Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive 3

Weight of Chains 2 ?

I couldn't find any mention of a release date for WofC 2 on the Malagurski web-site as claimed by the article .... Also the (named) sponsors are once again principally Serbian Diaspora organisations. What is the official position about a film that hasn't even been released yet? … ps The section isn't even grammatical.Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Further to above, Even if the release date is confirmed, I suggest single sentence additions to the existing refs to WoC2 covering: 1). Release date (and location if known) 2). that the film was funded in the same way as WoC. The present section (apart from being ungrammatical) reads like a press release.Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, could you explain to me how removing a 'cyclic link' (a link which sends the reader back to the same point on the same page that they are already on), constitutes 'vandalism'? Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Release date There is no mention on the BM site of a release date for WoC2 ... merely a 'watch this space' notice ... I propose therefore to merge the two refs to the sequel. Any objections anyone?Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal I propose a merge of the two refs to W of C 2 thus:- A trailer was made for a sequel, "The Weight of Chains 2", but - as of June 2014, - a release date has not been announced. The sequel is being funded in a similar manner to the original. (+ refs to funding & release info) … anyone disagree ? Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's time to cut back the Malagurski-spam. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It has simply been a question of me not having time … the merge and some other tidying will happen ASAP.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) … … ps now done.Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Those with nothing better to do with their lives might want to know about The Weight of Chains 2. Again I ask, what is the official position about a film that hasn't even got a release date yet? Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate & dead links

Not sure about proper procedure here, but two of the refs attached to the 'Raindance' screening are to Serbian sites. I don't quite see how they verify that the film was shown in London. One of them is anyhow dead and the other seems to be a general article about BM. The film WAS clearly shown at London Raindance and the UK link is still live. Should other refs be removed ?Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Update August I have removed the self-sourced interview reference also another reference ('Kusturica' selection) which does not mention WoC anywhere, I have also removed a few words about the Min of Cult being due to speak on the same day as the cancellation, as the relevance is not established either in the article or the source. … … ps I confirm that the RTS link is dead (though accessible by Wayback) two interesting points about this ref 1) fairly minor is that it appears to be saying that WoC WILL BE shown at Raindance … … 2) more interesting, is that it refers to WoC as part of a special season of films from the Balkans, that would be that well known part of the Balkans called Canada! (Someone with better knowledge of Serbian than I would have to verify that I am correct).Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) nb this para was added by me several months after the posting above, this para is 'out of time sequence', however it connects directly to the above.Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A seperate dispute (a revert war?)about dead links on 'screenings' seems to be going on between UrbanVillager and Bobrayner. Not only do I confirm that most/all of the links are dead, I also confirm that they have been dead since at least Autumn 2012, when many of these links were the subject of discussion on talk. UrbanVillager knew many/most of them to be dead at that time because he introduced me to 'Wayback', which enabled me to access some of them, therefore my sympathies are presently wholly with Bobrayner on this matter, these links are dead.

Whether it is customary to mark links as dead, is a matter about which I know nothing, except a tendency to think that it is helpful to the reader to do so.

There are also other 'un-productive' links in this article, such as the 'Ann Arbor' link which takes one only to the AA site, on which there are no records of WofC at all, (this again has been the case for at least two years) ... it all seems very unhelpful to the reader.Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Update Links 13 & 20 also lead 'nowhere useful' ...I checked all of those marked as dead by BobR and confirm them again to be dead ... Some are accessible using 'Wayback' or similar.Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We've had problems with fake sources on these pages. This is just a continuation of the problem. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Two refs are word-for-word duplicates (ie one is simply a mirror) both appear to end 'the author announced today' ie self-sourced … (but my Serbian is not good enough to guarantee that).Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) amended Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Multi-stage edit

I have just performed a multi-stage edit.

Stage 1 I reverted to Bobrayner's last edit in which (most of) the dead links were marked, some of these are accessible using 'Wayback', but that doesn't make them live. If i have time I may replace present links with their Internet Archive address. Secondly I removed the named sponsors (GRC was mentioned twice) , this was the subject of extensive discussion in the past, concensus was that a 'general' statement about the method of funding was in order, since it was noteworthy (diaspora organistions + individuals) and specific mention of GRC, since its founder is both an interviewee in the film and a cited source for info about the film - but, there was no good reason to mention organisations or individuals by name. Thirdly, I merged the two refs to WofC2 and tidied the phrasing.

Stage 2 I clarified the phrasing of the Pavlica criticism, I realise that this has been very controversial in the past, I modified the Pavlica comment ONLY to the extent that I said that the 'technical' criticism (using fiction film … a fairly minor breach of documentary ettiquette), was ONE of his criticisms. I may do further tidying when I have time. Two changes which I can't work out HOW to make, but which annoy me greatly result from using a film template, these are 'screenplay' is usually only used for a fictional film (script or narration or writer for a documentary, normally), similarly, you can't STAR in a documentary!Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Stage 3 I have updated some dead references to their internet archive address ... I also merged the 6 lines of the 'Beldocs ec/ho' screenings as this is (as I understand it) a 'touring festival' with screenings in numerous towns. The previous layout displayed more space to these screenings than does the source! I also did this in order to save amending 6 references (the same ref.in fact).Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

|}

nb … … There are still dead links and links which need to be 'Waybacked'.Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In what sense Canadian?

UrbanVillager, it was not me, but Bobrayner who removed the 'Canadian' description, though I wholly agree with it, I DID add the reference to the location of his film company (and copied it from one of the other BM pages). Re: your comment "What matters is that it's a Canadian film.". Firstly you aren't consistent, when another editor described the film as 'Serbian' you said 'films don't have ethnicity' ... apparently they do have nationality! What matters is to state as accurately/fairly and as succinctly as possible what its claim to being Canadian IS. Normally there is no problem with a film, if its creative input is French, if the funding is French, if the film company is established in France and the filming is done in France, and the core audience is French, then it is a French film. None of these apply to WoC, its claim to being Canadian is solely the registered office of the production company. Therefore I believe that to be both accurate and fair to the film. On several sites the film is described as being 'Serbian', I would not agree to putting that in the article either, just as I do not agree with describing it as 'Canadian' … I think sticking to factual information is better.

Just for analogy, 'China News Agency' probably have registered offices in London, I don't think that makes them a 'British News Agency'. Do You?12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

For the love of God, watch The Weight of Chains on YouTube, at 1:59:03 where it says "This is a Canadian film", it was produced by a company registered in Vancouver, Canada (the ethnicity of those who give donations to the production company is irrelevant), and yes, films don't have an ethnicity, but they do have a country of origin - in this case, it's Canada, so it's a Canadian documentary film. Your analogy has no relevance in this case (it's not a media outlet, it's a production company), because what matters is where the production company is based, pure and simple. If it was a co-production between a company in the U.S. and a company in France, it would be an American-French film, even if the financing came from China and Tuvalu. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The film's distributors describe the film as Serbian, as do some of the film festivals, some other festivals categorise it as being a Serbian film but from Canada, therefore its nationality is not as clear-cut as you suggest. So, what is wrong with stating what the Canadian connection is CLEARLY - which is (as you've just said) - that BM's Prod Co. is registered there?

BTW I haven't mentioned the ethnicity of private contributors anywhere and haven't added anything of that sort in any of my edits, ever. BTW 2 (read above), it was NOT me that removed 'Canadian', but it was me that pasted in the film company location (copied from another BM page!).Pincrete (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"For the love of God, watch The Weight of Chains on YouTube, at 1:59:03 where it says "This is a Canadian film"". UrbanVillager, the film was posted on YouTube by BM himself, now we all understand what your understanding of a reliable source is! The nationality of the film is not clear-cut and is shown differently on various sources, (including BM's own distributors) . Therefore I propose to remove the 'Canadian' reference.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to dispute that the film is called "The Weight of Chains" (the name that the author, Malagurski, gave it) if some other people call it differently? 'It's his film, but hey, who cares, let's see how other people call it!' Watch the credits, it states that it's a Canadian film, end of discussion. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: no consensus on removal. Actually UrbanVillager, 3 editors recently have wanted to remove 'Canadian', I myself asked you here 3 weeks ago what the argument for retaining it was, you chose not to reply. Now we have "Watch the credits, it states that it's a Canadian film, end of discussion", which gives a pretty clear indication of what your definition of consensus is and your definition of a RS.

Re: Are you going to dispute that the film is called "The Weight of Chains ?, Well Yes, I would, if the distributor called it something else, and most of the screenings called it something else, then I WOULD expect that to be accurately reflected here, along with the filmaker's own title. I am perfectly happy for any form of words that accurately reflects what the film's relationship is to Canada (or to Serbia), or for no mention at all of nationality. You alone insist on a particular description, which sources (including the distributor and festivals) do not support.

Re: Your analogy has no relevance … it's not a media outlet, it's a production company. … … Errrrmmmm? Yes, and a cow isn't a potato, it's a cow! … … The obviousness of the difference between a media outlet and a production company is lost on me I'm afraid.Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The film states that it's Canadian. It can call itself whatever it wants, just like you call yourself Pincrete. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, it's like if you said "I think the sky is green". The film is Canadian, nobody but the author, who is Canadian, can decide on that, and he obviously wrote "This is a Canadian film" in the end credits because it was made in Canada and it's Canadian. Stop vandalizing the article with your POV. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The ownership is tiresome. Yes, UrbanVillager, we know you have a revert button. No, that doesn't mean you can put whatever you want in the article when several editors disagree. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager There is a clear majority for removal of 'Canadian'. Personally, I am not adamant about its removal nor on how the film's provenance should be described, only that it should be as accurate, fair and complete as possible. You alone refuse to enter into dialogue, then sail in and revert, 'BM says' and 'I say', so it must be true, being the nearest thing to argument you offer.

You have reverted about 5 other changes at the same time (for each of which I gave a reason), please enlighten us about these. Is Perkins claim to being an economist that HE says so, that BM says so, or that YOU say so? Because you've forgotten to tell the people over on the Perkins page (he has a degree in business studies I believe). I removed things like 'internationally known' because it is meaningless fluff and some parts I changed were just grammatically wrong (the adjective of culture is either cultural or cultured, depending on the meaning), or 'clunkily' phrased.

I am now going to do something which, I believe, I have never done before which is immediately revert you. (nb this was written at the same time as BR's preceding comment)Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager Re: your most recent revert, I can only echo "The ownership is now very very tiresome."Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, this silly repeated reverting is tiresome, it wastes time and resources, despite multiple provocations in the past (re-inserting dead links, re-inserting cyclic links, re-inserting bad grammar, re-inserting unsourced claims, accusing me of OR because I mentioned things on this talkpage which are in the text, then repeartedly saying 'look at the film it says … ', therefore it must be true), despite all these I have tried to reach compromise rather than simply revert, but I'm afraid patience is exhausted.Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager I and Bobrayner (both of whom have a longish connection with this page) have clearly indicated that we agree with the removal, other 'anon' editors have agreed, can you please explain to a simpleton like me, (who as you have said several times 'can't read' and 'doesn't speak English'), could you please explain how that does not constitute a consensus, and how/why you on your own ARE a consensus. I repeat my offer to discuss ANY compromise that accurately reflects the connection of the film to Canada (or anywhere on the planet).Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The ownership is tiresome. Yes, UrbanVillager, we know you have a revert button. No, that doesn't mean you can put whatever you want in the article when several editors disagree. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Added references. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager The references do no support anything except the filmmaker's claim, (the first is the film makers own site, while the RTS is a word-for-word copy of the first para of the filmaker's site).Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK UrbanVillager, and bobrayner, I propose a fairly 'clunky' compromise, something like "the filmaker and (neutral way of phrasing some others), describe the film as Canadian (UV's refs), whilst the distributor characterises it as Serbian. It has appeared in the Serbian films category at several film festivals (refs to distributor and appropriate festivals)". The sentence would probably need moving, within the intro. Reaction?Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) … … ps I have just removed IMDb ref "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged."

There is no compromise on facts. The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager Re:"Either you can't read or …", your charm and respect for others, precedes you as ever! (I've now lost count of the number of times you have questioned my literacy level or my understanding of English, it was very boring the first time, after the nth time it simply advertises the poverty of your 'arguments').

Re: "There is no compromise on facts", actually, there is no compromise on what RS say are the facts, and - at least an equal number of sources identify the film as 'Serbian' or have shown the film in the category 'Serbian films'. As I've said earlier, we could have NO mention of nationality, but if we do mention it, we represent accurately what sources (inc. BM), have to say.Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, this is an article about The Weight of Chains. The film was created by Boris Malagurski, its title (The Weight of Chains) was given by Boris Malagurski, its classifications (Canadian, documentary, feature, film, etc.) were given by Boris Malagurski (he created it that way), and these are not categories that can be disputed by anyone. The Washington Post can't appear and say "You know, I think this film is called The Flowers of Dismay", and the New York Times can't say "Well, this actually could be a South African film", the credits are very clear on all the details regarding this film. Nobody can come up and say "Hey! I don't think Boris Malagurski even worked on this film! Who cares that his name is in the credits, I think that is just Malagurski's point of view!". No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film". We're really going in circles here and I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV, pushing your POV is against Wikipedia policies. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager Re: "I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia." Firstly point me to one occasion in which I have been discourteous to you, or anybody on these pages, and I will apologise (occasional use of irony I plead guilty to). Secondly look at my record of edits and look at your own, look at my 'revert' record (almost never, across many pages) and look at the frequency with which I record my 'edit reasons' on talk (almost always, on this and most of the pages with which I have been involved), when you have done that, then lecture me about constructive ways to contribute.

As I have repeatedly said, an equal number of RSs describe the film as 'Serbian' or have shown the film in 'Serbian films' category, and there is no good reason for excluding that information, (or leaving out nationality altogether, or finding some other form of words to describe the film's origins).

BTW, I owe you a partial apology, I previously argued that 'Official selection' was a meaningless term unless the festival itself used that term. It turns out that Raindance showed WoC as part of a 'films from the Balkans' season (I forget their exact name for the season), the season was an EEC funded event of films exclusively from the Balkans, and they did use the description 'official selection' for the films in that season. All of this is well sourced to both Raindance and an interview with BM himself … … I thought you would want to know this as a keen fan of BM's work.Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, check the film page on Raindance, it says "Official Selection Documentary", meaning that it was selected in the documentary section, not the "Balkan Cinema" section. Since you seem to not understand how film festivals work, there can be several films covering a certain area of the world and thus are grouped together within the festival program to help the audience pick their area of interest, but when it comes to the selection, Raindance is, again, pretty clear that it's the "Official Selection Documentary" and not "Official Selection Balkan Cinema" as you'd like to portray it. For the last time, please stop pushing your POV, and I'd like to remind you that there is no original research on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, documentary is WHAT it is, "Balkan Cinema Strand" is the SECTION of the Festival it was shown in (there were also UK and other sections … see the link [1]. There is even a documentary section on their website, WoC isn't listed there [2](I'm not suggesting - of course - that it isn't a documentary, merely that it wasn't shown in THAT section of the Raindance festival). Can you please explain why citing 'Raindance' as proof of where/when the film was shown is RS, but saying (from the same source), the section/season that it was part of is OR? Don't the other festivals show categories (when applicable eg 'End of World showcase'), so what's different about naming this section ?Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager partial apology, in other instances (eg MIFF), the section of the festival is listed within the citation, I have accordingly modified my reference consistent with MIFF, and left out the textual reference in the festival section. … … … ps I note that you are happy to use 'your' Raindance link as 'proof', that the film was in the documentary section (it wasn't), but less willing to acknowledge that the same link describes the film as from Serbia! The 'nationality' of the film is NOT a matter that I consider to have been resolved. Pincrete (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Re your recent posts: "No, see, this is where a human brain comes in" … … and more recently: "Since you seem to not understand how film festivals work,", in addition to other recent accustations, which I have already answered. Posts of this nature would be intolerable if you were RIGHT on any factual point you made, but on every single factual point you are clearly WRONG. … … 1) It is not OR to check existing sources to ensure that we have represented them accurately, fully and fairly. … … 2)WoC was clearly shown in the "Balkan Cinema Strand" at Raindance (if you still doubt me on this point a) go to Raindance and check, apart from the link I provided above all the 'Balkan' films bear the EEC funding logo (and are the only films to do so) and - apart from one other 'strand' - "Balkan' films are almost the only films to use the term 'official selection' (a description you previously wished to retain) … … b. BM refers to the Balkan film season in the interview cited as one of the refs (now a dead link but can be found on Wayback, in Serbian).

So, I repeat, on both of these issues you are clearly wrong and your persistent rudeness, reliance on ad hominem and ownership will be the subject of a formal complaint by me if they continue.

Regarding whether the film 'strand' should be included, I am neutral. On the one hand it's additional information for the reader about what was a very large festival, on the other hand, consistent with other festivals, it's only mentioned in the citation, and I have already made the gesture of modifying the citation, in line with other screenings.

Moving on to more substantive matters, you have still given no coherent reason why sources which describe the film as 'Canadian' are to be treated as inviolable, whereas sources which describe the film as 'Serbian' (including the film's distributors and Raindance, from which you want to 'cherrypick' the bits you like), are to be disregarded, nor any reason why the 'nationality' needs be there at all, which was the preference of all of the recent (and many of the past) editors of this page apart from yourself. Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you have had three days to answer why certain sources are inviolable, whilst others are disregardable on the matter of the 'nationality' of this film (actually you've had since June 30th, see above). You have come up with no arguments at all since June 30th, apart from 'BM says' and 'I say'. I intend therefore to modify the text as per the suggestion above, "the filmaker and (neutral way of phrasing some others), describe the film as Canadian (UV's refs), whilst the distributor characterises it as Serbian. It has appeared in the 'Serbian' or 'Balkan' films category at several film festivals (refs to distributor and appropriate festivals)". The removal of 'Canadian' has been the wish of the majority of recent, and long-term editors of this page.

Since you INSIST on BMs claim being included, this, as far as I can see is the only way of resolving this (and getting on with more important things like the 'synopsis').

For the love of God, the production company which produced the film is based in Canada, it says "This is a Canadian film" in the film credits and it really is irrelevant how you or anyone else sees the film - it is a Canadian film. From the credits we can see that it wasn't even a co-production between a Canadian company and, for example, a Serbian company, but if you have evidence that some production company in Serbia signed a contract with Malagurski Cinema in Vancouver, Canada, then there is a reason to mention that it was a Canadian-Serbian co-production. Just because some festivals put the film in their "Balkan" category because the film deals with the topic of the Balkans doesn't mean that it's a Balkan film, or a Serbian film, or anything other than a Canadian film. So, give it a rest, or take this to arbitration, I have completely lost my patience with you, to be honest, since you are simply rejecting the overwhelming evidence and common sense that this is a Canadian film. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If what you say here isn't OR (and inviting me to engage in OR), I don't know what is! … … "The overwhelming evidence" is that the distributor and a number of key festivals give its country of origin (not its subject) as Serbia.Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillagerit is clear that consensus cannot be reached on this matter, however it is equally clear that you have no interest in arriving at consensus, having made no suggestions for compromise, having been abusive and bad-tempered throughout, having not apologised for your 'mistakes', (not only recently but in the longer term). Having apparently shown no interest in developing this article other than as a publicity sheet for the film and as a mouthpiece for the film maker. Consequently, in the absence of consensus, I intend to remove 'Canadian' from the description, which is the wish of the majority of current editors.

This is no longer simply a disagreement about content, but more about whether ill manners, vandalistic reverting and obduracy are acceptable ways of you retaining your 'right' to ownership of this article.Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you writing tons of text won't change the fact that the film is identified as Canadian in its own credits. Everything else is quite irrelevant. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

nb the following was written at the same time as UV's immediately above, due to an edit conflict it is posted after and is NOT a response. Second compromise proposal: These all seem to be true:- 1) The nationality' of a film is NOT objectively verifiable (a film doesn't have citizenship, nor a passport) … … 2) the nationality of a film is not necessarily the same as the nationality of the film maker (I don't think anyone would consider City Lights a British film]] … … 3) An equal number of RSs describe this film as from Serbia (presumably BM had the opportunity to dispute with Raindance and Journeyman about their descriptions at the time). Therefore, we don't need to 'nationalise' the film at all, but rather to describe the film maker. The only source we have for that is BM's own self-identification as 'Serbian-Canadian' (source on, I believe, 'his page). Therefore the text would read 'documentary film by Serbian-Canadian film maker Boris M.'. … … Is this acceptable to anyone/everyone?.

I think enough time has been wasted on this, but I intend to stick with it as it clearly indicates UrbanVillager's WP:ownership of this article, and that the ownership is being used to ensure that Wikipedia mirrors whatever is claimed by the film maker, (as it still does in respect of the synopsis, nearly four years after this article was created).

UrbanVillager, your vandalistic reverting over many months, your reliance on abuse of fellow editors, (both on this page and in your edit summaries, and for which you have never once apologised, even when shown to be clearly wrong) and the fact that your clear intent is not to improve this article in any meaningful sense, simply to use it as an 'outpost' of the BM publicity machine, all of these are unacceptable.Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Re this edit reason: [3], yes of course, any film maker can call a film the funniest comedy in the world - or anything - if he wants to … … but we are not simply a mouthpiece for any film maker nor an extension of his/her publicity machine. Several prominent RSs (for whatever reason), say this film is Serbian (the director should have taken this up with Raindance and his distributors at the time … not here).Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, I've been trying to figure out why Journeyman Pictures described the film as Serbian and perhaps it has something to do with the relation between the Raindance festival and Journeyman Pictures both being based in London and maybe JP decided to list the film as "Serbian" since Raindance placed in the category dealing with Balkan topics. However, since neither you nor I dispute that the production company which produced the film is based in Vancouver, Canada, and neither you nor I can find another production company based in Serbia that also worked on the film (it simply isn't listed or mentioned anywhere in the film or on the Internet), it really can't be disputed that the film is Canadian and nothing else. However, one thing that might be a possibility, considering that Malagurski works for Happy TV in Serbia, is that he has some kind of company in Serbia that does the distribution of his Canadian-produced films. I would like to emphasize that this is my personal assumption, but that could account for why JP listed the film as "Serbian", which actually sounds more plausible than the London-connection between JP and Raindance. So, in order to stop our revert war, I would suggest the following compromise: Leave the word "Canadian" before "documentary film", since the film credits are clear on that and we both agree the production company is based in Canada which is proof in itself that the film is Canadian, but we can add somewhere in the article that there are sources which describe the film as "Serbian". Would that work for you? --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager I notice you are still 'clutching at straws' about whether 'Balkan Cinema Strand' were films whose SUBJECTS were Balkan, when the clear evidence is that this strand were films whose ORIGINS were Balkan, (I don't even think it would be true that the subject of WoC was Serbia, isn't it about FYR?).

Re your proposal:- initial reaction, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say 'Canadian', and then say something different later (if both are included then logically they should be placed together), however rather than outright reject, suggest a wording please, (but I am wondering how your suggestion is any different from my proposal 1 above). Why Journeyman, Raindance and others chose to describe the film as they did would be pure conjecture by either of us, THEY DID, and in the absence of any CLEAR indication that it was an error, the sources have at least as much validity as BM himself.Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The core element in which we disagree seems to be "'the sources have at least as much validity as BM himself" - No, the film credits are a part of the film itself, unlike some festival or distribution company, so the credits are the most reliable source on where the film was produced, i.e. Canada. So, we can mention the fact that some sources for reasons unknown consider the film Serbian, but since they do not provide any specific evidence that the film is Serbian (they don't mention a Serbian production company, do they?), the film is Canadian. Do you understand what I mean? --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right, this is the core element, however 'nationality' of a created work is not objective, (it doesn't have citizenship and can only be described according to how it is perceived by RSs). You are saying that the film-maker's claim takes precedence over how it has been described by its distributor and other RSs. I cannot see why this would be so. If the two claims are phrased in a neutral fashion, the READER is able to decide which has more validity, though why we simply don't leave either out, I don't know. … … … ps you were invited to suggest a proposed phrasing for your compromise. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You said you can't see why the film credits are more reliable sources of information about the film than festivals or distributors. Um, where do you think the festivals and distributors get their information from if not from the film credits and the film author? Do you think they make them up as they go? "Oh, maybe Clint Eastwood stars in this movie, let's put that in there!" No, they get it from the film credits. And they obviously make mistakes, so to amplify mistakes by writing them as facts on Wikipedia is absurd. The film credits, of course, take precedence over any other source regarding the film, and in this case, the film could not be more clear on whether it's a Canadian film or not. Usually it's enough to look at where the production company of the film is from, and in this case it's Canada. However, in these film credits, you actually have the text "This is a Canadian film". Since I see you're not willing to budge on the issue, we'll have to leave it as it was before you started removing sourced content. If and when you provide reliable sources which present evidence that the film was produced by a production company based in Serbia, we'll talk about this issue again. Right now, there is no reason to use sources which apparently had nothing to do with the film's production on specifics regarding the film's production. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Um, where do you think the festivals and distributors get their information from if not from the film credits and the film author?, Precisely, so it's reasonable for us to assume, that the info came from BM, and that BM had the opportunity to rectify any mistakes, if he didn't perhaps he should take it up with THEM, not you attempt to remedy it here. I have never suggested that there was any co-production, so why should I want to 'prove' there was (except, of course, free use of - mainly - RTS archive film, which would cause many to see it as a co-production).

Two other compromises have been suggested, which you reject without reason, except repeating the same thing over and over, which boils down to 'BM says', so Wikipedia has to repeat it. (Why are you so certain it was a mistake? How can you be certain it was a mistake? Were you there? … … I can think of several other explanations, but all of them would be guesses).

Since there obviously never was any sincere attempt to reach compromise, the wording STAYS with the wishes of the majority of long term editors, which is NO MENTION of nationality.Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion continues belowPincrete (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Weight of Chains" is a Canadian film

NOTE At this point in the discussion, a screenshot of the film credits was inserted by UrbanVillager. The screenshot included the statement 'This is a Canadian Film' and the year '2011'. It is this screenshot which is being referred to in the paragraphs below. The screenshot was removed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on 9th September here:- [4]. This note was inserted by Pincrete for the purposes of clarification. Original diffs here:-[5] Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this ends the discussion on the matter. Pincrete, please stop reverting or we can add this to the article as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager … firstly I would point out an error on the article page (and probably other pages), where the film is described as 'a 2010 documentary', thankyou for drawing my attention to that mistake, will you remedy it or shall I?

Secondly, well I don't know what to say really, because it is very difficult to reply without being patronising. I have on several occasions on this page and related pages tried to point out the difference between a paper saying 'the author announced today' (or similar) … and Wikipedia rendering the author's claim AS FACT. The relevant guideline seems to be that self-sourced information is not reliable, other than on uncontentious auto-biographical matters, or needs to be attributed to the speaker, not the paper.

Is it not obvious to you that no matter how big you print the claim, no matter how often you repeat the exact location in the film of the claim, it is the film maker's claim NO MORE. Is the difference between " UrbanVillager says he is the nicest person on the planet" and "UrbanVillager IS the nicest person on the planet", not obvious to you? Or is it just that it is a distinction to which you are indifferent, when it comes to BM?

By all means add the picture to the article if you wish. Neither you nor BM seem to realise that you more you scream this claim, the more doubt it actually casts in people's minds. The picture doesn't "end the discussion", it merely advertises your highly selective definition of a RS. … … ps do you object to me moving this up to 'In what sense Canadian ?' since it actually seems to be a continuation of that discussion'? … … … pps you might want to remove the picture as it is copyrighted to BM, and I think LEGALLY you should have asked him before using it. Pincrete (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "The author says that his film is great" and "The author calls his film The Weight of Chains and produced it in Canada". The first is a statement that can be disputed by various factors as he's discussing a general topic of interest. The second is a statement about his details regarding his work for which he, or rather the production company, is solely responsible, i.e. naming the film, deciding whether to co-produce the film with another production company or not (essentially, a film is Canadian if the production company is based in Canada), signing people in the credits, etc. Now, what the author's arrangements with other parties after the film has been produced are, really makes little difference regarding the facts concerning the film, as an external party can't declare the film to be Australian or called "The Blast of Paranoia" and taken seriously, even if the source is The New York Times. As a matter of fact, perhaps we could consider removing the "Journeyman Pictures" text and link altogether. An author can't say "I claim that the film is called The Weight of Chains and I claim that it's Canadian", it simply is, because it's a creation of his, or rather his production company. The opposite would be equal to you naming your child Bob, but when introducing him to friends you say "This is my son, I claim his name is Bob, others may claim his official name is different", (assuming the child agrees his name is Bob) which is absurd, of course. So, the topics covered can and should be disputed, but for general facts regarding the film's production, the film credits do give the final word. And yes, you may change the year to 2011, I missed that one as well. Goes to show both you and I could look into the credits better before making absolute claims about the film's production. The printscreen is used to illustrate what we're talking about, so from what I understood, it should be fair use. If you agree that "Canadian" stays, I'll remove the photo. Maybe then we can move on to different issues, we've spent way too much time discussing something so obvious and trivial. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This really is 100 percent nonsense (there are hundreds of books, films, people known by names NOT given to them by their 'makers' … and your grasp of the laws of ownership of created works is pretty rudimentary … while the idea that ANYONE - Wikipedia editors, festival administrators, press officers, critics - 'watch the film credits' to get info about the film is beyond belief!)

I have already made the conditions of this truce clear above, I have nothing to add. Remove the picture - or not - as you wish, I just thought you might prefer the dignity of removing it yourself, rather than having it removed for copyright violation. Pincrete (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing how you do understand that the production company that made the film is Canadian, but you don't understand how that makes the film Canadian. I am speechless. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'nationality' is how RSs perceive it … as I said before, the legally registered London office of 'China news', doesn't suddenly become a 'British news source', by printing 'I am British' on its notepaper. Show me a Wikipedia guideline or a 'real world' law that explicitly contradicts that when you have recovered your powers of speech. Meanwhile, I have better things to do. So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, that the 'Beldocs' ref following 'Canadian', is in fact a word-for-word copy of the BM site, therefore simply a 'mirror' or copy-paste. Does anybody object to me removing this ref ? Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object, the source describes the film as Canadian and that is what it's used to reaffirm in the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, as long as we understand that you are quite happy to cite a word-for-word copy from the film maker's site as an independent reliable source. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of entire criticism section.

UrbanVillager,there was extensive discussion on talk last year about criticism, here: [6], I took very little part in that discussion but 'watched it with interest'. The background to that discussion was an edit war, followed by an admin dispute, here: [7], as I read the discussion, the consensus was that the three criticism sources COULD BE USED, subject to clear attribution and not disproportionate to the total content of the article. You appeared to (grudgingly, perhaps) accept that decision.

Apart from changing one of your (incorrect) words to a correct one I took no part. Had I done so, I would have added to what others said that Kilibarda is a professional academic, with extensive experience of researching and writing about 'Balkan' matters and economics and some reviews of books and films (do any of the sources you regard as sacrosanct have ANY experience of commenting on economics or history ?).

To complicate matters, two of the four participants in that discussion have since been permanently banned (Staro Gusle and Phoenix and Winslow, SG for being a 'puppet'). Now, suddenly nearly 12 months after consensus was reached, UrbanVillager, you are removing the section in its entirety, citing 'no consensus' and 'vandalism'.

The one change which I made today was to clearly attribute (as per consensus), using quote marks and to add a phrase since it is meaningless to talk about well established role without saying what Kilibarda considered that role to be (plenty of people might think 'Slobo's' 'well established role' was as heroic statesman). It seems however that any change in any section leads you to tantrums and the revert button. You seem less concerned that the entire 'synopsis' is a copy/paste from the WoC website.

You seem determined to prove your WP:ownership, vandalism, unwillingless to work with or respect other editors, unwillingless to acknowledge RS information that doesn't suit you … … in addition to the personal abuse, racist remarks etc. that we all already knew about.Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources, no matter what your "consensus" (you and Bob Rayner) is. Read WP:RELIABLE. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, do you actually READ postings before replying? … … Neither I nor Bob Rayner took ANY significant part in that 'criticism discussion' last year (You, Producer, Staro Gusle and Phoenix and Winslow were the only significant participants … P&W apparently being 'parachuted in' as a referee, SG being banned shortly therafter), the decision of that discussion was clear THE SOURCES ARE GOOD so long as attributed, 'pruned' of unencyc language (applies to Pavlica only, I think) and not disproportionate (is one paragraph disproportionate?).

I note that you do not apologise for a series of (false) accusations both above and in your edit reasons, which you only compound by adding another false accusation again myself and BR today.

Thankyou, I HAVE read RELIABLE many times … have you read the bit about the expertise/professional experience of the writer being a factor in judging reliability? I think you should it's here:[[8]], I especially draw your attention to: Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs.… … Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. … … So WHAT about Kilibarda do you doubt? His professional experience as an academic and researcher? (lecturer at a Canadian University) That his relevant specialities include the Balkans, economics and politics, or that he has published (about the Balkans) in reliable journals? (Did you know that Kilibarda is even very sympathetic to the 'economic' arguments of the film, aren't they supposed to be the film's main thrust?)

I eagerly await your answer, because I'm afraid it looks awfully like a desperate attempt on your part to ensure that no meaningful criticism is ever allowed to sully this article, even when you have previously agreed to it.

I draw your attention to several questions I have asked on the BM main page.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think you may be right about Kilibarda. We can re-add his criticism. But e-novine and Pavlica are completely unreliable and irrelevant. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me ! There WAS consensus last year, you have just … 1) unilaterally decided that the other two sources are unreliable … 2) completely re-phrased Kilibarda according to your own wishes … 3) wrongly (and needlessly) characterised Kilibarda (an LP for the purposes of BLP) as a 'teaching assistant' at York's, he WAS, from 2004. He now IS Course Director at McMaster University and previously was CD at York's :-[9] , the same site details extensive research work in the Balkans … … could you really not think of a more dismissive description ?

I suggest a truce on two fronts … 1) 'Canadian' can stay temporarily, but any sources which are simply mirrors will be removed (only RTS I think) … … 2) Criticism is restored in its entirety (including MY brief addition to Kilibarda (after 'well established role' … to … 'in the 1980s').

I wish to make it VERY clear that this is simply to stop my time and Wikipedia resources being wasted on what - as far as I am concerned - is vandalism on your part in support of your self-presumed ownership of this page, an ownership which cherry-picks which rules apply, and the sole purpose of which is to make this article little more than an outpost of BM's publicity machine. I reserve the right to take admin action regarding your behaviour. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

I am starting a new section in order to focus on what I see as being the shortcomings of the present synopsis. The present synopsis is very largely a 'cut and paste' job from the press pack and website of the film maker. The synopsis does not attempt, (with the one exception of one issue), to present the claims or arguments of the film, nor to give any context by linking to historical events covered in the film (the obvious example is the lack of any mention in the synopsis of the film's 'take' on Srebrenica).

The 'one exception', is the synopsis presently covers fairly thoroughly the 'economic' arguments of the film, (though this could probably be précis-ed without any loss of content). The difficulty (as I see it), is that the film makes SO MANY contentious claims (though often not actual claims, rather inferences), that distinguishing exactly what those claims are, which are important, and how to represent them fairly and neutrally is difficult.

Should there be any new-comers to this page, there is a lot of discussion about the synopsis in the archives at the top of this page (though I would be the first to admit, those discussions ended going round in circles, but there may be 'wheat among the chaff').Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis. The point is not to debate on the arguments presented in the film, but to merely describe what the film talks about. That's it. So, none of "the film says this, BUT this is SO not true" here. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, re your remark:- In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work … … 1). please draw my attention to where … … 2) One minute you claim to be an ordinary Joe who happens to follow BM's work, now (and quite often recently) you are suddenly an authority on film and festivals … … 3) I am happy to divulge to you my PROFESSIONAL involvement with the admin. of film festivals if you wish, but Wikipedia is collegiate and that would be irrelevant … … 4). Would it be possible for you to make your point, just once in a while, WITHOUT attempting to denigrate the person you are addressing?

Re- The point is not to debate on the arguments presented in the film, but to merely describe what the film talks about, … … I wholeheartedly AGREE that the point of a synopsis of a documentary is not to 'debate' or 'comment on', or 'verify' or 'disprove' the film's arguments, (what in my previous posting suggests to you that I don't know that or even that I would wish it to be otherwise?). However the point of a synopsis IS to IDENTIFY what those arguments are and to try to represent them in a neutral fashion, and specifically the guidelines state that where a documentary covers historical events, links should be provided to pages where those historical events are covered more fully. I do wish you would read more carefully what has been posted before reacting. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed tidy of the synopsis

I have prepared some thoughts for tidying the synopsis. These are NOT as a result of today's copy vio clean-out, however the present synopsis deviates very little from the film's website and press pack. These suggestions are NOT intended to make substantial changes to the MEANING of the present version, nor are these suggestions meant to be a FINAL form, since many of the themes of the film are not covered at present and others may be 'over-covered'. This is simply intended to 'clean up' and précis the present synopsis as an interim framework. I have italicised particularly problematic text and bold numbered each point. I have attempted to explain WHY I think there is a problem and sometimes made suggestions.

The Weight Of Chains presents a perspective on (1) … ('woolly'?? … is there not a clearer way to say 'the film is about')

Western involvement in the division of the ethnic groups within Yugoslavia, (2) … (is this true of the film ? Is it not clearer to say 'the break-up of former Yug.' or 'the ethnic conflicts in the FYR' or 'the division of Yug', or similar)

and claims that the war was forced from outside, while ordinary people wanted peace. Malagurski says extreme factions on all sides, fuelled by their foreign mentors, outvoiced the moderates and even ten years after the last conflict, the hatred remains and people continue spreading myths about the 1990s. (3) … (The sentence, from 'and even ten years later' , is almost certainly true but IS IT in the film? There are two thoughts here, perhaps the first IS at least implied in the film).

[10][not in citation given] … (this citation is unnecessary and should go)

NOTE the text up to this point has already been removed for copyvio

The film starts with a brief history of Yugoslavia, explaining the concept of Yugoslavia (4) … (is this necessary? I'm not sure what the 'concept' of a country is. I suggest 'brief history of Yugoslavia, and how it came to exist', linking to next)

and how it came to exist. Narrated by Malagurski, the film explains what happened in Yugoslavia during World War II and how Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia was formed. The pace slows down as Tito's death is documented, (5) … (is a less reverential tone appropriate, simply linking one time-frame to the next? … plus is 'explains' the right word ie neutral, it's a very particular take on history. I suggest 'covers' or similar … plus is the narrator not already named in the article?)

and the author moves on to changes in the Yugoslav economy in the 1980s, with specific mention of Ronald Reagan's National Security Decisions Directive 133 from 1984. This presents U.S. interests in Yugoslavia as promoting the "trend towards a market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure". The role of the National Endowment for Democracy in Yugoslavia is then analyzed and , (6) … (would it not be better to go straight to the claim … ie I suggest ' NEDY is connected to formation of G17 etc. '?)

connected to the formation of G17 Plus. Privatization through liquidation is explained, and (7)… (same reason as previous, ie I suggest 'liquidation is presented as etc.')

presented as a major cause for the rise of ethnic tensions in the late 80s and early 90s, further fueled by Foreign Operations Appropriations Act 101-513, enacted during the George H. W. Bush era.

Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman and Alija Izetbegović then receive criticism, all of them (8) … (similar reason to previous, I suggest 'all described as being power-hungry etc.' )

described as being power-hungry and without much concern for their people. Domestic war-mongers are mentioned also. (9) … (similar reason to previous, bit meaningless to say 'mentioned' … suggest linking ie 'Domestic war-mongers and the regional media are presented etc.' )

The regional media are presented as having a major influence on mobilizing public opinion in favor of a conflict. The film then alleges that the West – openly diplomatically and covertly militarily – supported separatist groups and encouraged conflict so that NATO could jump in as peacekeepers for their own interests. The film includes new (10) … (is new footage notable?)

footage of a village in Bosnia where Serbs and Bosniaks lived together up to the end of the Bosnian war, but were then separated – with Serbs saying goodbye to their Muslim neighbours, who decided to collectively leave to their own entity, in tears.

The topic of Kosovo is covered most out of all the issues, (11) … (is this necessary? suggest 'is covered most and the history of the region etc')

and the history of the region is explained (12) … (word is not neutral … it is a very particular version given in the film … … I don't have a suggestion)

to show why the Kosovo war broke out. The film talks about the medieval Battle of Kosovo, the inclusion (13) … (inclusion is the wrong word in terms of MEANING, (you can ONLY be included in something plural a list, group, set etc.) I suggest 'incorporation' as being both neutral and semantically correct)

of Kosovo into the Kingdom of Serbia in 1912, the persecution of Kosovo Serbs during World War II and Tito's Yugoslavia, as well as alleged plans by Albanian nationalists to create an ethnically pure Greater Albania. The film then discusses what interests the Western powers had in Kosovo and why they decided to intervene in a secessionist war in 1999. Questions such as why a cigarette factory was bombed by NATO (and later bought by Philip Morris) are tackled, (14) … (are they 'tackled', aren't they just 'asked' or similar?)

with the author concluding that the purpose of the war was to economically colonize the country.

This film also presents positive stories from the war – people helping each other regardless of their ethnic background, stories of bravery and self-sacrifice. For this purpose, the widow of Josip Reihl-Kir (former police chief of Osijek, Croatia) Jadranka Reihl-Kir was interviewed (15a) concerning her husband's attempts to resolve ethnic issues back in 1991 in a peaceful manner.

The widow of Milan Levar, Vesna Levar, was also interviewed (15b) and spoke of her husband's fight to expose policies of ethnic cleansing in his hometown of Gospić, Croatia, where Croat forces killed dozens of Serb civilians. Another story covered is that of a young Serbian man by the name of Srđan Aleksić, whose father tells how his son saved a Muslim man from an attack by soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska. … (I've put italics on these two (15) references to interviews, as I'm not sure these were original interviews … ignore if I am wrong … though even if I am, cannot we just say 'Levar talks about her husband's etc' … … also is 'Army of' the appropriate term, it's what they are called NOW, not how they were referred to at the time).

After discussing the wars of the 1990s, the film deals with what happened afterwards and how policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank affected the newly created former Yugoslav states. The author presents his theory that Eastern European states were never meant to be colleagues and equals with the European Union and the West, but rather markets for Western industrial goods and sources of cheap labor. The way in which the debt of the former Yugoslav countries has changed from 1990 to 2010 is graphically depicted, with revelations of how much tax money each citizen of the former Yugoslavia would have to pay in order for their countries to be debt free. (16) … (this final sentence could be précis-ed without any loss of content, but I've made enough suggestion for one day!) Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing of Intro

I think for historical reasons (inc editors rightly restoring neutrality), we end up with a slightly 'mangled' and incomplete intro:- which analyzes the nature of the role that the United States, NATO and the European Union allegedly played in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Since this film advertises itself as presenting 'an alternative account', can we not find a clearer form of words that says (briefly), what that account is (and drop the word 'analyses' … simply, clearly, state 'this is what the film says it's about'). I don't have suggestions for solution at present. Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My general view is that talk page comments about plans for editing (versus just doing the planned editing) is the wrong path. Make the edits you'd like and if there's a dispute then discuss it here. Otherwise, I don't know if you're waiting for approval or something but that's not the way WP:BOLD works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

Looking at UrbanVillager's edit history [10] I see a possible conflict of interest. Comments. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, another accusation of being Malagurski, his friend or on his payroll. Thanks. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Check this out as well: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you just a fan? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I would never describe myself as a fan of anyone, but I do follow his work - some I like, some I don't. However, I think it's shameful that just because this isn't such a popular topic on Wikipedia, editors like Pincrete can hold a monopoly on what can or can't be added to the article. He himself described the film as "selective and lacks objectivity or credibility" (scroll up), so it's really funny when he declares himself neutral in this issue, considering that all of his edits (from the very first, on this talk page) aim at emphasizing his own very personal views on the film and not really editing the article in a way to help the reader get properly and objectively informed about the production, the details presented in the film and all sides of views when it comes to relevant critical response.

On the other hand, Pincrete appeared on Wikipedia and immediately jumped into this talk page around the time User:Opbeith stopped commenting on this talk page and Pincrete is likely Opbeith's sock/meatpuppet. Opbeith left Wikipedia about a month later, and Pincrete continued where Opbeith left off. Don't take my word for it, check for yourself. My personal favorite was Pincrete writing "I was about to write my own defence when I discovered that Opbeith had already done it for me", how convenient. ([11])

I came here to add sourced information about a topic that is interesting to me, and I've been cool with negative reviews and criticism of Malagurski's work if it's well sourced, but look at how much I've been attacked whenever I wanted to add something that isn't negative or, God forbid, positive and well-sourced. If Wikipedia is a place where people who are personally frustrated with someone or their work can occupy less popular articles as they please and push their own POV, OK, let them have it, I think I've done enough to make these articles better and more neutral, so if I'm at fault here, I'll make my leave. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: the above comment was inserted by UrbanVillager out-of-sequence with my post below. Note added by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff If you can bear it, take a look at:-[12]. You are far more likely to get some understanding of the situation there than asking anybody here. Pincrete (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, If you have a SHRED of evidence to back up your many accusations against me on this page, I suggest you take it to the ANI which you started against me and BobRayner, I'm sure they'd want to know. Anyone else is welcome to look at the link I left for Somedifferentstuff, and judge for themselves.

Could we ALL please try to remember that this page is for discussing the content of the article, nothing else. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to 'Interviewees' and external refs

I have just made some minor changes to the interviewees list, these include:- )1. Adding refs to the (pre-existing) claim that one interviewee was a defence witness for several Serbian war criminals. … … 2). Modifying the link on that sentence to direct to 'The Hague trials on former Yug.' rather than to Serbs, (my logic being that a reader is more likely to want to know about trials/crimes rather than who Serbs are, possibly there is a more appropriate or specific link) … … 3) I amended 'Skabo's name by adding his full name, my logic being that he appears in the documentary as a 'private citizen', not as a rapper. … … 4). I added some names to the list (which is still incomplete), adding refs to any potentially contentious claims. … … I was unable to find independent refs for 'Blasko Gabric' or his description as "Founder and 'President' of 'Fourth Yugoslavia'", but as his story is relatively well known and harmless, I relied on the info from the WoC website. … … Update added best Blasko Gabric refs I could find, neither is perfect as one is from 2012 and one mainly about nostalgia in FormYug.

Since the page is now littered with links to the WoC website used as refs, (some admittedly added by me), I also removed two WoC links from 'external links' section.Pincrete (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you have just removed the refs which I added to a statement which has been on the page for a very long time (previously unreferenced) … You have just removed that Mackenzie is 'best known for his controversial views' (which I think YOU wrote originally, but which has been there for a long time) and which is on the WoC website … … you have asked for a citation that one interviewee was an adviser to SM & RK (which is on the WoC website) … … I WILL if you wish add refs to each of these statements, though, I believe them to be covered by the general ref 'interviewees'. … … You have removed (referenced) background info relevant to WHO the person is/was in FYR, because 'they don't talk about ……' (Does Skabo talk about rap, does Mackenzie discuss his medals, does ANYBODY talk about basketball ?). … … ps I am replying to you here as this is the relevant section. I don't consider your reply above adds anything to what you have already said. … … … pps the texts concerning Mackenzie's 'controversial views' and 'defence witness etc"' to which you SUDDENLY take such great exception, have both been here (previously unreferenced) since at least Dec 2012 (I got bored with looking for the exact date) see: - [13]. … … MINOR CORRECTION, the Mackenzie 'controversial views', was NOT added by UrbanVillager, but HAS been there unreferenced since August 22 2012 :-[14].

UrbanVillager, by all means remove the reference to Mackenzie's views if you want, but don't blame me for it being there 4 months before I had even read this article, especially as - when it suits you - you give as an 'edit reason' "can't you read? It was here before you started editing" as here:- [15].Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the people interviewed in the film. So, interviewees can be listed with a short description that accurately describes their most important function. James Bissett, the former Canadian diplomat, served as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria. The fact that that he was a witness at Milosevic's trial is very irrelevant in this context and you trying to push that into the article is pure POV pushing, as your attempt is to devaluate the credibility of the interviewee, as you're trying to do with MacKenzie. Everyone can be "controversial" if you don't agree with them, but it's not about you, it's about the people interviewed in the film. So, please stop with your POV pushing, it's against Wikipedia regulations. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:- Mackenzie's views, did you read the above and look at the links above? This text has been there for OVER two years, why are you blaming me for it now? (or for that matter blaming Bosniaks [16] ) … … 'Defence witness' has been on the page for nearly two years, you only object to it now that refs are added … … 'Political adviser to SM and RK' is how he is described on the WoC website (the only other RS I could find for him was VERY unflattering, though written by himself). Being a defence witness may show admirable courage to stand up for what they believe to be justice, but regardless, why is somebody's Yugoslavian war-time and post war-time record irrelevant, but somebody else's medals and basketball career are relevant? Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus

While it's perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation, I've noticed that Pincrete is canvassing (see WP:CAN) in order to fabricate a consensus that serves his anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav bias. This is neutral land, not "Malagurski-land" as Pincrete described it in his comment to Bobrayner [17] and declaring me the 'owner' of this article is another personal attack (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) in a long line of attempts to discredit anyone who doesn't show up to bash Malagurski and his work. Since I came to Wikipedia I've been accused of being Malagurski, being Malagurski's friend and being on Malagurski's payroll, and now, just because I'm interested in the quality of the article, I'm accused of being the 'owner' of this article. Nobody 'owns' anything on Wikipedia, everything here belongs to all of us. And I resent the fact I'm accused of being in any way disruptive, considering that I helped contribute towards this article in making it one of the best-sourced on Wikipedia, while according to Wikipedia policy, canvassing, which Pincrete keeps doing with the "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way", "compromises the normal consensus decision-making process", and therefore is "disruptive behavior". Some users are obviously here with an agenda, as they criticize Malagurski's work on an online encyclopedia that is aimed at not giving judgement on a topic, but rather providing neutral information. After being warned for edit warring, Pincrete proceeded to contact Bobrayner again [18], subtly asking for him to show up to agree with him (Pincrete regards Bobrayner as an influential editor, he has attracted my attention to his "edit record" in the past [19]), so that Pincrete could say that the "majority of users" support his view. Unfortunately for Pincrete, this is not how consensus is built. The word "Canadian" is well-sourced (I found over 7 reliable sources, some of which were deleted) and consensus on Wikiepedia is not created by counting votes (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). I don't think Pincrete's goals are at all in line with the Wikipedia spirit, and he has the nerve to complain about my behavior, even plotting with Bobrayner to report me ("As I understand it, 2 editors need to have raised behaviour on talk for a complaint to go forward, you have implicitly criticised and in your 'pithy' edit reasons implied behaviour issues, but not explicitly commented in recent times. I have recently, repeatedly and clearly complained of behaviour." --Pincrete [20]) after clearly trying to use Wikipedia to further their POV agenda. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to work and have worked with other editors who have an unbiased approach to this topic. Simply put, if someone appears with any kind of emotional stance towards Malagurski or his work, it's very hard to cooperate. Their goals are usually to glorify or vilify. I was presented as not accepting criticism of Malagurski in this article when all I wanted was to have properly sourced criticism, and have recently agreed to add Kilibarda's criticism of Malagurski's film. So far, I've seen editors such as Pincrete and Bobrayner claiming that blogs are reliable sources of information, hoping that nobody will notice since "Boris Malagurski" isn't really a popular topic on the Internet. For standing up for Wikipedia policy, I've been personally attacked, accused of many things and now some editors are canvassing votes in hopes of pushing through their agenda. I think it's about time some administrators become involved. Those who are familiar with Malagurski's work can have an opinion of his work. But Wikipedia doesn't care for that, this isn't a blog or an Internet forum. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, poor, noble, misunderstood UrbanVillager. I can only repeat Psychonaut's advice, if you think you have a case, seek a third opinion or take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard :- here [21] … (at least bobrayner HAS edited here recently … and at least I told everyone - including you - that I intended to notify BR, as he is involved … I don't think contacting an editor whose most recent edit was 3 days before, asking him to confirm his opinion and updating him, would carry much weight as 'canvassing') … Proofs:Sept 1st here:- [22] 15th August here:-[23] 13th August here:-[24] June 26th here:-[25] … finally, 10th August here;-[26].

I have nothing further to add to what has been said, if you want to discuss the articles (or answer any of the pending questions on other BM pages), that's fine, otherwise … … give it a rest. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent review

There is a recent review of this film, printed in the UK's Socialist Standard, the review is at :-[27] , it was published January this year. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There, now that is a reliable source for criticism of the film. Which part should we add? Aside from that, I suggest we only leave Kilibarda's criticism, since E-novine is neither reliable, nor is Pavlica relevant. Also, should there be a section presenting positive reviews of the film? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am drawing everyone's attention to the review, I don't have an opinion yet as I only read it myself 15 minutes ago. The source is hardly 'mainstream', but then how many of the current sources ARE?

As you know, until such time as consensus is reached or admin review achieved, there are to be NO substantial alterations to the 'criticism' section. I happen to think Kilibarda is the best written, however, the others were the result of a consensus last year and, in case it is not obvious, I don't agree with you removing all of either of the other two. IMO there is no need for a seperate section for positive reviews, any that meet the same criteria as the negative ones are already eligible for inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As you know, consensus can change, and I'm proposing a change that would mean adding more information about Kilibarda's review, like in this edit, removing e-novine's "review" (irrelevant blog, irrelevant blogger who even got kicked out of e-novine, the editor of e-novine called Pavlica an "idiot" [28]), and adding the more credible Socialist Standard review. Also, if we find two or three positive reviews of the film, we could change the heading of the "criticism" section into the "reviews" or "reactions" section, as it seems unfair to have a "criticism" section by itself, as if the rest is all praising the film, which it is not. To have neutral general information of the film + criticism without any positive reviews is quite one-sided, don't you think? --UrbanVillager (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

'Criticism' isn't inherently the wrong word - in context - Criticism = 'what (film) critics have written' (praise or disapproval). However, I myself suggested 'Critical response' (the section heading used on other film pages), I suggested it here [29], scroll down to 'Critique/Criticism'. I still have no objection to that change.

The fact that the editor and Pavlica had a falling out is irrelevant to reliability - unless e-novine specifically disowned THIS review.

I need to re-assess both the Pavlica review, and the archived 'Criticism' discussion, (same as previous link,[30]) however memory tells me that both e-novine and Pavlica himself 'passed muster' as RSs, I don't see any good reason to change that assessment of either. My general position is that we should not put acres of quotes from any single reviewer, but rather find quotes that adequately summarise the reviewers position, or make a particular observation that other reviewers do not. Readers can read the whole review if they want. The rules are the same for good or bad reviews.

Which parts of Kilibarda or the 'new review', do you wish to add? My first impression of the new review, is that the writer has a very similar response to Kilibarda, namely he sympathises with the economic arguments, but finds the rewriting of history objectionable, it's possible that some 'merging' of their views would work without altering either of their meanings. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with changing it to Critique.

As for e-novine, you can't be serious that you expect the blog to come up with a list of articles disowned by them together with Pavlica. The editor called Pavlica an idiot and kicked him out. This shows how much weight Pavlica's articles have on e-novine and this source by itself really doesn't meet any of Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sourcing. It's simply a blog post. So, it should be removed. Pushing for the e-novine link will only further my suspicions that you don't want to have serious criticism of the film, like I do, but are just pushing for any type of anti-Malagurski rants you can find.

As for Kilibarda, I wrote which parts I would add and sent you a link. Did you read it? I think you'll find it fits in with what you just wrote. And lets see what we could add from the Socialist Standard. Kilibarda and Miller from the SS (not Heinrich Miller from the Gestapo) seem to be the only ones offering relevant criticism of the film. I'll also see if I can find some more positive reviews, book author Gregory Elich provides a good review here, we could start from there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

'Critique' is wholly the WRONG word, it means something different from criticism (in UK English certainly).

I am totally serious about what I said about Pavlica and the irrelevance of his 'in house disagreements'. If by the 'link' you mean your rewrite of the whole criticism section, I think I've already made clear that I DON'T accept it for a number of reasons, which I can repeat if you want. I haven't read the Elich yet, so will say nothing about it. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So, you won't read Elich either? :/ Seems a bit counterproductive. By 'link' I meant expanding on the Kilibarda review, while removing the Pavlica rant. If you're sure you don't agree on removing Pavlica, I'll take the matter to a higher instance, since it's pretty clear it fails WP:SOURCE - neither is the blog relevant, nor is the author relevant. Simply put, a blogger wrote something for a blog and later the blog's head guy threw him out and called him an 'idiot'. Where's the relevance in that? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"I haven't read the Elich yet", is I think what my post says.

The entire issue of 'Pavlica' being 'a blog' was discussed at length, the conclusion was that the source was 'kosher' if used in moderation. I don't intend to re-open that whole discussion unless there is some substantial NEW argument. You are perfectly entitled to invite adjudication if you want. The Pavlica used is a single (technical) criticism of the film, I find it strange to call that 'a rant'. Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, the new argument is that e-novine called its own contributor "an idiot". Can you provide some evidence of Pavlica's technical expertise when it comes to reviewing a film? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"I have read the Elich now" … it isn't a review, it is an interview with BM. Perhaps it supports other parts of the article, but it doesn't even pretend to be a review. Re:- your previous post, Pavlica's credibility as a quotable source was established, unless he was fired for writing THIS review, the rest is 'office gossip' or material for the Pavlica page. … … ps isn't the paper reporting the 'Pavlica idiot' story the one that BM writes for? Small world isn't it? ... pps Elich, your 'reviewer' is of course one of the interviewees in the film, I thought so from the first mention but just wanted to check.Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pavlica's credibility as a quotable source was established" - When? Can you please provide me with a source that shows Pavlica is a credible source for, as you said "technical criticism of the film"? From what I found on the Internet, Pavlica is a computer programmer - hardly the qualifications needed to write about films. So, could you please provide me with some actual evidence of expertise or shall I remove this "idiot" (as the source would describe him) from this respectable encyclopedia? --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pavlica's credibility as a source was established in the discussion last year. The link (showing your participation in that discussion) is here:-[31] … Proof of the 'Criticism' section being here (substantially unchanged) since before 21st September 2013 is here:-[32], (btw, UrbanVillager's edit on 21/9/13, I wholly agree with, indeed I think I later removed references to the nationality of the reviewers altogether since they were neither reliably established, nor pertinent).

NOTE This discussion continues in the section restructuring reviews … this note has been left by Pincrete as an aid to others wishing to follow the thread. Diffs here:- [33]Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.weightofchains.com/about.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, would this be OK?

The Raindance Film Festival, in association with VICE magazine, wrote a review of the film, describing it as "a sardonic look at how US foreign policy brought about the demise of Yugoslavia in the late 80s." According to the review, the film is "elegantly edited", and "makes the whole documentary feel like a history lesson as relayed by an endearing teacher with an average sense of humour." The review notes that, in the film, "experts tell grim stories about how fractured groups of people were exploited by power-hungry domestic leaders" and that "soon Yugoslavia is in the grip of one of history's most heartbreaking periods of civil war and ethnic cleansing."(Raindance Film Festival 2011 - Reviews! by VICE)

--UrbanVillager (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask the person who removed it, which was User:Pincrete. It's a content and sourcing issue, not a copyright issue. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, would you please be so kind as to read the previous section and let me know your opinion on the issue? I would sincerely appreciate it. :) Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in giving an opinion; I only visited the page to clean up the copyright problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, apart from the (comically overt and inept) nature of your WP:canvassing here, may I point out that the link you have provided, does not actually lead to the text you sought Diannaa's approval for (don't explain about click on details, we've been down that silly road a dozen times already). Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction:: while I thank Diannaa for 'staying out of this', I would like to correct her that it was not I, but Bobrayner, who removed the disputed text, here:-[34]. I did restore Bob's edit, later, when a - seemingly uninvolved - editor re-inserted it :- [35].Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring reviews

The criticism section is definitely out of date. E-novine is a blog, the author Damjan Pavlica was kicked out of E-novine and called an "idiot" by the E-novine editor, and if an irrelevant blog calls an even less relevant "reviewer" an "idiot", the source really has no place on this encyclopedia. Not to mention that Pavlica is a computer programmer and has no reputable expertise to write film reviews, even from a technical standpoint. So, this goes out.

On the other hand, Kilibarda does seem to be a relevant source for criticism, and this should be expanded. Also, I found another review on BrightestYoungThings, this author actually went to the Washington, DC premiere of the film and wrote a high quality review. This can go, together with Kilibarda's review, into the article. Also, Raindance, in association with VICE, wrote a review of the film ([36]), this is probably the most professional review yet, so it should definitely go on top of the section.

So, it could look something like this:

Reviews

The Raindance Film Festival, in association with VICE magazine, wrote a review of the film, describing it as "a sardonic look at how US foreign policy brought about the demise of Yugoslavia in the late 80s." According to the review, the film is "elegantly edited", and "makes the whole documentary feel like a history lesson as relayed by an endearing teacher with an average sense of humour." The review notes that, in the film, "experts tell grim stories about how fractured groups of people were exploited by power-hungry domestic leaders" and that "soon Yugoslavia is in the grip of one of history's most heartbreaking periods of civil war and ethnic cleansing."[37] RAINDANCE FILM FESTIVAL 2011 - REVIEWS!

Konstantin Kilibarda, a Teaching Assistant at York University, described the movie as a "misguided attempt to give an ‘alternative’ account to the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s". In providing a critical analysis of Malagurski’s film, Kilibarda asserts that "Malagurski picks up on a general regional consensus among progressives in the Balkans that the wars in the 1990s were partially related to the neoliberal drive to restructure Yugoslavia’s socialist and self-managed economy along more explicitly market oriented lines", but that the author "attempts to minimize, deflect and distort the well established role of Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian leaders in the former Yugoslavia in pursuing a militant nationalist program since the late 1980s that sought to reclaim Kosovo through the imposition of martial law, as well as create ‘ethnically compact’ territories that would link Serbs in Serbia with Serbian minorities in Bosnia and Croatia."[38]

Brightest Young Things, the daily web magazine based in Washington, DC and New York City, NY, called the film "very important" and noted that it "brings up a lot of issues the public may not be aware of, but it almost tries to do too much. In trying to cover too much ground, it feels like it is jumping from fact to fact without following a coherent story trajectory. It is very engaging and thought-provoking, but it could have also done with a sterner editor’s hand." [39] MOVIE REVIEW: “WEIGHT OF CHAINS” OPENS IN DC Brightest Young Things.

Note The text in the section and sub-section above was left unsigned by UrbanVillager on 10th September 2014 at 23:23, diffs (same as 30 above) here:-[40], this note left by Pincrete for clarity, who also reformatted the above refs as links, as per standard talk page practice. Discussion continues here:-[41]Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … Amended for clarity. Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:- 'Brightest Young Things above', I'm pretty sure that this was rejected in the past as a RS by just about everyone (inc. UV), I'm neutral, and as I was new to this page then (late 2012), I took no part in the discussion.

However, that isn't the main point of my comment, which is that, strangely, when I read this source, I find:- it is a sprawling, often meandering, hodge-podge of arguments, which ultimately, had they been presented in a more coherent fashion, might have been persuasive, but combined with the often-gratingly blatant bias of the film maker, the message at times gets lost in the delivery. More specifically, Malagurski employs a quippy sarcastic tone in his voice-overs that instead of sounding factual sounds …well… incredibly petulant and snarky and, at times, too amateur for the gravitas subject matter. The film is rife with odd concatenations of subjects jammed together that occasionally smack of him implying causality instead of correlation. Not to mention certain parts are downright groan-inducing like “Nationalism, what nationalism! There was no nationalism or ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia. It was all peace and daisies! … … … … … … … … later:- It is at this point that Malagurski starts making some really questionable arguments. … … the film somehow makes it seems as though the fires of ethnic hatred were fanned entirely from outside the country by Western interests—reductionistic at best. At some point, he almost glosses over the Srebrenica massacre and brushes off “ethnic cleansing” accusations as again, mere propaganda from the West, meant to demonize the Serbs. … … … … … … … … then even later:- Nevertheless, on the overall, spending 30 minutes on Kosovo and barely mentioning what really happened in Srebrenica leaves me questioning the director’s choice in taking this approach. While the movie itself is not necessarily meant to be about the war [but if not, then why only bring up specific segments and leave others untouched?], completely ignoring the absolute inhumanity of things like rape centers, concentration-like labor camps, the siege of Sarajevo [longest siege in modern history, complete with snipers gunning down civilians] and some of the other especially gruesome parts of the war and glibly chalking it up to Western liberal media propaganda is also not a perfect approach. … … … … … … … … finally:- at too many junctures in the film, it is really questionable what Malagurski is trying to say. For example, in one segment where he interviews 10 or so people who mention how much things were better in the former Yugoslavia, one has to wonder what is the purpose of this nostalgia…what is he trying to show? It can be quite baffling at times.. … … … … … … … … It does of course ALSO say all the things that UV wanted to include. Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'm 'mentioning' you in order to ask whether you still consider 'Brightest Young Things' a usable source ? Needless to say (as you see from my post above), I think your suggested text mis-represents the review totally. However, I have no objection to discussing the inclusion of SOME of what BYT says. Conditional on editors AGREEING a text that is a reasonably balanced summary of the review. I don't know whether BYT is a RS, and don't want to waste time finding out, if you no longer wish to use it. Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where we stand now

I take it that the 'VICE' suggestion was another of your 'little jokes', (like suggesting the Elich 'review', an interview conducted by someone IN the film). 'VICE' is an UNSIGNED 'review' written ' in association with ' the film's promoters - which is usually called an ADVERT, not a review.

Brightest Young Things (I believe) has already been rejected as not a RS for a variety of reasons, (I believe you may have been one of those opposing its use), however I am prepared to re-look at it.

Where this discussion has got to is:- 1) there is 12 months consensus on the three sources presently used (I am open to suggestions as to HOW to use them, but you have offered no valid new arguments for rejecting them) … 2). You have expressed a wish to include MORE of Kilibarda, but have suggested no text APART FROM total re-writes, that ignore the consensus … 3). You have expressed a wish to include SOME of the 'new source', but again have suggested no text APART FROM total re-writes … 4) You have asked for positive reviews to be included, but have offered none which are not wholly compromised by their relationship with the film or its promoters - and which are anyway NOT reviews.

While this continues to be the case, I do not intend to continue with this discussion.

May I remind you that we are both currently 'under warning' against making ANY controversial changes to the article and specifically the 'Criticism' section and 'nationality'. Any unilateral changes by you of the sort you so far have proposed, WOULD be AGAINST my clearly expressed wishes and the long term consensus.

If you have any serious suggestions to make, I will respond, otherwise I do not intend to waste any further time on spurious questions.Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … ps I hope you didn't mind me re-formatting your 'refs' as links in the previous section.

Could you not call VICE a joke? First of all, the magazine has a circulation of 900,000 worldwide. Second of all, even though you claim it's UNSIGNED (I know you love caps lock because it gives you a false sense of confidence, but do your research first), when you click on "More details", you can see the review was written by Zachary Boren. Now, the link on Raindance definitely is a review for the promotion of the film, as every festival wants to attract as many visitors as they can, but the reviews written by VICE are written by the well-known magazine. So, the review goes in the article.

What I can see from your comments is that you're rejecting any sort of editing that will contribute to the quality of the article, but instead, you're going for threats and intimidation in order to scare me away from editing this article. We are under warning, true, and I'm not going to engage in a revert war with you, but if you start a revert war, I will have to report the matter. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I called VICE YOUR little joke. Now I see you have another, clicking on 'more details' takes one to Raindance's own 'blurb' on the film (ie written by or for Raindance, not VICE and not a review but an advert) … … How droll.

I thought it was YOU that wanted to change 'Criticism', wanted more Kilibarda, wanted the new SS review. Sensible suggestions on this are still possible.

Re:- your remark :So, the review goes in the article., that's hardly language used by somebody sincere about trying to negotiate consensus.

I see I was right in my previous instincts. From now on you are free to post anything you want here, I am free to ignore it unless it shows signs of approximating to something serious, we'll let others be the judges of who is following WP guidelines and values, and who is trying to 'contribute to the quality of the article' . That sound fair to you? Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

VICE is a reputable magazine, I think this time you've really crossed the line. I am taking this matter to dispute resolution. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am neither going to agree or disagree about the MAGAZINE (as I only heard about it from you yesterday morning). I will simply point out that there is NO EVIDENCE that the 'review' (which you are taking us to admin. about), is actually WRITTEN by the magazine … and if it is, has it been selectively edited by Raindance festival for advert purposes? I am sorry that you regard some 12 hours delay (between first suggesting the 'review' and unilaterally inserting it) as an unreasonable time to wait before inserting it in the article against my clearly expressed wishes. Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, have you even read the link? The review is on the VICE magazine website (vice.com), the article was posted by "VICE Staff" and it actually says "In the first instalment, we review revelatory Yugoslavian war doc The Weight of Chains". What more evidence do you really need that the review is from VICE??? This conversation has lost all meaning. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:- have you even read the link?, the answer is YES, many times, and I restate for the FINAL time, that I can see no reliable connection (other than a link), between the VICE site and the Raindance advert, not even the same names appear to be used, also there is NO attribution to VICE on the Raindance site, and NO indication that Raindance are using ALL of the review in their ad.

However, even if I am wrong about this, to demand that all editors agree with you, between late on the 10th September (when you first mention the review) and midday on the 11th, (when you inserted it unilaterally) and to ignore the EXPLICIT statement from me that there was not consensus, is wholly unreasonable. I have nothing more to add until other editors comment or until reasonably convincing evidence is offered that this is MEANINGFULLY an INDEPENDENT and RS review and not simply an ad .Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, is this the game you're going to play? Every time someone adds well-sourced material you scream "NO CONSENSUS"? Come on, it's on the VICE.com website, from what you're saying any positive review can be understood as a promotion of the film - as positive reviews do tend to promote films in general, don't you think? Heck, you'd want to see a film that has a positive review, right? The fact of the matter is that you have 2 negative reviews in this article and 0 positive reviews, do you call that neutral? VICE is a reliable source, a very well-known magazine, so let's agree to 2:1, and stop with this bickering over everything. Do you want to make Malagurski-related articles better? If so, let's stop this war and see how we can do so. This really is my last attempt at making peace, and my last effort to accept that perhaps I was wrong about you and your edits are not all in bad faith. Prove me wrong, show me you accept pure logic in this case, and let's move on to different matters. What do you say? :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Since precisely 3 minutes after this edit, you were overtly canvassing a total outsider to endorse VICE, you will forgive me for doubting your good faith, here:-[42]. Besides, we don't make 'private deals'. When there is some credible evidence that VICE is a review, not an ad, you know where to find me. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassing, canvassing is when you bring someone you know is going to support you, like what you do with Bobrayner. I was asking for comment, nothing else. And, the VICE link says "we REVIEW". Anything else or should I add it? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, apologies for what may seem like another English lesson, but I just want to be clear that you understand what you are saying,'like what you do … ' , means an habitual or recurring event (as in 'like what you do in the morning', 'like what you do when you meet Anne'). I think you should consider whether you wish to withdraw that accusation, or find some credible evidence to back it up. Perhaps you meant to say 'like what you DID with Bobrayner' , since this is an accusation which it is too late to withdraw, though one I dispute.

As for your definition of 'canvassing', it is idiosyncratic, to say the least. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, if we could get back to the serious business in hand, it occurs to me that there ARE positive elements to the Kilibarda. The problem is, that he is an academic giving detailed arguments (acres of text), and I think you'll agree, his OVERALL assessment is negative ('makes this film a very questionable enterprise' … from memory). If we could agree on a form of words such as 'KK, of McMaster Uni, while broadly sympathetic to the economic arguments of the film … …… continues approx. as now', and - if necessary - including the 'very questionable etc', to make clear his overall assessment. Anyway, we don't want (and can't have), acres of text from any reviewer.

Secondly, I am quite happy to take the VICE dispute to whoever decides on these things, ON CONDITION, that it is these specific links and text that are submitted, I don't see any point in assessing whether VICE itself is RS, since the essence of the disagreement is whether, in this case, Raindance = VICE and whether Raindance has selectively edited a VICE review (if that is what it is). Also, clearly, we would STILL need to decide how much and which bits of 'VICE' should be used. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC) … … … UPDATE: I have asked for 3rd opinion on 'VICE' at the RS film noticeboard, here:- [43] … … contributors have been invited to make their comments at Vice article section below :- [44], or on the noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Vice article

My opinion on the Vice article is that it is too promotional. I do not think it is a professional review in the sense that MOS:FILM requires. It seems to be more of an advertisement than anything else, especially given that it exhorts readers to buy tickets at the end. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard opinions are here:[45]. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The only criticism this article has is by two critics who have a negative opinion of the film. So, if someone write positive opinion it's too promotional? This article is very one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RichardWilson78, I am reverting your edit as it does not have consensus, the editor above is not saying that it is too promotional because it's positive. You haven't even seen the question s/he was asked. The text was removed because the majority of editors DO NOT consider it was a review, simply an advert. If you re-instate this text BEFORE agreement has been reached, you risk having your account blocked before you have even started. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why block me? For writing text on Wikipedia with important references? RichardWilson78 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see consensus you're talking about. It is divided on this page and references decide. Add all reviews, make it neutral and let people decide on their own about the film. RichardWilson78 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Note:- This discussion continues below in'Reviews submitted by RichardWilson78':-[46]. Pincrete left this note and added new section to seperate the VICE discussion, from the 'new' discussion.Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This article seems to be influenced by anti-Malagurski elements, probably Croatian or Albanian editors. You can see this from an airplane. I read this talk page and couldn't believe how many good references are not allowed in the article by this guy Pincrete and another one, while they are cool with E-NOVINE, a internet portal nobody in Serbia takes seriously, its like if you use The Onion as reference on Wikipedia. E-NOVINE is OK, but VICE magazine is "promotional". Jesus. Add VICE, remove E-NOVINE. --Nishleeya (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishleeya, this section is meant to be about the VICE 'review', which btw, wasn't in the magazine only on its website and doesn't have a writer's name attached to it. Also, like RichardWilson78, you don't even know the question that NinjaRobotPirate was responding to, but are happy to criticise his answer … … btw2, as far as I know, none of the editors are either Albanian or Croatian, so maybe your 'airplane vision' isn't quite as good as you think it is. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's on the VICE website and says they're reviewing the film, it's a review from VICE. Pure and simple. Looking deeper into this only reveals bias which I'm not going to get into. If you have a problem with Malagurski, deal with it somewhere else. --Nishleeya (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishleeya, you've spoken about almost nothing but our bias, so it's a bit late to 'not go into it' … you're fairly new here, so I'll just say, it's not good to attack the person, otherwise we pretty soon all end up shouting abuse at each other.

A professional review needs to meet certain criteria to be included on Wikipedia, one thing is it needs to be 'signed', by an individual who is either a professional reviewer/reporter, or an established professional in that subject. The VICE 'review' is signed by 'VICE staff', what does that mean, someone in the advertising dept.? The text you are defending says 'VICE Magazine in association with Raindance' , something written 'in association with' a festival isn't called a review (by us), it's called an advert. I'm not the only editor that thinks this, so far 5 experienced editors have independently come to the same conclusion. The only reason you see my name so often, is because I'm the only one trying to explain WHY.

If you've ever flown, you know that sometimes they give you a free magazine to read in-flight, sometimes those magazines include 'reviews' of products you can buy in-flight. Now would you call those magazines adverts or product reviews? Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nishleeya and RichardWilson78 on VICE. Add it. I noticed 23 editor was for adding VICE as well. And I agree with Nishleeya about removing e-novine. I have explained my reasons in detail, Pincrete keeps adding new requirements for a consensus. First he wanted VICE to say it was a review, when I sent him a link where they wrote that it's a review, he thought of new requirements, we can go in circles forever. Enough, Pincrete, there is a consensus, let's move on. Also, stop calling editors to revert, I think it's really low how you keep canvassing Bobrayner. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Nishleeya and RichardWilson78, registered as editors 7 days ago and 2 days ago. I did NOT ask you for 'a link', I asked for MEANINGFUL proof that this was an independent review. If we are counting, 4 experienced editors (apart from me), have so far said this is NOT a review, 23 editor MAY agree with you, but he put as his edit reason 'Sundance and VICE Magazine', Sundance - as you probably know - is not Raindance, and so far there is no evidence that this ever was in their magazine. I want to be sure you know all this before you do anything. Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC) … here:-[47] and here:-[48]

OK, since I see you're not budging on VICE, I added a new section with new reviews. We can discuss VICE again later, I don't want to continue going in circles. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews submitted by RichardWilson78

I write sources! They are all web portals with equal relevence as the 2 that have a negative opinion on film. Either leave all or remove all, or article is not neutral. RichardWilson78 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RichardWilson78, I can't block you, I don't have authority to do so. I was only letting you know about what MIGHT happen. I haven't had time to look at the sources you use yet, but one definitely seems like a student review. The VICE 'review' is being looked at at the moment by independent editors, so far the ones who have replied, have both said it is an advert, not a review. Reviewers need to demonstrate either professional experience of writing film reviews OR professional experience on the subject of the film, published in reliable, professional sources. … … ps there is a note on your talk page (not from me) about indenting your posts, this is done to help everyone else 'follow the discussion' . Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

note for other editors The additions RichardWilson78 wishes to make to the Critical response/Reviews section are :-

Valeriu Cimpianu wrote that "Disturbing as they are, the documents presented bearing the name and signature of prominent figures compel the viewer to decide about his/her position. There is irrefutable evidence coming from declassified files, economic data, political affirmations presented by historians, politicians, presidents or laymen. The title clearly suggests slavery, imprisonment, lack of freedom, oppression and pinpoints at the success of tactics employed." [49]

Charlie Roberson wrote that "The most affecting thing about the film is just how much it makes you sympathise with the ordinary civilians who had their lives torn apart by war. At the start we see Yugoslavia as a proud country with a bright future ahead but the film goes on to show crisis after crisis being heaped upon the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians who had once counted each other as neighbours. In one particularly touching scene we see footage of the village of Vrhbarje in Bosnia where peace accords setting arbitrary boundaries forced the community’s Muslim population to leave, even though there had never been any quarrel between them and the Serbs who lived alongside them." [50]

nb I HAVEN'T included the VICE review, which he also wishes to re-instate, as that is already the subject of discussion above and on the RS noticeboard. ps RichardWilson78, I hope you don't mind, I put this in a new section to make it easier for readers to follow, and to seperate YOUR new material from the VICE discussion. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Valeriu, Charlie are just as reliable as Konstantin and Damjan, all are amateur reviewers! But you like Damjan and Konstantin because they hate Boris Malagurski's film! So, either put all in critical response or put none of them, because now article is completely against the film. Why are you like this? This is not neutral. RichardWilson78 (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

RichardWilson78 Konstantin Kilibarda is a professional academic, who has written many articles (and done much research), on Balkan history and economics, (and we are at present discussing HOW to include some of the positive things he has to say about the film). Damjan Pavlica was a professional reporter at the time he wrote the review (and we only have one short criticism from him, about using non-documentary material). The others you suggest, don't seem to have any professional qualifications or experience at all, and in the case of VICE, seems to be an advert, not an independent review (and you want to devote whole paragraphs to all these).

Wikipedia isn't Youtube or IMDb where anyone can write what they want. Believe me, we have rejected many very critical reviews, because the writer wasn't 'a reliable source'. If you notice, I've put the text you want to include above for others to offer their opinions. I'm not going to revert you, I only did so last night to try to engage you constructively in the editing process. … … ps we include many interviews with BM, almost all of which are positive, but which are NOT reviews.Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If theyre too long, one paragraph for positive reviews, one for negative, I don't agree to just negative, it's not fair. How is consensus "YES, LET'S JUST HAVE NEGATIVE", this is not consensus, what are you talking about?? RichardWilson78 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Using Elich interview as Review

nb section heading added by Pincrete for clarity.Pincrete (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I add another review I found the link already in this article. RichardWilson78 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is actually an interview, but the part I add was the author describing the film. RichardWilson78 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregory Elich is IN the film and as you say, it ISN'T a review. I'm sorry this discussion is over. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so when you dont like that I challenge your "consensus" the discussion is over? IT IS CRITICAL REPONSE, who cares if hes in film, he can say "the film is crap, I cant believe Im in this film", why is discussion over? Because you dont like positive opinions by notable intellectual about film? You just dont want any negative opinion of film in the article, that is your problem. Seek help, peace. RichardWilson78 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean I dont want any POSITIVE opinion. The discussion is over because I say there's nothing more usefully to say, just as you could decide the same if you wished. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't insert Elich's blurb about the film, he's published books, and is a relevant source for this subject matter. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, this section was created to discuss the NEW reviews suggested by RW78. However since you've put your comment here, do you accept that Elich's piece is an interview ? (not a review), do you accept that Elich is IN the film? (rhetorical questions since I know that you know these both to be true). So please explain to me WHY an interview between BM and someone IN the film, qualifies as a RS, independent review to go in the 'Reviews' section. I don't mind explaining a few basics to people who only registered yesterday, but this is just silly. Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything written after the blurb, YES, is an interview. YES, Elich is in the film. But the blurb describing his thoughts about the film seem perfectly fine to me. Besides, you yourself have used interviews as sources on Wikipedia, and in this case we wouldn't even do that, as there is a difference between the interviewer asking questions to the interviewee and making statements before the interview starts. That's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are fond of telling me what I've done UV, please tell me when I have used an interview as a source for 'critical response'?Pincrete (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is RichardWilson78 a sock? 23 editor (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) … … … answered on 23's talk page.Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) … … note from Pincrete:- I answered User23's question about RichardWilson78 on User23's talk page. I said that I thought it possible (or that he was a 'fly in', here for a specific purpose I could have added), I also said (rather foolishly) that I thought I might know who it was. I just want to make it VERY clear, that I was NOT thinking of any current editor - the language and reasoning are so basic, that it would never occur to me that it COULD be 'one of us'. I've asked others to keep accusations off the talk page so I hope posting this does not seem hypocritical. Thankyou Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-jigging Kilibarda review

Another possibility on the table is some re-jigging of Kilibarda. Although this is already posted above, it got lost, so I'm copying it to a new section here, next to Soc. Standard:-

" There ARE positive elements to the Kilibarda, (which we aren't using). The problem is, that he is an academic giving detailed economic/political examples and arguments (acres of text), and I think, his OVERALL assessment is negative ('makes this film a very questionable enterprise' … from memory).

If we could agree on a form of words such as 'KK, of McMaster Uni, while broadly sympathetic to the economic arguments of the film … …… continue approx. as now', and - if necessary - including the 'very questionable etc', to make clear his overall assessment. Anyway, we don't want (and can't have), acres of text from any reviewer." Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discussing possible wording, why not put in the wording you want, and if someone else disagrees, then discuss it here. If editors just choose to revert without discussion then they can and should be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Archiving

If no one objects, I propose archiving ALL of the above discussions EXCEPT, reviews which were/are still being discussed, but whose in/exclusion was stalemated (Markovic, Soc. Standard, Brightest Young Things, the 'messy attribution of Burgic/Pavlica) the 'Rewrite of synopsis section' and the 'Claims' section.

I'm therefore naming Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield , Ricky81682 and will wait 3 days before archiving. Pincrete (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Go right ahead. If someone else reverts, then leave it be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time for a few days (partly as some partial sections would usefully be 'carried over'), so I'll wait, though I appreciate the spirit of the advice. Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Update, because this article is currently referred to in an ANI: [51], it is prudent to delay any archiving. Pincrete (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)