Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin

Propaganda film

Reliable sources consistently describe this as a straight-up propaganda film (it was literally made by the Chines government). I fail to understand why "propaganda film" is not in the lead and why the body of the article says that "some" characterize it as a propaganda film (as if it were an opinion held by some). Reliable sources describe it as a propaganda film, it's not random opinions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans the second paragraph of the lead section sort of gets at that when it details the film’s relationship with the CCP. However the more innocuous title of Publicity Department of the CCP is used instead of Propaganda Department of the CCP so that might be worth changing if you really wanted to highlight the propagandistic element of the film Estnot (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we apply this same reasoning to films made with money provided by the US military? Top Gun doesn't have a line in the lead describing how the US Navy rewrote the script or how the production crew was partially funded and trained with/produced in conjunction with US military advisors and press agents. NPOV applies to the countries that don't speak English, you know. AScanner (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutrality policy or guideline. You can look it up yourself. Supermann (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't mean a whitewashing policy. --Ifnord (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you. There is also a "not a soapbox" on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And I have been accused of that by some editors here. Better not pin your hope on Wikipedia. Supermann (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dispute" in the lead paragraph -- this is actually addressed by one of the linked sources already used in the article. https://new.qq.com/omn/20210613/20210613A049W400.html Posters5 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Translation from the article -- "The film "Changjin Lake" was planned, created and filmed under the direct guidance of the Central Propaganda Department and the National Film Administration. It also received strong support from the Propaganda Bureau of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission, the Propaganda Department of the Beijing Municipal Party Committee, and the Propaganda Departments of the Liaoning and Hebei Provincial Party Committees."

User:Posters5 this is a point that would be better made in the request for comment or Name of Department discussion sections below Estnot (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

--Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I would like the "Reception" and "Controversies and inaccuracies" section expanded, to see examples of inaccuracies, like on other western films that contain inaccuracies. Such as in The Patriot film, there is concrete examples. In this way the reader can make up their own mind to they find those examples as "propaganda" or not. I don't personally care either way if it is or not, but rather that there should be a higher standard on Wikipedia, not like now as I'm writing this, where the article says among other things; "The movie has been described as propaganda.[17][51][52][53] The Telegraph described it as an “anti-US propaganda film”, while the BBC wrote that it was “Chinese propaganda”." Okay, what makes it "Chinese propaganda"? Sure, personally I probably know the answers, but still, really low quality stuff.

Can we use sources that are not a) drenched in bias ("Why we should be wary of China's renewed interest in the Korean War"); a renewed interest would unveil the corrupt, inhuman, fascist rise of South Korea and the US's destructive part in it, ie, "it should stay forgotten, because it would make us look bad", and b) can we include the accusation of propaganda on virtually every American movie ever produced? I think this would balance out the decrepit, smelly anglo-chauvinistic ideology that pervades the entirety of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podfarming (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Describing the film as "Historically Inaccurate" in the Description.

A Deutsche Welle article is being used to describe the film as "historically inaccurate" in the initial description of the article. However, that's not what the article actually says.

The movie depicts China holding off US troops against all odds in one of the pivotal battles of the Korean War. That the fighting broke out when North Korean troops invaded the South is rarely explained in China's accounts. North Korea started the three-year conflict by invading the South, then Beijing came to Pyongyang's assistance after UN forces had pushed the North Korean military virtually to the Chinese border, Han said. "If China had not helped the North and attacked the South, then the war would have been over much earlier and hundreds of thousands of people would not have died," she said. "Instead, the fighting went on until 1953, the damage to the South was terrible and we still live on a divided peninsula. "That is the reality of the Chinese attack on Korea, not what they are portraying in this movie," she said.

This is not an historical inaccuracy in the film, just a disagreement with the Chinese framing of the war. For the description of the article to say the film is historically inaccurate we should expect major errors in history from the film. To do otherwise would violate the neutrality of Wikipedia. Istandwiththesilent 19:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what is actually being stated in the lede and also check out WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DW describes the film as being "filled with historical inaccuracies". It's a statement of fact about a WP:RS's description of the film. Amigao (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, that is, all claims should have citations. Having "described as containing historical inaccuracies" in the lede implies that someone qualified to make this claim has done so. A film journalist is not someone who has any authority to declare that a movie is historically inaccurate. I would be perfectly fine with this description if the citation actually sourced an historian, ideally of the Korean War, or at least some examples for why the movie can be described as historically inaccurate. Deutsche Welle is a WP:RS but they are a news network, not a history journal.

Braveheart is described as historically inaccurate in the lede. However, it actually backs up this claim with examples and an historian that users of Wikipedia can look up for additional research.

There's also the issue that because "containing historical inaccuracies" is incredibly vague, it confuses the reader instead of providing context. What historical inaccuracies? Is it small things like using the wrong props or is it major things like changing the order of battle? The citation provides no answers and no hints for researchers. Istandwiththesilent 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, you should check out WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and read the body of the article, especially the section below on inaccuracies. - Amigao (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The lede does not accurately summarize the body. The Controversies and inaccuracies accurately describes the movie as propaganda, but does not show that it is historically inaccurate. The only thing broaching a credible source for this is the VOA source:

US Marine Lieutenant General Richard E. Carey, a veteran of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, criticized the film as propaganda and a distorted depiction of the battle. Carey said that at Chosin Reservoir, despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered, American forces badly defeated, demoralized and so wounded the Chinese forces, that a legion's worth of men had to withdraw to China to completely regroup and reequip. He described the Battle of Chosin Reservoir as a Chinese defeat. Carey also stated that up to 100,000 Korean refugees were evacuated together with UN troops at Hungnam. In addition, Kim Young-kweon of Voice of America noted that during the battle, US and UN forces suffered significantly less casualties than the Chinese.

However, this is does not qualify as a credible source because Richard E. Carey did not watch the movie! According to the source, he only "heard about the movie". His conclusion also disagrees with Wikipedia's own view of the battle, Battle of Chosin Reservoir, which supports the view (from a superior source: official US Army History), that both sides can claim victory.

To accurately summarize the body the lede must read, "The film's depiction of the battle has been described by LT. General Richard E. Carey, a veteran of the battle who did not watch the film, as containing historical inaccuracies." Istandwiththesilent 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. Other WP:RSes have described the film as containing inaccuracies and Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes say as a matter of policy. - Amigao (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the Context Matters section of the Reliable sources policy. Istandwiththesilent 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating that the film has been described as containing inaccuracies vs. it being inaccurate. Only the former is being stated here. That's what the WP:RSes here can back up. - Amigao (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear implication of "has been described as containing inaccuracies". That it has been described as containing inaccuracies by people qualified to make that judgement, i.e. historians. You have not cited any source that is from an historian or cites historians in their article. You have not even cited any source that states a single historical inaccuracy in the film. One of your citations is from someone who did not even watch the movie.

You appear to have an agenda against China that makes me question your neutrality in this matter. That the movie is propaganda is not in dispute, but if you are going to describe it as inaccurate in the lede you need to back that up with real citations. The only statement that your citations currently support is a much less bombastic claim:

"The film's depiction of the battle has been described by news outlets Screen Rant and Deutsche Welle, as containing historical inaccuracies. The Screen Rant article hyperlinks to a reddit thread (that doesn't include the film) to back up this claim, and the Deutsche Welle article doesn't cite anything at all. The movie is also viewed as historically inaccurate by a Lt. General who is a veteran of the depicted battle, but he hasn't seen the movie himself." Istandwiththesilent 22:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You probably should first thoroughly review the edit history of this article. The lede had long pointed out that the film had historically inaccuracies. My edit actually made the lede's wording more neutral and WP:IMPARTIAL in tone. - Amigao (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Plot length, June 2024

I set out the plot in detail so that interested readers could form their own view of the film's historical accuracy and possible bias, both matters which have been debated extensively here. Any attempt to shorten the plot undermines that purpose. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually per Wikipedia guidelines, you are wrong. I have flagged the section. It needs to be cut down. Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke

As I said, given the debate about whether or not the film is propaganda, it is appropriate to set out the plot in detail. Regarding your edit comment, I have actually seen the film, which is why I was able to write out the detailed plot. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. A more detailed plot will have absolutely no impact on whether or not folks will feel that it is is propaganda. Wiki rules cover all content - even those which are in question. In addition, since the entire plot is unsourced, and presumably written by you, its also considered WP:OR since YOU are the source - which we all know goes against Wiki guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disagree, the plot is completely relevant for determining if it is propaganda. I'll find and add RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Streaming availability removed

Streaming information has been removed by a user that believes this information does not belong in the article. "Not a WP:RS, trivial and bit too close to WP:PROMO" It is useful to know that the movie is available to view in the US on streaming services, and it is useful to know which services it is available on, this information in on IMDB and Moviefone and Just Watch. It is a fault of the Wikipedia movie articles that many of them do not mention when a movie has been released for streaming, which is especially important for movies from Russia and China that never made it into US movie theaters such as T-34 (film) and The Eight Hundred, and especially for a propaganda movie that casts the United States in the role of a global villain that has been offered for US viewing. The movie has been released for streaming on Amazon, Prime Video, Plex and Tubi Bachcell (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is a section from Wild Robot that mentions streaming availability

Home media The Wild Robot was released to rent on digital streaming on October 15, 2024, and on Blu-ray and DVD on December 3.

The film was made available to stream on NBCUniversal's Peacock streaming service in the US on January 24, 2025. As part of a long-term deal with Netflix for Universal's animated films, the film streamed on Peacock for the first four months of the pay-TV window, before moving to Netflix for the next ten beginning on May 24. It will return to Peacock for the remaining four.

Here is the section for the Migration movie

The film was made available to stream on NBCUniversal's Peacock streaming service on April 19, 2024. As part of an 18-month deal with Netflix for Universal's animated films, the film streamed on Peacock for the first four months of the pay-TV window, before moving to Netflix for the next ten beginning on August 19.

Here is the section for Snow White 2025 movie

Home media

Snow White was released for digital download on May 13, 2025, and on Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD on June 24. The home media releases include deleted scenes, a gag reel, and featurettes.[116] A special two-movie collection of the film and the animated movie, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, was also released.[117] [118] Snow White was released on the streaming service Disney+ on June 11, 2025.[119]

There is no reason to doubt the reliability of Moviefone for streaming availability of movies, and it is not trivial or undue promotion to mention this availability though there is less coverage for streaming of Russian and Chinese titles in US media. Bachcell (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

References