Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sponsors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with Links on the article page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have tagged some of the links. Also I have to point out that two sources are inappropriately used in the synopsis to support the views that Malagurski has in his film, but not that they are expressed in the film. In other words in the synopsis section a source should support the fact that the film is making a claim and not the claim itself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussions elsewhere - Dispute resolution and Conflict of interest

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

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

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: Boris Malagurski - Now closed

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

Another edict from Wikipedia on high:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subtitles

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

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

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

Critics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Đorđe Martinović story published by Politika in May 1985

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

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

Archived Material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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: - [31]. … … MINOR CORRECTION, the Mackenzie 'controversial views', was NOT added by UrbanVillager, but HAS been there unreferenced since August 22 2012 :-[32].

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:- [33].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 [34] ) … … '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)

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)

Repeated removal of entire criticism section.

UrbanVillager,there was extensive discussion on talk last year about criticism, here: [35], 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: [36], 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:[[37]], 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 :-[38] , 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)

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 [39] 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 [40], 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 [41]), 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 [42]) 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 [43] … (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:- [44] 15th August here:-[45] 13th August here:-[46] June 26th here:-[47] … finally, 10th August here;-[48].

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 :-[49] , 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" [50]), 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 [51], 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,[52]) 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:-[53] … Proof of the 'Criticism' section being here (substantially unchanged) since before 21st September 2013 is here:-[54], (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 immediately following … this note has been left by Pincrete as an aid to others wishing to follow the thread. Diffs here:- [55]Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 11 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 ([56]), 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."[57] 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."[58]

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." [59] 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:-[60], this note left by Pincrete for clarity, who also reformatted the above refs as links, as per standard talk page practice. Discussion continues here:-[61]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:-[62]. 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:- [63] … … contributors have been invited to make their comments at Vice article section below :- [64], or on the noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 20:47, 14 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:-[65]. I did restore Bob's edit, later, when a - seemingly uninvolved - editor re-inserted it :- [66].Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)