Talk:5 Days of War

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Untitled

Is this article encyclopedia or propaganda?

Propaganda in the worst Cold War traditions. At the very least article has to mention differences between real life and Hollywood life.--46.109.53.160 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare whatever is written in here with the article about actual war.

All of the stuff like "massive attacks and bombardment of Russian invaders towards innocent civilians in Gori,Georgia" or "Russian occupants" are pure and undiluted propaganda, especially in a face of the facts of Georgians starting the war with a brutal attack on Tskhinvali.

Also, Wikipedia article forgets to mention the movie being bankrolled by Georgians (read referenced article #1).

So, what about neutrality and objectivity? Or is it just the new chapter of the information war? (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The film, or the WP article? I think we can guess about the film. This article, on the other hand, looks like a lovely place for an edit war as the release date draws nearer. 68.9.18.224 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims are no facts. Stay brainwashed as you are but stop bringing in some disgusting anti-georgian propaganda.Remeber, this is an encyclopedia as good as it can be, as for Wikipedia. This is no free forum for angry hatred filled guys, who post whatever they want ! 87.158.229.88 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling around and spreading silly propaganda. This is not a forum ! TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

95.165.233.20 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Observer[reply]

There has been an independent international fact finding commission. The results and conclusions of its work based also on Russian sources demonstrate that the Russian Army planned and orchestrated the war under orders by Putin. The results are exactly what the Russians wanted: Occupation of a part of a neighbouring country and keeping Georgia out of NATO. The use of cyberwarfare fits a pattern as well as the timing (Olympic Games). The most recent Games (Winter 2014) were used to avoid media coverage of the Russian invasion of Crimea. I really have to insist that those who claim that Georgia started the war or that there was a brutal attack on Tskhinvali by Georgian forces (btw. city was intact while Georgian troops were stationed there, after the Red Army moved through, it was mostly destroyed) read the actual articles or get information from other sources, not Russian propaganda. This article should deal with the movie, what I would like to see is a reason or quote why it was reviewed negatively. Judging from the cast with such excellent actors like Val Kilmer, Andy Garcia, Heather Graham and Emmanuelle Chriqui I would expect it to be a good movie. (91.63.241.160 (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

"after the Red Army moved through" - The fact you use the name 'Red Army' to refer to the army of Russia in the present times is in my opinion a clear indication that you're having neutrality problems yourself. Also, regarding the responsibility for the hostilities, the international fact-finding commission (if you're referring to the EU one) found all sides to be responsible. Grexvult (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Propaganda????

So the fact that 2 of 4 producers are parliamentarians of Saakashvilis party and one of these two is even a government minister... that is irrelevant propaganda? imdb.com names the two men as producers, the website of the Georgian parliaments lists them as parliamentarians, one of them has its own article here as he is a government minister, and the Economist confirms the connection - if the Economist and other media sees this a a relevant information then we can surely include it in the article too. noclador (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and here some Georgian sources:

relevant enough now? noclador (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this had anything to do with the movie production:

Your reference was not the Economist, but rather a blog at the Economist web site, which you failed to specify in the reference.

How was a party affiliation of some members of the team relevant to the production? If there were facts that it was relevant, it could have been mentioned, but there were none in your post. Why would not also determine and specify party affiliations of everybody in the production team?

The movie’s co-producer Mirza Davitaia was appointed State Minister on Diaspora Issues on December 21, 2009, but how this was related to the movie production, when filming had already stopped by then?

Please do not restore your irrelevant propaganda, but rather try to answer to the questions above. Feel free to post reliable and relevant information, with proper references. 2andrewknyazev (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2andrewknyazev, I view the party-political affiliations of the producers as extremely relevant. This is important to understanding the background of the film - certainly for such a highly charged issue. Please stop attempting to revert this material. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"None of this had anything to do with the movie production"??? are you sure??? how did you come to conclude this? do you have a source? and now that you mentioned it: Mirza Davitaia was actually the Deputy Minister of Ministry of Culture, Monument Protection and Sports during filming - now that has so totally northing to do with the movie! If Defense Secretary Robert Gates does a movie about Guantanamo tomorrow I am sure there is also no need to mention that the is Secretary of Defense was the producer of said movie...

please note that Eastern approaches is not any blog, it is the blog of The Economist written by the Economist editors about events in Eastern Europe - thus it is a WP:RS
I added 3 more Georgian sources that also mention that these two Georgian politicians financed the movie - and if the news media does mention this, it means they deem it relevant and if you decide that this is not relevant without any source, you violate WP:NPOV

Conclusion: the information I posted is a) relevant (if not the media would not mention it) and b) properly referenced- thus your action amount to censoring information your personally dislike. Therefore please read Wikipedia is not censored, noclador (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador FYI:

Since you view the party-political affiliations of the producers as extremely relevant, why do not you find out this for everybody on the team? Why single-out only the two? I have no knowledge if party-political affiliations had anything to do with the production, but the burden of proof is on those, who claim that it had.

The Economist reference is a blog, and it must reflected in the reference.

In your comment, you never wrote that the "two Georgian politicians financed the movie." I am not sure what you are talking about now.

I personally have no feelings about your comment. When you had provided only the second part of the info from the TIMES, it has attracted my attention, that you editing may be politically and personally motivated. I have corrected this. Then, your desire to state the party-political affiliations of only two members of the team has further made me concerned about your comment being relevant. I am afraid that it is not. 2andrewknyazev (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You completely fail to understand wiki policy! read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:3RR and WP:NPA - any further discussion is senseless if you fail to understand that we do not do Original Research, that if a reputable source singles something out that that can be added to wikipedia, that the Economist article is properly referenced, that you have to read other users comments in full, that you have to refrain from personal attacks, and that you have to disprove the Economist if you wish to keep the info out - as you are not the reputable source here and thus the burden IS on you! noclador (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you get so angry and keep threatening me. You are the one adding a questionable edit, so the burden is on you. I also have made a comment http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noclador&oldid=437483688 at your talk page, which you have removed already twice. I am afraid that this is in a violation of the wiki policy, am I wrong? 2andrewknyazev (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2andrewknyazev, please note that the guidelines state that removal of talkpage comments is acceptable; it proves that the reader has actually seen and reviewed the comments. Personally, I tend to agree that Nationalist Movement affiliations on the part of the producers are extremely relevant. Noclador, please without further delay add the clarification that the Economist reference is to the Economist blog, and if there are other sources on other affiliations of the production team members, add them as well. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I am being under a coordinated attack and threatening by Noclador, The Mark of the Beast, Monty, Drmies, and Basket of Puppies at my user talk page simply because I have asked Noclador a trivial question, concerning the edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=5_Days_of_August&oldid=437137002. 2andrewknyazev (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a large number of people keep telling you that what you are doing is wrong, did you ever consider the possibilty that just maybe, you are wrong? I know nothing about this disagreement, all I know is that harrassment of another user and repeated 3RR violation will get you blocked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of people being 4? It's of course possible that I am wrong. But why would not you try to find out what the matter is before talking about 3RR? It takes two to tango. May be I am just the wrong target for the threatening. 2andrewknyazev (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't care about this article. It's your conduct on the User Talk page that is the issue. You refuse to listen to the many people who keep telling you that you're being disruptive there. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact vs Fiction

Should it be noted that the movie has about as accurate deception of the war as the star wars movies has accurate deception of future space travel?

If you read the 9th Rota movie article, which was somewhat based on a real event but takes so many artistic freedoms its not even recognisable, these differences are pointed out in the main body of the article. Could the same be done here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if there are sources for this. I suggest to wait - the movie will open in the US on August 19th. By then some critics and newspapers will have published material about the movie and its accuracy - then we might add notes about the veracity of the movies plot based on these sources. noclador (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for a film plot???

How can an article of a film or television show require references for the plot/narrative of the film/teleplay that is seen by all? Certainly the sections on production or sometimes an opening reference would require them.Foofbun (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "5 days of War"?

If that's what it's called in the country that produced it and all the rest of the world... JesseRafe (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the page, because that's what this film is called in most instances, including the country that made the film. JesseRafe (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The six European presidents

Six are mentioned at the end of the film, but they are not named or credited.
This page lists two of them as the presidents of Latvia and Lithuania. Russian WP lists the same two.
Polish, Ukrainian, and Finnish WP all list an actor playing Polish president Lech Kaczyński.
So who are the six? Varlaam (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Ukraine. Sixth - Saakashvili. AlexNet88 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]