Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sponsors

PRODUCER's latest edits are clear POV pushing. A production company finances the production of a film. Whether the production company gets money from individuals, receives it from companies or organizations, or gets funding from film funds is the business of the production company. That means that the production company is the financier of the film, not every single donation that goes towards the production. Let me explain it this way: If I give money to you or your company so that you or your company can produce a project, you or your company are still the financiers of the project, unless if you or your company and I sign a co-production agreement, in which case we both have to be listed as financiers. Only if a co-production contract is signed - then we can list several financiers. There are 101 people and organizations which donated towards the production, but only one financier - the Malagurski Cinema production company. Either we list all of the contributors, which is a precedent on Wikipedia and simply illogical, as many production companies get smaller donations as well, or none at all, which is in tact with Wikipedia guidelines, as the production company is the only one that matters and where the company gets money is up to the production company - this can be talked about in an article about the production company, if its ever created. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to look at the above, it sounds like it's very much UrbanVillager's own development of the topic, with no relationship whatsoever to any Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Opbeith (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Take, for example, the article Bowling for Columbine - the studios and producers are listed, they are the financiers. They have co-production contracts, I'm sure. They never discuss where they actually get the money for the films (it had to have come from somewhere), but it's not Wikipedia's job to investigate such things. Especially considering there are no secondary sources to back up PRODUCER's edits. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, for once. Bowling for Columbine, like any other article about a documentary, should details of the significant financial backers. Any documentary should be transparent about its sources of finance if it's intending to be straightforward with its target audience. There's a difference between being one of a number of small subscribers and being a significant contributor or an organiser of contributions. When a film has little prospect of a commercial return, as I presume was the case for a production by a small-scale unit like Malagurski Cinema that hasn't finished developing its track record, the people funding it are not doing so in the anticipation of a financial return on investment. Disclosing the names of the major - ie potentially influential - sponsors provides information that helps assess the possibility of influence and bias. It's not unreasonable to support a film that offers a point of view consistent with your own. The issue is how reputable and legitimate that point of view is. It seems extraordinary that time after time we have to go through these basic principles of common sense while you accuse people of pushing their points of view, declaring "End of story" or simply trying to avoid the inclusion of relevant information. You're simply not comfortable with other people's efforts to achieve balance and transparency. You once confirmed for me that you had no connection with the film. Would you be prepared now to confirm once and for all that you have no connection with Boris Malagurski or his backers? Opbeith (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, the self-published "poem reading on Srebrenica grave sites" (check it out on YouTube, quite disturbing) blogger and author Zijad Burgic wrote one thing about The Weight of Chains that caught my eye: "One website that propagandized the content of the film – the film was displayed without any indication of who the author was – stated that the film had been recently aired on Russian television, without any mention of which channel it was on, leaving one to assume that it was aired on state television." Um, fact check? Actual journalists and authors would check if it really was aired on Russian TV before making asumptions (from what I could find, it wasn't. Only Malagurski's Kosovo: Can You Imagine? was broadcasted on RT) and at least cite the website. "One website", well, could say whatever it wants, no? If we set aside the fact that the text originated on a self-published blog and that Burgic is an unestablished nobody with no credentials, this sentence makes his credibility equal to zero. End of story. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As you say, a side note. Back to my last sentence in my preceding observations, which as far as I can see you still haven't answered: would you be prepared to confirm that you have no connection with Boris Malagurski or his backers? Opbeith (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First you say all the individual contributors must also be added or else is POV pushing which is just nonsense. What POV could I possibly push? Now you say a "co-production contract" must exist. What? You're throwing whatever possible reason you can out there to not include this. Hell the page even says "this is our film". You say only two of the eight are put in there and that there must secondary sources to back the claim up which is again nonsense. In reality the major financial backers are identified. Funny enough the film's website can be used to state when the production ended, a sponsor's site for where the filming took place, but god forbid you add the sponsors to the article. You do not get to personally and arbitrarily pick and choose which information you like to stay in the article. If you want to talk about consensus two different have users have reverted you so far and believe the information should be included. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, it's as simple as this: according to the website, there are 101 sponsors (all of them are listed on the "Sponsors" tab of the website), either you list them all, or none at all. Two of the sponsors in the "Sponsors" section within the "Sponsors" tab are fundraisers which you didn't add - why? Perhaps you considered fundraising not really being a "sponsor". In that case, you were right - fundraising doesn't mean that everyone or every organization which gives money is a producer of the film, so take into consideration that the producer is always the only official financier of the film - in charge of fundraising, and later funding the project. If you or your organization gives a $1,000 for this film this wouldn't get you a ticket to appear on Wikipedia. Films are considered productions by encyclopedias, and the production company finds funds, sponsors, etc., not the film itself. You can't donate to a film (that's a concept I think nobody can comprehend, as a film isn't registered as a company and doesn't have a bank account), you donate to the production company, and the company is the only sponsor, unless if it signs a co-production deal in which another production company gives money for the project (that it can also provide with fundraising), in which case the two are the only sponsors. In light of those two strong arguments, please stop adding that sentence and promoting these insignificant organizations and individuals, thanks. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong? Heh. This all or nothing proposal is just nonsense. There are eight sponsors, the rest are contributors. Recognize that. Again why do you think it's appropriate to use the film's website to state when the production ended, but not who sponsored the film? Why can a sponsor's site be cited for where the filming took place, but not point out that they are a sponsor? Why are you discussing the funding process? These organizations "donated to this film project" as stated on the website. As simple as that, your original research is absolutely irrelevant. For the love of god stop conflating discussions. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, they're all in the "Sponsors" tab. If you're citing the film website, then note all of the 101 sponsors. You say these organizations "donated to this film project", well the contributors "donated to this film project" as well, according to the source you're citing. Please try to understand how project funding works and how these things are dealt with on other Wikipedia film articles. The only sponsors are the production companies in charge of financing the film. Where the production company gets money is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, might I note that sometimes films projects get approved for film funds (such as Eurimages, for example) and in that case the funding organizations become sponsors because they actually co-produce the film. In that case, you can list a sponsor, as it's also a co-producer (it would be absurd to go further and investigate where Eurimages got the funds to fund a film on that film's article). The Weight of Chains only has Malagurski Cinema as a producer (production company). Please get informed before you start adding nonsense to the article. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Still evading questions. They are under the contributor section separate from the sponsor section. The website itself says who the financial sponsors are and not whoever you wish to personally proclaim. We aren't discussing producers. They "donated to this film project", this "film project" has a wikipedia page, this information can be included. You do not get to say what's relevant and irrelevant for Wikipedia as if you speak on the behalf of the entire Wikipedia. You've got three editors that think the information is appropriate. The consensus is clear here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not evading questions, I'm trying to explain how film funding works. You won't find any articles on Wikipedia that disclose how a production company funded a film, i.e. whether it raised funds with donations or sponsors, or whether it just paid for it from its company budget. I'm trying to explain that this is irrelevant, even when the company discloses it on a website - it's for promotional purposes, while Wikipedia is not here to promote insignificant companies and individuals. Only if there's a co-production, you list all the companies that officially funded a film project. If you find evidence of a co-production between Malagurski Cinema and the organizations you'd like to add to the article, then they can be added. Please don't pretend there is a consensus, especially when your arguments are out of sync with every other film article on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, other stuff will always exist. The film MOS says that the production section should include "securing of financing". These donations by sponsors are a part of that financing and can therefore be included. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the film MOS says it's important to include how the production was funded, not to list all individual sponsors and donors. As a sign of good faith and willingness to reach a compromise, I suggest the addition of a sentence that says "The film was produced and funded by the Canadian production company Malagurski Cinema, based in Vancouver, and according to the film's website, the project was supported by around 100 organizations and individuals who donated towards the production of the film." We're not going to pick out certain sponsors from the "Sponsors" tab (and give the organizations free advertising on Wikipedia), or list all 101 of them, but I guess it's OK to mention that the production company funded the film with the help of donations, if you insist. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Further promoting Malagurski whilst obscuring the background? That's not a good "compromise". bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Listing insignificant groups for their promotion on Wikipedia is not allowed. I think its important to have a lasting consensus and I am offering a compromise. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Still evading the issue. You're transparent, even if Malgurski's funding isn't. Opbeith (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you consider them significant or insignificant is your personal opinion. Merely mentioning an organization isn't promotion. Your "compromise" is absolute rubbish. The edits are in line with the film MOS and at least three editors have formed a consensus for it to be included. Consensus does not need to be unanimous and you are not the gatekeeper for this article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is based on arguments, not the quantity of editors. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is based on the agreement of editors after arguments were heard. Arguments were made, Wiki policies were brought, and the quality of arguments were judged. Three still believe it should be included with you as the odd one out. No Wikipedian is required to endlessly attempt to appease another in order to get a unanimous consensus and this gatekeeper mentality increasingly illustrates your attempted ownership of the article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Misinterpreting the Wikipedia film MOS is not an argument. The only article on Wikipedia that lists sponsors is The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is specifically about film sponsors and that's why it lists them. No other article about a film has what you're suggesting. You can't build a consensus that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. You can't donate $1,000 to a film production company and instantly earn a ticket to being mentioned on Wikipedia, it just doesn't work that way, sorry. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a misinterpretation or contrary to guidelines, it clearly pertains to "securing financing" and is not a form of promotion, it's simply a statement of fact. Constantly repeating that other crap exists is futile and comparing this film with Hollywood ones is hilarious. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a Hollywood film, find me any film on Wikipedia that has what you're asking for. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. To repeat what I inserted above, all these rules and recommendations cited by UrbanVillager appear to have no basis whatsoever in any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, they're just cobbled together to support UrbanVillager's control of the article's content. What a surprise. Opbeith (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think SOME mention of the sponsors is appropriate, especially since 1) One of them is an interviewee on the film 2) So many are connected with the cause(s) the film promotes 3) The method of funding is relatively unorthodox. However I think that the present position is inappropriate (should be after NOT before opening Para. ...) I also think that some other form of phrasing might be appropriate eg (After naming principal sponsors)'including Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals' with a link . I don't see any logic at all in any of UrbanVillager's arguments and they look awfully like a smokescreen, also I consider his 'compromise' to be a joke and endorse BobRayner's analysis above. BUT GUYS, DON'T LET THIS DETRACT US FROM THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF REMEDYING THE REST OF THE PAGE.Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia film MOS has the funding first in the production section. I agree with your other suggestion. Would this be good in your view?: "Sponsors for the film include the Serbo-Australian Information & Welfare Centre, the Serbian KOLO Association, the Serbian National Shield Society of Canada, the Global Research Centre, and a number of other Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wikipedia film MOS says "securing of financing and producers", and the producer is Malagurski Cinema, and, as such, is in charge of financing. Every film is funded by a production company, while sponsors and individuals can fund the production, and they're mentioned only if co-production contracts are signed. This is how it works on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, please find me one film article on Wikipedia that advertises organizations and individuals that donated towards the production of a film, just one (other than The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is specifically about film sponsors and that's why it lists them). This is the third time I'm asking. Wikipedia can not provide free advertising for insignificant organizations. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask a fourth time if you wish. Put it in bold, caps, italics, and underline it too if you want. I have no obligation to find anything for your other crap exists nonsense. The MOS and indeed common sense are both already clear on this. I've already read and responded to your repeated comments enough times now and would like to hear Pincrete's response. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already given my reasons (above) for WHY I think some mention of funding is appropriate, it was only an opinion as to WHERE this should go, I'm happy to accept standard MOS practice, or whatever 'reads best'. PRODUCER's wording seems a bit heavy handed but mention of GlobResCentre seems appropriate (since this is run by one of the interviewees) ... Also perhaps any sponsors with explicit political agendas or strong links to the film. Thereafter I don't know why specific organisations should be mentioned, am I missing something? It seems to me that most would be adequately covered by the 'catch-all' description and links to the web address for those who wish to know the full list. Just an opinion.

I still think however that UrbanVillager is putting up a smokescreen here, for reasons best known to himself.Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, I'm not putting up a smokescreen, just show me one article on Wikipedia that does these kinds of things. Financiers are production companies, not whoever donates towards a production. Ever wondered why Coca-Cola or the US Army don't appear on the financiers list of many films, but just get a "thanks" in the credits, even though they donate towards the films? That's because they're not co-producers, and only producers are co-producers are considered official financiers. From what I noticed, while the other organizations and individuals just gave money, which is not notable for Wikipedia, the Global Research Centre did participate in the production (with Michel Chossudovsky being interviewed), it does get mentioned a lot when describing this film ([1], [2], etc.), so I guess we could list that organization for giving support and funding, "together with other organizations and individuals who donated towards the production of the film." How's that? --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not dealing with the point - transparency is important where an op-ed documentary is concerned, less so in the case of a primarily commercial production. Knowing the sources of substantial contributions in cash or kind is important as an indication of potential conflicts of interest or sources of influence. As you note, Global Research Centre are Malagurski's partners in the film and that's useful to acknowledge, but they are not his only substantial backers. It would be helpful if you would make it clear that there are no echoes of the Gibraltarpedia conflict of interest issue as far as either the film or its reporting are concerned. This is very much a current concern at Wikipedia and not to be dismissed flippantly. Opbeith (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'd rather hear what others have to say since they probably know more than I about the sponsors .... but immediate response to your suggestion? ... Errrrrr, difficult, but I think there's a word missing from my suggested wording ... Now what would that be ? ... Let me try to remember .... I'm sure I'll remember it soon! Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, there are a number of issues, but one that is immediately apparent is that listing the names of sponsors other than Global Research Centre will highlight the presence of the word "Serbian" in their names and cast doubt on the impression of "third party neutrality" bolstered by the film's self-description as a Canadian film. The producer and general factotum appears to have asserted "Serbian-Canadian" nationality during his studies but there is no evidence that he was ever more than an overseas student. Perhaps UrbanVillager can confirm whether Malagurski has ever possessed dual nationality. The auteur was heavily involved in Serbian nationalist activities during his time in Canada and took his film back to Serbia for its initial promotion and launch. Now his studies are completed he has returned to the country of his birth to pursue his career there. His "Serbianness" is clearly important to the film and avoidance of its mention and the reluctance to name any sponsor other than the Canadian Global Research Centre suggests something less than openness.

Radio Television Serbia made a very substantial contribution to the financial viability of the film through its willingness make archive material available free of charge. I myself have tried to obtain a minimal amount of archive footage from a broadcaster and in normal circumstances the cost is very substantial, so Radio Television Serbia's waiver of charges represents a very significant contributory factor in balancing the film's overall production budget. Given the much-criticised nature of Radio Television Serbia's activities during the period covered by the film, the film's apparently uncritical use of RTS archive footage from the period in itself raises the question of the film's good faith. The Wikipedia article on RTS provides sources that describe how the Serbian media was accused of embracing "Serb nationalism" and promoting "xenophobia" toward the other Yugoslav ethnicities in Yugoslavia. RTS paid little or no attention to acts of war carried out by Serbs while heavily reporting Croatian and Muslim atrocities and "atrocities". (Dušan Mitević, director of RTS at the time, has since acknowledged the warmongering role of the state-controlled broadcaster in carrying false information and biased reporting.)

The nature of the film's disclosed financial support arrangements is certainly relevant. But again and again UrbanVillager resists efforts to move towards greater transparency. Opbeith (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, your comments about RTS really show you didn't even watch the film. Try from 0:28:39. Any further discussion with you is pointless since you have no knowledge of the topic you're discussing. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, your link to Malagurski's YouTube channel takes me to George Kenney saying that the US decision to recognise Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia was politically-based because desk officers at the State Department didn't know about it in advance. Then we get Boris's glib interpretation of Kenney's words followed by Marko Perkovic/Thomson singing about killing Chetniks. Nothing whatsoever about RTS providing footage. Your knowledge of the film doesn't seem that much deeper than mine. Opbeith (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the YouTube Channel announces: "Published on Aug 11, 2012 by Boris Malagurski - Like it? Please, buy it! :) http://www.weightofchains.com/buy Also, 'like' the director's fan page :)" while the clip itself includes intermittent display of a banner soliciting donations to fund the follow-up "The Weight of Chains 2" and the website address. Doesn't this meet Psychonaut's criteria for spamming? Opbeith (talk)

Ah 'Serbian' ...That's the word ... Yes of course, why couldn't I remember it ... I knew there was something that UrbanVillager had left out of my suggested 'catch-all' sentence ... Silly of me!

Getting back to the serious business of coming up with an agreed form of words re. sponsors/backers. How about "The film was sponsored by Global Research Centre and others including Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia"

Links could then be added to the fund-raising website and to the 'proof' that RTS gave the footage free (I think it is in one of BM's interviews. As I believe is also BM's account of 'how much' RTS footage was used) and to more info about RTS (on Wikipedia?). If there is any other major contributor with a good reason to be named (apart from G R Centre), they could be after GRC.

I think we DON'T want a list a mile long, nor do we want to demonise the good ladies of the South Adelaide Serbian Women's Knitting Circle just because they organised a coffee morning for BM.Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Serbian organizations actually gave as much or more money than the GRC. Thus it seems odd to present them after the GRC. I also don't think the sentence length or the concern for "demonization" is a valid reason to not mention them. They are free to associate with whom they wish and there is no crime in statements of fact. Your sentence form is still a great improvement from UrbanVillager's "compromise". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't 'my bag'. I joined in only to offer some support to others - including yourself - who I thought were making a valid argument. My reason for putting GRC first was because its founder is an interviewee. I think there needs to be valid SPECIFIC reasons for mentioning others by name rather than them being in the 'catch-all' sentence. My argument here is not so much how much money people put in, rather the kind of argument that Opbeith mentions above of transparency/vested interest. I do think that whatever form of words is used, it does need to be 'readable' and to provide links to anyone who might want the 'fuller picture'.

As I said though, not 'my bag', (partly because I have no idea who many of these organisations are, who for example are 'Mirovna Akcija Humanista' .. Peace Action Humanists ... who apparently supplied footage ... " I got an exclusive clip from Jezdimir Milosevic from Peace Action humanists where Serbs and Muslims forgive the tears in the village Vrhbarje Sokolac" translated from BM interview at http://www.glassrpske.com/plus/teme/Boris-Malagurski-Zajedno-moramo-promeniti-svet/lat/69579.html ).Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum : BM himself says "Most of the donations were from Australia, and this has helped us enormously Branislav Grbović from Perth, who organized the fundraiser in Australia, and many other organizations.". This is on the Subotica link on the main page, so yes you are factually right. I still don't see any reason to name organisations or individuals without a good reason though.Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess it could be OK to mention that the Vrhbarje footage came from Jezdimir Milosevic, of the the Peace Action of Humanists. I agree with Pincrete when he says, regarding donations, that he doesn't see any reason to name organizations or individuals. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't QUITE say that I don't see any reason to name orgs/individuals, what I said earlier was that there needed to be valid, SPECIFIC reasons for naming either. Reasons such as a clear vested interest in the film / appearance in it etc. .... Thanks for the links below, I will try to look at them.Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound?: "The film was sponsored by numerous Serbian diaspora community organisations and by the Global Research Centre. A number of private individuals also donated. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia" The specific names aren't mentioned, but they are first in the sentence since they gave as much or more than the GRC. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to 'go with the flow' on this one, but my own logic was to list the 'vested/conflict of interest' ones first rather than how much was given, hence GRC. I think the sentence could be 'telescoped' a bit ... e.g "The film was sponsored by Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals also the Global Research Centre. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia".Links could be provided to RTS & GRC.

Also we need to verify that RTS footage was FREE and that the amount was 'considerable (I think I've seen both these points in interviews by BM). Do we want to acknowledge to the 'Vrhbarje' footage mentioned above ? I don't see why we should .... As I said though, I'll probably 'go with the flow'Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your phrasing. I think this is ready to go in the article. I don't where the RTS claim comes from nor do I see the significance of the Vrhbarje bit. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the RTS mention might have to wait till I can find the reference again. It was in an interview BM gave but I can't find it again at the moment. Vrhbarje footage was contributed by Jezdimir Milosevic of Peace Action of Humanists, also of Radio DISS Sarajevo, an NGO in Sarajevo catering to the Serb community which received large amounts of money from Western donors but was noted to be taking a long time to make any broadcasts to its audience. Jezdimir Milosevic turns out to be a production assistant in the credits, but there's no indication whether he paid for or was paid for the footage. Opbeith (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Opbeith, it's worth waiting a few days till it is established WHO gave footage, whether it was FREE, HOW MUCH footage and then decide who to list, how to phrase. Better to get this right! I don't see any reason though why 'funding' text should not go in now though.Do we have agreement?Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that part is at least ready. Also I want to comment on your statement here. [3] When I first introduced the material I provided a link to the official site then I added a web mirror archived link of the official site to go alongside the link to the official site itself. [4][5] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the following should be inserted into the article "The film was sponsored by Serbian diaspora community organisations, private individuals and the Centre for Research on Globalisation amongst others." .... with links to the BM interviews that corroborate the 'sponsor' element, to the donations website and to the CRG Wiki-page ? I have slightly tidied the wording of my previous suggestion. My own feeling is that this should go AFTER the opening para. of 'Production' (after 'Post-production ended in October 2010.'), but will 'go with the flow'.

I would especially welcome agreement (or objection) from those who have recently accused some of us of inserting unsourced/unbalanced information into the page.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing is fine with me. I don't know what you specifically meant with "links to the BM interviews" however. Also to my knowledge the CRG doesn't have a proper Wikipedia page just a redirect to Michel Chossudovsky. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing is fine with me too. The redirect from CRG to Chossudovsky is appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would put the general category "private individuals" last unless there are reliable figures available showing that any of them were more significant contributors to the funding than the Serbian diaspora groups or CRG, in which case the donor could be named. Opbeith (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The largest single contributor was an Australian community organisation(Aus $3200) .. several Canadian orgs are $1000, everybody else is less, CRG is also I think $1000.(not a lot to make a film on!)Pincrete (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - although in some cases it's very hard to distinguish between a "group" or "organisation" versus, say, an active individual so we should avoid wasting 'too much effort separating them. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's all being done by someone editing in good faith. Opbeith (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I've gone ahead and added the sentence per this lengthy discussion. It reads as: "The film was sponsored by Serbian diaspora community organizations, the Centre for Research on Globalization, and private individuals amongst others." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"links to the BM interviews" .... I have added links to two interviews in which BM gives info about the funding methods & specifically mentions diaspora organisations & individuals by name. I think there are mentions in other interviews, but I don't have time to recheck them, besides I think these are the clearest.Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Links on the article page

While trying to check out various bits of information over the last few days, I discovered the following problems with links (numbers are as they appeared on 11/11/2012 on the article page .... now + 1):

10. ^ Exodus of Serbians stirs province in Yugoslavia By Marvine Howe, The New York Times Foreign Desk, July 12, 1982
This link leads to a single paragraph in NYTimes of 1982, the paragraph does not support ANY of the statements made in the proceeding section.

This is definitely NOT on Wayback as it is pre-1996Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

13. ^ Težina lanaca: Kritika uloge NATO, EU i SAD i raspadu SFRJ BELDOCS 2011 .... 15. ^ Best films of "Beldocs" Dnevnik newspaper
These two both lead to a 'page not found' notice

17. ^ a b c d e "BELDOCS" on a tour throughout Serbia B92.net
This leads to the CURRENT Beldocs festival programme. A WofCh search on the website led to a 'nothing found' notice. Since this is the source for 5 showings of the film, it is important.

20. ^ Radio Television Serbia | The Weight of Chains in London This leads to an 'error' message

21. ^ MIFF Schedule End of World Showcase
This leads to the CURRENT MIFF festival programme. A WofCh/Miffest search on Google led only back to the Wikipedia page. This is the source for another showing of the film.

25. ^ "Okovi raspada bivše Jugoslavije" (in Serbian; "Shackles of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia", by Gorana Gligorević, Vesti Online, 1 April 2011, accessed 25 May 2011
This is a duplicate of link 11 and so could be merged.

I tried all of the 'failed' sites several times, sometimes over a number of days, but always got these results. I don't know what correct procedure is in these cases and am at present only drawing attention to the problem.Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related point, can anyone tell me (even approx.) where in the film Visar Ymeri and Veran Matić are interviewed ? I cannot find them in the subtitles. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, web pages get changed and updated, sometimes deleted. Feel free to use the Wayback Machine to access cached versions of those links. As for Visar and Veran, Visar appears on 0:58:57, Veran on 0:31:12. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wayback machine doesn't find the Press article cited, "New Documentary by the Serbian Michael Moore" at http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/dzet_set_svet/story/160324/Novi+dokumentarac+srpskog+Majkla+Mura.html Opbeith (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC) ...... This link is still LIVE (for me)Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC) For some reason I can't get it, even when I switch browsers. Opbeith (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC) ... Definitely good for me, I'm currently outside the UK, so perhaps that has an effect.I'll copy the text onto my talk page! To my eyes, there's not much that's new herePincrete (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot - have read and deleted because of possible copyright implications. What we have there is the "reliable source" for the description "boy wonder" - the Serbian refers specifically to BM as "vunderkind"! Opbeith (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is new to me, but I was unable to access ANY of the dead links on it, perhaps I'm doing something wrong.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged some of the links. Also I have to point out that two sources are inappropriately used in the synopsis to support the views that Malagurski has in his film, but not that they are expressed in the film. In other words in the synopsis section a source should support the fact that the film is making a claim and not the claim itself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:21, 15 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 - Now closed

Opbeith (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Another edict from Wikipedia on high:

"The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close - UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Accordingly, editors should refrain from asserting that UrbanVillager has a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Closed by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)"

Again, no explanation whatsoever provided. Let us eat cake. Opbeith (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of the above C.of I dispute on the BM page. Since an assertion has been made by UrbanVillager and Psychonaut umpteen times on this page and elsewhere, let me say this for the nth time in simple plain English. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO INSERT UNVERIFIABLE MATERIAL FROM BLOGS INTO THIS ARTICLE. (at least not as far as I know, not I, Opbeith or BobRayner or Producer)

Also UrbanVillager, I don't know why you are accusing me in the BM page dispute since in your own 'statement' you say "Pincrete exclusively edits and discusses The Weight of Chains". Something of a logical inconsistency there don't you think? I can hardly make repeated attempts to insert material into a page I've only visited once! Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did I bother? The same accusation has just been made by UrbanVillager on yet another dispute board.

Could we possibly get back to the serious business of improving this article? Or is that too much to ask?Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Subtitles

Legal position of subtitles What is the legal position re. ownership of a text file of the subtitles? My reason for asking is that I downloaded a set of English subtitles from a 'subs-site'. The subs bear all the hallmarks of being a Google translate of the Serbian subs (which are packaged with the film). I am using them as an aide to finding my way around the film, and am quite happy to be doing this 'at my own risk'. Clearly the translation would need to be checked against BM's original English commentary before being used in any way in the main article, however I just wondered where ownership lay.
The text of the commentary itself is presumably in the public domain, since the whole film is on YouTube.Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily - he may have made it available to watch but not to reproduce - though it's not an unreasonable assumption that since the film's valueless other than for its propaganda use he's unlikey to have imposed restrictions that would limit use. Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add - uploaded to YouTube by Boris Malagurski himself on his YT channel, complete with his own fund-raising banners. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Critics

Article about this movie is self-sourced. It does not contain any third party assesment (by 3rd party I mean anybody non-Serbian) neither mentioning some basic historical innaccuracies. (Izetbegović, Kosovo) therefore ,section critics is quite justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.158.128 (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

E-novine are not worthy of a comment. You dont have sources for this, and this is original research anyway. Therefor, removed. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All "sources" mentioned here are from Serbia (such as "politika" (lol) ) or self-promoting materials from producers. e-novine is no worse than them at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.158.128 (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparing a self-published online blog like e-novine with the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans like Politika (published since 1904.) is laughable. Any further discussion is pointless. Read the entire talk page, including the Archive for more explanations as to why your edits are being reverted. Thanks. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

e-novine is media from Serbia as well as Politika . And role of Politika in warmongering does not make it more reliable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.76.87 (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Regarding e-novine, those where already disregarded as non-neutral source on wiki, and must not be used. 90's are over, IP, stop pushing. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_media_in_the_Yugoslav_wars#Serbian_media

In the ICTY, one of the indictments against late Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević, was his use of the Serbian state-run mass-media to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred among Yugoslavia's Orthodox Serbs by spreading "exaggerated and false messages of ethnically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats against the Serb people..."

Đorđe Martinović story published by Politika in May 1985

Despite being labeled as documentary movie, The Weight of Chains includes some clips from non-documentary movies but the narrator does not point on that. Most critics in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia described movie as shallow propaganda and historical revisionism trying to wash Serbian guilt for wars after break-up of Yugoslavia. to minimize, deflect and distort the well established role of Slobodan Serbian leaders in the former Yugoslavia. Critics point that most important facts in the movie are the ones that ,in fact, are not mentioned and that do not match director's POV. Movie does not mention the ethnic tensions in 1st and 2nd Yugoslavia, nor some crucial inflammatory events such as memorandum SANU. Kosovo battle in 1389. is described as reason that medieval Serbian state ceased to exist (although it happened in 1459 after the fall of Smederevo). Director accuses Alija Izetbegović for beeing nazi-collaborator in WW2, although he was only 13 when war started. On the other hand, chetnik leader Draža Mihajlović is decribed as common Serbian patriot and anti-fascist warrior, without mentioning his wide collaboration and ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs. Also, author does not mention role of JNA in wars, huge massacres in them and destructions all over Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. On several occasions author uses some "top secret" documents combining them his conspiracy theories. On several places there are wrong subtitle translations.

78.2 etc You might want to go to the archived material mentioned below, as believe me there are even more flagrant 'errors' in the film, perhaps you should sign up as an editor!Pincrete (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Archived Material

A considerable amount of relevant discussion on this film has been archived to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains/Archive_1
I'm not sure why as much of it is younger than material retained here … I think it would be of interest to anyone joining the discussion.Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad it's archived, just tried to read it. Three or four editors going round and round in circles. A film like this is never going to be to everybody's taste. I appreciate some say it leaves out relevant issues which would make a difference though those arn't the important factors as the movie is made not to retell the breakup story but the decency of the people: all sides are criticised in the movie. And with the target of the film being the West, you can see why much actual information taking place in wartime Yugoslavia was never reported by the mainstream media loyal to their benefactors. That's why I added the link, Malagurski himself often rebuts the criticism levelled with him. Staro Gusle (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As one of the "three or four editors who were going round and round in circles", I would just like to say that it was not the point of view of the film to which I objected, it was its total dishonesty and use of almost wholly discredited sources. Why Staro Gusle should think that the entire (largely politically free and well funded) mainstream media should have got everything wrong, whilst the (totally partisan, politically muzzled and underfunded) local media got their analysis right is a bit of a puzzle to me ..... I'm sure there is much that the rest of the world did not understand, however this film does nothing useful to enlighten us, simply repeats ancient rumours and hearsay (and some outright lies) AS IF THEY WERE FACT!Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the Malagurski statement link as it adds nothing useful about the film and only serves the purpose of making this page even more of an ad for the film than it already was (most of the content of the page is, or was a direct copy from the film's website, including typos, bad grammar and incorrect use of words). Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Intersting point you have there on the press. Of course I would personally never say media in the former Yugoslavia has ever "got everything right" (and in times of conflict, they contradicted each other anyway, my side, your side) because there has always been a propaganda machine and it will never go away. And indeed the "politically free and well funded" media is also right about a lot. In my experience it has never been the actual content that has been the problem but rather the way it has been reported, and to what a journalist/reporter draws particular attention. But the quoted marks could provoke an essay if an analyst was to respond properly. In layman's terms, a medium could be "free" or "well funded" but together is a contradiction in terms. If he is funded, he is funded for a reason, and the person funding him is cetainly not doing so for his employee to give him the facts he doesn't want to hear. Likewise, there may be no "financial" pressure on a reporter, so it must be realised that "free to report" = "free to tell lies", simple equation. By the same principle, partisan state news in a dictatorship wouldn't necessarily have to lie, particularly if the propaganda boost came courtesy of the real facts which in conflict, can and does happen on some things. I believe those who say that this film doesn't appeal outside of its core audience but if an outsider used to Fox News is to watch it, it is nice to know he will see the other side to what he has been fed. PS. I have watched the film. Zetatrans (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How did this debate spring up?? I was only raising attention to the bitching and bickering which seemed to go on for months if not over a year. @Zetatrans. What you're saying is patently obvious but what is the point discussing a hypothetical scenario? I wasn't talking about one specific incident and for each there is a separate assessment. What was the issue, who reported it, what did they say, what do other publishers say, what do eyewitnesses for mainsteam sources say as opposed to the same for the other side. Even blogs, what do they say? Combine it and the reader makes his own mind up, but without one case to speak of, the overview is pointless. @Pincrete. I must ask you not to remove the Malagurski statement please, it really does fit onto the article and taking it off cannot make it better. With resentment in certain quarters which nobody can deny, it is only fair to have the director's reply to his detractors. The other thing is that the film very much enlightens people, especially those with open minds who hitherto only got the picture from the mainstream. Watching it you realise how spin can be used and how the nature of these mainstream soundbites can be manipulated to narrow the range of thought thus preventing ordinary people from venturing near the protected areas of knowledge. Staro Gusle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that. The suggestion that people watching Fox know more about what is happening on the ground of a state-run media territory is absurd. I was born and grew up in Montenegro so was there for full duration of all Yugoslav wars, it is not as if people could not travel and talk on the phone and by the time of the Kosovo crisis, there was internet too and chat rooms, the lot. Everybody knew what CNBC, Fox, CNN was reporting and what was said about Yugoslav media being a propaganda machine. But what those networks did not do was prove 99% of reports from Politika, RTS and RTCG false, at most they "failed to independently verify" the one thing they were telling viewers whilst throwing all emphasis on that, like a half hour bulletin talks about that single thing. Zetatrans (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies guys, I regret opening up a discussion about the character of EITHER Western or local media, of course there are good and bad in both the West and locally in former Yugoslavia (by good I mean trying to present a full rounded picture, by bad I mean pandering to an audience's prejudices or pushing an 'official line). As one of the editors trying to sort out this page last year, our problem was that the page was at that time WHOLLY copied from the film's publicity handout. The SPECIFIC claims made in the film could not be stated (original research), the points in the film which were knowingly inaccurate (eg the film claiming that particular documents shown said certain things, which they did not if one froze the film and read them), this could not be stated, and since the film has not been reviewed or written about by any mainstream political journalist or academic, no criticisms of the films arguments or omissions could be included, however endless repeats of the films publicity COULD be included, since these WERE reprinted in reliable sources (almost wholly Serbian).

I'm not trying to push any line on the wars, but I do think that Wikipedia has a duty to supply an 'innocent' reader with as full a picture as possible, in order that they can come to some INFORMED judgement as to whether the arguments in the film are supported by known facts, unfortunately that is not the case at present. I had vowed to stay out of this one, but only returned ... OH GOD, I don't know why!Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

There appears to be an e-Novine article reviewing the film written by a Damjan Pavlica. [6] He also writes for Pescanik, a site which even UrbanVillager is fond of. [7] Since I know the subject of e-Novine's reliability is going to be challenged by UrbanVillager regardless, it's worthy to note that e-Novine was featured prominently in articles of many reliable sources including the Focus magazine [8] and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty [9][10][11] Opinions of its editors and journalists are mentioned in a number of news stories including those of Deutsche Welle [12][13][14] and Die Welt [15]. In addition it's cited in the Southeast European Times [16] and both covered and cited by B92 [17][18] and Dani [19]. Given this, I believe the article is more than reliable for inclusion for this obscure film's article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

We already had a discussion about E-novine and there was no consensus on whether the source is reliable or not. In fact, in a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion, we were given a neutral opinion that the source is not very reliable [20]. Also, the fact that you call the film "obscure" suggests that you don't have the quality of the article at heart, but rather to add criticism at any cost, even if its presented in an unreliable source, as is the case with the self-published blog called E-novine. Please stop going in circles. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. After providing a one-sided rant for why it was unreliable you got a passerby to agree with your points without any further investigation so don't push it as anything remotely conclusive. This is not your article and this a new discussion on a different news article. It will not be blindly dismissed with your "please stop going in circles" rubbish. Did I pull a chord with "obscure"? Would "relatively unknown" have sounded better? It's a bit rich to hear you claim others aren't concerned with the article's "quality" when one could say that you're avoiding "criticism at any cost". This talkpage and the relevant others are evidenced with you acting as a gatekeeper of information with double standards for sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

E-novine is written by a critic. He is reliable as a source of his own views per WP:SELFSOURCE. The proper question is whether he is sufficiently notable to be given so much space in the article. Also I see several instances of poor grammar and unencyclopedic language being used. I would like to offer my help to clean up this article. I suggest that we compromise by cutting the amount of space allocated to the E-novine criticism in half. Just take off the second half of the paragraph. It has no inline source citations anyway, and the real "meat and potatoes" of the criticism is in the first half. Please offer your thoughts and comments. Let's try to resolve this in an amicable manner. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow, thanks for joining the discussion! I'm all for resolving this issue and have placed my input during the last dispute on the very same matter. The problem is that E-novine is actually a web portal that re-posts blog entries, as is the case with 'articles' that deal with "The Weight of Chains" on E-novine. The other source used in the "Criticism" section is PoliticsRespun.org, another blog (the "Blogroll" is listed in the right column if you scroll down the blog), which I also don't believe is reliable enough. I'm all for criticism - this article and topic deserves it - but I'm against adding blogs as sources, just for the sake of having criticism at any cost. Perhaps we could work on finding actual reliable sources that criticize this film? Or look through the existing references in the article and find criticism there? I think that approach would be much more constructive than forcing E-novine. Any thoughts? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, "I love criticism" yet I avoid it like the plague. We've heard it before. The link I posted (different from the IP's edit) is not a blog post, but an original article of the website. In any case even the New York Time's has a section where it publishes blog posts as does the Economist so I don't understand the immediate dismissal and demonization of blogs. E-novine is cited, covered, and its journalists are contacted for their opinions in numerous reliable publications. It is a relevant source and if it's reliable enough to be cited by the SETimes for Karadzic's defense prep extension alongside Radio Free Europe, Press Online, Vecernje Novosti, and Nezavisne Novine (favorites of UrbanVillager for info he enjoys) then its certainly reliable enough for a review of this film. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As PRODUCER has indicated, some blogs are a lot better than others — and we need to avoid cultural bias. Assuming that blogs are only reliable if they're attached to American and British news organizations would be one way to exhibit cultural bias. For example, if Damjan Pavlica is the Paul Krugman of Croatia, then his blog should be treated as a reliable source. (This is a hypothetical example — I've never seen his name before and have no idea, but will investigate.) I suspect that E-novine may also have its own fact-checking, and wouldn't provide a portal if its editors didn't consider Damjan Pavlica to be reliable. Let's investigate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of Pavlica either, and after Googling him, his articles on E-novine popped up first [21], followed by his blog [22]. Interestingly enough, there's an article about him on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia [23], written by a user called "Mladifilozof" [24], while on Damjan Pavlica's blog, there's a link titled "Damjan's articles on Wikipedia", and when you click on it, it takes you to the "Mladifilozof" user page, which means that he wrote an article about himself on Wikipedia. He identifies as a rock musician and political author, but I would think that authors have to write books in order to be called "authors", not just blog posts that are later carried by web portals. Upon closer inspection, I found out that he did write two books that are available online [25] [26], but on the books themselves and on the Internet - I couldn't find the names of any publishers. And quite frankly, they look very... 'do it yourself', so to say... The only reliable media source in the Balkans I could find that interviewed Pavlica is Dnevni avaz [27]. I could do some more research, but I'm not very convinced that this person is relevant as a blogger or 'author'. I'd question his relevance in the music world as well, as his "music project", as he calls it, which he started in 2009 - "Damjan od Resnika" - doesn't seem very relevant either. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again this is an article reviewing the film not the blog post from the same site that the IP edited in. Stop with the purposeful confusion. I don't know much of his musical career nor do I find it relevant to this discussion. It appears that he's notable enough to be interviewed by Dnevni Avaz, a major Bosnian newspaper, and his works pertaining to the history on Kosovo were published in Pescanik and in the Bosnian Report [28], a magazine led by prominent historian Noel Malcolm. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True, he doesn't seem very notable until you consider that he's been published in Pescanik and in the Bosnian Report, cited by PRODUCER. E-novine has also published his work. They're notable, but they're also anti-war and anti-establishment, a bit like Mother Jones or The Village Voice here in the US. They don't have a print edition, but neither do Slate or Salon, which are American e-zines that are considered reliable sources. They're struggling financially, but so are a lot of other media these days. One thing I find that puts me off is that they've explicitly stated they are abandoning objectivity, which is the Prime Directive of real journalists. Pavlica has been referred to as a "journalist," but I haven't noticed a reputable news organization that he calls "home," so evidently he's a freelancer. I think we can use him for one or two sentences in the mainspace, if we carefully attribute those statements to him, "portaled by the anti-establishment online magazine E-novine ..." AND if we start the paragraph with some reliable, truly notable criticism. Which we should find first. There are already some established, reliable sources cited at the bottom of our article. Do these contain any real criticism of the film? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I'm convinced about Pavlica, I think Peščanik does have a history of carrying articles of relevant experts on a topic and well-known political dissidents, but I'm not sure how writing for Peščanik makes someone relevant in itself, without any professional references to back up the reasoning behind re-posting his blog entries. And when it comes to a film about the economic, military and geopolitical causes behind the breakup of Yugoslavia, which includes interviews with prominent UN officials, diplomats, politicians, economists, professors, journalists, and musicians, I would expect someone at least close to their ranks to be considered relevant enough to discuss a film of this sort, if he has no reliable media source standing behind him. On the other hand, I fully support browsing the already existing reliable sources for criticism, and looking for new sources that are reliable and critical towards the film. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article, cleaned up some grammar and punctuation, removed a non-encyclopedic phrase or two, and cut the criticism by 50% — as a proposed compromise to reflect the limited notability of Pavlica. The second half of the criticism is still there, but hidden in case we choose to use it later. The criticism by Konstantin Kilibarda is sufficient to ensure that Pavlica isn't the only critic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your help here however you used Burgić's article not Pavlica's. Also where does he identify as a Croat? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to make corrections as you feel are appropriate, I was in a hurry and it was a complex edit. I saw Pavlica described as a Croat when I did my initial research on him a few hours ago, but couldn't tell you where I saw it. It could have been the article about him on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. If necessary, leave his ethnic identity out and just call him "Freelance journalist Damjan Pavlica." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Phoenix and Winslow, you came here with your proposition of a compromise at the beginning of the discussion and decided to unilaterally resolve the matter in the manner you suggested at the beginning, even after the arguments put forward in favor of a different resolution of the dispute. I think its obvious to any neutral editor that a blogger who writes his own Wikipedia article to boost his relevancy and whose blog entries are then carried by a few web portals speaks more about those web portals then it does about Pavlica. And considering Pavlica then uses those re-posts by the above mentioned websites as his professional references on his blog, it makes the whole issue laughable. PoliticsRespun, as well, is an irrelevant blog. I think a fair compromise would be to leave out these irrelevant blogs (which would make the pro-reliable-sources camp happy) and look for criticism in the existing reliable sources and try to find new reliable sources critical to the film (which would make the pro-criticism camp happy). If everyone's happy, we have a consensus. Phoenix and Winslow, you yourself said that you made your recent edits in a hurry, this is not a dispute that needs a quick fix, we have been discussing this for many months. I am strongly against using E-novine as a source, as it is highly unreliable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here we go with nothing else to resort to UrbanVillager has to launch pathetic ad hominem attacks against the author. It's already been proven that e-Novine is a reliable source which has been cited, covered, and contacted by many numerous reliable sources including Focus magazine, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt, Southeast European Times, B92, and Dani. It's already been proven the author has been covered and published in numerous reliable sources above and that includes e-Novine, Dnevni Avaz, Pescanik, Bosnian Report, Oslobođenje [29] and even the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia [30]. It really is astounding as a "pro critic and reliable source lover" the lengths you will go to dismiss sources you disagree with in order to make you "happy".--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Producer, I'm not going to repeat my arguments, because I'm tired of us going in circles. Apparently nobody else is interested in a compromise and consensus, so if Wikipedia is a democracy, it's two against one, and my arguments are irrelevant. This is not what I read in WP:NOT though. I await a response in regards to my offer for a fair compromise and consensus. E-novine is unacceptable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it's selective for a start and you don't find the same criticism in better sources. Staro Gusle (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

neither the appraisals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.7.14 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Takes one to spot one eh! I was being serious. Pavlica might be okay but where can we find similar remarks on other sites. That was my main point. Staro Gusle (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry that UrbanVillager is dissatisfied. Much of the criticism has been removed and the remaining criticism has been carefully attributed to the sources. Let's try to find more reliable sources of criticism. The fact that there's no English language (dubbed in) version of this film, or versions in other foreign languages such as French or German, limits its potential audience so criticism is going to be hard to find. In the meantime, if UrbanVillager would like to add a sentence from some other source that criticizes the reliability of E-novine, I think he has a right to do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The movie and the author are 3rd league (no matter that they attempt desperately to show otherwise) , so it is very little possibility that mainstream will be involved with this. The most sources that criticize e-novine are their political rivals- Serbian pro-right newpapers and their political sponsors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.7.14 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make a difference who criticizes it, it is the quality of the arguing that matters. Still, only goes to show nothing is reliable, it either suits side A or side B. Staro Gusle (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kilibarda came up in our discussions before Xmas, at that time the only other reviews we could find were vetoed by UrbanVillager (see archived material and my talk page).... Good luck guysPincrete (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

For those editors not up to speed on the latest enwiki Balkan drama, I should point out that Staro Gusle has been blocked as a sock, and hence there's mroe chance of making progress on this article now. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Critique/Criticism I have just altered a section heading from Critique to Criticisms. A Critique is a detailed critical evaluation of something, the heading therefore suggests that what follows is itself such an evaluation. What follows the heading is a summary of criticisms made against the film. Perhaps there is a better word, in other films we might head this section 'Critical response' or some such, 'controversy' might be appropriate but as a simple fix I changed it to Criticisms.Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I still find it absurd that we're listing blogs as references on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll open my own blog (even get a domain name for a few bucks a month), fancy it up, and present my personal opinion or the opinion of my friends under the banner of "most critics". I'm sure this section won't stay here for long, since it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy on references, but right now there's more biased editors whose goal is to present this film in the worst possible way than there are administrators who are interested in this topic enough to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, so this section will, for now, remain a silly mockery of the Wikipedia article, hijacked by biased editors... --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, is that a response to me changing an incorrectly used word to a (hopefully) more correct one? Or is it just huffing & puffing?Pincrete (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Messy attribution in old reviews

Editor Tiptoethrutheminefield, left a (who) tag on some of the old 'Critical reasponse'. Quickly looking through the whole thing, it seems a problem goes back to here:-[31] in which somebody proposing text got two reviews mixed up (I believe he was parachuted in as a 3rd opinion). One is the Pavlica, the other is [32]. I actually always thought that this second source WAS credited. It seems that we have been wrongly attributing two reviewers for nearly a year (both are in Serbian, which doesn't help). ...btw … I wasn't editing here at that time and was taking over a year's break from this page. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Socialist Standard Review

I'm reposting this from above, since it seems to have got lost there, it's just another review 'on the table' and if any content is used, it could perhaps be 'merged' with the Kilibarda paragraph, as he takes a very similar position on the film. … … "There is a recent review of this film, printed in the UK's Socialist Standard, the review is at :-[33] , it was published January this year." Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with using this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'm 'mentioning' you again, in order to ask whether you still consider 'Socialist Standard' a usable source? I don't want to waste time trying to edit this, if you no longer think it is a RS, I'm NOT of course asking you to agree to specific text, merely to its use as a source. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NSPM and Pecat

I added new reviews, check them out, neither of them are interviews, nor are they promotional, but actual reviews in two Serbian magazines, one is Nova srpska politička misao, the other is the Pecat magazine [34]. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article should include both positive and negative reviews for neutrality's sake. If positive reviews from reliable sources are available, then they most certainly should be added. At the same time, I would like to ask all editors to refrain from edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's just going to lead to blocks so cut it out. I, personally, am not willing to get bogged down in a protracted and likely-fruitless discussion over several sentences worth of content when I know that I can be contributing to Wikipedia elsewhere. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, there is no consensus for inserting these 'reviews', perhaps they contain usable stuff, perhaps they don't. On first impression they seem to be articles not reviews, either way, they have been inserted - with your selective editing - without any attempt to achieve consensus, without even asking any of the editors here. You do understand that don't you? … … ps Since you created the article, you also know that one of the 'reviews' is from a small magazine that BM writes for. Small world isn't it? Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

23 editor, I agree, where there are RS reviews, they should be taken into account whether + or -, I also agree that I'd much rather be working on other articles. On this (and related) articles, unfortunately a lot of the 'editors', have turned out to be 'puppets', so sincere as you may be, you might as well ask a wolf to stop taking the sheep. Again, whether you agree or disagree about VICE, I invite you to put your opinions on the RSs noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If something is written in a magazine, yes, it's an article. Articles can be film reviews, opinion pieces, political views, you name it. So, the argument that "these are articles, not reviews" doesn't make sense. Second of all, the fact that Malagurski writes for the same magazine doesn't mean he has influence on what other people write in it. Unless if you have evidence that Malagurski is the owner of the magazine or has some function there other than being a columnist like all the other columnists, your second argument also doesn't make sense. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, so far, in this discussion, you've said 1) An advert can be a review, it doesn't matter that it is written by people trying to sell you tickets … 2) an interview between someone IN the film and the director can be a review, since they know a lot about the subject … 3) an article can be a review since there is no difference between a feature article, a news story and a review. … (Can the back of the DVD be a review in your opinion ? Or the poster outside the cinema? You'll pardon me being ironic).

If I've misrepresented any of your views, I apologise, perhaps you could correct me. But I think you are going to find that these views deviate somewhat from what most people - and Wikipedia - defines as a review. … … ps also I apologise for my 'small world' comment about BM, which wasn't helpful.

Now important matters, can you explain to me WHY you thought you had consensus for inserting these reviews, since there was an admin. instruction that no changes were to be made to this section without consensus, and not only was there no consensus, nobody was allowed to see any of this before you translated, edited and inserted them ?Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SDS's most recent edit (here:-[35]) and think it's only fair to non-Serbian's that we should be able to read the whole review, in English, in order to assess WHAT it is, what is usable and what is a fair representation of what it says. I've said from the beginning that there MAY be usable stuff in these two but at the moment we are all 'at the mercy' of the only native level Serbian speaker amongst the editors (I think that is true, I may not know some editor's 'hidden talents'). Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good and bad news: I just want it to be a matter of record, that there is NO consensus for the inclusion of ANY of the NSPM or Pecat material, editors have not been consulted about its inclusion IN ANY WAY. Also I think the 'one good one bad' formula should NOT dictate our editing decisions in the long run - we are required to be neutral, not to be 'fair' (if fair means we have to say one + one - alternately). ..... (that was the bad news)

However, I think SDS, made some good judgement calls in his edits yesterday, and since he & UV have 'voted with their edits', I also agree to Pecat staying, until we have had a chance to assess its worth and assess whether it has been appropriately edited. Also the 'one good one bad' formula allows us to move forward at present. I'm deciding this in order that we shouldn't go round and round in circles. ..... (that was the relatively good news) Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: prepositions/phrasing in Pecat article, the phrasing "Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in the reaping the benefits for foreigners as well" is clearly missing a preposition. Temporarily I have fixed by amending to 'of the benefits', also the original phrase translates as "the collection of the cream of/for foreigners". … … 1) I don't see why we need to alter the 'cream' phrase as it also works in English, though would read better as 'collecting the cream' … … 2) I am unclear (since prepositions do not translate reliably), whether the appropriate translation is 'of foreigners' (ie 'from') or 'for foreigners' (ie 'on behalf of').

Having looked at the Pecat article, I would now say this ISN'T a review, (partly because it concerns itself more with the politics behind the film rather than the film itself), however it IS a response. Also I note it is 'Pecat online', (which I don't object to), but do we know if this was IN the magazine? Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HOWEVER, the NSPM is neither a review nor a response, what little it says about the film, is EXPLICITLY quoting the 'Beldocs' (film festival) website. This piece is a 'chatty' account of a showing of the film. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of synopsis

Ricky, you wrote some rather false things about the film. It doesn't start with the battle of Kosovo until about the 6th minute of the film. If you'd like to shorten the synopsis, that's fine, but can you please watch the film first? Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I now realize you tried to organize the synopsis chronologically according to the history of Yugoslavia. I'd like to remind you that the synopsis of a film should be organized chronologically according to the film, not the history it talks about. So, the first things discussed in the film are described first, we're not writing an article about the history of Yugoslavia, but about the way the film presents that history, regardless of how we see it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Urbanvillager is correct in what he says about the chronology when writing a synopsis. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Ricky is trying to organise thematically. There were odd-nesses about his re-ordering but I appreciate this as a 'sound framework' of the themes. When it's a documentary, are we obliged to follow the film's sequence throughout? I've corrected some of his odd-nesses and attempted to consolidate its 'themi-ness'. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The manual of style guidelines for the plot sections of film articles (yes, people do think this much) suggest an overview of the main events of the film not the scene by scene minutia currently there. I expect a documentary about history to go back and forth but we are currently at more than four times the suggested length because of that minutia. Further, I expect editors to treat others with the respect of actually revising other editors and not blindly reverting if they disagree with a portion of their edits. If you thought that part was incorrect, reorganize it but full-scale reverts are appropriate only for vandalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, intentionally or not, what you have done is arrange the synopsis thematically, rather than sequentially (or historically). Personally I think that's a VERY good approach, but I have just removed/amended some of your 'linking text' when it suggested sequence WITHIN the film (or within history). Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It was an intentional attempt to organize it thematically. The sequence within the film was incorrect it seems, that's worth correcting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ricky, thematic approaches are fine, but when you write "The film starts with..." but the film really doesn't start with what you're writing, then it's just wrong. I'm sure you agree. I think your editing here was largely OK, I just re-added the bit about the Bosnian village, this really is the crux of the story and this previously unseen archival footage that is presented for the first time in this film, so I think that definitely shouldn't be left out. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've 'pruned' slightly, partly as 'new footage' isn't notable in a new film. .... ps also added 'para' to seperate 'human stories' from 'main thrust' Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC) … … I moved two talk page posts up to Prof. Marković section: [36] Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Ricky81682, how would you describe this [37]? Isn't that reverting without discussion? I added sourced material, critical response by Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic, historian and scientific adviser at the Institute for Modern History in Belgrade, but that has to be a subject of a 'consensus' (i.e. His Royal Highness Pincrete has to allow Wikipedia to see this high-profile source as worthy of being included in the article), while teaching assistants at a Hamilton university are "respectable" and "notable" for HRH. The second source I added, with Milica Kankaraš, isn't that interesting as she doesn't say anything crucial, but I think the Predrag J. Markovic response is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received, considering that Markovic is a well-known historian and the film deals with history, but also because Markovic teaches at the Faculty of Media and Communications as well, and he is talking about a film. Can we please re-add this to the article? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)