Talk:Propaganda film

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birth of a Nation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Important Points

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about the movie Obsession? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Article! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Climate change section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Types of rhetoric used and the effects they have