Talk:Boris Malagurski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section

I don't understand why you are trying to delete this part: Boris is also a Serbian propagandist, dedicated to justify war crimes committed by the Serb forces during Yugoslav wars. Rochass (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs)

That is a personal view, not a fact.

Take Alex Jones, for example, who has been accused of being a propagandist by many, you can't find that word anywhere in the introduction. That's because statements of accusation have to be supported by reliable references, second-hand sources. The same goes for the comment regarding war crimes. You can't just watch his film and, if you don't like it, write how he's this and that on Wikipedia - this is not a forum. --Cinéma C 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

::You are wrong. There are hundreds of examples in Wikipedia with similar statements about some persons. And deletion of those sentences is considered vandalism. Anyway I included relevant tag - citation needed, and if there's no relevant source to support the claim in a near future (few months) then be my guest and delete the sentence. Rochass (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs)

That's not how it works, my friend. Find a source first. --Cinéma C 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Boris Malagurski photo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Boris Malagurski photo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vreme je

Resolved

UrbanVillager, you removed two times some films from the filmography section.

1. The first time you used the following argument "Those were student films)" and when I reverted you explaining that student films should be included in the filmography because he received awards for them (i.e. for Vreme je) and that removal of student films is not good explanation because The Canada project is also a "student film" you reverted my edit.
2. The second time you did not use "student film argument" but another two arguments: 1) These films are not on IMDb. and 2) Canada Project was on National Television.

Regardless of the presence of those films on IMDb or National Television, BM received awards for Vreme je, or Canada project and those films should not be deleted because awards those films received give them notability and therefore they should be included in the list. Even the other films of BM which are not on IMDb should be included in the list because he was their author. Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section for filmographies does not say that filmography should exclude films which are not listed on IMDb or not published on National Television.

If I am wrong, please provide arguments within reasonable period of time. Otherwise I will return deleted films in the list within filmography section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of notability. Sure, he made them, but do we list his home movies too? "Ozbiljna gimnazija", from what I was able to find, was only shown in his highschool. I guess "Vreme je" is OK, so that can be added, but I don't see that "Kits" or "Communist Spy" won any awards. One other film which could be added is "Slamarke" (2007), which was shown on Serbian TV, but the film is less than 3 minutes long, so I'm not sure how notable that is. If you ask me, I think only adding "Vreme je" is OK, and maybe Slamarke. The rest are just, from what I understood, student projects which weren't screened publicly outside of BM's school. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin, Malagurski's "movie" is more like a video stuff one records and plays with. There is no nobilty. This man is a genocide denier and Serbian propagandists. He is far from being neutral. Yet he was banned from Wikipedia and he is back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.176.36 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski article full of lies

The criticism of Boris Malagurski's video clip (it's too badly done to be called a "movie" or "documentary") can be read in English now, http://baginst.com/The%20Weight%20of%20War%20Crimes%20ZIJAD.pdf . Boris Malagurski was banned from Wikipedia, yet he is back again and is editing his own article. Admins, why don't you ban user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cin%C3%A9ma_C <-- he is Boris Malagurski and he is using a different IP # to make himself "famous" on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.176.36 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you listed here was written by some irrelevant blogger (Here's his blog) and it does not constitute as facts or the opinion of "critics". Wikipedia only recognizes relevant sources, and they have been listed as references. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked for it and quickly found that the same blog post was reposted at E-novine, which does not appear to be any more more unreliable than e.g. Press, just with an opposite slant. As is, the article is pretty much a hagiography of Malagurski, which is a WP:BLP violation just as well - an article stating the contrary is a step in the right direction to restoring some balance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy, E-novine is nothing more than a sophisticated blog site. Press is a print newspaper that is widely read in Serbia. I agree that every article should have a balance, but there needs to be a more serious reference, not just a site that re-posts blog entries. --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

E-novine seems to be an outlet used by reasonably respectable journalists and is well known internationally, which elevates it well beyond the status of an unreliable blog, and it's certainly no different than a Serbian tabloid that is well known to be 'feuding' with similar newspapers in Croatia. Your outright revert of my good-faith edits is unacceptable and I've warned you on your talk page about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If your definition of "respectable" and "well known internationally" is used for describing a website that re-posts personal blog entries, then we won't reach a consensus on this issue. You listed Press as being on the same level - which is not true. Press is a print newspaper, not an online blog re-posting site. In fact, after Blic, Press is the most read paid newspaper in Serbia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My definition is primarily based on data from a simple search such as http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=e-novine where one can see e-novine mentioned by a variety of random, neutral sources - it has general notability. General readership of Press does not necessarily impress (heh). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your definition doesn't change the fact that e-novine, in this specific case, merely re-posted a blog post, as I indicated in my previous comments. Blog posts are not references. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about novinar.de, attack site whose purpose is to promote extreme nationalism and religious sects. E-novine are much more reliable source than this garbage.--В и к и T 06:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken, as it seems that anybody can write for novinar.de. I removed the novinar.de references. However, E-Novine can't be reliable either, as it too merely copies blog posts and presents them as "news". --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you about E-novine. One more question: Why is this article marked as high on importance scale for WikiProject Serbia. Boris is young, perspective and handsome film director, but definitely not so important. It should be changed to mid.--В и к и T 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to change it to mid. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is like an hagiographic, a resumé-advertising bio of a pretentious Serb-Canadian kid than a text of some REAL importance. Come on people, have you EVER seen or heard about this Boris M. outside Wikipedia, Russia Today... and ITS OWN WEBSITE? Poor guy, he wants to get more prestige than Angelina Jolie...--201.81.237.228 (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should have remained deleted, as it did after a number of votes for deletion.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Malagurski is quite well known in Serbia and Bosnia. His films get shown on TV there all the time. Just the other night "The Weight of Chains" was on BN Television (Covers all of Bosnia and Serbia, and on Satellite throughout the world). And he's in the media a couple of times per month. Just check out how many hits "Boris Malagurski" has on Google. Countless articles about him, meaning that there are secondary sources about this person (Wikipedia asks for only 2 when it comes to notability, this person surpassed that a long, long time ago), so please don't base your opinion on personal bias, but rather stick to the rules of Wikipedia and consider that just because you haven't heard of this person, doesn't mean he's not notable. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

“Actually, Malagurski is quite well known in Serbia and Bosnia. His films get shown on TV there all the time.”

Obviously, since his movies are in the traditions of “Serb victimization” and negationism of the Serbian war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars with the intention of creating the “Greater Serbia” of Slobodan Milosevic… I doubt Malagurski and his movies are known in parts of Bosnia not dominated by Republika Srpska… or even Canada, where the guy has been living for years!

Other thing to note is that the simple quantity of Google citations don’t make someone or something relevant. I bet many porn actors has much more Google results than B. Malagurski, but they are not considered relevant enough to deserve an article here in Wikipedia. Even PLAYBOY PLAYMATES only have their own articles in very special cases here!--201.81.224.11 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What a wonderful forum Wikipedia is for the discussion of the great achievements of this prodigy of a director! How shameful to compare his achievements with those of porn actors and Playboy Playmates. Thanks to you, Urban Villager, for the hours of innocent amusement and entertainment you've given us (eg "Fair enough, feel free to change it to mid (importance)" - what a hoot!). May the unworthy ask when the next masterpiece is due? Opbeith (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And I just took a look at UrbanVillager's Google link above multiply confirming Boris's notability. I was particularly struck by:

"BORIS MALAGURSKI & "THE WEIGHT OF CHAINS" REVIEW

srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/.../boris-malagurski-weight-of-chains.html - Cached

9 Oct 2011 ... PHOTO 1/2: Boris Malagurski, unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film

director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a ..."

Now there's notability money can't buy!Opbeith (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, as per WP:TALK, I'd like to inform you to avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought you would have realised that the capital letters in my quote were taken from the original. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This section is in direct violation of WP:TALK, on the following points:

• Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article (template, etc.) you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss. A related article Edit, actual or potential, should be traceable to that Talk-page heading.
• Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
  • Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as the section title is concerned, it's fairly clear that the anonymous poster was driven by frustration over the control of the article exercised by Malagurski's support group. You've got the article wrapped up, you've somehow got the Wikipedia administrators on board, you need to allow a vent for visitors unaware of this peculiarity of Wikipedia to vent their frustration. Are you not gracious enough to concede them that? If you're criticising my own section heading reference to Quality/notability issues below, yes, that may be experienced by other editors here as an attack on them but only if they take criticism of their tendentious interpretation of Wikipedia principles personally. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're justifying the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not going to discuss this matter with you any further. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?"

Boris's latest is "Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?" http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/09/fracturing-serbia-vojvodina-next-powder-keg (some of the comments are interesting too).

Over at "The Weight of Chains" article I've discussed a review in Slobodna Vojvodina by Milos Podbarčanin - http://www.slobodnavojvodina.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1320:vojvodina-sa-teinom-lanaca&catid=36:drustvo&Itemid=56.

Podbarčanin's comments (and comments at the GRTV page) are quite informative for those of us interested in whether Boris is up to more than self-promotion. Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Opbeith, since you found the need to discuss this issue on two talk pages, I'll just paste what I wrote on Talk:The Weight of Chains. Aside from the fact that Slobodna Vojvodina photoshopped a "BIA" badge, probably trying to prove that Malagurski works for BIA - Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge, and aside from the fact that the author's name, Miloš Podbarčanin, is actually fake, as the last name Podbarčanin doesn't really exist (try typing it in Google and only Miloš will pop up with a few of "his" articles on Slobodna Vojvodina), the website is basically an opinionated blog with absolutely no merit on Wikipedia. It's interesting that another "person" who writes "articles" for the website is Lazar Rotkvarac, probably also a fake name, as the Vojvodinian city of Novi Sad has two parts of the town called Rotkvarija and Podbara. Opbeith, I'd suggest you stop looking blogs that make wild accusations about Malagurski based on absolutely no facts (in fact, I believe Malagurski could sue the website for slander, as they accuse him of working for BIA with absolutely no evidence), and try finding actual media sources like Dnevnik ("Slobodna Vojvodina" redirects there, since it's the original name of that newspaper), Jutarnji list, Dnevni avaz, Koha Ditore, Politika, Blic, RTS, HRT, FTV, BN, etc. Good luck! --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As per there, please keep us informed of what happens if he does decide to sue. Opbeith (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not his lawyer. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could add a link to his legal counsel? Opbeith (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, as per WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM, Do not ask for another's personal details, and this is not a Discussion forum: Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How have I taken discussion into the article? You seem to have the article stitched up, thanks to the fact that Malagurski does not seem to have attracted the interest of any major media outlet not associated with the political viewpoint his work expresses. That's why doubts have to be expressed in the Talk Page of articles like this and The Weight of Chains in an attempt to balance the "undue weight" attached to Malagurski's importance and achievements. I'm rather entertained by your reference to "a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate", given the way that various Wikipedia articles have been subverted by the BMSG to promote forthcoming and abortive projects of his. Opbeith (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, you're talking about Malagurski's "legal counsel" on an encyclopedia talk page. I encourage you to focus on how to improve the article with reliable references. I'm not going to repeat myself again. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was hardly being serious, as I'm sure you're aware, I was reflecting on your propensity to conduct yourself as if you were Malagurski's representative here on earth (and Wikipedia's on the side). Opbeith (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources.

Well, official selection is the term for film festivals. That is not the title, but the factographic name of the participation movies. And, for the fest, same as here --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't actually call it an official selection. It's just a list without context. What, are thirteen films from Serbia alone given some prestigious honour of "official selection" at the International Festival of New Latin American Cinema? We should stick to what sources actually say. bobrayner (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to say that, it is obvious that is official selection. official selection is an expression for the chosen film in the film festivals. It looks like you are just trying to minimize this event. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteWriter, Official Selection is the term that film festivals use, and there really is widespread consensus regarding the matter, not only on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And stop with the removal of sourced content, if you have some problem with Bridgefest, gain consensus first, and stop with the removal. I will ask for admin help, unless you dont start using talk page up until agreement. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As always, Boris's networking skills are formidable. Sadly for Boris, though, Wikipedia has institutional memory of his devious and manipulative behaviour here before he was banned and that will inevitably and legitimately inform the comments of sceptical editors confronted by the latest content embellishments added by his coterie of friends and supporters. It's impossible not to forget that Boris is an associate of and apologist for those who perpetrated or assisted the perpetrators of some of the worst crimes against humanity committed in the last half-century and that his undeniable talents are repeatedly deployed for promotional and propagandist purposes on their behalf. Opbeith (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your essay and personal opinion monologue is unrelated to question we have here. This is not a talk page where we should discuss what we think about this person, but page where we should fix some problems. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's fix some problems, then!

• How about we start with the awards won by Malagurski's films - including the grand awards from mysterious, untraceable "film fests" which are based in the same city that he lives in...? For instance you have to go back in time a couple of years with the Internet Wayback machine in order to learn more about Bridge Fest: [1] - there's no evidence that it's a real film fest rather than one person's vanity project. There's even less evidence of the BC Days filmfest; all we know is that it's... in a suburb of Vancouver, a few minutes drive from where Bridge Productions was based.
• Why does the article pretend that he's some great auteur, when even airbrushed resume on the website his mommy set up for him has job titles like "intern" and "telemarketing"...?
• Why has criticism of this person's films - actual criticism by independent people - been removed? The few independent sources on this person have been bulldozed. And our content on his films is used for blatant coatrack by those who share his view of history.
• Malagurki's own promotional fluff said he was a film student at the university of British Columbia a few years ago, and it was obviously important to him, but there's no sign of that on the article now. Doesn't he even have a degree in film-making? What happened?

Can we fix those problems? It's just one big pile of self-promotion. Why do editors support it? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything can be fixed. One by one. What do you propose? All awards from article are "traceable", what have you pointed exactly? And regarding biography, i dont understand your bad faith toward this person. Telemarketer. That was in 2005, so he was 17 years old. If you ask me, it is great that 17 years old person do anything more then school, so this is only plus, and not minus. Then BC fest have its own website http://www.bcsff.com/. Nothing wrong there, ordinary festival. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

'That filmfest has a different name and their site does not mention Malagurski. (Still, I'm glad that the kids of Pinewood Elementary got the recognition they deserve). I do not understand why you repeatedly bring sources which obviously say nothing about the subject of the article. Seriously; an IMDB page which doesn't mention Malagurski or any of his films is not a sufficient source for claiming he won some great award; nor is the website of a filmfest with a different name which also says nothing about Malagurski. This blatant disregard for WP:V is bizarre - why do you keep on doing it? bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if I remove deceptive content, UrbanVillager automatically reverts it as "vandalism", which is just as bad. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the blatant self-promotion in this article does require admin intervention.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, many Albanian users of Wikipedia seem to often warrant a higher power to intervene when they can't win with rational argumentation. In this case, you didn't even try to use some arguments. While I see a parallel with the international and public relations efforts of Albanian interest groups in the Balkans and the Western world, Wikipedia is a place where we reach a consensus based on facts and references. This is your first comment on this talk page and already you're seeking admin intervention. Unacceptable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ZjarriRrethues, unacceptable. Those of us who have seen the outcome of admin investigation of the activities of Boris's merry clique of admirers [2] know that Wikipedia's verdict is that nothing must disturb the enjoyment of their privilege to celebrate the work of the greatest exponent of modern Serbian-Canadian cinema ever actually to have been banned from Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, may I ask, is castigating an entire nation of people your idea of 'rational argument'? If you set out deliberately to destroy any respect for either your powers of reason or your impartiality, I don't think you could have done better than your reply to ZjarriRrethues.Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, regarding your "banned from Wikipedia" story, I'm starting to think that the banned user account Bormalagurski might not have even had anything to do with the Boris Malagurski that this article is about, I really don't see where a prominent filmmaker would ever had found the time to make films and edit on Wikipedia at the same time, not to mention that it's impossible to prove that people are who they present themselves to be on Wikipedia. Who can stop me, Opbeith, from assuming that you're, maybe, Haris Silajdžić? Certainly, I could easily find many ideological parallels. But all jokes aside, I did a search on Facebook, and I found a completely different Boris Malagurski that exists, so who knows. It's easy to speculate, but hard to prove anything. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in regards to your points, I'll go one by one:

• I used the Internet Wayback Machine for bridge-fest.com, and found Kosovo: Can You Imagine? in the screening schedule (May 7, 2009, 3 PM). The festival is listed on Withoutabox, a part of IMDb (a division of Amazon.com) right here. As for the BC Days Film Festival, there doesn't have to be a website for a festival as proof that it exists, many festivals don't have websites or take them down after some time. What we do have are references that the film won an award there.
• He's not a great film author because he worked as an intern or telemarketer. Many famous people worked different jobs before they made big films, I fail to see why that's important at all here. He's a good filmmaker because of his filmmaking work, not which jobs he maybe does in his spare time. Don't mix things up.
• Criticism is welcome on Wikipedia if its substantiated with important references. I can't write a blog post and then edit an article with my opinion. Not to mention simply adding my opinion of the guy or his films. The stuff that's in the article is supported by secondary sources and media articles that are founded on facts.
• I don't know anything about his diploma, you're going to have to ask him if you're curious. After all, Wikipedia is not a place where you post your resume (even though you decided that it was important to list that he allegedly worked as an intern and telemarketer). --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality/notability issues

More on the subject of the significance of this work. What is the actual significance of the awards showere don The Weight of Chains? The Silver Palm awarded to The Weight of Chains at the 2009 Mexico International Film Festival was one of fourteen awarded in the Student Films category, after thirteen others in the category had already been awarded their Golden Palms.[3] Opbeith (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was already the topic of discussion in the first section on this talk page. Please don't create new sections for topics that were already discussed. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That was 2009 and this is now. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this Talk Page since, but the issue hasn't gone away and it doesn't seem unreasonable when raising it again to start at the easiest place on the page to get to for a current discussion. The discussion got nowhere in terms of resolving the issue of the director's significance. Cinéma C, who preceded you as assiduous researcher of matters Malagurski here, simply insisted on the right to revert and followed the same approach that you do of disclaiming any attempt to assert Malagurski's "extreme importance" while ensuring that the slightest public reference suggesting Boris's work might actually be notable remained.

On that previous occasion the subject of discussion was the fact that Boris's Silver Palm was not a unique award, it was in the specific category of Student Films and shared with thirteen others. Your reversion of the unreferenced mention of 76 student films prompted me to look at the Film Festival, where I discovered that the Festival is quite generous in its Palm Awards.

In the Student Films category for inexperienced film-makers there are three levels of aware, Gold, Silver and Bronze. There were thirteen awards in the Gold class - so The Weight of Chains was considered to be somewhere between the fourteenth and the twenty-seventh best student film shown in the festival. That award has been used as a foundation stone for Malagurski's own self-promotion and the development of this article in its wake.

I don't say that the award is meaningless. I simply point to the way in which it has been used to build Malagurski up into the Paris Hilton of Serbian film-making, famous for being mentioned, quoted by minimally critical "enthusiasts". In that sense I don't have any particular objection to the existence of the article, my objection is simply to the fundamentally deceitful nature of its content. At least Paris Hilton doesn't use her notoriety to promote a criminal political agenda. As long as administrators at Wikipedia continue allowing you to give Malagurski's propagandising the undue exposure its originator learned how to achieve in his early days at WP, you're going to have to live with pressure from ordinary editors for balancing mention of the reality Malagurski is so expert in distorting. Opbeith (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, let me make myself clear again. The topic you're discussing has its section above, please discuss it there and don't create multiple sections for the discussion of identical topics, it confuses editors and is not common practice on Wikipedia. The same goes for your opening of identical sections/discussions to multiple talk pages, as in the case of Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains, please stop doing that. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that when a particular issue returns to the agenda after three years and with a substantial amount of intervening discussion it's hardly unreasonable or unprecedented to open a new section for contemporary discussion. Where Malagurski's work is concerned the issues don't go away, but there's no reason why they should be raised only in the way that you see fit. You seem to apply your knowledge of Wikipedia rules rather selectively, for example in relation to synopsis of Malagurski's work. Opbeith (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should call in an objective third party to provide us with an authoritative interpretation of these procedural rules, and perhaps also of the substantive issues raised in connection with this and other Malagurski-related articles. I'd prefer to abide by a legitimate ruling in place of admonitions from a partisan. Opbeith (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've provided links to the Wikipedia guidelines, I'm sure you don't need an "objective third party" to repeat what's said on WP:TALK:

"Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic."

There's nothing more I have to say on this, as the guidelines of Wikipedia are clear on the matter. It's good that we have a section on this talk page where this is explained, so as to remove the possibility of repeating this procedural violation in the future. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, though I doubt going back to a remote three years earlier section not involving any currently contributing parties is less likely to cause confusion, at least in the sense I suspect was intended by that guideline. Perhaps it might be useful anyway to have an objective third party casting their eyes over the issues raised in relation to this and other related articles? You wouldn't have any problems with that, would you? Opbeith (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that you mentioned an objective third party, because I was contacted by one just a while ago on my talk page, and User:Psychonaut alerted me about your troubling contribution history, that your "condemnation of others distoring, manipulating, and misrepresenting facts is entirely disingenuous", that you've "shown [yourself] to have no compunctions whatsoever in introducing into articles [your] own factual distortions and misrepresentations when they serve to advance [your] point of view." He also said that "[your] criticisms of [my] edits are grounded in neither Wikipedia policy nor reason itself, nor [are you] willing or able to identify specific problems with the article text, even when pressed with direct requests to do so." I also noticed that User:WhiteWriter commented on your talk page saying: "You are so deep in your pov that any further conversation from my side would be completely pointless". I realize now, Opbeith, that when I was trying to reason with you, I was actually engaging in a pointless discussion with an internet troll. As per Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I'm not going to feed the troll anymore. Stop wasting my time and the time of other serious Wikipedia editors. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As I commented in response to your almost identical post at "The Weight of Chains", I look forward to hearing the opinions of more of your friends. Opbeith (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris has been linked to Serbian extremists and chetniks and the article should reflect as such and not just as self-promotion

Boris Malagurski has been linked to right wing Serbian extremists, as he appeared on CTV News in open support of Srdja Trifkovic, who was denied entry into Canada due his controversial stance on Islam, Judaism and the denial of genocide in the Balkans [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote on the anon's talk page: Please stop edit warring on the Boris Malagurski article. First off, you can't use Wikipedia articles as a reference. As for the second reference, I watched the YouTube video, it's highly irrelevant for the article on the filmmaker, especially considering that Malagurski didn't express any support for Trifkovic's stance on, as you call it, "Islam, Judaism and the denial of genocide in the Balkans", and you could link Malagurski to any individual that he interviewed and say "Malagurski is linked to his interviewee who did this and that". For example, Malagurski interviewed Marko Franciskovic, who many people consider a Croatian right wing extremist, but that doesn't mean Malagurski supports his views. In the CTV video, he expressed his support for free speech, so it's highly irrelevant whether it was Trifkovic who was denied entry or someone else. POV pushing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that you keep adding this sentence in the "Life and work" section, as if this 15 second appearance on local news has any relevance to his life and work. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to UrbanVillager

I highly disagree because you continue to avoid putting anything on this page that may seem remotely damaging to Malagurski's career, including his links to the Serbian right wing. Yes, one can clearly link him to anyone in his interviews, but this is not an interview. The CTV news report clearly states "supports professor." Do you think that a person just happens to support some random guy for one single occasion? There are also several negative criticisms on his life and work online, especially for his Weight of Chains, so why isn't this article more well-rounded in tackling all angles of how he is perceived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC) --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As well, this is not POV. I am neither Serbian nor Croatian nor Bosnian. I am a 3rd party professor with 0 ties to the Balkans, but who happens to lecture on the subject in an attempt to round arguments and give transparency, as well as angles of perspective from all sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also read your refutes to arguments above this one. Your standard response of "Wikipedia guidelines" is not an excuse for harbouring a biased article, and refusing entry to different perspectives on this article.--221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks.

221.92.163.122, first of all, you don't need a subsection to reply to me. Second of all, Boris Malagurski can be linked to Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian, Canadian, American right and left wing orientated individuals, as he interviewed all of them for his films. Focusing on one of them is POV pushing and trying to present Malagurski as sharing the views of some of his interviewees just because he supports the free speech of all of them - if he didn't want to hear what all of them think, I'm sure you'd agree that he wouldn't interview them. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines on original research, and if you find a relevant non-blog non-forum reference that Malagurski does support Trifkovic's views, then we can talk. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm still getting used to this. Second of all, you are completely missing the point. I'll reiterate it for you: the CTV was a news report with Boris Malagurski in it, not an interview that Boris Malagurski was hosting for one of his films. So your argument of linking him to everyone he's ever interviewed now becomes null. Thanks. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, you went from writing that Trifkovic was Malagurski's "sponsored guest", to Malagurski supporting Trifkovic's views on Islam, Judaism and genocide, to CTV simply writing "supports professor". Yes, Malagurski apparently supports having the chance to listen to professor Trifkovic, as his exact words are: "It's a shame that free speech in Canada is basically not allowed in this instance even though that Srdja is coming here not to deliver any hate speech or anything bad, he's talking about the future, and yet he's not being allowed to speak in this country and in this town." So, any rational person will see that Malagurski wanted to hear Trifkovic speak, and is not saying "I am hosting Srdja, I support his views on Islam, Judaism and genocide, I support him fully". Once again, I'll suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research and stick to Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, you went from saying "Boris can be linked to anyone he's ever interviewed in his films" to "Boris can be linked to Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian, Canadian, American right and left wing orientated individuals, as he interviewed all of them for his films" to finally being forced to acknowledge the actual news report and to decipher the difference between being interviewed and holding an interview. Once again, I'll suggest that you stop editing this page with your biased views. Thanks --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand behind everything I said. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And I stand behind all the points that I've made, including my accusation that you have a tendency to be biased with respect to this article. I've also noticed several users accuse you of being Boris Malagurski. Good luck with that. Deepest and most sincerest regards, this random computer: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you to assume good faith and comment on content, not on the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you brought that reference up as it took you quite a while to acknowledge the CTV content which you're neglecting to include in the article. So that's a good reference for you, as well. I wasn't accusing, I was merely observing. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

221.92.163.122 at 15:12, 2 November 2012: "I stand behind all the points that I've made, including my accusation that you have a tendency to be biased..."

221.92.163.122 at 15:30, 2 November 2012: "I wasn't accusing..."

Please stop accusing me of being biased or trying to present the discussion as if a consensus has been made (and later changing your comments). I'll repeat, comment on content, not on the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks and if you find a relevant non-blog non-forum reference that Malagurski does support Trifkovic's views (the 15 second appearance on CTV local news doesn't show this and is highly irrelevant to the article, given that the story wasn't even about Malagurski), then we can talk. Anything other than that is original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're missing the point: I am accusing you of being biased, not accusing you of being Boris. There's a difference. Please acquaint yourself with it. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) As well, here's another article linking Boris to extremists and refuting his film, "The Weight of Chains" by a published author, which, by the way, was translated into English by a journalist: Suzana Vukic. You fail to mention any criticism against Boris of any form. But let me guess, this isn't a good enough reference for UrbanVillager, correct? http://zijadburgic.com/2011/08/23/354/

Accusing someone of having a POV and being biased for it is perfectly within the realm and confines of wikipedia law. I'm not attacking you, personally, so please stop viewing it as such. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with this talk page, and this talk page, where what you're talking about has already been discussed, as well as with Wikipedia guidelines. To help you start, zijadburgic.com is a self-published blog, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. One's tendencies to defend one's own POV tends to overshadow neutrality and cloud rational judgement. See UrbanVillager's reluctance to acknowledge a legitimate news report for reference. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a legitimate news report. It's just not saying what you're claiming it does. Do read this entire talk page, and this one as well, and things might get a bit more clear. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. It's irrefutable proof of Boris' ties to right wing extremists, specifically, Serbian ones. You're simply saying that he doesn't acknowledge that fact and therefore it makes it false, and yet he is shown, at the airport, waiting for Srdja, and not in UBC's lecture hall. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris's guest Srdja Trifkovic and the Canadian border authorities at Vancouver airport

UrbanVillager deleted the edit by 221.92.163.122: "Boris Malagurski has been linked to right wing Serbian extremists, as he appeared on CTV News in open support of Srdja Trifkovic, who was denied entry into Canada due to allegations of war crimes.[6] [7] " with the explanation that "Trifkovic wasn't accused of any war crimes, please stop adding this highly irrelevant note."

Yet Srdja Trifkovic himself, writing in Chronicles Magazine, complained that the Canadian Border Officials had refused him access under the provisions of the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act because of his association with the Bosnian Serb leadership:

"On Thursday, February 24, I was denied entry to Canada. After six hours’ detention and sporadic interrogation at Vancouver airport I was escorted to the next flight to Seattle. It turns out I am “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.”

It appears that my contacts with the Bosnian Serb leaders in the early nineties make me “inadmissible” today. As it happens I was never one of their officials, “senior” or otherwise, but the story has been told often enough (most recently in one of my witness testimonies at The Hague War Crimes Tribunal)."http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/02/25/banned-from-canadistan/

The witness testimony mentioned was given by Trifkovic for the defence of Ljubisa Beara before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Beara was convicted of genocide and other crimes at Srebrenica. Among his other work for the Bosnian Serb leadership Trifkovic told the Tribunal how he travelled to Pale on 12 July 1995 to advise them on the media presentation of issues relating to the fall of Srebrenica. He had meetings with Karadzic and Koljevic during the period while the executions - war crimes - were taking place and on the evening of 14 July helped Karadzic's advisor Jovan Zametica prepare a press release for the Serb news agency SRNA on how the Bosnian Serb leadership would be treating civilians in their care. www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/trans/en/080904ED.htm

Certainly Trifkovic has not been charged or convicted but his own words report him being accused of terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In spite of that Boris Malagurski continues to provide Trifkovic with a platform for expressing unchallenged views distorting and contesting the established truth about genocide at Srebrenica.

Prof. 221.92.163.122, don't be deterred by UrbanVillager's bluster. This is an open scandal at Wikipedia. Wikipedia administrators turn their eyes away from the fact that Wikipedia is being exploited by apologists for terrible crimes who use this space to promote and inflate the reputation of someone working to subvert the truth about responsibility for those crimes. Opbeith (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Srđa Trifković talk page. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's about your inadequately explained edit at this article. Opbeith (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I already explained everything, with references to precise Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop trolling this talk page. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you seem to be running this page without allowing anyone else's alternative input. That, in itself, is against Wikipedia rules. Please stop. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Second anon, since you've just joined in the discussion and immediately decided to roll back the edit without any consideration for the arguments given on this talk page regarding the matter and Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and WP:CONS, I reverted your addition of a sentence that is highly irrelevant to the article, especially in the section where it was inputted. I'm not going to repeat myself and the guidelines are clear on the matter. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

On a more general note, there seem to be a couple of editors on this talk page and the talk pages of Malagurski's films, mostly unestablished editors without an account on Wikipedia, who are clogging the talk page by copy/pasting entries from blogs and forums and demanding that they should be taken into consideration. I can open up a blog right now, write an entry and paste it here, demanding that it's included in the article. No, that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Furthermore, my input is based on verifiable references and Wikipedia guidelines, and I have good faith in regards to all constructive edits to this article and other articles that are of my interest. I have added a lot of well-sourced content to the article, but those who've written text on the talk page ten times longer than the article itself need to undersand that talk pages are not a place to voice opinions on a topic, but to move on improving the article with strong references. These editors have not replied to my constructive comments below. It seems they'd rather have this article deleted from Wikipedia or would rather desparately search for irrelevant details that aren't even substantiated with relevant sources, than to make it a good, well-referenced article. Some are using a 15 second appearance by Malagurski on CTV where he expressed his support for the right of Trifkovic, who may or may not be this or that (which is unacceptable to discuss here, it belongs on the Trifkovic talk page), to speak in Canada and the right of free speech, to accuse Malagurski of hosting Trifkovic and supporting his views. Ridiculous. Irrelevant. Malagurski's comments are not memorable or relevant to his life and work, and the news report doesn't say who Malagurski is (it only says "Supports professor", which can mean that he supports professor on wanting to speak in Canada, and likely does mean that, since that's what Malagurski talks about), why he's there, what's his function in this whole thing, etc. Everything else is original research and I feel myself starting to sound like a parrot. So, if you find a relevant article saying that Malagurski hosted Trifkovic, supports his views or work, and that this is crucial to Malagurski's life and work, then we can talk. I'm trying to be nice and understanding, but I won't back down from respecting Wikipedia guidelines. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You make good points UrbanVillager, and although I agree with some of what you have voiced, the fact of the matter remains that you are actively denying entry to credible sources and reports with a different angle on Malagurski and his work, and the Wiki community will not stand being violated as such. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nyttend, who is an administrator on Wikipedia, we now know that the sencence in question can't use a YouTube video as a reference, especially one that is in violation of WP:COPYLINK. I believe this ends our discussion. Please remove the sentence is question. Thanks, -UrbanVillager (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks to User:Mark Arsten for removing the sentence, per WP:YOUTUBE, and protecting the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---That's fine, but the issue that this page has a tendency to be biased still needs to be addressed by the administrators as several valid points have been made prior to this one and there is a clear line of avoiding all view-points. Thanks to User:Mark Arsten, User:Nyttend and others for considering and giving this page its due process by taking into consideration this very important issue as has been brought forth by several other credible editors prior to this one. Regards. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

58 verifiable and reliable references, that's what this article has. Those who are accusing the article of being biased are citing unpublished personal opinions, self-published blog entries and YouTube videos as references. Wikipedia is not an internet forum. Let's focus on making the article better, I hope that someone will reply to my comments in the section below. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---

58 references that have a tendency to lean towards being pro Boris. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that you're negating other references that do not shine a positive light on him. Since you seem to edit this page extensively and claim to follow Boris extensively, as well, I am surprised that you, yourself, have not included a "controversy" section to better round the Wikipedia article since you have been given several credible sources prior to this point.--114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The "other references" you're referring to, so far, have been unpublished personal opinions, self-published blog entries and YouTube videos. The moment there are credible, verifiable and reliable sources that "do not shine a positive light on him", I'll fully support the creation of a "Controversy" section. In fact, I already suggested this a while back, but there really are no reliable references on the negative sides of Malagurski and his work (which do exist, I'm sure, but they need to be backed up with strong references). Disgruntled Wikipedia editors, bloggers and YouTubbers do not constitute a controversy. Once again, let's work on making the article better and I'm still hoping someone will reply to my constructive comments in the section below. Regards, -UrbanVillager (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There were several credible sources that I saw that portray him in anegative light, and I call all editors who have access to them to post them. Here's an example: The CTV news report is broadcast from Boris Malagurski's official YouTube channel. It doesn't get anymore official than that as the person in question is the person officially broadcasting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.172.134.168 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

New films

I noticed that there are no articles on Wikipedia for Malagurski's new films "The Presumption of Justice", "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2". The first of the three has been completed and screened in cinemas across Serbia, while the other two are still in production (or pre-production, I'm not sure). I'm curious what the Wikipedia policy on articles about films that have yet to be completed is. Also, can there be an article on a film that isn't listed on IMDb? If someone knows the answers to these questions, I'd appreciate an information about this.

There are several sources about the fact that "The Presumption of Justice" has been completed and screened in cinemas, like print media, television broadcasts, clips from the film on YouTube, etc. There's also a trailer for "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2", while both films received a feature article in the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans - Politika. The other two films were also mentioned in several other relevant print media articles, and Malagurski talked about them on several TV shows. There are clips from both "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2" available on YouTube.

If these are acceptable criteria for creating the articles on Wikipedia for these three films, I'd be more than glad to write them and work on them, as this topic interests me greatly and I closely follow Malagurski's work. Thank you in advance, --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to have a template with all of his films at the bottom of this article and at the bottom of all the articles of his films, as is the case with many directors and their films on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but sense that all is not quite as it seems behind this novel openness and willingness to cooperate, UrbanVillager. You have shown yourself in the past to be very familiar with the Wikipedia rulebook and equally familiar with film-related issues. You've already created Malagurski film articles at Wikipedia. Did you really not check out the criteria for creating Wikipedia articles about films? Have you not investigated citing IMDb previously? It took me a matter of minutes to find Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb. Opbeith (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In "searching in page" to find my place here again I notice that in the section Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Vreme je you already demonstrate your familiarity with Wikipedia filmography guidelines. I went away from the article to check out pre-production films and it took me barely a moment to find Wikipedia:Notability_(films). I suggest you read through that, make up your own mind on the questions you raised and then other interested parties can discuss with you. Most people have a general idea how far they can push their luck but I guess what you've achieved so far entitles you to assume that Weight of Chains 2 is as acceptable a candidate for promoting here as any of the others. Opbeith (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Here you go. I've provided the subject headline so that when you finally come across sources that can be legally cited by Wikipedia, you can post them in here. This should begin the first steps of a section that you've wanted to create for a while now so as to better round this Wikipedia article and provide all viewpoints. I've provided some starting points for those truly interested in the matter at hand, and at expanding the matter that be.

Here are sources that, according to Wikipedia, may or may not be directly referenced due to them being mirrored sources, professor, college, doctorate or masters' views that are inadmissible due to technicalities, copyrighted material, material that's not directly linked to an official website but has been copied and pasted from the original source, is found on a mirror of an official channel...etc.

1. CTV news report of Boris supporting Srdja Trifkovic, an accused war crimes and genocide denier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXXXXXXX (apologies 221etc, Boris Malagurski's upload is actually a copyright violation so we're not supposed to link to it Opbeith (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

2. Zijad Burgic, a critical analyst, published author and Bosnian activist who claims that Boris Malagurski is a genocide denier, fascist chetnik sympathizer, and a Serbian apologist who attempts to mask Serbian war crimes during the Yugoslav wars. His published criticism on Boris' the weight of chains has been cited by countless news sources throughout the Ex-Yu. http://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/tag/boris-malagurski/ ; http://www.e-novine.com/kultura/kultura-tema/49715-Lai-utnja-video-trake.html ; http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.jp/2011/10/boris-malagurski-weight-of-chains.html ;

3. Here is a legitimate source run by several credible Canadians that have put together an organization for journalistic freedoms: An excellent critical analysis of The Weight of Chains, by this organization, can be found here: http://politicsrespun.org/2012/02/undermining-solidarity-in-the-balkans-reviewing-boris-malagurskis-the-weight-of-chains/ An excerpt: "This manipulation of the first narrative of neoliberal penetration and corrupt elites in order to legitimate the second narrative of Serbian victimization in the 1990s is what makes this film a questionable enterprise. Those forwarding such a narrative claim that they are only seeking to ‘correct’ the ‘distorted’ view that ‘the West’ has created of ‘Serbs.’ However, such a claim deliberately marginalizes the actual experience of millions of Albanians, Bosnians, Croatians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Slovenes, self-identified Yugoslavs, people of mixed ethnic-backgrounds, women, workers, Roma and countless of Yugoslavia’s smaller minority communities who happen to share such a ‘Western’ understanding of Yugoslavia’s dissolution. Any attempt to point this out to those crafting this narrative is greeted with calls of being a ‘cruise missile leftist,’ ‘an apologist for imperialism,’ ‘a fifth column,’ Islamophobic denunciations and worse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Source in violation of WP:YOUTUBE, 2. blog, 3. blog. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort, 221.92.163.122. Just because BM has not acquired the significance to appear in the radar display of major reliable sources outside former Yugoslavia doesn't mean that reliable sources within former Yugoslavia can't be cited, as long as the content of the sources can be checked. There are editors on both sides of the divide of opinion here who have sufficient command of B/C/S to verify any quotes. So if you have any relevant Burgic sources in B/C/S they can be mentioned here for us to check out whether the content merits inclusion (and of course sources other than Burgic). It might make it easier if you identified yourself by a Username - you can find out more at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Also even if you decide to stick with the ISP identity it's useful to sign your comments - you just put four tildes ~~~~ after your contribution, as I'm doing now, and that will bring up your userename and the time and date of the edit. Opbeith (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

Sounds like a plan. I just may. As well, no need to point that out UrbanVillager, as its already stated that these are inadmissible, however, the credibility of the original sources, these people and, yes, that YouTube video still remains credible, with the full support of a large portion of society behind the above said; just because it cannot be sourced here due to technicalities does not make them any less credible or reliable. So let this section serve as place of expansion and alternative perspective. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not ok. You cannot use that as source, as that is obvious violation of wiki rules. WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RS, please... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Then cite the CTV news report without the Youtube link. E-novine is reliable for what is being used. Don't expect Roger Ebert. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Producer, why are you adding the sponsors? Besides the fact that there are no secondary sources talking about this, you should know that the financing of a film is the duty of the production company, and where the production company gets funding is irrelevant. The official producer of the film is Malagurski Cinema, and that's all that matters when it comes to funding. If you find evidence of a co-production between Malagurski Cinema and the organizations you're listing, then it's a different story, of course. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this the correct talkpage? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, it would help discussion if you and UrbanVillager would actually read the WP guidelines you cite as if you were authorities. Check again if you like - WP:YOUTUBE: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.". CTV News is a reliable source. The YouTube video is credible as 221etc says. The problem is that it can't be linked to because of copyright violation by guess who? - Boris Malagurski! the person responsible for uploading the CTV clip to YouTube. We're not allowed to replicate Boris's violation, but nevertheless as long as there's no link to the YouTube copy a reference can be made to the original CTV News item, as PRODUCER suggests. Opbeith (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nyttend and User:Mark Arsten, both administrators, have confirmed that the YouTube link in question can't be used as a reference. Zijad Burgić is a self-published blogger and self-published poem writer, there are absolutely no reliable websites attesting to his significance, he writes for no established institutions, and is completely irrelevant. Kilibarda as well. You can build them statues, but they're still nobodies. Malagurski had reliable sources write and talk about him, you can't deny that. News corporations, journals, broadcasters, print media, etc. E-novine is an online blog presenting itself as a news source. One glance at their website shows how biased they are - and they were sued for that many times. What we have here is a case where some Wikipedia editors, who see Malagurski as pure evil, Milosevic No. 2, or Hitler reborn, are upset that there are no reliable sources presenting Malagurski the way they see him. So they cling to E-novine, this Burgic nobody who films himself reading his self-published book on the graves of Srebrenica, and Kilibarda, a student blogger. People, please get real. When we see HRT or Jutarnji list or Dnevni avaz or something of that level writing a critical article or presenting a critical news story, I'll be the first to add it to the article. I have no interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski, I think its healthy for the article, but what's not healthy is having insignificant bloggers giving the critical note that this article (and every article) needs. So, I know Malagurski's work has bad sides, I agree with those who say so, but lets wait until there are reliable sources which talk about that, shall we? And as for CTV, the amount of words spent on this issue shows how desperate some editors are to present Malagurski in a negative light at any cost. The guy wanted to hear Srdja Trifkovic speak, supported free speech (not Srdja Trifkovic's views), and suddenly editors start adding this above all talk of Malagurski's films, that have dozens of reliable sources. I'm sure some would enjoy the beginning of the article to start with "Boris Malagurski (born ...) is a supporter of Srdja Trifkovic's genocide denial", but that won't ever appear on Wikipedia, as this is an encyclopedia, not E-novine. So, lets focus on the important things and put our personal opinions aside - let's work on making the article better. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you say that Malagurski "supports free speech". He provides Trifkovic with a platform for genocide denial and Islamophobic views on several occasions without challenging those views either himself or offering a platform for views seriously challenging Trifkovic. This alleged "support for free speech" is noticeably partial, partisan and informative. I don't think anyone here has said anything that comes close to representing Malagurski as "pure evil", that is just another of your "straw man" arguments. If I may put words into other people's mouths, the view most of us have in fact expressed is that this is an insignificant young man less than scrupulously promoting denial of significant proven wrong-doing and deceit, aided by friends and contacts. Although his own carefully-managed self-promotion, assisted by your and his other supporters' work here and elsewhere, may be gradually enhancing his public notoriety, coherent objective arguments have been advanced criticising his achievements. Your preoccupying concern to exclude legitimate criticism rather than find an appropriate way of accommodating it in order to achieve a genuinely rounded portrayal of the article's subject tells us much of what we need to know about what is going on here. What we aren't able to confirm for certain yet is where exactly all this is coming from. Opbeith (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea... yes... everyone wants "the truth out there with the noblest intentions." The CTV report can be cited without the Youtube link and there is no disputing that. Burgic can be used to his cite his opinion, no more and no less. E-novine is a reliable enough secondary source for that and your personal qualms about the website are absolutely irrelevant. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, you can say that Malagurski provides every interviewee with a platform to present their views. That's why they get interviewed. If you're implying that Malagurski was the organizer of the event at UBC where Trifkovic was scheduled to speak, I'm going to have to see some hard evidence (reliable reference) that is not original research (i.e. "He was on the airport on CTV!") or from some blog that can make stuff up and get away with it. Besides, according to this link, UBC approved the right of Trifkovic to speak at the University, so go to the University of British Columbia article and advocate that they add a sentence in the article where it says they support Srdja Trifkovic's platform for genocide denial and Islamophobic views. See how the other editors with react to that kind of nonsense. It doesn't matter what I think of Burgic, what matters that he is a self-published blogger and self-published poem writer, there are absolutely no reliable websites attesting to his significance, he writes for no established institutions, and is completely irrelevant. You talk about E-novine, who's founders' article on Wikipedia has two references - both of them are his blog on B92. Also, it's funny to call a news source reliable when they copy/paste blog entries with obvious mistakes - it says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, not CTV. Same thing, eh. It also says "The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without citing the website that claims so. Never found any reliable references to back that up. Face it, we're talking about blogs that are presenting themselves as news sources, with absolutely no merit on Wikipedia. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Trifkovic was invited to speak at UBC by the UBC Serbian Students Association, as it happens founded by one B. Malagurski. Per Macleans.ca On Campus [8]. Malgurski's CV describes him as being employed by the SSA for two years as webmaster. Was this a genuine job? If so where did the SSA get money to pay for their own webmaster? Your coyness and defensive games playing just sets the seal on the impression you're curator of the Malagurski image here rather than a disinterested editor. Opbeith (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, I just noticed this - note the "Tekst preuzet sa bloga Zijada Burgića" (Text taken from Zijad Burgic's blog) on the bottom of the E-novine article. What a 'news source'! Better luck next time. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And if other people understand this as signifying that E-novine endorses Burgic's competence as a commentator? Opbeith (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An irrelevant website that presents itself as a news source, but actually copy/pastes blog posts, endorses only the view that it is, in fact, a blog. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because forms of work are never republished in different mediums and op-eds do not exist in this universe... /s Any information cited from that article would be attributed E-novine and/or Burgic. Where's the issue? Please stop expecting someone to bring up a Roger Ebert review or expecting other users to appease any of your other arbitrary demands. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not my demands, they're the demands of WP:SOURCE. Nobody is expecting a Roger Ebert review, but I'm sure you can do better than finding a self-published blogger on a self-published unreliable website, E-novine, whose founder's article on Wikipedia has, as the only two references, his own blog on B92, and does not meet WP:SOURCE. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

E-novine is, as the name implies, a e-newspaper and there is editorial oversight. In February, Joy even pointed out that E-novine was used [9] by a variety of "random, neutral sources". The time someone took to work on the founder's article is absolutely irrelevant. That along with the youtube link to somehow discredit Burgic just shows how desperately you're grasping here. If you're going to apply this same standard to the other references in the article then prepare to remove a good portion of them. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I can pay for a domain and call it an e-newspaper, and then take blog posts I find on the net, presenting them as important. I'm not desperate, I've found dozens of reliable sources that discuss this topic, including Politika, Večernje novosti, Radio Television of Serbia, Blic, Press, Tanjug, IMDb, United Journalists of Serbia, the Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade, the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, the Faculty of Media and Communications in Belgrade, Megatrent University, etc. while you and some other editors are clinging to self-published blogs and a highly unreliable website that uses slander, curse words and Photoshop to attract online attention, not to mention that it posts texts directly from blogs. Please, find a reliable source of the level of Politika, Tanjug, or the Faculty of Law, that criticizes Malagurski and his work. If you can't, then wait until it appears. When there are verifiable sources giving actual critique, not unsourced slander and personal insults, I'll be the first to add criticism to the article. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And I can pay to physically publish my own thoughts and present them as important. Enough with this Serbian yellow press that's proclaimed reliable by you, yourself, and UrbanVillager. Only a glance at many of the newspapers' history is necessary to reveal just what propaganda machines we are dealing with. Don't push these Serbian tabloids as any better. They simply conform to your views. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Politika is the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans. Please provide evidence that it is a tabloid. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Man that sounds pretty prestigious. Is that the same one that ran the phoney Vukovar massacre of Serb children? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, while BBC News never makes mistakes. Politika, Večernje novosti, Tanjug, all of them are relevant media outlets. Politika was founded in 1904, and even though it went through much turbulence, war, and political influence (especially during Milosevic's era), it has remained the leading news outlet in the Balkans. Some of its more notable contributors included: Branislav Nušić, Nobel laureate Ivo Andrić, Moša Pijade, etc. If you're disputing Politika, I really have nothing more to say to you. Go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, let us know what they think about these sources and stop clogging this talk page with biased comments. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased? The pot could not be blacker. Please don't push editors away as you don't own the talkpage. You're the one that picked Politika out of the bunch. If you want to flaunt its age then do the same with its coverage and recognize that "mistakes" are different from policies. Večernje novosti? Press? The dozen other dailies, tabloids, and web portals in the article? The double standard in how you treat sources was already clear, no need to further rub it in. If the English speakers were familiar with these Serbian Daily Mails that you repeatedly add to the articles they would have never stuck. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment that Politika has been surpassed as the leading news outlet in the Balkans, so that argument is obsolete, let alone biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.20.16.89 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussions elsewhere - Dispute resolution and Conflict of interest

These relevant discussions elsewhere haven't been signposted adequately for interested parties:

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard - Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk: The Weight of Chains

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: Boris Malagurski

Opbeith (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There's something sublimely perverse and at the same time reassuring when the subject of a Conflict of Interest warning takes it upon themselves to remove the warning without discussion. True to form, UrbanVillager! Opbeith (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For the third time, are you connected in any way with the subject of this article or his backers? Opbeith (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I sent the guy an e-mail regarding the photos that I uploaded to Commons (which I downloaded from his Facebook fan page, I'm one of the 12,000 people that follow his work there), after they were nominated for deletion (I asked him to e-mail Commons). That's it. I also bought a DVD a while ago. Next thing you'll be accusing me of being his "backer" for buying a DVD. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clear and unambiguous. Opbeith (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. This entire article reads of bias and is completely one-sided. It should be deleted, if nothing else. Just look at the quotes chosen to be "previewed." "His documentary is describes as being objective." wow. Way to not push your own agenda. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Alas, I would disagree with this edit: [10] The policy says:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. "EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group...

Which looks like a perfect description of the problems we have on articles connected to Malagurski. If it were just supporting a modest personal claim like "Malagurski likes pastry and windsurfing", I wouldn't mind; but the source is being used to show how great he is and how much he's achieved ... and there's been a long-running problem with promotional editing around here ... better get rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

disagree, see WP:SELFPUB. None of what I added from his website is amazing or exceptional, and it provides context for his activism (ie president and founder of the Serbian Youth League). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bobrayner in that we need reliable sources for the sentences that Peacemaker67 added - I found a couple of Malagurski-written article names only in the archives on Kisobran's website, and I couldn't find any evidence that the Serbian Youth League even exists. Self-published sources and blogs like E-novine, PoliticsRespun, etc. are not acceptable on Wikipedia, Bobrayner, don't open the same discussion that we had last time, I'm saying this in regards to The Weight of Chains article and your most recent edit there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

as I have noted above, this material is unexceptional and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFPUB. If the MC website is acceptable for other matters such as BMs quotes about his films, it must also be fine for this, which is limited to info about BM himself. If the MC website has unreliable information about BM then its credibility about his films is drawn into question. In that case perhaps we should delete everything off WP that is sourced to the MC website? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right in that self-published sources are acceptable for information about themselves, but what I'm suggesting here is that this specific information might be outdated, since, as I mentioned, the Kisobran website doesn't have Malagurski's name in the last couple of issues (if someone is willing to look deeper into it, be my guest), and the Malagurski.com website itself posted its latest 'update' on July 11, 2011, so I'm not sure... I would think its different for information regarding what films he did, who said what about them, where the films were shown, etc. and what he's doing at this very moment. I know websites don't have to be up-to-date, but the info from the Kisobran website, which seems to be more up-to-date, would seem more relevant in this specific case. Also, how relevant are Kisobran or SYL at all? Does anyone have any information about that? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the claim that he was writing for Kisobran is fine. As is the claim that he was the founding president of the SYL. Both are relevant background to the man. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Former contributor

Should we probably mention that he used to contribute to Wikipedia...? --Prevalis (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

what evidence is there that he isn't still editing? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A question

Why such determination to remove this? It's sourced; it's relevant; what's the problem? bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A good question, bob. One wonders, doesn't one? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that any edit which makes Malagurski looks better is automatically exempted from WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:NPOV &c; it's been like this for years. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the point at hand; 122.20.16.89 looks like an UrbanVillager sock. bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

IP proxy out of Japan at present. Does John Bosnitch have a WP account (to your knowledge)? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, associating on-wiki activity with real people off-wiki is problematic (in more ways than one). I think it's more appropriate to focus on connections between different accounts/IPs/pages on-wiki. bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is completely unclear to me why this interview answer by Malagurski is not relevant to the movie that is being discussed. There is a paucity of discussion available in the media about Malagurski's films. I would appreciate it if the IPs that continue to remove properly sourced material from this article would explain why this is not relevant. It is clear that bobrayner and I believe it is relevant, and while it is not a !vote, the IP editor is clearly in the minority, and has failed to engage here to discuss the matter. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not waste too much time on talkpage discussion about valid content, if the "other side" is a sock that just hits revert, uses deceptive edit-summaries, and refuses to talk. Maybe another editor will actually turn up on the talkpage to give a reason for whitewashing, maybe not; when that happens we could have a meaningful discussion, but until then the best options are revert/block/ignore/semiprotect &c. bobrayner (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, well thankfully, EdJohnston is still out there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Malagurski self promotion!

I know this guy Boris Malaguski. He wrote promotional articles on Wikipedia about himself.[11][12][13][14] Even worse, he stubbornly sockpuppeting and deleting content from other users that he does not like.

He was blocked on Serbian Wikipedia many times. And after many years and many problems, he was banned forever. Now, he is hiding behind false names and wrote articles about himself on English Wikipedia. As you can see (if you know Serbian), he had many problems with the community because of the lies and the forgeries.

So please everybody, be very careful with this guy. Just look at the history of this article and you will see that "someone" repeatedly deleting negative content. --Mladifilozof (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Malagurski's cheat and fraud

Boris Malagurski is a proven cheater and a liar. This is the evidence:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Bormalagurski (en)
• The vote on revoking admin rights from Boris Malagurski (sr)
• Letter of Vesna Kostic about forging her interview by Boris Malagurski (sr)

I believe he is currently hiding behind fake account User:UrbanVillager and pushing POV about himself. --Mladifilozof (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

When I approached Mladifilozof regarding his edits on this article ([15]), he simply wrote on my talk page accusing me of being Boris Malagurski and calling me a "proven liar, cheater and fraudster". Since all civilized communication with Mladifilozof really makes no sense after such accusations and personal attacks, I'd like to remind him to abide by Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And, once again, I'd like to repeat that I'm not Boris Malagurski. Funny though that every user who comes here to add biased POV about Malagurski thinks I'm him. Very paranoid. As for his comments, Mladifilozof, who identifies as Damjan Pavlica, wrote two articles on Malagurski: Film-slop Weight of Ideological Chains and The rise of the young and the ruthless Boris Malagurskog, in the latter, the tags described Malagurski as a "liar", "cheat" and "fraud". This shows his anti-Malagurski bias (perhaps he knows Malagurski personally) and it seems he's here with an agenda. Regarding the "Controversy" segment, as I've already noted on Mladifilozof's talk page - the references that are mentioned in the proposed article section are Pescanik.net, BBC, and a B92 show. Of the three, only one mentions Malagurski, while the other two have nothing to do with Malagurski, and would be relevant for an article about the murder of the French football fan. As for the Pescanik.net reference, since one of those convicted in the court case writes for Pescanik (a simple Google search of Rastislav Dinic shows him as a columnist), Pescanik can't be considered a reliable source in this particular case. The segment also contains biased POV such as "Malagurski advocates on behalf of criminal groups of hooligans", while the last sentence in the paragraph is pure POV. Since this is an ongoing court case, I'd suggest waiting for the case to come to a conclusion, rather than adding POV and biased comments on it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mladifilozof: I think you need to refrain from personal attacks (calling another user a "cheater and liar"). It poisons the environment on Wikipedia and sets bad precedents for any future discussion. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

General tidy + self-referenced source

I've just made a number of minor edits, most of which relate only to tidying phrasing & updating 'Belgrade' section. The only edit which might be controversial is removing one reference to ' official selection at a number of festivals ' in WoC section. The source for this appears to be quoting BM himself making this claim, I've therefore re-phrased in a manner which I think is also more 'read-able'. Any objections anyone?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading and unreliable content

I've just read through 2 -3 year old discussions about:

1). Whether it should be mentioned that BM was one of 14 winners in the student class at a film festival or whether it should be left as 'winner', I find the defence of the present wording fairly pathetic. I know of no instance on Wikipedia, or in the 'real world' in which PRECISELY what was won would not be stated. The omission is misleading and it is irrelevant whether that it intentional or not. I propose re-inserting, brief details of what was won.

2). In a similar vein, the only contexts in which entries to film festivals are referred to as 'Official', are those in which there are both Official (eg nominated by country) and also Unofficial (eg nominated by the filmmaker). Therefore the use of 'Official entry' to a festival is at best meaningless and creates a false impression. I propose removal of that description, unless it can be shown that the festival itself uses the term 'Official entry'.

New subject The article states In April 2012, Malagurski delivered a presentation at Google in Silicon Valley that dealt with raising funds for film projects, the source for this presentation having taken place is Politika (some 7,000+ miles from Silicon Valley). If a better source cannot be found, I propose removal, since if the event went unreported by Google itself or any other source in the USA, I suggest it is - at best - so un-noteworthy as to not deserve space on this page.Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree; this promotional fluff should be fixed or removed. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We've gone over this to death, but some people won't give up on their agenda. Concerning 1), "one of 14 winners" is original research, the film won the prize and this is the only piece of information that can be verified by secondary sources. And regarding 2), you seem to know very little about film festivals. Considering "Bob Rayner" agrees with you, I can see you're both here with an agenda. "Official selection" means it was officially selected by the festival. And the Google info is verified by the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans, it really doesn't matter how many miles the newspaper is from Silicon Valley. This is perhaps the silliest argument I've ever heard in my life. :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the talk page UrbanVillager, perhaps you could explain to me how reading a talk page constitutes 'original research'. What was revealing in that discussion (which you may have been a part of), is that at no point did anyone dispute that 'BM was one of 14 winners in the student films category', I therefore assumed that this was reliably sourced information, since none of you queried it. That whole discussion revolved around whether 'one of etc.' was relevant/normal/appropriate to coverage of this award. Before we bother to get into that discussion, do you accept that 'one of etc.' is accurate and reliably sourced?

Regarding film festivals and 'Google', I will answer when I have more time, but in the meantime perhaps you could point me to the Wikipedia guideline that tells us to refer to 'Official etc.' where this is not a distinction or description made by the festival itself. Raindance certainly does not use the term anywhere on its site (original research!).Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat again, we're talking about Boris Malagurski's film, not other films. "One of etc." is something for an article about the festival. As for the festivals, are you actually suggesting that someone outside of the festival can make official selections for the festival? Do you speak English? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked where in guidelines, (or where in other coverage of film awards), 1)it says that the specific award won should not be made clear 2) it states that 'official selection' is the required/customary description for all screenings at all festivals, regardless of whether this term is used by the festival itself.

I note that you avoid answering whether it is indeed true that BM's award was 'one of 14 in the student films category'. It would save us a lot of time if I knew whether this was disputed or not. Then we could get down to the business of deciding how to fairly, succinctly and accurately record BMs achievements.

Since you ask, each festival has its own rules, some of them DO accept selections from the film industry, from countries or others outside the actual festival organisers. As regards your final question(!), the answer is, fairly fluently, sufficiently well to know that 'Winner of' clearly implies that there was only ONE winner, and that the sentence is therefore misleading.Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only do I obviously disagree with your logic, as per my previous comments (no, you won't make me repeat them), but I'm amazed to which lengths you're ready to go to push through your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda. Should we measure up how many miles the sources that describe events were from the locations where the events took pace again? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You have answered NONE of the pertinent questions, therefore you cannot possibly repeat a response to them, you have relied wholly on bluster and accusation. The latest accusation puzzles me, could you please explain, how wishing an accurate description of BMs awards, (in preference to a misleading one) constitutes either an anti-BM or (even more bizzarely) an anti-Yugoslav agenda ?

There are two issues regarding the Google reference, firstly it lacks notability, (especially in the absence of any info as to what the occasion was, an informal chat in the staff canteen or in the diner opposite Google, or a major formal presentation? We don't know), secondly, no source is a RS for all circumstances, context matters. Therefore we are entitled, and required to ask whether the source is likely to have 'fact-checked' before printing and whether the source is an authority in that subject area. Newspapers customarily fact-check much more rigourously in 'hard news' stories or investigative journalism than they do in features or 'celebrity' interviews. In such articles they frequently rely on 'hand-out' info from the celeb or what the celeb actually tells them, and - unless the content is potentially libellous - they do not ordinarily leave out anything which might 'pep-up' the story. This is just as true of the NY Times as it is of the Guardian, OR 'the oldest paper in the Balkans'. We are therefore perfectly entitled to be sceptical about a story reported ONLY in a comparatively small newspaper halfway around the world from the event. Boris can say anything he wants to that newspaper, the newspaper can build it up if it wants ... but we are not obliged to repeat it and we are especially not obliged to repeat it as fact, rather than as 'Name of newspaper reported that …'.

To repeat the relevant questions:

The principal question with regard to 'Google' is 'why is this notable?' ... it might be notable if we knew what the event was, but the responsibility for establishing that the event WAS notable lies with those who wish to retain the reference, not with me to prove it wasn't ... (the distance between the Balkans & Silicon Valley, and the lack of Silicon Valley coverage of the story, simply adds to one's scepticism).

The question with the use of 'Official selection' is 'why are WE using terms/descriptions not used by the festival ITSELF?' Do these changes clarify or obfuscate? Again the responsibility lies with those who wish to retain present wording to justify 'dressing up' the language used by each festival. (nb I note that two films WERE described as 'official screenings' at Palic and am quite happy for that to be included if wanted)

The question with regard to the use of singular 'winner' rather than some form of 'One of XX winners in XXXX category', is that the present wording is both incomplete and misleading. I know of nowhere in Wikipedia where more complete info would not be normal. Even on some of the BM pages the 'student category' is mentioned. Once again responsibility for justifying the exclusion of relevant, well sourced information, lies with those who wish to defend the present (misleading) form.Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As per above discussion, I've removed the 'Google' reference, also used the language actually used by each festival in screenings (usually NOT 'official selection') , I've also added some details of the Silver Palm and linked to the award page. Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner's removal of sourced material

I would like to draw everyone's attention to another attack on this article, again by a known anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editor "Bob Rayner", who decided to declare one of the festivals on which Boris Malagurski's film was screened - "fake" [16]. The festival indeed existed in 2009, whether it exists today is uncertain and quite irrelevant regarding Boris Malagurski, but here's a TV report from the official state televison of Republika Srpska (the entity in which the festival was organized) Radio Television Republika Srpska: 07.05.2009. Međunarodni filmski festival "BRIDGE FEST 2009.", Istočno Sarajevo. Once again, without any knowledge on the topic, exclusively motivated with his or her discontent towards everything that has to do with Boris Malagurski, Bobrayner, who is usually accompanied by Pincrete, is acting completely out of touch with the Wikipedia spirit. By pushing his POV, he is damaging the articles that cover Malagurski's work, and doesn't have as a goal to best inform the public about Malagurski and his work, but merely to present Malagurski from his or her personal point-of-view which is, from what we've been able to see, very negative and misinformed. Any user who tries to act in the spirit of Wikipedia in regards to Malagurski-related articles, from what I've seen, is immediately accused of "being Malagurski", "being Malagurski's friend" or "being on Malagurski's payroll". This is really absurd, and considering the fact that the material written in the article is heavily sourced, more sourced than the average Wikipedia article, I have yet to understand why some people are editing on Wikipedia if their absolute goal is to present the world through their own point of view instead of working together on creating and fostering an unbiased encyclopedia that is based on reliably sourced facts, not opinions. Please respect Wikipedia rules and we'll all get along much better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I cannot see any point in responding in detail to your tirade, look at Bobrayner's edit record, look at mine, then look at your own, then decide which of the three has 'a POV' or 'an agenda'. I've restored the other editor's comments as it is considered the height of bad manners to remove content from other editor's postings. Had you re-formatted them as links rather than refs, we would all probably thank you for taking the trouble. Removing them suddenly (when they have been here quite a while), looks awfully like trying to censor what other editors think is important info.

Re:- Bridgefest, if you believe this reference is reliably sourced information, why haven't you put it into the article? Why are you content for dead links to exist on the BM articles for YEARS, that deny other editors (and more importantly readers) the opportunity to verify the information? I myself spent quite a long time on 'Wayback', looking at the RS given (bridgefest.com). Shortly before the supposed festival, this site was advertising one-off showings IN CANADA of unheard-of films in local premises, it was also 'plugging' for sponsors for proposed film projects. Shortly after this supposed festival, the same site's main page was offering advise on steroids, then later on property purchase (no mention of films anywhere at all), all in mangled English. I suggest to you that the weight of evidence is that IF this festival existed AT ALL, it was little more than a few one-off showings of a self-declared festival, and therefore not notable. You seem very certain that everything BM says must both be true and also be notable. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, re:- Bridgefest AGAIN, could you please tell me (if you know), WHERE in the above clip the film is referred to (it was late at night when I got it and 10 minutes of disco dancers was more than enough for me … though perhaps you mean the clip only to support the existence of the festival). I acknowledge that probably Bridgefest 2009 DID happen, that the film MAY have been shown there, whether the event is 'notable' is still as yet unproven (to use an analogy that you are so fond of yourself, what's to stop me taking my laptop down to the garden, showing three DVDs to friends and calling it 'Pincrete's International Film Festival' ?). It seems surprising that no local news source appears to have reported, reviewed or advertised the event.

You can hardly be surprised that other editors question the event when the principal source (bridgefest.com) is - on its main page - one day fishing for funding for film projects, next day dispensing advice on health matters and property purchase and then disappearing - all of it in mangled English and with no apparent connection between its location (Toronto) and the events (Sarajevo). The responsibility for providing RSs lies with the editor who adds or wishes to keep info, those who are sceptical about the sources are not obliged to PROVE sources are WRONG, simply to come up with reasonable grounds for doubting their reliability. The grounds above seem VERY reasonable to me.

For that reason I do not intend to apologise for questioning the existence of BridgeFest with such poor (dead) sources to support the claim. Last of all, for a man who is happy to dish out bucketloads of personal abuse, you seem to be very sensitive to criticism of your editing.Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable references

I'm putting this into a new section as it seems distinct from the other issues above … Apologies for 'hogging' the page.

There seem to be quite a number of references which are technically faulty in that they do not support the point made eg: The film is supported by the Global Research Institute (New Documentary Film by Boris Malagurski January 7, 2010)[17] ... this ref is a general 'promo' about WoC, but does not say that GRI are supporting WoC … though there are ample sources elsewhere that they are. I've noticed other similar errors and will post them here if a fix is not obvious.Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) … … Update, I was wrong the reference DOES mention GRC funding … Thankyou UrbanVillager for pointing me. to where. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There are also many dead or unproductive reference links.Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Update, many - but not all - refs have now been updated by either UV or myself. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Media and lectures section of article

Several problems with 'Media and lectures' section, mainly para 2 … … first problem is that unfortunately many of the ref links are dead … … second problem is that many of these events appear to be 'student organised' events (and sometimes the sources appear to be students themselves … with copyvio implications in some cases) … … thirdly, several sources refer only to 'panel discussions', prior to showing of a BM film … … lastly (an observation rather than a problem), the speaking events seem mainly about 'plight of Kosovo Serbs/future status of Kosovo/how to keep Kosovo'.

Firstly NONE of these events could possibly be described as 'lectures', so as a temp fix I have changed this to 'speeches' … Secondly is speaking to a student society really a notable event? … Thirdly, to save arguing about each event seperately, is there a form of words that makes it clearer that these were largely or wholly extra-curricular events … Fourthly, given the primary purposes of many of these events, if kept does this para not belong in 'activism' since it is neither media nor a lecture?

Since the section would then contain very little about 'media' and nothing at all about either 'lectures' or 'speeches', I suggest new homes for any remaining paras. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections from anyone, I presume it is OK to try to 'fix' this section, as per my suggestions above, removing refs to privately owned videos. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As a temp fix I have started to put brief descriptions of some of these events, and marked some video refs which may be copy vio. when we can see a better picture of what these events were, perhaps it will be easier to establish 'notability' and how best to phrase the whole section.Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have moved 'speeches' to activism, also tidied some phrasing, I will tidy further when I have time, since many refs are dead and do we really need to cover every single speech at a student society or panel discussion prior to a film showing.?Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (signature + approx date added later)

This article is incredibly one-sided and seems as if was written by anti-Serbs

Why is there only critics against Boris Malagurski and why can't I edit this article? I would like to contribute and make article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there aren't any critics (for or against), mentioned in this article, its difficult to understand what you mean. You are welcome to make your arguments here though.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In weight of chains article, Critical response part, both critics have negative opinion of film. A few days ago, there was a positive opinion from a magazine, why is that gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the weight of Chains page.Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For the talk page there, see Talk:The Weight of Chains.--Auric talk 11:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading

Boris Malagurski persists in removing the (sourced) fact[18] that he was one of 14 winners of the Rosarito Silver Palm Award, Mexico, in the category "Student Films". "Winner, Silver Palm Award, 2009" is directly misleading, it deliberately portrays him as the winner when he was in fact only one of 76 winners of that (not particularly notable) award and only in the category student films along with more than a dozen other film students. All his other awards are less notable than this one. Urban XII (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The intent is not to mislead, but to keep up with the format on the previous awards listed. Also, stop calling me that name, if you're accusing me of being that person, do a checkuser. I'm tired of this... --Cinéma C 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The continued attempts to remove the fact that he won in the category "Student Films" is nothing but simple vandalism, and really a good example of how this article deliberately and misleadingly presents a non-notable person as extremely important. If anyone ever doubted why this vanity should be deleted, you have given them plenty of reasons with your revert-warring to make readers believe this award is so much more important than it really is. Urban XII (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. Nobody is trying to present this person as extremely important. This is an article about a filmmaker who has made a few films, has had interviews in several media outlets, was written about in newspapers, reported about on television and the article itself is well referenced, with reliable secondary sources that support all claims in the article, and no original research. That is how it should stay. --Cinéma C 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

note, the user Cinéma C, was later banned as a sockpuppet :-[19], as (I believe), were several of the participants in the various RFDs listed at the top of this page. Note added by Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains 2 info

UrbanVillager, I moved detail about WoC2, to the 'sequel' section of WoC film page. The recent redirect decision was to redirect to that page/section. I gave my edit reason:-[20].

The BM page should surely be for biographical/background info, with details on the relevant film pages? Unless somebody gives me a good reason why that was the wrong thing for me to do, I will re-do that edit. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking and copyvio ?

Two issues, first on 'External links', section 'Print media interviews', here:-[21], do we need to repeat interviews which are already linked to in the refs? It seems like overkill. … … Second, throughout the page there are links to (what appear to be) copyrighted videos including several in 'media and lectures' and one on GRC, as well as external links to Youtube. I'm not sure I fully understand WHEN it is legit to link to copyrighted videos, but am drawing the attention of others. I mention this, and several other issues, immediately above, or here:[22]. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections from anyone, I presume it is OK to try to remove the duplicated interviews. Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed concerning the duplicated interviews. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the videos (I'm always a bit unclear where copyvio 'cuts in')? … … Anyway I will leave to see what others think, but will try to keep on my 'to do' list.Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed two 'video refs', one is GRC, the other is to a speech, which, apart from being possible copy vio, doesn't really corroborate anything. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Kostic Controversy

Regarding the controversy with Vesna Kostic's accusations against Malagurski, I feel this section is too one-sided and should include response from Malagurski. I found a Facebook discussion on the matter where Malagurski reacted to Vesna Kostic. Now, I checked Wikipedia regulations on using Facebook as a source and found that:

"Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources." --Link

So, drawing from the source in question, I am adding the following:

Malagurski reacted by claiming that he "didn't forge anything", but that Ms. Kostic either "forgot how she answered the questions" or had "bad intentions". He also offered to show Vesna Kostic the raw material from the interview and asked her to resign if he proves her wrong, but there was no reply to the offer.

The alternative to this addition is to remove Vesta Kostic's accusations as it is one-sided to have only one side of the story, completely ignoring the other side. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Malagurski's official website links to the official Facebook page, which satisfies the Wikipedia requirement to use the source in question in this case, all with the purpose of providing a more balanced look at the issue. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

His reply/denial seems appropriate, I'm not sure about Facebook as a source, but the denial should go in. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The logic behind saying one BM site links to his own Facebook page fulfils the 'official website' criteria sounds pretty dubious to me (much more authority if it were Happy TV's website or a 'proper paper' for example). however as long as wording is clear that this is BM's CLAIM, I'm not going to object. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need or logic behind removing Kostic's accusation of 'violation of journalistic ethics'. The remark summarises her complaint … The space devoted to accusation and rebuttal is approx equal … What good reason is there for it going? Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a part of her statement, and even a Facebook rebuttal is included. I don't see a good reason for Kostic's accusation going. --RealButter (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Revolucija (TV show) AfD

I've just nominated Revolucija (TV show) for deletion, proposing that any notable material be re-merged with this article. Watchers of this page might want to join that discussion.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with moving RT and Eurochannel to WoC, and I'm not sure why you agreed with moving the Kostic allegations to Revolucija (TV show) only to nominate that article for deletion (?!!). --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I indented UV's immediately previous post. UV, I don't understand what you don't understand about Revolucija, if an article is there, it's our job to make it more accurate, balanced etc. that doesn't mean we have to think the article SHOULD be there, from the moment we first see it. Perhaps the AfD will throw up new material sufficient to establish a RS article.

I also don't understand why critical material has to be removed, but promotional material has to be repeated on BOTH pages, details of screenings are usually on the article page, not on director's page. … … btw your source says WoC is due to be shown on Eurochannel on 26th Feb.

Kostic allegations are SPECIFICALLY about the content of a Revolucija programme, the message board is not solely/primarily about content of P of J.Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

I'm puzzled where the sources are for the Filmography section in regards to which films Malagurski produced, or didn't produce, edited, or didn't edit, etc. The "Yes"s and "No"s are coming from which sources exactly? If there aren't any reliable sources, I suggest the removal of those columns, or if someone is willing to go through the credits of all those films, and find out the facts regarding those details, we can fill them out. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The only one for which I am responsible is 'The Presumption of Justice' (co-direction), I took this from the film's own page, but also believe it is sourced. I have no opinion on others and thought UrbanVillager was the 'inserter'. Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean when you say I was the 'inserter'? --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought UrbanVillager was the 'inserter', means I thought UrbanVillager was the editor who put the info in. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember adding the boxes. What should we do with them? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean the boxes (that was Keppke I think)[23], I meant the content. Why do you want to change them? Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Are there any sources? For example, I just checked "The Weight of Chains" credits, and Malagurski is listed first among the editors of the film, while the box indicates a "No" for editing. Have you checked any of the information or are you trolling the talk page by commenting without knowledge on the subject? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already said, the only one for which I accept responsibility is 'The Presumption of Justice' (co-direction), I don't KNOW who inserted the others and don't know whether the info is important. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re this edit:[24], it is definitely sourced that 'Presumption of Justice' had a co-director, the others I know nothing about, but the edit reason 'credits suggest etc.' is not a source either. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, credits are a source, are you willing to look through all of them to check the info. in the boxes? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The absence of a source for some of the previous boxed info, is not evidence of BM having done everything, specifically your edit contradicts sourced info that 'Presumption of Justice' had a co-director. If we lack detailed info on other films, then more neutral wording is appropriate eg "BM's films include:". Anyway, editing and script are always the ultimate responsibility of director/producer. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC) … … ps another producer is named for KosovoCYI, if the only argument is whether BM edited all the films, perhaps that column should go pending sources, editing isn't anyhow especially notable since script/production/direction are the key elements in a documentary. The boxes do LOOK better and contain more RS info than the recently restored edit[25] Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have partially restored the info boxes (removing 'edit' category, which doesn't seem important enough to get worked up about), should any of the info be incorrect or need sourcing, editing it seems the way forward, rather than 'blanket' rewrites based on 'credits suggest'. I've also slightly reformatted to allow for longer titles. Pincrete (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Having reformatted the career section, what purpose does 'Filmography' now fulfil? It simply duplicates existing info.Pincrete (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up an 'auto-archive' on this page (90 day?), as much of the discussion seems reduntant.Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

I'd like to thank Pincrete for moving the "Kostic Allegations" section to the Revolucija (TV show) article, I have done the same with the "Message Board Controversy" and moved it to The Presumption of Justice article, and removed both from this article. Neither of the two controversies were game-changers in regards to Malagurski's career and, thus, I agree that they should be moved to the topic areas regarding which those issues are controversial. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

'Kostic' might apply to 'Revolucija', but message board is NOT part of Pres of Jus, it merely happened after a screening, I'm putting it back … ps have also moved 'Eurochannel and RT' screenings to WoCh, I notice that Eurochannel describes the film as 'Serbian', that's Raindance, Journeyman and Eurochannel, who haven't read the credits! Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, could you explain to me how filing a criminal investigation request is considered a controversy? --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Vreme and Pescanik considered it a controversy and made accusations. Incidentally nobody has yet inserted the rebuttal (see above).Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Note the main discussion about this section is here and more recent here.Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The controversy regarding threats has to do with the threats & the trial, not the message board. It's irrelevant where the threats were posted and all the references point to the threats and trial as the controversial parts, not the part about the message board. The message board is not controversial in that nobody disputes that the threats took place at the message board, but the controversial part are the threats themselves, and also the trial to an extent. So, unless we see a reliable source calling the controversy "Message board controversy", the section should be renamed. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My reply is in the main section above here, let's try to keep the discussion in one place.Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please answer my comments where I leave them, I'm not going to go back and forth to read what you wrote. You have unilaterally decided on "Message board controversy" as the heading of this section, while when I type "message board controversy boris malagurski" on Google, there are no hits outside Wikipedia. However, when I type "threats boris malagurski", there are several hits. The point is that this specific topic area deals with threats, not with message boards. If you're going to dispute this further, please first find me a source that says the essence of the controversy is the message board, not the threats. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a pre-existing discussion above (which has the whole history from before Aug 2014 to 2015). Spreading discussion over various sections isn't helpful to other editors. Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)