Talk:Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom

Sources for review

1. "Malagurski u Frankfurtu: Filmski melem za srpske nacionaliste - 05.11.2022". DW.COM (in Serbian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
2. Augustinović, Marija (6 January 2023). "Film Malagurskog o RS za jedne 'iskrivljivanje istine', za druge 'priča o slobodi'". Radio Slobodna Evropa (in Serbo-Croatian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
3. "Controversial Director Boris Malagurski invites Sarajevo Mayor to Film about Republika Srpska". Sarajevo Times. 7 January 2023. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
4. Kurtic, Azem (13 October 2022). "Petition Targets Bosnian Serb History Film for 'Genocide Denial'". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
5. Peterhans, Anielle (24 October 2022). "Nationalistes serbes – «L'UDC! Le seul parti de ce pays qui nous comprend!»". Tribune de Genève (in French). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
6. "Fenerbahce Fans in whose Premises Malagurski's Film was shown: We apologize to Brothers Bosniaks". Sarajevo Times. 14 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
7. "Statement on the Broadcasting of the Documentary Republika Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom". Lemkin Institute. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
8. Hiltmann, Aleksandra (25 October 2022). "Analyse zu Propagandafilm – Warum serbischer Nationalismus gefährlich ist – auch in der Schweiz". Berner Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
9. "Un nationaliste serbe a-t-il besoin de la Suisse pour faire de la propagande?". SWI swissinfo.ch (in French). 14 October 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
10. "Time is running out for war crimes prosecution in Bosnia". JusticeInfo.net. 14 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
11. Zijad Burgić. "TEŽINA ZLOČINA". Bosnjaci.Net (in Bosnian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Every single one of these links contains articles heavily biased against Malagurski and his film. No wonder, considering User:Pincrete, who is against Malagurski and his film (every edit he makes reflects this), is canvassing users like BobFromBrockley: [1] 109.245.39.239 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and also read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. This list of sources is copied from the talk page of the director's article, where I posted it before Pincrete tagged me. Pincrete tagged me because I asked a specific question about what happened to material deleted from that article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents facts based on evidence, not heresay. Almost all of these articles are based on claims made by individuals who haven’t seen the film. It is evident that there is a propaganda campaign against this film before it was even released, so is this enough for Wikipedia to bend the facts? 109.245.39.239 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are actually an anon editor why would you think this - Pincrete, who is against Malagurski and his film (every edit he makes reflects this),? Which incidentally isn't remotely true, 99% of my edits are made outside of Balkan topics, and more than that outside Malagurski-ville. Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Every edit regarding Malagurski. 109.245.39.239 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, most of these links are basically the same - NGOs and activists attacking the film without watching it, media outlets quoting them without really caring if they provide any evidence for their claims, sometimes letting the director defend himself in a few words. Someone who hasn't seen a film isn't really a reliable source for that film. I mean, can you imagine a film review starting with "I haven't seen this film, but..."? Danijel Majic, Anielle Peterhans, Aleksandra Hiltmann, Kenan Cosic, Vildana Selimbegovic and Mladen Kremenovic seem to be the only ones from the links in the article and on this talk page that have actually seen the film and can be considered reliable sources regarding the film's content. Most of them speak negatively about the film, but the article should maintain a neutral point of view. However, neutrality is not achieved by putting unreliable and reliable sources on the same level.

At the same time, one can't ignore the accusations made against Malagurski's film even by those who haven't seen it, but these are all sources that are useful for the timeline of how the controversy developed, not reliable sources for the film's content. It is also important to give the film's production company space to address those accusations. However, Wikipedia is neither a tabloid nor a gossip magazine, sentences need to be backed up with factual evidence. Even if the source has a very serious sounding name like the "Lemkin Institute", because if you actually click on their link, you notice them talking about the film's trailer, not the film itself. That speaks volumes about just how serious they are about investigating something before issuing a statement.

Regarding the whole "genocide denial" accusation, Malagurski Cinema provided quotes from the film, even those critical of the film confirmed that the film doesn't deny genocide, the accusers provided no evidence. I've personally seen the film, it's so far removed from what I've read the NGOs and activists claimed about it that it's not even funny. I can understand those who claim that it's one-sided because it mainly talks about Serbs, but that is, after all, the topic of the film - it's a film about Serbs. So, I'm curious why exactly many have an issue with this film if they haven't even seen it, but that's irrelevant here.

As for those who have seen the film, they can like or dislike it, but that's not what started the controversy - the controversy started over the accusation that the film denies genocide, denies and justifies war crimes, etc. None of that has been backed up by anything other than them repeating it over and over. So if that's not the case, the rest is a matter of personal taste. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This response implies that we should do original research rather than follow sources. The question is: are these sources reliable, and is the content due, not do we agree with what the people they quote say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of original research, but what a source is reliable for - it can be reliable in discussing the controversy that erupted, but not regarding the film's content if it doesn't discuss it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

We don't know who has or hasn't seen the film, we simply reflect what WP:RS say. The page at present seems an exercise in BM refuting claims made against the film, when all that is needed is a single sentence that he refutes the accusations. Even that is generous - we don't devote half of an article on a book or film to the creator defending it against criticismm and arguing that critics have got it all wrong. We don't engage with WP:OR about whether the film is accurate, nor whether it has been 'fairly' treated by sources. Anyway, 'Genocide denial' is not simply saying something didn't happen. It is also minimalising or trivialising something that happened and it is not up to WP editors to decide whether the film does indeed trivialise Srebrenica or the Bosnian war. Multiple WP:RS say it does, Malagurski and some other RS say it doesn't.

The present text fabricates all kinds of nonsense "Some media outlets cited Bosniak activists claiming that screenings of the film were cancelled in 19 cities in Austria". The source employed does not even mention 'Bosniak activists' - nor AFAI can see does anyone except BM on his own website. Multiple sources say the film was cancelled in much of Europe, but whether it was or not, we don't ordinarily list every single showing of a film in every private showing across Europe. Some showings were cancelled due to objections, some showings took place, what else is there to say?

The text also uses a tweet from an unknown person to argue something hardly worth arguing, that the film has been unfairly pre-judged in his opinion. There is also a long quote which isn't in the written source AFAI can see, and which isn't even about the film again, though what it is about is difficult to establish since the English is so mangled and the quote seems to be highly selective to justify rather than to describe the film .Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The accusers who haven't seen the film provide no evidence, Malagurski and others who have seen the film do, so the solution is to give tons of space to the accusers and let the others just refute the accusers in one sentence? I disagree. Your definition of "genocide denial" is original research, even those most critical of the film who have seen it confirm that the film doesn't deny genocide. As for the screenings, it's factually accurate to list all the screenings and relevant in light of some media outlets claiming that the film is banned everywhere, when several cinemas and relevant media outlets very clearly show that the film was screened in many European cities. I myself watched it in a cinema at a very public screening. The Twitter source has been removed I believe, while the long quote (I believe you're thinking of Vildana Selimbegovic?) explains a different aspect of the controversy that is directly linked to this film and the release of this film. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The accusers who haven't seen the film provide no evidence, Malagurski and others who have seen the film do, this is textbook WP:OR. I am not interested in whether BM or the film engage in "genocide denial", only in what the sources, and reviews claim - though my definition is fairly widely accepted and was only included by me as a courtesy to you to explain how you might be misunderstanding this topic. We never list every showing of a film, especially when we are talking about showings in hired halls. There isn't any reason to change that here. The film has been banned in some places and shown in others, so what? If there were a 'war' about that, it wouldn't be part of our business to take sides in that 'war'.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I must interject here: Textbook WP:OR is Pincrete claiming the film was shown in hired halls. What’s your source for that? If some sources are claiming the film was banned in all cities where screenings were planned, it’s completely acceptable to list all the cities where there’s evidence of screenings. It’s not about taking sides, it’s about facts. It’s not the first time a lot of noise was made about something that simply didn’t happen or doesn’t exist, so it really makes no sense to insist on presenting claims that don’t have factual relevance. 109.245.39.149 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

At least one of the sources speaks of BM trying to hire halls to show the film - but the situation is academic since I am not inserting the claim in the article and wouldn't want to. WP never lists every venue at which a film has been shown, rarely every festival, unless the film won notable awards at that festival. Listing each showing is simply advertising how non-mainstream this film is, like mentioning every bookshop at which a copy of a book has been sold. Not every factual claim is worthy of inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet you insist on including non-factual claims like the film negating genocide and it being cancelled everywhere. Interesting. 94.189.229.44 (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between being accused of negating genocide - which is more widely and reliably sourced than anything elso and negating genocide, which I have no opinion about. Also the cancellation of some showings is extremely reliably sourced from European news outlets. How many I have no idea. If we concentrated on recording the facts as known and not wasting time impugning other editors or well-known news outlets, it might create a better more rounded article. The coverage of the plot summary is anodyne at present, it makes the film sound more like a tourist info film than anything else and ignores sourced content.Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Recommended synopsis of dispute and review of film content - in German but it machine translates well if needed. This source is used fairly scantily in the article, but includes detailed review-like analysis of the film and comments by some activists against the film eg "the film wants to show this structure (RepSrb as an entity) as the result of a fight for freedom," says Selma Jahić, survivor of the Srebrenica genocide and co-initiator of the call for a boycott, "although much of what contributed to its creation was based on genocide, expulsion and rape." Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:CAN

We have a case of WP:CAN: [2]. 109.245.39.239 (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley asked a question on the BM page about what had happened to the criticism of this film - I directed him here. I know him only as a competent and neutral editor. If you have a complaint about my behaviour - WP:ANI is over there. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So competent and neutral that all he could find were heavily biased articles against Malagurski and his film? Please. 109.245.39.239 (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to the pool of available sources, but someone re-inserting tweets from a wholly unknown,unverifiable, nobody who doesn't even say that he has seen the film and wholly selective text from an interview with the director and press releases from the director is not in a very good position to question bona fide sources from legitimate publications from a number of European and Canadian countries. We reflect WP:RS, not edit from a particular notion of what 'ought' to be said. Pincrete (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read what you revert before reverting

Re this unexplained edit and this edit, very concerned about the rationale. Films should be in italics not quotes. Why cite three identical press releases published by local websites rather than al-Jazeera reporting? "Claim" is a word to watch. "A statement stated" is redundant. "Hysterical" is not an encyclopedic term. "Some media outlets cited Bosniak activists claiming that" is a terrible summary of mainstream newspapers reporting facts. Film listings are not good sources and using them is original research.

Can I also remind users this page falls under discretionary sanctions] relating to Balkan topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would one cite Al-Jezeera, a well-known anti-Semitic and pro-Nato publishing entity? After all this is Wikipedia and you are placing biased opinion where it should not be.

Sarajlijac (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Per RSP, Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unless there is some local reason why we should make an exception for this particular argument, we can definitely use Wikipedia. (I have never heard it called pro-NATO before by the way!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If films should be in italics and not quotes, the wise thing to do would be to put them in italics instead of just talking to talk, razumiješ? Sarajlijac (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I did and it was reverted twice, by by 109.245.39.239 (with no explanation), UrbanVillager (with no explanation) and Сарајлијац (with an insult instead of an explanation). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is fiercely pro-Bosniak and anti-Serbian in the Balkans. 109.245.39.149 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there some good reason why Al Jazeera would be inaccurate about what protesters in Canada and Europe were complaining about, or which cities cancelled screenings of the film? These are the only facts being cited to them by the article at present. Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

They cited people who haven’t seen the film nor listed evidence for cancellations in cities (it’s one thing to cancel a screening in one venue, a different thing to cancel in an entire city), Al Jazeera hasn’t investigated the film, didn’t write that they asked to see the film, so this seems like a “Let’s help our brothers Bosniaks build up their cause” case. 94.189.229.44 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You were there were you? I wasn't and rely on local and international news sources which clearly indicate some/many cancelled showings. If those news sources are sensitive to the feeling of relatives of people killed in Bosnia, I wouldn't expect them to apologise for that, nor think that it dislodged their judgement. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If editors here feel that al-Jazeera is unreliable source for fact in any Balkan articles, please take it to RSN. Until a community-wide consensus is established, we can continue to use it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Screenings and cancellations

Regarding this text, first of all, I have several objections to saying that two cinema chains claimed that the film was shown in X, (long list of towns and cities) places. Firstly only BM's own website even claims to endorse all of these places, (and he really isn't a reliable or independent source on this matter) news sources reliably endorse some others and the two cinema chains programmes endorse nothing really except that the film was scheduled to be shown there. In normal circumstances the cinema programme would be an acceptable source, but in these circumstances, whether the film actually was shown is not knowable, unless there is a review or article about the screening having happened.

Because there are local reviews and articles, we know that some showings went ahead, but (if I remember correctly), some of those articles mention screenings being cancelled or moved/rescheduled at the last minute. So we know some screenings happened and some others were cancelled/moved/rescheduled, even if we don't know exactly how many of each. If there is some kind of 'propaganda war' being waged between objectors to the film on one hand and BM and those wanting the screenings to happen on the other - beyond recording some cancellations and some screenings - the exact number of which may be unknown and unknowable since both 'sides' have a vested interest in inflating their success, why is WP being used to 'keep score' in that war? Because there are more articles about the objections than about the film itself, we have a duty to briefly record the nature of the objections. If the film gathers reviews, those will also be recorded proportionately and fairly.

Equally importantly, aside from not knowing exactly (nor caring that much) how many screenings occurred/were moved/were cancelled - aside from that issue, why does the reader need to know every single town or city in which the film has been shown? Does any other film on WP list every single showing? Do articles about bands list every minor gig at which they have ever performed? It just seems like a clumsy attempt to inflate the importance of the film, an attempt which is actually counter-productive, since it simply advertises how marginal the film really is. We are at present one step away from naming everyone who has seen the film! So is there a form of words that summarises that objectors were partly successful, but (the majority?) of screenings went ahead in countries XY &Z - without our needing to bother to mention every (minor?) screening. If so, which sources would best support that text? Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue of cancelled or not cancelled screenings is a major talking point regarding this film. I disagree that this should be marginalized, on the contrary. 109.245.33.23 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

But, even BM and Serbian sources (Politika?) acknowledge that screenings have been cancelled and/or moved, so this is an established fact - not something that can dismissed as being a few Bosniak activists or a handful of unreliable/anti-Serb sources.

The only questions are how to accurately represent what the objections were and that some - but by no means all - screenings were cancelled. We can put the counter position to the extent it is represented in RS, but not according to BM's wishes. If somebody objects to a Woody Allen film (for example) and finds its coverage of the theme of child abuse unfunny and crass, we don't devote half the article to Mr Allen complaining that his critics didn't understand the jokes. If this film receives positive reviews, that is where BM's oppurtunity to rebut his critics lies - not in selective reporting of his own interviews and press releases. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR, poor English and selective use of sources

Regarding this series of edits made by a number of IP editors. Firstly, the complaints from various NGOs are widely reported in a variety of sources, including Serbian and Res Srb ones and the filmaker himself. That alone makes their complaints and campaign notable. The campaigfn AGAINST the film is more widely reported in both Serbian & non-Serb sources than anything else about the film. None of the sources refers to "some NGOs launched a campaign against the film without watching it or listing evidence for their claims", we have no idea who saw the film, who saw the trailer, or if anyone saw nothing. Only the filmaker claims that the film was condemned unseen and no sources give the 'long name' to the 'Mothers of Srebrenica', even the BiH sources use the short name. No sources describe the origins of the various NGOs except the Canadian one, which has the word Canada in its name. Bad, clumsy and barely coherent English is used and selective reporting of sources, such that only those comments that mainly endorse the claim of the filmmaker that he has been unfairly judged, are included. Almost endlessly and very selectively. Lastly no fim article on WP EVER lists every single screening of a film, or relates where every journalist or critic saw the film, and in this case the sources for the screenings are poor anyway. In short the changes are a mass of WP:OR, seeming 'insider' information and selective reporting, all bundled into carelessly phrased English, the sole purpose of which is to defend the claims of BM himself. Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)