Talk:Why We Fight (2005 film)

Untitled

Is it worthy to mention that this was played a few times by the CBC, and any other major national stations that may have aired it? -- Reaper X 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is a link to real 'Why We Fight?'

I typed 'Why we fight documentary' and was taken here. I expected to go to the Frank Capra's classic documentary, not this lefty gardbage. There should be at least a link to the real thing, or to disambuguation page.

You lefty scum. This is how you maintain free speech. By not letting anyone even know other opinions exist.

 "Lefty scum" - really? on this page? what is this?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.162.92 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 

Just found the real Why We Fight. Sure enough, has links to both disambiguation page and here. And then they ask me why I am conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.46.182 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just added a “Not to be confused with” link to the real movie. I tried to add a link to the disambiguation page, but it wouldn’t work for some reason. Anyone who knows how to do that – go ahead.

I also noticed that the disambiguation page describes the real thing as “a series of World War II propaganda films,” and this dribble as "a 2005 documentary film on the U.S. military-industrial complex." Yeah, right.

Going there to correct that dribble. You leftist scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.46.182 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the film correct that there are US military bases in 130 foreign countries?

Please see my query at the Wikipedia Reference Desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_November_16#Number_of_countries_with_U.S._military_bases.3F. --Mathew5000 17:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this film really well-placed in the "propaganda" category?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.19.16 (talk • contribs)

I was wondering about that myself.--Daveswagon 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

yes it's true. I'll look for the link to put up on the article. TiffanyMarsh

There are perhaps 40 or 50 foreign countries that host U.S. military bases. That's the conclusion of a discussion on the topic at Talk:Military of the United States#How many foreign countries host U.S. Military bases?. --Mathew5000 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is cheating a bit on this. Essentially every US embassy or mission has a contingent embassy security Marines who work the Chief DSS person. SO, if the country has a a US embassy, mission, or whatever is has US forces in it. --Purpleslog 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

propaganda and pictures

I agree that this film is not propaganda. I'm thinking of removing that category unless someone's got a good reason for it to stay.

Also, I'm thinking of removing Whywefight1.jpg. It's not a very clear photo, and I don't think it adds much to the article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veatch (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I've removed that image and another that contributed nothing to the article.--Daveswagon 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but this film IS propaganda. the word propaganda doesn't mean it's not true, or that it's not a documentary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.94.227 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The film is not propaganda because it doesn't endorse any particular point of view. The subjects simply speak on their own, and equal time is given to all sides. If there are holes in the pro-war theorists' arguments, they weren't placed there by the filmmakers. Contributions/98.246.184.50 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

category: propaganda film

Obviously Jarecki's film is not itself an "American propaganda film" but I put it in the category "Why We Fight" on the grounds that it relates to Capra's series of propaganda films. --Mathew5000 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I added an NPOV tag until we can clean up segments like "They were unaware that flawed intelligence had been guiding their deadly payload, until some months later when they hear of a missed strike and significant collateral damage." Piuro 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed that line to "They claim they were unaware that it was allegedly flawed intelligence that had been guiding their deadly payload, until some months later when they hear of a missed strike and significant collateral damage." NeoRicen 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whywefight3.jpg

Image:Whywefight3.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 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WiltonSekzer.jpg

Image:WiltonSekzer.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 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Error in the Introduction

"which were commissioned by the United States to justify their decision to go to war against the Nazis."

The Axis declared war against the United States (Japan on December 7, Germany 1 or 2 days later) not the other way around. Also, the United States is a singular word in American idiom. A small revision could correct this. May I suggest "to justify its participation in war against the Axis powers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.43.20 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. In fact Japanese gave an ultimatum to United States which arrived at Washington several hours after Pearl Harbor. As answer to Pearl Harbor and to the ultamatum, United States declared war to Japan the 8th of december, by a vote of the Congress. The 11th of december, Germany and Italy, allied with Japan declared war to the United States. But the deal is over now, somebody change nazis by Axis Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.155.95 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam War

The "documentary" is not specifically about the Vietnam War; it appears to be about Vietnam War veterans, which should be a different category, entirely. Hence, also, it should not be compared to films about the Vietnam War, in the "See also" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistitled

The title of this page says 2005 film, every part of the article says that it is a 2006 film.

--174.229.193.160 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Why We Fight (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531141946/http://www.grimme-institut.de/html/index.php?id=66%20 to http://www.grimme-institut.de/html/index.php?id=66

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)