Talk:Brother 2

message: This is a very poor article, many points made in this article are either simply wrong, or their interpretation is quite different from how I interpret the movie. I know I should now explain my points and rewrite the article, but I am too lazy to do that, so I just warn the reader. Better watch the movie.
Marek 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

message: :Image:Brother2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Brother2.jpg

message: *This edit was problematic. The film was indeed described in books as anti-American propaganda and more . So should this page. That does not reflect badly on director of the film, actors or anyone else. This is simply a description of the movie in secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to one review (link above), "Balabanov combines anti-Semitism, Anti-Ukrainism and ant-Americanism to create an image of an American Evil Empire". But I agree that movie is actually deeper than that. So, simply telling "propaganda" is probably too simplistic, OK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  He combined Anti-Lobbysm, Anti-Banderism and Anti-Globalism to create image of what America really is. He blew up the purple glasses into reality and its complexity, things that writers of the illusion, mostly the State Dept Grant-eaters and fake-writers didn't like - thus they substituted the words with fakes in the article. The similar fake is even present in today's US-funded post-Maidan Ukraine, which put sign of equivalence between Ukraine and Bandera to extent that if one doesn't support Nazi-collaborationist Bandera, one is pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian. Its a typical globalist-funded propaganda.78.34.160.206 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

text: This page does not really use any WP:RS. It uses doubtful links. I quoted a book that discuss the film in great detail. This is the source to be used for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

text: @My very best wishes The only way the book should be used in the page is in the critical reception page. It doesn't provide an unbiased analysis, and the authors clearly don't understand the creators of the film and their stances. The problem is that you are saying that, since this book describes the movie one way, the Wikipedia page should comply, and you referred to the edit that removed the biased propaganda claim "problematic".
AndreyKva (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the problem with your argument. It doesn't provide an unbiased analysis the authors clearly do not understand the creator is your personal opinion and therefore must be disregarded. On the other hand, "Balabanov combines anti-Semitism, anti-Ukrainism and anti-Americanism to create an image of an American Evil Empire" is direct quotation from reliable secondary source on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

text: No, this is actually very simple. This page currently uses only three refs about the film: that one (a blog!), that one (can be used with caution, but hardly a quality source - author tells that the film was a "vengeance to NATO", among other things), and a ref telling the movie was forbidden in Ukraine. Please use books by scholars for sourcing. There are such books because the movie is famous. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not just "a blog". Mikhail Brashinsky is a professional movie critic who worked at Afisha for 5 years. Itogy was also among the leading political magazines of its time. You may agree or disagree with the author, but it's still a professional opinion. That's what the "Critical response" section is for - it gathers opinions of professional critics, not in-depth analysis by scholars. You may check other movie pages for comparison. And "propaganda film" label is used almost exclusively here at Wikipedia to describe documentaries and movies that only serve current political/war purposes. It is not applied to genre movies. AveTory (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I think it can be also included in the "Critical response" section. It's just that it is primarily used for immediate critical reaction, not fundamental works published years after the initial release. Although the linked book wasn't really written by movie professionals; it's rather a political work by a historian and a philologist from the Miami University. AveTory (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. That was written by historians/philologists because they consider the film as a culturally and historically significant phenomenon. Not many films deserved such recognition, far beyond the movie industry. I do not insist that "propaganda" or something bad must be included here. Whatever was written must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment