Talk:Mission to Moscow

message: The author is obviously not a fan of this film and at times even calls it Pro-Communistic propaganda.I deleted some of the opinionated parts but can someone with more knowledge of the movie please work on re-writing this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praj260 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Questionable

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: :Image:Big still stalin.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Big still stalin.jpg

message: I've made extensive edits in this article to address some serious problems, beginning with vandalism in the lead paragraph and continuing with WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issues, lack of sourcing for controversial statements, and an overall lack of a neutral tone. New York Times critic Bosley Crowther was attacked as "Stalinist," and his review of the movie was described as "fawning," which is both POV and not true. He actually criticized the movie. The article generally was a coatrack for a political essay and was grossly unencyclopedic. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multipe issues in article

message: The NYT's critic was not accurately quoted if the online version is correct; the removed material is only included on mirrors of the article. While this does not mean it does not exist as a printed source, it seems unlikely two articles by Crowther on the movie would be published on 30 April 1943. However, a check of the edit history reveals this edit, made by a blocked user, introduced the quotes without any text (citing another source or critic) having been falsely removed since then. So my action would appear to be completely vindicated. Philip Cross (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosley Crowther review

message: User:Wran made some controversial changes to this article (1) Wran removed the 'Bennett, p. 20' citation. (2) Source cited: "a quarter-hour dedicated to arguing that Leon Trotsky was a Nazi agent." Wran tampered with that quote. (3) The article previously had the statement: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the final screenplay portrayed the defendants as undeniably guilty." The source (Piers Brendon's The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, p. 498, third paragraph) says: "...publication of Davies's ingratiating account of his diplomatic stewardship ... Warner brothers produced a cinematic version of the book in 1943. It was a grotesque distortion of history." Wran editorialized this statement as follows: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the film portrayed the defendants in the Moscow trials as guilty in Davie's [sic] view." This editor tampered with quoted text and editorialized referenced statements in an unduly manner violating WP:INTEGRITY. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your changes, Omni, especially restoring the quote from the producer Buckner about what a political fraud the film was.  As you can see by my recent edit, I prefer the longer version of the quote from Reason magazine about the film defending the purges.  I'm also uncertain of what tense the verbs should be in when we're describing what happens in the film—don't the sources we quote use present tense?  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wran's comments fail to address the issue I raised. The 'in Davie's [sic] view' part is improper synthesis. The phrase "was a grotesque distortion of history" belongs to Piers Brendon, not Davies. P.S.: The sources use past tense. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you and Wran are well acquainted and I sure hope I don't get caught in the crossfire!  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: in no way, shape, or form is it synthesis, but it does change a falsehood into an accurate account of what happens in the film: 'In the film, Davies proclaims at the end of the trial scene: "Based on twenty years’ trial practice, I’d be inclined to believe these confessions."'. no one other than you has remotely suggested that the phrase "was a grotesque distortion of history" belongs to Davies! --Wran (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adulteration of content