This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
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.[1] 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.[2]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
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)[reply]
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 [1] . 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-20241104125800As 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [1]
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.[2]
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," [3] 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. [4][5]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
