch the "Russians at War" yet when she was making this comment. Where in the source she saying that? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Plus there is a mixup of the text in Critical Response and Controversy. There is also no subheading under the Controversy title, but then level-2 section follows in the Controversy section. Part of the Critical Response covers the Controversy issues. It also misses several reviews of the film. I suggest 1) having a section, level 1 “Controversy” and move all types of responses under that title, as level-2 sections. After the text is all about responses. We can also change the title of such big section to “Controversy and critical response”. The level-2 subsections here would be: 1) Response from film festivals and professional organizations 2) Response from media 3) (maybe) Response from politicians 4) anything on controversy here, if needed Volunt (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I reworked the entire page changing the subtitles and the structure in line with the other Wikipedia pages Re: films - please see the version below and feel free to post it. It has the latest information about festivals and reviews in the media.EVS-VR (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph requires amendment

I think we need to be less handwavy about the very serious allegations against the film - it's very dangerous to present it as a regular documentary film - which it is not. I propose an amended introduction to raise awareness of controversy early on:

Russians at War is a 2024 documentary film directed by Russian-Canadian cinematographer Anastasia Trofimova, which has been widely criticized as Russian propaganda. The Canadian and Ontario government-funded film focuses on the perspective of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine during the ongoing 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war. It premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival.

OR

Russians at War is a 2024 documentary film directed by Russian-Canadian cinematographer Anastasia Trofimova. The Canadian and Ontario government-funded film focuses on the perspective of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine during the ongoing 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war. It premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival, after which it was widely criticized as Russian propaganda.

Please amend ASAP! 0lida0 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This debate gets extremely polarised, just like in the palestine-israel conflict, where all intentions of seeing humans on the other side are critized. Many critiques haven't even seen the film, as it was written here in a former version, too. Adebax (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion about the poor misunderstood Russian soliders is irrelevant to topic at hand. Introduction still needs amending to illustrate the significance of the controversy surrounding it - it would not have been this widely covered in media without widespread criticism that it is a thinly-veiled a Russian propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no longer needs amending - thanks eds! 62.197.35.21 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

i agree. Also the Introductory paragraph has unnecessarily repetition on the matter of festivals, which is covered in the Release section. 2605:8D80:13E6:4BE9:157E:5A02:4FD4:EC3E (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The following sentence is very awkward: "The film focuses on the anti-war perspective and thoughts about Russian-Ukrainian unity reflected by Russian soldiers fighting on the front lines in Ukraine and civilians burying their men during the Ukrainian-Russian war." Also, the director's own descriptions of the film don't suggest that it is focused on any of these things. Surely, this sentence deserves a citation if there is any evidence to support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.225.146 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph mixes information about the general topic of the film and its festival history. The festival history should be removed to the "Release" section (and where such section, anybody? I saw it once but now someone deleted it. This section should be return, it is the standard for films to mention their premiers, and TIFF was the place for the film's North American premiere. The sentence about the police is totally irrelevant, and if anybody wants to discuss safety and controversy, let's move this sentence to the Controversy section. Complexity1 (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Worth adding another Russian voice

suggest including this paragraph:

Russian director Vitaly Mansky said that "it is quite obvious that the author is on the side of their heroes" and called the film's screening in Venice "a mistake by the festival." Mansky himself attempted to send a cameraman to film on the Russian side during the invasion, but his cameraman was promptly arrested.

0lida0 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Ms Bassel hadn't watched the film when she criticized it

Greetings @UrbanVillager, you added During Ms. Bassel's press conference at the festival on September 4, 2024, she indicated that that she "hadn't watched the "Russians at War" yet" when she was making these comments - [2] , where the source says so? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There are more issues with your edit. Mansky himself attempted to send a cameraman to film on the Russian side during the invasion, but his cameraman was promptly arrested. sourced to Все переругались из-за фильма «Русские на войне». Его сняли на российской стороне фронта и показали в Венеции Разбираемся с экспертами «Медузы» — военными аналитиками и Антоном Долиным, — как относиться к этой картине — Meduza - why was it removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government sent a protest letter to the 81st Venice International Film Festival in August 2024, before the film's trailer (September 4) or the film itself (September 5) had been released - where's the source for that? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The film sparked backlash from some regional experts, Canadian politicians and the Ukrainian-Canadian community, who characterized it as "Russian propaganda." - why was it removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The cited article in fact says that she made her comments after seeing the film. The cited article is directly contradicting this Wikipedia article in this regard. 104.158.225.146 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ms Zhurba & Bassel's press-conference was on September 4th, during which she gave a long answer to the question about Russians at War, justifying why she didn't watch the film yet, and why does she think that it is a Russian propaganda. So technically she hasn't watched the film while responding to that question. EVS-VR (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

proofs? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The proof is in the press-conference video, referenced in the latest version of this film's Wiki page, see the section below EVS-VR (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

During the film's word premiere at the 81st Venice International Film Festival on September 5, 2024, the film received a five-minute standing ovation - where you take those from? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

See the reference mentioning the ovation is in the latest version of the film's page offerend in this Talk page - it should be published asap. The current text is severely outdated EVS-VR (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We were there at the premier, recorded the ovation and timed it. Question is - where should we post it just to prove the point, if otherwise it would be not interesting to watch and has limited information? EVS-VR (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Who are "we"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My spouse and I, who were at the premier EVS-VR (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But it was not your spouse but UrbanVillager who added the text. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Super, so it wasn't just us who were at the premier. I hope more people who were there would comment here, to verify this fact EVS-VR (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

so it wasn't just us who were at the premier
How do you know? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "How do I know? It was a big audience in the Grande theater, what is here to know? EVS-VR (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In case it matters: I was there, in Venice, and the ovation indeed lasted longer than for other films. It felt like 10 minutes for me, and I didn't time it. I remember seeing the film director as a petit skinny girl, not knowing how to react, not expecting such attention and breaking into crying after the 2nd minute of ovation. So the audience tried to support her, I guess. The main sense was that she, by her own initiative, risked her life to record the evidence of Russian soldiers saying, "We don't want to kill Ukrainians; they were always our brothers". I am sure this film will screw up Putin's plans to recruit more soldiers. I find it almost funny that it is the Ukrainian media that is most aggressive against the film, whereas the film wants to save lives, including Ukrainians. Volunt (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the line about the ovation should be returned to the published text. Volunt (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROOF. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You write Within the film industry, Trofimova's film was recognized as an original, professionally done and gutsy anti-war documentary.[10][9][11][6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

I'm looking at the source [3] and it writes "This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia," Darya Bassel, a producer who watched the film at the festival, said in a Facebook post. "However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda," she said. The whole edit should be reverted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This reference was was likely included after the text was posted, so it was not in line with the other references, and should be removed to the section "Reception by the Ukrainian media" or "Reception in the industry". The rest of the paragraph should be returned. EVS-VR (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This reference was was likely included after the text was posted
No. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the proposed version of User:EVS-VR with many citations about the anti-war film, all of which were deleted from the page, why? Now you have only this "may mislead you" version in the history. I will dig out the proposed references and suggest the edit. So I think the sourced text from User:EVS-VR should be added here. Complexity1 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

i agree, the current version is a very early versions. I saw many informative lines in EVS-VR version, I thought someone should add them 2605:8D80:6C1:7789:6B09:83C9:6258:3CA7 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You also removed Historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova's claim that she did not have official permission to film the soldiers "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist"
and replaced it with Some media outlets expressed doubts about Trofimova's accompanied the Russian military to the front, filmed footage of military equipment and operations, asked her provocative questions and lived there for 7 months without an official approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is not very relevant for the films about the wars as many war journalists risk their lives going back and forth between borders. During the wars, official permissions are often omitted, especially for documentalists, who have to record events here and now, not waiting for formalities to be completed. Besides, as in the story of Mansky about an arrest of his operator, during the wars, there should be additional creativity and risks, and not reliance on "things as usual". Trofimova made several films about ISIS, which, considering the content of the films, required permissions of 4 different countries, and none of them were obtained. This is just a specifics of war journalism. EVS-VR (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the concerns raised above. So they stay. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I did address it: Mr. Garner forgets or is not aware of the specific of war journalism. The film is about the war, so such specifics is expected. The industry knows it, that is why nobody in the industry worries about it. We hear such questions only from outsiders of the industry. I also suggest returning the deleted fragment about Trofimova asking provocative questions. Being Canadian, asking provocative questions to the Russian solders at the front is rather risky. This is important for the context of the film. EVS-VR (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: doubts that Trofimova went without "supervision" or permission of military - why did her responses to criticism were removed from this wiki page? It is better to hear from the "horse' mouth". Considering her ISIS-related films, I trust her story completely, it is her style. EVS-VR (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole edit was misleading and was removed. After so much misleading info, every sentence needs to be checked. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What part was misleading? Did you watch the film? Were you in touch with the film team to know the specifics? Did you watch Trofimova's other films, to get the sense of your style, focus and levels of risks that she is used to? Please base your suggestions on facts, as I do. EVS-VR (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What part was misleading?
Should we really answer this while this very topic is all about it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So it sounds like you haven't watched the film so you shouldn't participate in editing of this page. EVS-VR (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not Wikipedia editors have seen the film. The point is credible sourcing and objectivity.

But heads up to everyone - this "you haven't seen it so you can't have an opinion" line is the party line that all russian trolls are pursuing at present, whether or not the person they're arguing with has seen the film. 0lida0 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It DOES matter if the editors use a judgemental and evaluative language (such as "Russian propaganda"), and not just add relevant information. EVS-VR (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The film was widely criticised for being russian propaganda – that is a simple fact that can be sourced and referenced by reliable sources. The film would have received zero media attention without the immediate critical reactions after people saw it at venice. 0lida0 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It was widely criticized in Ukrainian and some (not all) Russian opposition media but the reviews in Western media were positive. I think, it makes sense to have sub-sections in the Critical Response part. EVS-VR (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see little point in separating them by nationality and some don't fall into neat boxes, e.g. Garner is writing in the Moscow Times, which is based in the Netherlands, from Canada. Mansky is Russian but Meduza is based in Riga. Ukraine is a western country in that it's part of frontline Europe, so it could be generally better considered appropriate to group those reviews with more fawning Canadian reviews and separate the Russian reviews. Trying to make clear distinctions is a losing battle. 0lida0 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's from the press conference. [4] UrbanVillager (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, mixed up the filmmakers. Ms. Zhurba made the comment on not seeing it. Apologies. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Censorship by Wikipedia editor, possible WP:COI

Controversy removed from introduction, important quotes from Mansky and Garner removed. Who is editing this into a press release for Trofimova? Stoptheprop (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction should have a general information, and controversy should be placed under "Controversy" EVS-VR (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Who proposed this ManyAreasExpert to be the lead? My original contribution had been well sourced, factual, using informants who had first hand knowledge of the areas that I presented, which included journalistic criticisms of the film, issues around the integrity of the director, depictions of its reception. Removing that material amounts to censorship. Providing a forum only to one side of a conflict is not consistent with journalistic balance, neutrality, and free speech. Most of the criticism of this film comes from individuals who have never seen it - it is based on supposition, innuendo, rumor mongering - how is such material consistent with the standards of scholarship of Wikipedia? Complexity1 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Complexity1 - User:ManyAreasExpert highjacked the editing of this page and even the Talk and ignores reasonable and well-sourced suggestions, certainly violating the Balance requirement. I just looked at the edit proposed by User:Complexity1 - they agree with my yearlier suggestion to add the Release section to the page. If films has a history around many festivals, it should be described in a separate section, and not mixed up with the Introduction. If User:ManyAreasExpert is such an expert, why "they" allow such an awful mixup and ignore several calls to follow the format of Wikipedia pages related to films? All information about festivals should be separated from other issues. I posted the new version of the page to my talk page User:EVS-VR- please compare the current page and my version, especially the mess at the end of the current version. Please note, my version has 84 sources whereas the current version has 47. Considering the controversy around the film, all sources matter, and there is no need to censor them out, but more references are welcome to add EVS-VR (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Manyareasexpert has been a professional and meticulous editor, my personal concerns about this page are overwhelmingly about contributions from user:EVS-VR and user:UrbanVillager who are making very similar edits, many of which have been proven incorrect or heavily biased in favor of the film and/or Russia's interests. Fascinating that so much effort is being made to ensuree this film is seen as legitimate. Stoptheprop (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The Stoptheprop obviously show bias and lack of experience: 1) similarity of text posted by several editors shoud be expected if the editors copy the text they liked from the history of previous edits (trying to be inclusive) and reproduced it in their proposed new versions; 2) of course the film is legitimate if it was went through official registration in the Western industry including leading international film festivals - it is naïve to think otherwise. 3) It is common to have a couple of editors much more involved with editing of one page and others be occasional editors. When editors invested a significant amount of time in putting their texts together, it is natural to expect that they would defend their work and be involved in discussion more than others, why are you surprised? 4) If User:Manyareasexpert is "meticulous", they would not cut of verified sources but instead simply check them and keep them; same with the separation of the topics in the very messy section "Controversy": professional and meticulous people keep an accurate account of what belongs to the issue and what is not. So far this editor keeps the very messy Introduction despite multiple calls to move the lines about festivals to the section of festivals, including the comment about police. This editor also promotes the text from sources who didn't see the film but expressed their opinion in media. This is not evidence, as this editor requires. 5) This is not the first time when Stoptheprop repeats allegation of bias without any evidence. Posting published sources is the provision of evidence, and posting opinions of people who didn't see the film is propaganda. So, contrarily to the name of the editor Stoptheprop, they are themselves start and don't stop propaganda, supporting opinions of people who have not seen the film and putting down editors who sourced opinions of people WHO SAW THE FILM. EVS-VR (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your history of misleading edits documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240913212600-EVS-VR-20240913212400 Stoptheprop (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Toronto police said they made no safety recommendations

"In a statement to CBC, the Toronto Police Service said the decision to pause screenings was made independently by event organizers, and not based on any recommendation from Toronto Police." https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/russians-at-war-paused-1.7321915 Stoptheprop (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

just added to the article, cheers. Tdmurlock (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can remove it from the lead as per this discussion and being not historically significant. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

i think it should be left in - if we're mentioning why it was pulled we need to clarify that TIFF's reasoning was not corroborated by police. Need balance. 0lida0 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would characterize the screening cancellation as being news-ly and not significant for the lead as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it was recommended by the police or not? What difference does that make to anything? Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If there were any significant safety threats police would be involved. 62.197.35.21 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And what does whether the police are involved or not have to do with anything? What difference does that make? People wanted the film cancelled, and now that it's been cancelled they're still criticizing TIFF for cancelling it? Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of being objective and stating the facts. TIFF said there were safety threats, police denied there were any safety threats significant enough for police to be involved. It's not our fault if that makes TIFF look bad. 0lida0 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

New article, with potential additions for critical Response section, suggested adds

Suggest:

Other critics noted that Trofimova engaged in to stylistic efforts to create an atmosphere of innocence. "Anastasia endeavors to empathize with Russians not only diegetically but also cinematically. For instance, throughout the film, images of the characters are interspersed with observational footage of kittens in the military camp's interiors" said critic Volodymyr Chernyshev. "It’s just empathy for the soldiers without any critical context," said Anna Hints, director of Smoke Sauna Sisterhood.

--

As a result of the documentary, there were calls for Canada to investigate the "shameful" public funding of a Russian propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Duplication of information

These parts of the intro are duplicates of existing information in later parts of the article:

The film was criticized as Russian propaganda, while the Toronto festival organizers defended the film as being "anti-war".

This information is already in the "Controversy" section.

Although public screenings were cancelled, with organizers blaming "significant threats", Toronto police were reported to be "not aware of any active threats".

This information is already in the "Response from film festivals and professional organizations" subsection.

I would recommend erasing these two sentences from the intro because a. they're duplicates, b. they're referring to a very sensitive issue that could easily be misunderstood by casual readers, and c. they're inviting users to a fight over who said what at the very beginning of the article.

My proposal is to add a simple neutral sentence like "The film caused controversy following the world premiere." and those interested in the controversy can learn about it in depth in the appropriate section, with enough different viewpoints on the matter. Thoughts? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

urbanvillager has been clocked for trying whitewash this article and inserting inaccuracies . The controversy should be in the introduction as it is basically its major defining feature - there would be little media coverage of this film without it. 0lida0 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The nature of the controversy needs to be specified as the article states that it is a documentary film, and that is not strictly the case if it is a work of propaganda - that requires early clarification so readers are not misled. Otherwise we should introduce it as a documentary/propaganda film. 0lida0 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with UrbanVillager. OlidaO is clearly biased, devaluing the anti-war focus of this film. Trofimova risks her life, going their on her own (even Dolin can't believe that that was real, and praised her if it is) - similarly as she did in her other projects. She will likely get a very negative reaction from Russia when the film will reach Russia. So how it is propaganda? I wonder if OlidaO saw the film. I think editing of this page should be done by people who watched the film, as I did in Venice. EVS-VR (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Windsor paragraph

I would argue we don't need this paragraph at all. I recommend deleting, but if kept I recommend this tweak as existing para assumes TIFF threat claims are real.

The film will be shown at the Windsor International Film Festival which will run from October 24 to November 3, 2024. Executive director Vincent Georgie stated that "the film is there to create discussion and debates" and added that there will be additional security measures during the showings of the film, in response to TIFF's claims of threats. 0lida0 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

or, "in response to alleged threats". I don't think there should be an assumption that the threats were real given the statements from police 0lida0 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Another possible addition

British journalist Edward Lucas said that in adding the film to festival programs, "decision-makers should expect a storm of criticism for their mistakes. Lawmakers should ask questions. So should sponsors. Festival-goers can complain. With luck, Trofimova’s film may eventually serve a useful purpose, as a career-killer for all those so shamefully involved in making and promoting it." 0lida0 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Anita Lee isn't a critical response

she's involved in festival programming so not a film critic

https://tiff.net/programmers/anita-lee 0lida0 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Festivals have vested interest in self-promotion. Should only be used if described and assessed by secondary sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole section "Critical Response" is a mix-up and should be probably united with "Controversy" and then structured. Perhaps, into subsections, as I suggested above. Volunt (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please add a hatnote:

This article is about the 2024 film. For Russian-participating wars, see List of wars involving Russia.

{{about|the 2024 film|Russian-participating wars|List of wars involving Russia}}

-- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

THR did not confirm anything

This new addition is incorrect'

"At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey stated that "In emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of verbal abuse. Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence." Although Bailey did not state this on the record, The Hollywood Reporter further confirmed that TIFF staff had received numerous worrying inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue."

The Hollywood Reporter is simply quoting Bailey verbatim, who did speak on the record, and provides no additional evidence of threats. 0lida0 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We should also add:

Two Ukrainian murals were desecrated with red paint near the TIFF festival premises. 0lida0 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

The proposed edit should be left on the Talk page - removal of it hides important sources relevant for the page. So why the edit was cut out?EVS-VR (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is such a soup of statements and is outdated in terms of information that using the format "replace X with Y" in the proposed edit would not be efficient at this stage. Here is a comprehensive and the most recent version that accommodated previous information and addressed the following concerns: 1) The section describing the film’s screenings at the festivals was renamed to Release, a more common section’s subtitle for Wikipedia pages about films. Similarly, the section Critical Response was renamed to Reception, and additional references were added to this section. The Release section was positioned before the Reception section, in line with the format of other wiki’s pages about films. 2) The section Release (the information about its releases in the festivals) was updated, including TIFF screening and information about other festivals. 3) The introductory paragraph of the previous version had duplicating information about the premiere and controversy (this information is given in the subsequent sections) and so was removed. 4) The Synopsis section had several duplicated sentences, which were integrated in one logical text in this new version. 5) The reference on 5 min ovation was added, as requested by other editors. 6) The reference that Ms. Freeland hadn’t seen the film when she was making her statement on September 10, 2024, being in British Columbia, was added to the text, as requested. 7) The opening chart with the formal information: the runtime information was added, please stop deleting it. Also, the line “starring” is irrelevant here as this is a documentary about “just life”, with no celebrities. 8) the editor macaddct1984 kindly suggested submitting it as is again after I pointed out that the format "replace X with Y" would not work. EVS-VR (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Copy pasting the entire article is not the appropriate way to request a change, an edit request needs to be in a "change X to Y" format. This request needs also needs to be broken up into more managable sections, possibly utilizing the {{text diff}}. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted Macaddct1984, explaining that and this editor suggested the "change X to Y" format wouldn't work in this mess. So this editor suggested reposting the new version again. EVS-VR (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you create your version in your userspace (e.g. User:EVS-VR/Russians at War) and then request an edit. That way a reviewer can compare it to the live version like a normal edit using Special:ComparePages. Nardog (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:EVS-VR yes, please post it again, full version on your Talk page, it would be easier to read. I agree here that the page is very outdated and misses important information. Also, dear editors, look at the format of pages about the films. There should be sections Introduction, Production, Release, Reception. A section "Critical response" is not always added as it is a confusing subtle for general public even though in the industry it is often a term for Reception. Some films' pages have it but with Reception section as well. Wikipedia is for general public so technical jargon should be avoided. Let's avoid it. If there is controversy, I suggest keeping such section under Reception if it relates only to the opinions about the film. In any case, the page should be restructured, with more subtitles if there is controversy, for readability as opinions relate to different topics (anti-war vs propaganda, professionalism? Permission? Legal issues? Safety at festivals?. 2605:8D80:6C2:EB3F:2010:EC53:D148:2BBA (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:EVS-VR has a history of posting inaccurate information, please be very careful allowing them to edit this article Stoptheprop (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time when this particular editor repeats this allegation without any evidence. Posting published sources is the provision of evidence, and posting opinions of people who didn't see the film is propaganda. So, contrarily to the name of the editor Stoptheprop, they are themselves start and don't stop propaganda, supporting opinions of people who have not seen the film and putting down editors who sourced opinions of people WHO SAW THE FILM. EVS-VR (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your history of misleading edits here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240913212600-EVS-VR-20240913212400 Stoptheprop (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It is posted now on my Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVS-VR EVS-VR (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Replace paragraph

REPLACE

At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey stated that "In emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of verbal abuse. Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence."[39] Although Bailey did not state this on the record, The Hollywood Reporter further confirmed that TIFF staff had received numerous worrying inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue.[39]

WITH

At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey said that in emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of "verbal abuse". "Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence," he said. Bailey also claimed that TIFF staff had received inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue, though no further evidence was provided that this was connected to the screening of Russians at War.

Two blue and yellow Ukrainian murals were desecrated with red paint near the TIFF festival premises in an act of anti-Ukrainian sentiment.

--

(THR did not independently confirm that Bailey's statements were true.) 0lida0 (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Tagging user:Manyareasexpert - is there any way you can fix this? I don't have permission. 0lida0 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Bailey also claimed that TIFF staff had received inquiries requesting schematic floor plan
That's not what the source says. I just suggest trimming the wording since sources В Украине возбудили уголовное дело в отношении автора документального фильма «Русские на войне» Анастасии Трофимовой — Meduza tell this story quite shorter. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

My bad, original is a little different but still suggests that there was no independent confirmation - wording indicates that the source was still Bailey but he did not want that specific snippet to be attributed to him (imo but can't prove that).

Suggested change then:

REPLACE

At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey stated that "In emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of verbal abuse. Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence."[39] Although Bailey did not state this on the record, The Hollywood Reporter further confirmed that TIFF staff had received numerous worrying inquiries requesting schematic floor plan diagrams of the Scotiabank Theatre, and precise details of its security arrangements for the entrance and exit of high-profile talent to and from the venue.[39]

WITH

At the screening, festival CEO Cameron Bailey said that in emails and phone calls, TIFF staff received hundreds of instances of "verbal abuse". "Our staff also received threats of violence, including threats of sexual violence," he said. Further reports indicated that there had been inquiries about venue floor plans and security arrangements, though no further evidence was provided that this was connected to the screening of Russians at War.

Two blue and yellow Ukrainian murals were vandalised with red paint near the TIFF festival premises in an act of anti-Ukrainian sentiment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0lida0 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I should stay away from this article for a time. We'll wait until more overview sources will describe the developments and will get back to it with those.
Here are some latest sources
СБУ розпочало кримінальну справу проти режисерки-пропагандистки Анастасії Трофімової (pravda.com.ua)
В Украине возбудили уголовное дело в отношении автора документального фильма «Русские на войне» Анастасии Трофимовой — Meduza
"Русских на войне" публике не покажут – DW – 03.10.2024
СБУ возбудила уголовное дело в связи с фильмом "Русские на войне" (svoboda.org)
Ukraine's SBU investigating director of controversial 'Russians at War' documentary Trofimova (kyivindependent.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit protected

Please add the following Critical Response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_at_War#Critical_response

In his review for the French Radio Canada (https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/dans-la-mosaique/segments/rattrapage/1858084/chronique-cinema-hudson-moura-russians-at-war-et-the-substance), Hudson Moura, professor of Politics & Film at Toronto Metropolitan University, criticizes Anastasia Trofimova (https://www.hudsonmoura.net/russians-at-war-by-anastasia-trofimova-propaganda-or-complex-portrait-of-soldiers-in-conflict/) for omitting a key aspect of her positionality, which is essential in any first-person documentary. While Trofimova identifies herself as Russian, she neglects to mention her Canadian ties, despite Canada being both a major player in the Ukrainian conflict and a producer of the film. This omission, according to Moura, undermines the film's credibility, particularly in the context of its broader narrative and the geopolitical implications surrounding the conflict. Cruden (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cherry-picking, again

@UrbanVillager, regarding your edit [5] . You removed
DW noted that the film is controversial. The producers say the film is anti-war. Critics criticize it for sympathizing the invading soldiers and for not informing the viewer on the Russian war crimes. On the other side, "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front."
and replaced it with
Germany's DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front."
This is cherry-picking again. It has been discussed before - see Talk:Russians at War#Ms Bassel hadn't watched the film when she criticized it .
Your edit removed the reference to Historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova's claim that she did not have official permission to film the soldiers "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist" , again. Please attend previous concerns before re-adding your text with edit war.

Also, a warning against edit warring: WP:EW is not allowed, please avoid it and seek consensus on a talk page first. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that the content of the main page is reversed to the very old version, and the history shows that the User:Manyareasexpert had many big cuts, including those that indeed look like cherry-picking. I saw several important suggestions from the User:UrbanVillager, User:EVS-VR and others but now I see the new information disappeared again. It looks like vandalism to me. Now the page misses important evaluations of the film from the journalists who saw the film, and the film's history at the 6 festivals. Now the editors have to dig it from the history, and it would be better if someone who has access to editing, be more respectful to the verified information. I thought the information spoke for itself, but I guess I have to collect and present whatever pieces I can find in history. It would be helpful if User:Manyareasexpert stops their cherry-picking cuts and keep the added referenced information, even if they didn't like it. Complexity1 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the edit by User:UrbanVillager, there was nothing wrong with it, it should be added. 2605:8D80:6C2:EB3F:2010:EC53:D148:2BBA (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Why didn’t you re-add what was removed? Why did you remove a ton of sourced material? I think what you did was much worse. 109.245.33.91 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The editor has a history of WP:BALANCE violation edits, adding a misleading and false material. If you want to dive into their edits you are welcome to bring here those pieces which you'd like to re-add. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, the question wasn’t about the editor, ad hominem attacks make me question your good faith. Why did you remove a ton of sourced material? ‘You can say what you’d like to re-add’ is not an answer, could you please answer? 178.148.167.128 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:Manyareasexpert, you do cherry-picking probably much more than others as you consistently remove sourced content and suggest irrelevant content. My well-sourced text proposed on September 25, and then on October 1, 3 was completely removed by you. Today I checked the history of edit, and I see you slashed another big parts of sourced text. Yet, you keep offering irrelevant parts, such as that Toronto police was not aware of threats (irrelevant if the TIFF had its own security and if the TIFF CEO described threats in his public speeches twice and gave the interviews on this matter - sources that you removed); or you remove sources confirming that other festivals kept the film in the program but cancelled public viewing due to threats. This is BAD FAITH and cherry-picking behaviour.EVS-VR (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edits have been nothing but pure Russian propaganda and propaganda for the film. Please stop. Stoptheprop (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:Manyareasexpert, no need to attack me personally, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I re-added the sourced content and replaced the DW content as per your objection, as well as added Garner's quotes that you also requested. There are negative reviews about the film in the article as well and it's not up to us to decide what's cherry picking and what isn't, because then the argument could be made that most of the negative comments about the film were made by those who haven't seen it. In my opinion that's not relevant, but Wikipedia doesn't care about my opinion. Let's stick to the sources, thanks.--UrbanVillager (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

no need to attack me personally
Where's the personal attack? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm reviewing your new edit [6]. You re-added Without permission from the Ministry of Defense, and ... , she eventually embedded herself with a Russian battalion, again, after it was removed, stating it as a fact, while this is producer's claim, and is disputed in the article further below. Please don't push your POV with edit war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You add Ukrainian director Olha Zhurba noted that though she hasn't seen the film at the time of her statements expressed on September 4, 2024, she raised concerns about the film’s empathy towards Russian soldiers, sourced to more than an hour long youtube video. Where in the video she says that? If she hasn't seen the film, why to include it, at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Time: (Zhurba didn't see the film): 0.32, 0.34'02"

Time: (concerns about the film's empathy): 0:35'12

Many of the critics that you and other editors cite, including Freeland, the Kiev independent and others - didn't watch the film. The film was viewed only by registered buyers of tickets at the screenings in Venice and TIFF. Other festivals didn't have public screenings due to security reasons. If you're proposing we exclude all the statements from those who were not registered attendants of these festivals (including videos with reviewers who only saw the teaser), do remove them, but that won't leave almost any criticism of the film in the article. If that's what you'd like.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing this particular case, which you included not because you value Zhurba's opinion, but because you are pushing "They didn't watch the film" narrative. You have no good sources for it, so you are engaged in WP:SYNTH to squeeze it into the article. Please stop. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You asked for the timecodes and now are asking me to stop. I'm confused.--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@ManyAreasExpert, should I assume this part can stay, or is there something else that you believe should be changed regarding this? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, when editors oppose your edit with arguments and call you to "please stop", you should not assume the contested part can stay. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You change Ukrainian producer Darya Bassel to The Ukrainian producer of Zhurba’s film Darya Bassel. No, Bassel is not just the producer of Zhurba’s film. What's the point of such a change? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a bit more effort on your end to use proper English so we may communicate more effectively. Zhurba's film had both Ukrainian and Swedish producers. This way, Bassel's title is more accurate. The only setting where Bassel could have had a chance to see the film was in Venice, and the reason why she was in Venice was because she was co-producing Zhurba's film. This association is important to confirm that Bassel had a chance to see the whole film and not just the teaser. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources to represent her title more accurate. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How's this?--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ukrainian producer Darya Bassel". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I now see your issue is not with saying "Ukrainian producer", but "of Zhurba's film". Sure, we can add "Ukrainian producer Darya Bassel", though I would note that she is the producer of Zhurba's film as well elsewhere, as I believe it to be relevant in the context of this topic. But not relevant enough to argue about this indefinitely, to be honest. So, I'll add just Ukrainian producer for now and we can discuss the other part of my comment here. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You add As the press noted, none of the participants of this protest saw the film with 7 references. Please give a reference and a quote confirming this. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The references and quotes already listed (I assume you've carefully read what you reverted before reverting) give the timeline and locations confirming this, plus participants themselves said it to the journalists, as cited in the sourced text. Practically all videos of the reviewers that discussed the film (except Dolin and Mansky) have admissions of these reviewers that they haven't seen the film. Several Canadian politicians who organized protests at TIFF and posted their statements on X did it well before the TIFF public screening on the 17th. Freeland did watch it after her statement, which she issued in British Columbia on the 10th and, therefore, could not have been physically at the industry screening the same day in Toronto. She was also not in Venice, so she had no possibility of watching it before issuing the statement.--UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Exact reference and quote, please ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, "the people who managed to get this film cancelled almost certainly haven’t seen it." [7]--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So it's one source's opinion, not a fact, as you tried to present it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As is every sourced sentence on Wikipedia. But I'll try to reword it a bit so it takes what you're saying into consideration. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You add Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin with 8 or something references. I open the first reference Канал TVO не покажет спорный фильм "Русские на войне" – DW – 11.09.2024 and it says TVO will not show the controversial film "Russians at War", thus not confirming your text. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

But the source also notes the "anti-war statement" in the body of the article. I'm not sure if this is clear, but when a source is listed, it's not only in reference to the headline.--UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The source is not saying Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin. Quite the contrary: Critics believe that this is an attempt to "humanize" Russian soldiers and express sympathy for them. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not to the contrary, it says that too, as seen by critics. Would you re-word it?--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

it says that too
Not "too". The source you supplied is not supporting the text you added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Will fix it, since you haven't answered my request to reword it. Feel free to reword it differently. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You removed The film sparked backlash from some regional experts, Canadian politicians and the Ukrainian-Canadian community, who characterized it as "Russian propaganda". Trofimova admitted to entering Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories without Ukraine's permission while making the film, while embedded with Russian soldiers invading the country. Why was it removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, it was moved and reworded to: "Zhurba’s and Bassel’s opinions were quickly echoed in Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Canadian communities, as well as Canadian politicians who characterized it as Russian propaganda." in the Protests section. The accusations of the film being Russian propaganda also appear at other parts of the article:

"The film was criticized as Russian propaganda,..."

"Ukraine's Ambassador to Switzerland Iryna Venediktova ... urged ZFF to ban the screening of 'Russians at War' to avoid being weaponised by Russian propaganda".

Bassel pointed out that the film pictures as Russian invasion started in 2022, while Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014; people shown in film repeat Russian propaganda narratives..."

The second part of the sentence also remained in a reworded sense: "Without permission from the Ministry of Defense, and taking advantage of a lax approach of local commanders, she eventually embedded herself with a Russian battalion." If you'd like, we can add "admitted", if that makes it seem somehow more clear.

Again, I hope you carefully read everything before reverting and demanding a consensus. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are not "protests" and there are more experts then Bassel saying it's propaganda. Your rewording is changing the correctly represented WP:WEIGHT to incorrect. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the old wording back, I don't think it makes much of a difference.--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add it back then. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

UrbanVillager and their friends are attemting to characterise criticism as something that only comes from Ukrainians, whereas there is plenty of criticism from the wider international community. It's an insidious thing to do. Have linked other sources in the new section. Stoptheprop (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You removed Trofimova has been accused of whitewashing Russian war crimes., why? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this, that should be in the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You add Protesters admitted to not seeing it, saying "the trailer was enough", "I don’t want to listen to any stories, any explanations, any justifications from Russians", and "They are war criminals" while the source ‘Russians at War’: Trofimova film irks Ukraine at Toronto, Venice film festivals - The Washington Post says “Pretty much the entire discussion has been framed so far by people who have not seen” it, Trofimova told The Washington Post. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So, "the trailer was enough", "I don’t want to listen to any stories, any explanations, any justifications" and "They are war criminals" are quotes by Iryna Melnykova, but the last quote is, indeed, by Trofimova. So, I agree it shouldn't say "the source", but rather "Trofimova". That makes sense to me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, @ManyAreasExpert, let's first agree on how to proceed with these areas that you find problematic, and then add new stuff, as you yourself first requested a consensus, I find it counter-productive for you to add content after reverting my sourced content which we are still discussing. If you'd like to revert to the version that I created, with the amendments we are discussing here, we could go on and discuss your new edits, so we may include them as well. I think that's best for the quality of the article.--UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

let's first agree on how to proceed with these areas that you find problematic
Offer incremental changes to discuss, one by one.

we could go on and discuss your new edits
Note how many objections I presented against your change and how you presented none objections against my change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll re-add the text with all the changes we agreed on. I'll re-add your new changes that I previously reverted (with some grammatical fixes), I'm fine with them, I was just against a different set of rules for my edits and your edits. I know you already wrote you have a bad opinion of me, but I really do care about reaching a consensus and having a good quality article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added a separate section proposing we revert the page to this version, as constant editing by non-native English speakers with what appears to me to be a COI have rendeered the page unreadable

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 Stoptheprop (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@UrbanVillager, you re-added the contested content, objections against which were raised here, again. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Please return the Reception section

Here is the Reception section that is recovered from previously proposed versions by talk and User:UrbanVillager and some others. I checked the sources, they are all cited here correctly. For those who want to keep the Critical Response, it can be positioned either under Reception or as a stand-alone section. So here is the text, which has all sources checked (and so should be added to the page):

Extended content

Reception Anti-war content Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin . The Hollywood Reporter noted, "running the gamut from left-wing to -right, the country’s three national newspapers — the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the National Post — all published pieces praising the film (which this writer has seen) as a powerful anti-war polemic that portrays Russia’s infantry as inept and unmotivated, feeling betrayed and confused about why they are actually fighting". Canada's Toronto Star gave the film 4 out of 4 stars: "Russians at War is, despite the controversy surrounding it, an excellent and bracing documentary. Its observational honesty is its great feat, sharing the harrowing experiences of soldiers easily demonized in the West and glossed over by state media at home." American film critic Jason Gorber of RogerEbert.com: "Not dissimilar to Erich Maria Remarque’s novel about German soldiers in the Great War, Trofimova’s film gives a welcome perspective at the level of the individual soldier". France's TV5Monde: "The film is deeply pacifist". Marsha Lederman from The Globe and Mail: "It shows, unvarnished, the horrors of the war, including some of the most horrific footage you will ever see on a big screen. This documentary in no way glorifies Russia or its army or its war effort. This film in no way demonizes Ukraine or its people". “Set the Bar” of the WordPress gave the score 95/100: “Comparisons to “Platoon” and “All Quiet on the Western Front” can be drawn here. Mismanaged grunts quickly realizing the brutality of war minimized and glorified of course by Russian politicians and the media.” Pat Mullen from the Point Of View, as well as The Globe and Mail draw parallels between this film and a winner of four Academy Awards the film All Quiet on the Western Front, "perhaps the greatest of anti-war works" as it "observes an awakening as some soldiers, and the families who grieve them, ask questions that are absent from the barracks in the early scenes.". Footage rarity Most reviews acknowledged the professionalism and surprisingly rare access to the daily routines of soldiers fighting on the Russian side during the Ukrainian-Russian war: Jason Gorber of RogerEbert.com: "Anastasia Trofimova, provides a unique glimpse into the lives of the soldiers on what for them is the Western Front." Germany's DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." . Canada's The Globe and Mail: "Anastasia Trofimova’s film is no-holds-barred reproach of war in general… It is extraordinary",. Canada's ‘Toronto Star’': "without casting aspersions on Trofimova’s personal beliefs about the war’s causes, the film is wholly uninterested in having that political-historical debate. Rather, what it offers is unfiltered insight into present conditions and contradictions. Importantly, Trofimova does challenge her subjects, prodding them with questions about their views, purpose and actions in the war".. Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "Russians at War can clearly be read as an anti-war film. Trofimova shows that the Russians who are being used up in Ukraine are there primarily for financial reasons, that they have to continue fighting without pay after they have served their contracts. She shows how the propaganda has an impact, but also how cynicism and alcohol shape everything. And she shows that the Soviet Union still has an enormous influence. A young medic says that her worldview is shaped by the old films from that time, which she sees as "uncynical". She does not say the implication that she is serving in a cynical war, but it can be read in Russians at War. Trofimova is present in her film above all with her questions from off-screen. These are the simple questions that arise from a humanistic perspective ". Canada's In The Seats: "the art of this film “is vital to … our understanding of the human condition on many different levels".. Italy's Sentieriselvaggi: "Russians at War is one of the most interesting and fascinating films of the entire 2024 Film Festival", "one of the most interesting and courageous films of this edition". Germany's ARD: "The film is an important contemporary document… Trofimova gave us a perspective that we rarely see".. Film critics "Pravila Jisni" Egor Moskvitin, responding to the questions of the ‘Business FM’ channel considered the film "talented", praising "the trust of her characters to the film-maker" and "polarity of opinions of the characters in this film; they don’t offer one specific point of view on the events, not simplifying the documentary perspective of this film. The film had a positive reception (in Venice) because the producer managed to maintain the most important balance between publicism, giving her own view of the events and responsibility for her characters." Acknowledgement of the courage of the film’s director showing “trench truth” According to the film’s producers, the footage of the film was obtained by its director at her own risk and initiative, when she and her Canadian team were looking for an opportunity to talk to Russian soldiers after the Ukrainian-Russian war has started When such opportunity suddenly occurred by pure chance, Trofimova grabbed her camera and “jumped to the wagon”, joining one of the Russian soldiers with great personal risks and no approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense . Many critics praised Trofimova’s bravery , calling the film "courageous". The Globe and Mail evaluated the film as “a brave and exceptional documentary: “A talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed Russian fighters, almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war. TVO in their statement from September 6, 2024 praised the film pointing out that "it is unauthorized by Russian officials and was made at great personal risk to the filmmaker, who was under constant threat of arrest and incarceration for trying to tell an unofficial story.". The TVO called “Russians at War” “a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence” . Trofimova agreed that the project was very risky for the soldiers and for herself personally, and she did not believe at every stage of this project that it was possible. She felt that an anti-war film like this was worth the risks and could be her contribution to ending the Russian-Ukrainian war.. Zinaida Pronchenko from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "Regardless of the motives and conditions of filming, this is a unique material, the very 'trench truth' that is usually not visible behind the 'fog of war'." Pronchenko described the feelings from the film as fear and despair..

Complexity1 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

I suggest adding the section "Reception" earlier offered by other users (see the Talk page). Such section follows the format of Wikipedia pages for films. The section "Critical Response" has a confusing title for the general audience. If other editors want to keep it, it can be still there as it doesn't overlap with "Reception". I checked and verified all the sources and exact citations in the following text.

Extended content

Reception Anti-war content Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin . The Hollywood Reporter noted, "running the gamut from left-wing to -right, the country’s three national newspapers — the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the National Post — all published pieces praising the film (which this writer has seen) as a powerful anti-war polemic that portrays Russia’s infantry as inept and unmotivated, feeling betrayed and confused about why they are actually fighting". Canada's Toronto Star gave the film 4 out of 4 stars: "Russians at War is, despite the controversy surrounding it, an excellent and bracing documentary. Its observational honesty is its great feat, sharing the harrowing experiences of soldiers easily demonized in the West and glossed over by state media at home." American film critic Jason Gorber of RogerEbert.com: "Not dissimilar to Erich Maria Remarque’s novel about German soldiers in the Great War, Trofimova’s film gives a welcome perspective at the level of the individual soldier". France's TV5Monde: "The film is deeply pacifist". Marsha Lederman from The Globe and Mail: "It shows, unvarnished, the horrors of the war, including some of the most horrific footage you will ever see on a big screen. This documentary in no way glorifies Russia or its army or its war effort. This film in no way demonizes Ukraine or its people". “Set the Bar” of the WordPress gave the score 95/100: “Comparisons to “Platoon” and “All Quiet on the Western Front” can be drawn here. Mismanaged grunts quickly realizing the brutality of war minimized and glorified of course by Russian politicians and the media.” Pat Mullen from the Point Of View, as well as The Globe and Mail draw parallels between this film and a winner of four Academy Awards the film All Quiet on the Western Front, "perhaps the greatest of anti-war works" as it "observes an awakening as some soldiers, and the families who grieve them, ask questions that are absent from the barracks in the early scenes.". Footage rarity Most reviews acknowledged the professionalism and surprisingly rare access to the daily routines of soldiers fighting on the Russian side during the Ukrainian-Russian war: Jason Gorber of RogerEbert.com: "Anastasia Trofimova, provides a unique glimpse into the lives of the soldiers on what for them is the Western Front." Germany's DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." . Canada's The Globe and Mail: "Anastasia Trofimova’s film is no-holds-barred reproach of war in general… It is extraordinary",. Canada's ‘Toronto Star’': "without casting aspersions on Trofimova’s personal beliefs about the war’s causes, the film is wholly uninterested in having that political-historical debate. Rather, what it offers is unfiltered insight into present conditions and contradictions. Importantly, Trofimova does challenge her subjects, prodding them with questions about their views, purpose and actions in the war".. Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "Russians at War can clearly be read as an anti-war film. Trofimova shows that the Russians who are being used up in Ukraine are there primarily for financial reasons, that they have to continue fighting without pay after they have served their contracts. She shows how the propaganda has an impact, but also how cynicism and alcohol shape everything. And she shows that the Soviet Union still has an enormous influence. A young medic says that her worldview is shaped by the old films from that time, which she sees as "uncynical". She does not say the implication that she is serving in a cynical war, but it can be read in Russians at War. Trofimova is present in her film above all with her questions from off-screen. These are the simple questions that arise from a humanistic perspective ". Canada's In The Seats: "the art of this film “is vital to … our understanding of the human condition on many different levels".. Italy's Sentieriselvaggi: "Russians at War is one of the most interesting and fascinating films of the entire 2024 Film Festival", "one of the most interesting and courageous films of this edition". Germany's ARD: "The film is an important contemporary document… Trofimova gave us a perspective that we rarely see".. Film critics "Pravila Jisni" Egor Moskvitin, responding to the questions of the ‘Business FM’ channel considered the film "talented", praising "the trust of her characters to the film-maker" and "polarity of opinions of the characters in this film; they don’t offer one specific point of view on the events, not simplifying the documentary perspective of this film. The film had a positive reception (in Venice) because the producer managed to maintain the most important balance between publicism, giving her own view of the events and responsibility for her characters." Acknowledgement of the courage of the film’s director showing “trench truth” According to the film’s producers, the footage of the film was obtained by its director at her own risk and initiative, when she and her Canadian team were looking for an opportunity to talk to Russian soldiers after the Ukrainian-Russian war has started When such opportunity suddenly occurred by pure chance, Trofimova grabbed her camera and “jumped to the wagon”, joining one of the Russian soldiers with great personal risks and no approval from the Russian Ministry of Defense . Many critics praised Trofimova’s bravery , calling the film "courageous". The Globe and Mail evaluated the film as “a brave and exceptional documentary: “A talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed Russian fighters, almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war. TVO in their statement from September 6, 2024 praised the film pointing out that "it is unauthorized by Russian officials and was made at great personal risk to the filmmaker, who was under constant threat of arrest and incarceration for trying to tell an unofficial story.". The TVO called “Russians at War” “a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence” . Trofimova agreed that the project was very risky for the soldiers and for herself personally, and she did not believe at every stage of this project that it was possible. She felt that an anti-war film like this was worth the risks and could be her contribution to ending the Russian-Ukrainian war.. Zinaida Pronchenko from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "Regardless of the motives and conditions of filming, this is a unique material, the very 'trench truth' that is usually not visible behind the 'fog of war'." Pronchenko described the feelings from the film as fear and despair..

Complexity1 (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References

To compare two versions of this page

I followed the suggestions of other editors and posted an alternative version of this page on my Talk page: User:EVS-VR. Please compare the current page and my version, especially the mess at the end of the current version. Please note, my version has 84 sources whereas the current version has 47. Considering the controversy around the film, all sources matter, and more references are welcome.

The text in the section "Controversy" is alternating between the history of festivals and opinions. My version separated this text into several logical categories, which are common for the Wikipedia pages related to films (including Release, Reception and Controversy as distinct sections). Thus, please have a look, compare and vote/give your comment. Thank you.EVS-VR (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have compared both versions of this article and like the version that EVS-VR has written. The article is much more detailed now. This new version more clearly separates out material related to the various film festivals at which the film was to be presented, from matters related to the controversy it has generated as well as from the actions of the various players involved. The organization of the article is more coherent logically and also easier to follow on the part of any reader as it keeps these different issues separated. This material is highly referenced, as I have previously noted, which is also a strength. My impression is that far too many comments regarding this film have simply been the parroting of opinions from people who have never seen it, and so it is important that references to credible sources and reviewers who have actually seen it are noted. Contentious issues need to be supporting by facts, and I think this version does a better job conceptually of laying out the facts. Complexity1 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I compared the current version and the version by EVS-VR. My vote would be for the EVS-VR version. The current version is much less detailed, much less supported by references. If anyone wishes to add material, they should do so by contributing additonal references, not deleting additional references. 2605:8D80:1390:A7C1:8A6:2BD9:BC0A:AE7E (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I compared two versions, the version of User:EVS-VR is a good version for a fresh start. It has a proper structure and many more sources than the current version. Other editors can add their comments using the new version. The new version should should just add information about Windsor festival that the film was shown there despite of protests. I also advise contacting the senior editor who protected this page, to discuss the current standoff between editors. I agree with editors who think that the page is outdated and doesn't include reception by journalists who watched the film and published their opinions. 64.229.151.157 (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Propose previous version of page be restored

I propose reverting the page to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515

New edits have inundated the page with all sorts of inaccuracies and broken links, for example this section:

Venice International Film Festival The world premiere of “Russians at War” took place at the 81st Venice International Film Festival on September 5, 2024. The film received a five-minute standing ovation from the audience . The Artistic Director of the Venice Film Festival Alberto Barbera defended the film from Ukrainian critics, noting that the film is "very far from being an act of propaganda" and that "it is an anti-war film, with a very sensible and touching human approach, as well as great artistic craftsmanship."

There is no working link providing any evidence of a standing ovation. Furthermore, the film was not only criticized by Ukrainians, but rather the wider international community, and it is very strange to pretend this was the case. The English in the current version is barely coherent. Furthermore it is completely incorrect to include a subheading grouping criticism and "political pressure" - the pressure was not political, but public.

Any new edits by editors UrbanVillager and EVS-VR (both suspected WP:COI as well as this Complexity1 account that constantly agrees with these two accounts) have only added positive reviews, completely ignoring several important articles e.g. in Canada's National Post, documenting the ways in which this film is a work of Russian propaganda. For the sake of balance, if we are going to include the positive responses from people who are not propaganda or disinformation experts, we need to counterbalance with articles by people who have actual expertise in the field:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/dont-be-misled-russians-at-war-is-not-an-anti-war-film

https://cepa.org/article/trofimov-v-trofimova-no-contest/

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/dont-be-fooled-by-russian-propaganda-even-if-it-screens-at-tiff-chris-alexander-in-the-national-post/

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3910407-propaganda-and-pseudohumanism-what-is-wrong-with-the-film-russians-at-war.html

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tiff-falls-into-the-russian-propaganda-trap

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/dans-la-mosaique/segments/rattrapage/1858084/chronique-cinema-hudson-moura-russians-at-war-et-the-substance

It is deeply concerning that so many trolls have descended on this page and are so desperate to paint this film in a solely positive light (and again, in very bad English) - this raises further suspicions about the film. Stoptheprop (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm impressed that in just one week of editing you're very informed about WP:COI and I'm also assuming you know about WP:SPA as well. But this isn't about you, it's about your comments. I disagree with removing sourced content simply because it's mostly positive reviews. Most of the reviews are, indeed, positive, because most of the criticism of the film isn't reviews, i.e. not film critics who have actually seen the film. You are very welcome to add negative reviews and help contribute to the article being of a more neutral point of view. I fully encourage it.--UrbanVillager (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

more factual errors on your part I'm afraid, anyone clicking my profile can see I've been on Wikipedia for a year. But I wouldn't expect someone so desperate to install positive reviews on this page to care about facts. Stoptheprop (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. @UrbanVillager, please stop pushing your changes with edit war. Please introduce incremental changes, and offer your changes for a discussion first. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have permission to edit it - please could you do the honours? Stoptheprop (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@ManyAreasExpert, I've addressed all of your concerns and have accepted to change everything you requested, it's counter-productive to request to have every single edit approved by you on the talk page before it's implemented, with you threatening an edit war if someone dares edit it. The changes are all sourced, if you have any additional concerns regarding the sourced content, I'd be happy to discuss it here, but you're the one who keeps mentioning edit wars here, I'm trying very hard to be cooperative in reaching a consensus for whatever you find problematic. Though you're making it quite difficult, to be honest.--UrbanVillager (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia really needs to do something about the russian trolls on here. Looking forward to this page being reverted when they stop spamming the talk page demanding their every whim be catered to. You are not being remotely cooperative and ManyAreasExpery has my full sympathies as a clear target of your borderline harassment. Stoptheprop (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh really. Why have you created "Footage rarity" and "Trofimova's conduct" chapters? "Political pressure"? Why is Lung under "Anti-war content" chapter? Why is Pronchenko under "Footage rarity"? Why have you returned Zhurba? Why cherry-picking "Have not seen the film", again? Why is "Trofimova has been accused of whitewashing Russian war crimes" under "Protests"?

Furthermore, your version relays festivals' statements too much, in violation of WP:WEIGHT. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Re: standing ovation reference - it was there in my proposed edit. If someone deleted it, please restore it.

2) I believe it is time to go to the administration of Wikipedia and senior editors, for review of what is happening here. Several editors attempt to add relevant information - and, of course, copy the text that each of them gathered, so the text eventually looks similar - but ManyAreeas Expert and Stoptheprop editors simply revert edits. There is no arguments except a delusional "russian trolls" narative. The fact that the authors of the articles who published their opinions in the Western media saw the film and have a right to be heard, doesn't matter, it seems.

3) festivals history is essential for films, that how they get released first. In this particular case it is especially essential as the ONLY chance for anybody to see this film were festivals, there was no any other releases. If other editors add someone's opinions, they have to indicate if the authors of these opinions saw the film - they all mention it in their videos or published articles. It is nothing about Weight, ManyAreasExpert, please don't deceive the public. EVS-VR (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

EVS-VR, you are incredibly emotionally invested in ensuring this page is unequivocally positive about the film and have a history of misleading edits, documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240913212600-EVS-VR-20240913212400 Stoptheprop (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I see criticism made of source material. Yes, it is important to present all viewpoints, but many of the opposing sources appear to be from individuals who never actually saw this film and merely parrot statements made by others. Positive sources appear to be from those with first band experience. Should we not strive for fairness and balance? 2605:8D80:1390:A7C1:8A6:2BD9:BC0A:AE7E (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Stoptheprop, you consistently gaslighting accusing other editors of what you are doing yourself. I am involved, not emotionally, because a) I saw the film and was surprised by the difference between the reception in the audience and the spin of Ukrainian community, which didn't see the film (considering protests at TIFF and protests from them sent to the other festivals). b) I invested time into putting the entire page together, including sources that I could find - surely it explains why I want this work not to be in vain. c) the current page is outdated and not sourced well, it also includes sources which didn't see the film. This should be changed, and that is why I am writing. The whole matter calls for a review by neutral senior editors, as it loops around the same discussions. EVS-VR (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Production lies

"In an unexpected turn of events, Trofimova managed to follow a Russian soldier, whom she had met in a Moscow subway, on his way to the frontline. Taking advantage of a lax approach of local commanders, she eventually embedded herself with a Russian battalion, as it made its way across the Donetsk or Luhansk regions."

This is a narrative that Trofimova repeated but we have no further proof beyond her word - russian propagandists aren't known for their truth telling Stoptheprop (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place to highlight the content of other sources but not impose judgement on this content. There is no evidence contradicting Trofimova's words - if there is, please post it on this page under the stated lines. If you claim that some information is "lies" but don't provide evidence, you are working here as a propagandist too, censoring what you don't like. Controversy and differences in statements are common (for example, in number of solders killed in the war, the Wikipedia gives all opinions, no matter how diverse they are, and not siding only with one source).(talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please sign your comments.

If this is not removed then we need to add further context. I suggest these extra lines:

Several people subsequently cast doubt on Trifomova's account. "Given how Russia treats journalists, it is naive to believe that Anastasia Trofimova spent over six months embedded with a Russian military unit without Russian military or government oversight," said Oleh Nikolenko, Ukraine’s Consul General in Toronto.

In one previous Russian language interview, Trofimova herself admitted that she had actually coordinated access with Russian commanders, and went as high up as a brigade commander, who ensured that she would be given a uniform.

Others pointed to further inconsistencies in Trifomova's accounts: while Trofimova told Justin Ling that she was "not following that [Russia-Ukraine] conflict in 2014, 2015, 2016," she is identifiable in footage from Russia-occupied eastern Ukraine in 2014, which Russia was trying to style as a "civil war" at the time. Stoptheprop (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Question about the edit request

Hi, is there any objection with the Reception section for the article? Should we keep the "Critical Response" section? I was thinking of incorporating the idea as per the edit request. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What particular request you are referring to, and what change you propose to introduce? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Talking about this one right here. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been already discussed. First sentence proposed - Many critics who saw the film praised it for the anti-war spin supplied with 8 references, and the very first reference Канал TVO не покажет спорный фильм "Русские на войне" – DW – 11.09.2024 says The filmmakers say they perceive it as an anti-war statement. Critics believe that this is an attempt to "humanize" Russian soldiers and express sympathy for them, thus contradicting the text proposed. Those requests suggesting misleading changes are being ignored for the reason. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:ManyareasexpertYou just reversed the page to very old, outdated and mixed up version - how about returning it to more systematic version and reverse your change? You consistently disregard the work of other editors and people who published their opinions about the film, not allowing their contributions. You act as you own this page, and this is against the Wikipedia policy. It is vandalism. EVS-VR (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Russians at War#c-Manyareasexpert-20241022173400-UrbanVillager-20241022151000 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and right in your own link, please see my answers to your comments, or should we go in the loop about it? I see you had similar practice with other pages, considering the criticism of other editors Talk/Stepan Bandera. Plus in the past, you mainly censored pages related to Ukraine, considering your history. This means you are not neutral on this matter and shouldn't be the one who makes a decision whether or not to reverse the edit proposed by people who saw the film. You also have to disclose if you saw the film and where. If you didn't, the lead in decision making should be given to those who saw the film. You can ask otehr editors if they have seen it (I think some of them even said that they did). EVS-VR (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No WP:WIKIHOUND please. Edits to that page are done with accordance to reliable sources and Wikipedia rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not your edits: it is against the rules to put your own bias first (considering your evident focus on the perspective of Ukraine in your history). It is also against the rules to not allow valid sources to be cited as proposed in my proposed edit. EVS-VR (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

EVS-VR, you are incredibly emotionally invested in ensuring this page is unequivocally positive about the film and have a history of misleading edits, documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240913212600-EVS-VR-20240913212400

Stop hounding editors who are trying to do a good job. Stoptheprop (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am just asking if I can perform the edit request or if I still need to wait? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just close it with the comment "suggested changes are contradicting the sources". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can perform the edit, please return the edit that I've proposed here User:EVS-VR - it was already posted by other editors but reversed by ManyAreasExpert to the old outdated version.

The ManyAreasExpert violates the Wikipedia rules here misleading the editor: contrarily to his/her claim, the suggested changes don't contradict sources, other editors already checked the sources (see the discussion) and please check yourself, all sources are there. EVS-VR (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Stoptheprop, you consistently gaslighting accusing other editors of what you are doing yourself. I am involved, not emotionally, because a) I saw the film and was surprised by the difference between the reception in the audience and the spin of Ukrainian community, which didn't see the film (considering protests at TIFF and protests from them sent to the other festivals). b) I invested time into putting the entire page together, including sources that I could find - surely it explains why I want this work not to be in vain. c) the current page is outdated and not sourced well, it also includes sources which didn't see the film. This should be changed, and that is why I am writing. The whole matter calls for a review by neutral senior editors, as it loops around the same discussions. EVS-VR (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Several of my well-sourced suggested edits have been ignored too, nobody asked you to invest time in creating a whitewashed Wikipedia page to promote the film (unless you're being paid to do this) - so it's weird to use that as reasoning for why your version should be used. There is a neutral senior editor making edits (ManyAreas) - I am also requesting that they incorporate my edits which they are not doing - but I can clearly see you are harassing them. Stoptheprop (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This stalemate and vandalism should be brought to the attention of neutral editors

This discussion seems to be locked into a stalemate but also seems to be verging into ad hominem territory. I took the time to examine as many references as I could of those cited in the User:EVS-VR version. There are many references there from journalists in major news outlets who actually saw this film and who unequivocally stated that it was not propaganda. There are also references related to the festivals which had scheduled premieres of the film, i.e. essential information for a Wiki page related to a film - all of these references were deleted, why?

Moreover, the page should be factual. I suggested restoring the last edit by User:EVS-VR as it mentioned the names of the authors or commentators and provided actual citations for their sources of information. The same should be done with any other sources - if anyone should add a new reference to the page there should not be just the title of a journal, but there should be the name of the author and the exact words said by that source. Authors who are referenced on the page are entitled to their opinions but in the interest of journalistic integrity, they should declare up front whether they actually watched the film and so based their opinion on direct experience. It is notable that many of those cited in the Controversy section never viewed the film. Their comments do not constitute informed opinion but serve as examples of censorship - this is not mentioned at all in the article as it stands. Critical voices are given the same weight as those who were properly informed - I am reminded of much of the climate change debate - such an imbalance is disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I also find the gradual drift towards ad hominem arguments disheartening - Wikipedia should not be the place to express political disputes - it is meant to be a reference place for facts. Wikipedia should not be co-opted to wage political or ideological battles.

I would suggest that it is time to have someone neutral - who can declare no vested interests in either side - to step in and make a decision. Respectfully, a user with a handle such as 'stoptheprop' does not seem like a neutral party. Surely Wikipedia can find someone with no opinions on one side or the other who can advise. Complexity1 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yourself, UrbanVillager, EVS-VR and that random long IP address beginning with 2605 are all clearly the same person or part of the same network, repeating exactly the same talking points. Please stop harassing actual Wikipedia editors because you're not getting what you want. Stoptheprop (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the senior editors and Wikipedia admins can see if we are the same person or different - I suggest passing the matter to them, including checking out if you you and ManyAreaExpert are the same person. The biases of these two editors must stop harming Wikipedia reputation and prevent ignorance to opinions of Western specialists regarding this film. EVS-VR (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy for that to happen. ManyAreas is a neutral senior editor so I defer to them. I personally reject claims of bias simply because I don't believe in Wikipedia pages being misleading, wholly positive PR for a film with very mixed, often negative, reactions. Please calm down. Stoptheprop (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is your evaluative bias (you use words "positive" vs "negative") whereas Wikipedia is the place simply to present information as is, whether or not you like this information or not. My version presented verified information of experts' opinions and facts about festivals. I didn't include opinions of people who clearly stated that they haven't seen the film (such as many pro-Ukrainian politicians and outlets). I am sympathetic to Ukrainian people in this war, our family even took 3 refugees to live with us, but here I believe Ukrainians three the baby with the water when they started their uninformed protests. You are free to add more information (citing exact words and names of experts) and facts as long as the sources saw the film and could be trusted. Nobody can trust opinions of the sources which didn't see the film, it would be just emotional reaction to trigger words or images from the teaser or the title of the film. EVS-VR (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I compared two versions, the version of User:EVS-VR is a good version for a fresh start. It has a proper structure and many more sources than the current version. I also advise contacting the senior editor who protected this page, to discuss the current standoff between editors. I agree with editors who think that the page is outdated and doesn't include reception by journalists who watched the film and published their opinions. 64.229.151.157 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Per WP:OWN, no one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). I've engaged with User:Manyareasexpert regarding the vast sourced content that was added and addressed all of the user's concerns, changed the text in line with those concerns and no further concerns have been voiced by that or any other user in the talk segment. Therefore, the changed text was added back. However, this user is now requesting that everyone needs to go discuss the sourced content with this user prior to any additions, without any specific issues noted. This is a violation of WP:OWN, as if sourced content needs to be verified by a specific user before it is added without any concrete concerns listed. If there are any parts of this article that are still problematic, as always, I'm happy to discuss, as I already did. But User:Manyareasexpert engaging in an edit war without listing what's wrong with the new version is not constructive and I'm afraid is not in good faith. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've engaged with User:Manyareasexpert regarding the vast sourced content that was added and addressed all of the user's concerns, changed the text in line with those concerns and no further concerns have been voiced
You just returned your previous version from 21 October [8] . Like this Talk:Russians at War#c-Manyareasexpert-20241022173400-UrbanVillager-20241022151000 never happened: Why have you created "Footage rarity" and "Trofimova's conduct" chapters? "Political pressure"? Why is Lung under "Anti-war content" chapter? Why is Pronchenko under "Footage rarity"? Why have you returned Zhurba? Why cherry-picking "Have not seen the film", again? Why is "Trofimova has been accused of whitewashing Russian war crimes" under "Protests"?
Furthermore, your version relays festivals' statements too much, in violation of WP:WEIGHT. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I may have returned the wrong version before the changes, could you please direct me to the version with the changes regarding the sourced content? You kept reverting and made the whole situation very confusing, to be honest. It would've been far easier to make the changes in the added sourced content as we discuss the issues with them on the talk page, instead of going over the history and trying to make sense of it that way. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the correct way is to return to the consensus version and propose your changes in the talk, first. See WP:CONS.
the version with the changes regarding the sourced content
What? Anyway, just start from the consensus version and propose changes in talk. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is reached by discussing issues, which we did. As you raised no further concerns regarding concrete issues you raised during our discussion, the sourced content was re-added. What you're asking is a reversal of WP:BOLD and violation of WP:OWN, blocking and reverting any changes that aren't approved by you. That's not what building a consensus is all about, and you can't exploit the phrase "There's no consensus" to forever prevent any changes being made, especially after they've been discussed. You mentioned new issues with some of the sections and the content in those sections, could you care to elaborate on why these are problematic and how we could resolve them? Let's just take a deep breath and resolve everything without any edit warring. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As you raised no further concerns regarding concrete issues you raised during our discussion
You apparently missed that, again: Talk:Russians at War#c-Manyareasexpert-20241104131200-UrbanVillager-20241104125800

As you raised no further concerns regarding concrete issues you raised during our discussion, the sourced content was re-added. What you're asking is a reversal of WP:BOLD and violation of WP:OWN, blocking and reverting any changes that aren't approved by you
You need to address the concerns raised. Don't return the contested edits until it's done.

could you care to elaborate on why these are problematic and how we could resolve them?
Don't create sections per your own judgement. If you are insisting on a change, it's on you to justify it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

At this point, what you're doing constitutes vandalism. Wikipedia editors are free to add sourced content without having to explain themselves to a user demanding blank explanations for every edit. The issues you brought up have been dealt with. I'm open to further discussing any additional issues, but you need to stop engaging in vandalism by removing sourced content. You do not own the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are free to add sourced content without having to explain themselves
No, see WP:CONS and WP:ONUS - While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Carefully read what you just quoted yourself. You have listed no policies that indicate which material is inappropriate, therefore how can I argue for the inclusion of something you find problematic if you're not noting what's exactly problematic? You can't just call it problematic without noting which part violates which policy. Not as a blanket complaint against everything, but in a concrete way as we've already done for some parts. I have, indeed, addressed every single issue you raised, in respect of WP:CONS and WP:ONUS, and as you've raised no additional concerns, I've added the text. You can't complain and, once your complaints are addressed, continue to indefinitely oppose the addition of sourced content based on nothing, as that is in violation of WP:OWN. Are you doing everything you can to achieve a consensus? I am. And again -- if you have additional issues, I would be happy to discuss them and agree on necessary changes in the interest of improving the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are the one vandalising. Stop adding EVS-VR's weird promotional article because you're both the same person or because it aligns with your own political goals. It's bizarre and you have a clear WP:COI. Stoptheprop (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

With that in mind, can we add these lines to the 'production' section, as I previously suggested in the 'production lies' talk section?

Several people subsequently cast doubt on Trifomova's account. "Given how Russia treats journalists, it is naive to believe that Anastasia Trofimova spent over six months embedded with a Russian military unit without Russian military or government oversight," said Oleh Nikolenko, Ukraine’s Consul General in Toronto.

In one previous Russian language interview, Trofimova herself admitted that she had actually coordinated access with Russian commanders, and went as high up as a brigade commander, who ensured that she would be given a uniform.

Others pointed to further inconsistencies in Trifomova's accounts: while Trofimova told Justin Ling that she was "not following that [Russia-Ukraine] conflict in 2014, 2015, 2016," she is identifiable in footage from Russia-occupied eastern Ukraine in 2014, which Russia was trying to style as a "civil war" at the time.

Stoptheprop (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't use press located in Russia as it is government-controlled. I'm also doubtful about noname websites, and United Media was criticized, too. We need more established references. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

that's a shame because it's the russian sources that counter the narrative she spun to the english language media - she had a very specific story for the west and the inconsistencies are only evident when we use her interviews with the russian press Stoptheprop (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is Режиссерка «Русских на войне» — пропагандистка или антивоенная журналистка? — DOXA some independent info. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was about to add Nikolenko from this source Consul General of Ukraine in Toronto outraged by Toronto International Film Festival's stance on film about ''good Russians'' | Ukrainska Pravda but we already have Garner and Mansky in the article elaborating on an issue and Nikolenko adds nothing to it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I see it again, I mean the arbitrary, not justified reversion of the page by the User:Manyareasexpert to the outdated, under-sourced version. I support your position and the newest version of the page that has a much better structure and twice as many sources than the old one. Complexity1 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpertshouldn't interfere with this page due to the evidence of this editor"s bias in judgment shown in extensive history of editing the pages related to Ukraine. I support the new version of the page posted by User:UrbanVillager except its Introduction. The Introduction has lines about festivals, which belong to the Release sections. 2605:8D80:13E6:4BE9:157E:5A02:4FD4:EC3E (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Request to prevent EVS-VR and UrbanVillager from editing the page

These two accounts are clearly the same person or sponsored by the same person. They have a clear WP:COI and are continually edit warring and trying to replace the page with their own poorly-sourced and whitewashed version of how the film was received by global audiences. Stoptheprop (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

(posting this section as UrbanVillager has edited the main text AGAIN under the guise of preventing "vandalism") Stoptheprop (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Stoptheprop, please don't confuse editors who took their time to check the sources and gather them for this page. So far your informational contribution is minimal but you give mostly emotional reactions to the editing war here. You haven't even confirmed that you saw the film, i.e. the subject matter of this page. Complexity1 (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You are one of the accounts I have previously noted as being a sock account for both EVS-VR and UrbanVillager. As many editors on this page have noted, these users did not check the sources at all and have provided faulty links and poorly-sorted information.

user:Manyareasexpert as one of the few unbiased editors watching over this page, could I ask you to restore the version recently discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#Propose_previous_version_of_page_be_restored

Would also like to take this opportunity to highlight just how unreliable EVS-VR, Urban Villager are as editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240913212600-EVS-VR-20240913212400 Stoptheprop (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of sockpuppetry please open an SPI. However, I will note that since EVS-VR was created this past June, it does not look like they and Complexity were ever online at the same time. Even that one period where there's four minutes between edits is enough to, say, change boxes or switch back and forth to a VPN. (And I would also note the similar interests, outside this page, of both accounts in advanced math). Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: The contribution histories of Complexity and UV also leave plenty of room for them to not be online at the same time, either. As do EVS's and UV's. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Complexity1 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet by Wikipedia admins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Complexity1

In light of this sockpuppet investigation, please let us restore the original version as previously discussed? user:Manyareasexpert? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#Propose_previous_version_of_page_be_restored

this is the page version that needs to be restored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 Stoptheprop (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ER please restore previous version of page as previously agreed

In light of recent edit warring and sockpuppet investigation which implicated several warring editors on this page, please restore original version of page, as previously discussed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#Propose_previous_version_of_page_be_restored)

This is the page version that needs to be restored: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 Stoptheprop (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per the discussion on this talk page and the fact that no reason has been given to remove sourced content. If there are any issues with the content, please discuss them point by point, as was discussed previously and addressed accordingly. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)