Talk:Propaganda film

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Achan467. Peer reviewers: Zrazzak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charkings. Peer reviewers: Victoria Ronga, Deanapol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camk9956.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
What about Fahrenheit 9/11? I know it's controversial, and although I share his view, it fits the definition.. Samohyl Jan 18:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's unarguably an attempt to convince people of a specific politial point, and it certainly uses "appeal to one's emotions", but it's less clear that "it includes significant and deliberate falsehoods, and/or omits so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading". Given the pejorative sense of the term "propaganda", it is difficult to apply the term in an NPOV way, especially when the work is not government-sponsored.  I note that Category:Propaganda films has no description, which makes it almost impossible to determine whether it applies. Bovlb 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment is very typical of Wikiganda. By insisting that a film be "government-sponsored," you define the term narrowly around your own perspective in order eliminate anything you don't like. If you are able to place Farenheit 9/11, with its blatant falsehoods, outside the definition of propaganda, then the term has no meaning, and the topic should be eliminated.Scott Adler 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement for propaganda that "it includes significant and deliberate falsehoods, and/or omits so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading". Certainly the makers of US WWII propaganda films included in the article had no intent to include "deliberate falsehoods."  They were fighting as honestly as they knew how to save the planet from fascism, and I believe were quite right in doing so.  Moore, for good or ill, is a master of the propaganda film, and there is no good reason to exclude Farenheit 9/11.  Plazak (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation
A propaganda film is a film, often a documentary, produced for the express purpose of propaganda: convincing the viewer of a certain political point.

Birth of a Nation was not produced for this purpose. It was used by the Ku Klux Klan to recruit, but reinvigorating the Klan would've been a very hard to achieve goal, even though it was achieved. To state that Birth was created for Klan indoctrination is a falsehood. I was thinking of removing the reference, but instead I think I'll edit to keep the reference but explain Griffiths purpose. Ud terrorist 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Important Points
During the time of the motion picture not only was propaganda being used but also racism was going on! Clearly racism has been a probelem since the 1800's. When the emancipation proclamation and slave codes went into effecct whites have treated the balcks wrong so when movie making came along they found they can take their anger on them out and express to other people how afican american's are a bad race of people. The African Americans also made there own movies too and expressed their points and in a way motion pictures had an effect on black history month. It is not only African americans that get desctimated against it seems to be who ever America is fighting against at the time ex. world war II the bad guys were German, Now the villains are arabs ever since 9-11. People make mistakes and they do things wrong but we shouldnt knock down a whole race of people because someone with in there race made a wrong choice or bad decisoin. Thank you for taking the time to read this and if you have any other questions feel free to ask. ~ annonomyous


 * Perhaps, then, the terrorists deserve a free ride? No movies about their culture, or why they turn to violence? I've seen Arab culture up close, and it is incredibly tribal and violent. But we shouldn't say that in film because it would make them sad? Scott Adler 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the movie Obsession?
It is being shown on college campuses across the country and uses a lot of propaganda tools such as fear, stereotyping (the cover of the movie has a barbaric desert looking man on it) and this movie is controversial because some call it Islamaphobic. Interestingly enough, it is also being promoted a lot by pro-Israeli groups in America and on college campuses by Republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.124.228 (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

???
I don't understand this line: For more discussion of propaganda and some examples of it in short films from the United States, see the 10-volume CD-ROM collection Our Secret Century. For a satirical subversion of the United States military's 1960s propaganda regarding the safety of radioactive materials, see The Atomic Cafe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.27.20 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I, too, find that line quite strange...it sounds more like an advertisement than something encyclopedic. Something more appropriate would be "Several documentaries have been made concerning United States propaganda films, such as bla-bla-bla,", but perhaps simple omission would be more appropriate. Thoughts, anyone? StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Article!
I think so far your article is really good. You've provided a great introduction which is straight to the point and the body of the article contains so many great examples. The only thing I would suggest is to maybe include a section showing the effects of these propaganda films on the population. If you're able to find any studies on the topic that could be really useful information. Keep up the great work! Kellilivingston (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Your article looks really good so far! Your topic is so interesting! After reading it the only thing I was wondering about is in the history section, what specific events or people influenced the making of the propaganda films? Like what agenda these specific films had? Just a thought. I also think maybe adding a section on the effects these propaganda films have on the viewer might be fitting. Great work! I look forward to seeing the final product :) Sabrina.roy (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Scriptgeek, your recently added section, "The War on Terror," featured films that were not truly propaganda films, with the exception of Fahrenheit 9/11. United 93 and World Trade Center feature 9/11 but are not controversial or biased in such a way to impact the viewer's perception of the ensuing war. Additionally, your language was vague, repetitive, too subjective for Wikipedia, and the content too narrow for what the page is. The information you added to the Propaganda film page would better fit on each film's respective page after it's cleaned up and fleshed out. Though you used a source to reference each film, the section was very light on content, with only the example that the directors did not show the towers being struck, and was more related to filmmakers' right to creative license than the propagandistic content of the films. Oliver Stone is certainly a controversial filmmaker, but you would have done better to reference JFK if you wished to use him as a general (not War on Terror) example of a propaganda or conspiracy film. Additionally, I changed the section title to reflect what content you had, which dealt more with depictions of the attacks on 9/11 than the War on Terror.ACRCali (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Scriptgeek, regarding the last page undo- you still need to give examples that contain actual content that can be viewed in the film and/or referenced, not your opinion or chalking it up to the director's prerogative. One's prerogative or individual viewpoint does not constitute propaganda as a standalone. If the director was actively trying to sway the masses or a specific group to take on a particular view, like your Michael Moore example, (and the filmic devices, techniques or specific examples are cited) then it's propaganda. Everyone has opinions and desired goals and all films reflect that. That doesn't make all films propaganda tools. Often it just means they're playing to what the audience wants to make more money. ACRCali (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate change section
I'm not sure that I want to get in a conversation about anything climate change in Wikipedia, but this section is at minimum poorly sourced and at worst, orginial research with a point of view.
 * As of the moment, there is no citation on the An Inconvenient Truth sentence. "Somewhat" is a qualifying weasel word to "sensational."
 * There's nothing in the citation for The Age of Stupid to identify it as a propaganda film. I'm not as familiar with WP regs as I could be, but it seems like originial research to me.
 * The BBC part is referenced to a citation by Christopher Booker, who is known to misrepresent climate change. He is even listed as having a point of view in WP's article on him.  There is nothing in this article to indicate that.

None of these are citations to scholarly works on propaganda films as well. Olin (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Types of rhetoric used and the effects they have
When I approached this page there was not very much information about the tools employed in propaganda film to make them a successful use of propaganda. I have begun with making the sub heading of rhetoric as a kind of blanket word that can include all the different forms of rhetoric such a juxtaposition, Demagoguery, etc. While looking through the talk page it appears much of the this article has been deleted and change from its current form. I have found it can be slightly difficult on this article to try and not include information that had already been written on similar pages like "History of Propaganda". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charkings (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)