Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Weight of Chains: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:04, 10 October 2014 editSomedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,472 edits comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:27, 14 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,739,010 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(111 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes }} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|listas=Weight Of Chains, The|1=
{{WikiProject Film|Canadian=yes|Documentary=yes}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2 |counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
Line 9: Line 13:
|archive = Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=b}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b}}

{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=Start|Canadian=yes|listas=Weight Of Chains, The}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=start|importance=low}}
}}
{{copyvio plot}} {{copyvio plot}}
== Critical response additions ==
I've made one addition to 'Critical response' section (Miller - Socialist Standard), this review had the agreement of UrbanVillager and Somedifferentstuff, though not agreement on actual text. I intend to add Brightest Young Things, which previously had the agreement of UrbanVillager (though not which text). It's possible that I have included too much, but found it difficult to decide both what 'typified' the review and what were the distinctive points made by each reviewer. ] (]) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


BTW, reviews were not arranged by ethnicity, they were positive first negative second and it is perfectly normal to summarise, eg:- 'positive in UK, negative in USA'. I think such a summary relevant and justified. ] (]) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
== Changes to 'Interviewees' and external refs ==
{{collapse top|Discussion collapsed}}

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 ], ''(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.] (]) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

:], 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: - . … … MINOR CORRECTION, the Mackenzie 'controversial views', was NOT added by UrbanVillager, but HAS been there unreferenced since August 22 2012 :-.
: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:- .] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages regulations. --] (]) 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 )'' … … '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? ] (]) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== ] is ] in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus ==
{{collapse top|Section collapsed by Pincrete}}

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 ] is canvassing (see ]) 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 ] and declaring me the 'owner' of this article is another personal attack (see ]) in a long line of attempts to discredit anyone who doesn't show up to bash Malagurski and his work. Since I came to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, while according to Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 ), 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 ]). I don't think Pincrete's goals are at all in line with the Misplaced Pages 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 ) after clearly trying to use Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages doesn't care for that, this isn't a blog or an Internet forum. --] (]) 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 … ''(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:- 15th August here:- 13th August here:- June 26th here:- … finally, 10th August here;-.

: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. ] (]) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Recent review ==
{{collapse top|Discussion collapsed}}

There is a recent review of this film, printed in the UK's ], the review is at :- , it was published January this year. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:::As you know, ], and I'm proposing a change that would mean adding more information about Kilibarda's review, like in , 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" ), 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? --] (]) 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 , 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,)'' 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , we could start from there. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] - 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? --] (]) 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'. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.] (]) 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? --] (]) 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:- … Proof of the 'Criticism' section being here ''(substantially unchanged)'' since before 21st September 2013 is here:-, ''(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:- ] (]) 08:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== 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 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 (), 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 ], in association with ], 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!

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."

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." 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:-, this note left by Pincrete for clarity, who also reformatted the above refs as links, as per standard talk page practice. Discussion continues here:-] (]) 08:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … Amended for clarity. ] (]) 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 , completely ignoring the absolute inhumanity of things like rape centers, concentration-like labor camps, the siege of Sarajevo 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. ] (]) 21:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

::], 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. ] (]) 12:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Where we stand now ===
{{collapse top|Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete}}
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.] (]) 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 ] 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. --] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 .] (]) 13:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::], 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? :) --] (]) 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:-. 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. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::], 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. ] (]) 09:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

], 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. ] (]) 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC) … … … UPDATE: I have asked for 3rd opinion on 'VICE' at the RS film noticeboard, here:- … … contributors have been invited to make their comments at Vice article section below :- , or on the noticeboard. ] (]) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

== Copyright problem removed ==
{{collapse top|Discussion collapsed by Pincrete}}

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 ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) For ], we cannot accept ] 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 ] 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'' ] from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

:], would this be OK?
:The ], in association with ], 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."()
:--] (]) 17:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
::You need to ask the person who removed it, which was ]. It's a content and sourcing issue, not a copyright issue. -- ] (]) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
:::], 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, --] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 17:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

], apart from the ''(comically overt and inept)'' nature of your ] 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)''. ] (]) 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:-. I did restore Bob's edit, later, when a - seemingly uninvolved - editor re-inserted it :- .] (]) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Vice article ==

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

{{collapse top|Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete}}
:The only criticism this article has is by two critics who have a negative opinion of the film. So, if someone write positive opinion it's too promotional? This article is very one-sided. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

Why block me? For writing text on Misplaced Pages with important references? ] (]) 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Reviews submitted by RichardWilson78==
{{collapse top|Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete}}
I write sources! They are all web portals with equal relevence as the 2 that have a negative opinion on film. Either leave all or remove all, or article is not neutral. ] (]) 23:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Using Elich interview as Review==
{{collapse top|Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete}}
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::nb section heading added by Pincrete for clarity.] (]) 01:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I add another review I found the link already in this article. ] (]) 14:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


:Dividing sources into "Serbian" and "non-Serbian" ''is'' arranging sources according to ethnicity. In this case, it's also repetition. Saying that a source is Serbian and then noting "Serbian historian..." is repetition. I think it's best to note what the reviewers said, not classify them according to their "Serbian" or "non-Serbian" nature. It's irrelevant which country they come from, as well as which ethnicity they have. Kilibarda, for example, is a Serbian/Montenegrin last name, and it's not up to the article to discuss reviewers' ethnicities or countries of origin, but rather to note what they wrote. --] (]) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It is actually an interview, but the part I add was the author describing the film. ] (]) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


:: Gregory Elich is IN the film and as you say, it ISN'T a review. I'm sorry this discussion is over. Take care. ] (]) 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ::They were not arranged according to ethnicity, they were arranged + first - second, at Ricky's suggestion. If a - review comes from Serbia, it also will go with the other negs, and the converse. 'Serbian' to describe Markovic was copy-pasted from you. It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews, which bad and was not phrased prejudicially. The alternative is to put 'proper reviews' first and articles and comments later. ] (]) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


:::You wrote "''It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews...''". Countries don't give reviews. I think your attempt to tie in reviewers with their countries and present them as how people in a certain country see a film is POV. Once again, reviews are reviews, let's let them speak for themselves. --] (]) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so when you dont like that I challenge your "consensus" the discussion is over? IT IS CRITICAL REPONSE, who cares if hes in film, he can say "the film is crap, I cant believe Im in this film", why is discussion over? Because you dont like positive opinions by notable intellectual about film? You just dont want any negative opinion of film in the article, that is your problem. Seek help, peace. ] (]) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


::::If this film were Bambi and if it received significantly different reviews IN ''(not from)'' certain countries than it did in others, that would be noteworthy. Even more so since the film proposes very controversial versions of recent historical events.
:: I think you mean I dont want any POSITIVE opinion. The discussion is over because I say there's nothing more usefully to say, just as you could decide the same if you wished. Take care. ] (]) 16:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


:::I see no reason why we can't insert Elich's blurb about the film, he's published books, and is a relevant source for this subject matter. --] (]) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ::::You aren't even consistent UrbanVillager, the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.] (]) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


:::::What you're saying would make sense if there were a bunch of reviews from one country that had a certain slant. This could justify that the film is perceived a certain way in a country in general. But taking two reviews from Serbia, one from Canada, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom and saying that the film has "''significantly different reviews IN certain countries''" is simply stereotyping. However, I do agree when you say that "''the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.''". Glad you finally realize these are two completely different things. Cheers, --] (]) 12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: ], this section was created to discuss the NEW reviews suggested by RW78. However since you've put your comment here, do you accept that Elich's piece is an interview ? ''(not a review)'', do you accept that Elich is IN the film? ''(rhetorical questions since I know that you know these both to be true)''. So please explain to me WHY an interview between BM and someone IN the film, qualifies as a RS, independent review to go in the 'Reviews' section. I don't mind explaining a few basics to people who only registered yesterday, but this is just silly. ] (]) 22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


::::::UrbanVillager, possibly you should check out the meanings of ] and ]. ] (]) 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Everything written after the blurb, YES, is an interview. YES, Elich is in the film. But the blurb describing his thoughts about the film seem perfectly fine to me. Besides, you yourself have used interviews as sources on Misplaced Pages, and in this case we wouldn't even do that, as there is a difference between the interviewer asking questions to the interviewee and making statements before the interview starts. That's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. --] (]) 22:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Pincrete, as Bobrayner and yourself are forcing an edit war, I'd like to note that I will take no part in it. As can be seen from the above discussion, there is no consensus for classifying reviews by ethnicity or country of origin, let alone "Serbian" and "other". So, please remove this and let's try to get along. Regards, --] (]) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::P.S. In your edit description for the revert, you noted "Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments". 1) Saying that a source is Serbian '''''is''''' classifying it by country and ethnicity (it can be "Serbian" as "from Serbia" or "Serbian" as "of ethnic Serbs"), while 2) there needs to be consensus for the addition of this ]. Once again, if you can find me a source that explains why it is important to note the ethnicity or country of origin of certain reviewers, we can discuss the matter further. If not, please remove this as there is no consensus for the addition of what you're adding. --] (]) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::If anyone objects to the good first/negative second set-up, then reviews would need to be organised according to their authority. I don't think that a 'passing remark' by a media tutor at a film showing ''(written up by a student, with no context at all)'' would carry much authority, nor a passing comment in a magazine, these are not RS film reviews at all. At present there is an attempt to present the arguments in favour of the film ''(which are almost wholly from WITHIN the country called 'Serbia')'' , FIRST. I believe this arrangement is wholly/generously fair. Are those who criticise this arrangement saying that the film has been widely praised OUTSIDE that country. Perhaps they need to find some reviews that corroborate that PoV, rather than attempting to rewrite the evidence or criticise its presentation. ] (]) 01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I reported Pincrete for . He added the national remarcs, they were opposed, and he is the one (with the help of bobrainer) who is edit-warring to keep his edit in place. That goes against WP:BRD and the discussion here was not over neither he got consensus for the edit (far from that), so his edir-warring is purely disruptive. ] (]) 05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:Without having read the above, it seems to me that, to say that Serbians are the only ones who liked it, is synthesis -- and possibly ] if not properly cited. ] (]) 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:Pincrete, if it is normal to summarize in that way, could you provide examples? ] (]) 05:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


::], I will answer more fully when I have time/should you wish, but briefly ALL 'proper film reviews' of this film are VERY negative and are ALL from UK/N.American sources. If present wording is 'synth' or OR, then let it be changed, but what is being objected to exactly? Noting the nationality is both necessary ''(most people won't know who/what Pecat is)'', and appropriate ''(since this film deals with FYR and Serbian/US/UK/EEC political matters)''. BTW the article did NOT say 'only Serbs liked the film', and I was careful to find positive remarks made by ALL reviewers, in addition to their negative responses. The positive responses are NOT full film reviews, one is a brief paragraph in a magazine, the other is a passing comment by a college tutor, written up by a student. They were included out of a sense of fairness to another editor. ] (]) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC) … … ps Schindler's list devotes an entire section to Jewish response to the film , and this is clearly 'ethnicity' rather than nationality. Almost all WP film articles have an intro of the ''the film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews'' kind, this intro is almost always referenced ONLY by the content of the reviews which follow and in that sense is an editor's summary of response, and therefore technically 'synth'. ] (]) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You are fond of telling me what I've done UV, please tell me when I have used an interview as a source for 'critical response'?] (]) 00:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


::], the wording to which you object has been in place for 99% of the time since approx. October. If it is inappropriate, let us change it, but please don't misrepresent my actions HERE or at the edit-warring board. ] (]) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Is RichardWilson78 a sock? ] (]) 22:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) … … … answered on 23's talk page.] (]) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) … … note from Pincrete:- I answered User23's question about RichardWilson78 on User23's talk page. I said that I thought it possible ''(or that he was a 'fly in', here for a specific purpose I could have added)'', I also said ''(rather foolishly)'' that I thought I might know who it was. I just want to make it VERY clear, that I was NOT thinking of any current editor - the language and reasoning are so basic, that it would never occur to me that it COULD be 'one of us'. I've asked others to keep accusations off the talk page so I hope posting this does not seem hypocritical. Thankyou ] (]) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


:::I am sorry, I wasn't on Misplaced Pages since yesterday so only now I managed to respond.
== NSPM and Pecat ==
:::My opinion seems to be that the classification of critics to Serbian/non Serbian is OR and too early, and it seems to me it is more made in order to discredit Malagurski than being a real objective analysis of the critics - "''Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't''". I am not sure we have enough critics in order to make such a wide claim. It is definitely ''safe'' not to add such synthesis. ] (]) 22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


::::It is not a wide claim, nor indeed any kind of claim, ''(and my wording was not as crude as you have represented it)'' the three film reviews ''(from UK, USA and a 'Canadian' academic)'' are fairly devastatingly negative. The two Serbian responses are relatively positive, but are not reviews ''(one is written up by a student, perhaps that response should NOT be included at all, but was included at the wish of another editor)''.
I added new reviews, check them out, neither of them are interviews, nor are they promotional, but actual reviews in two Serbian magazines, one is ], the other is the Pecat magazine . --] (]) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


::::The only question is how to represent these facts without prejudice or synth. You are surely not saying that we should not state the nationalities of the magazine/University that the responses came from ''(since Pecat magazine would be unknown to most readers)''? I believe that there are also negative Serbian responses/comments, but have not had the time to track them down/verify their RS status, there are also other 'Balkan' responses, which are largely negative.
: I totally agree that the article should include both positive and negative reviews for neutrality's sake. If positive reviews from ''reliable'' sources are available, then they most certainly should be added. At the same time, I would like to ask all editors to refrain from edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's just going to lead to blocks so cut it out. I, personally, am not willing to get bogged down in a protracted and likely-fruitless discussion over several sentences worth of content when I know that I can be contributing to Misplaced Pages elsewhere. Regards, ] (]) 23:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


::], there is no consensus for inserting these 'reviews', perhaps they contain usable stuff, perhaps they don't. On first impression they seem to be articles not reviews, either way, they have been inserted - with your selective editing - without any attempt to achieve consensus, without even asking any of the editors here. You do understand that don't you? … … <s>''ps Since you created the article, you also know that one of the 'reviews' is from a small magazine that BM writes for. Small world isn't it''? </s>] (]) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ::::If we were to follow the custom of other film pages and start with a ''The film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews'', sentence, it would have to say the reviews were VERY negative. … … ''ps no apology needed, we all have other things to do in late Dec., and we may be on different time zones.'' ] (]) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


=== Ethnicity/Nationality/location clarification===
::], I agree, where there are RS reviews, they should be taken into account whether + or -, I also agree that I'd much rather be working on other articles. On this ''(and related)'' articles, unfortunately a lot of the 'editors', have turned out to be 'puppets', so sincere as you may be, you might as well ask a wolf to stop taking the sheep. Again, whether you agree or disagree about VICE, I invite you to put your opinions on the RSs noticeboard. ] (]) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Let us be clear, neither the ethnicity nor nationality of ANY individual reviewer has EVER been mentioned by me in the 'reviews' section. Sufficient information to establish the who/what/where of the magazine/website/University HAS been included with every review/response ''(except currently Pecat magazine, which is not identified at all)''. I have on several occasions removed references to individual nationality, where that was not RS or was unnecessary. Also the reviews are not organised according to ethnicity/nationality, they are + first - second. Therefore I find some of the language/accusations flying around over the last few days perplexing ''(I don't think that anyone would consider it an 'ethnic slur' if an article noted that a film with a UK connection was better received in the UK than elsewhere and the reviews THEMSELVES would be sufficient source for the assertion, could someone explain why this film is different?)''.


Also the article NEVER said "''Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't''" or "''Serbians are the only ones who liked it''", which is how the article is mis-quoted above by ] and ].
:::If something is written in a magazine, yes, it's an article. Articles can be film reviews, opinion pieces, political views, you name it. So, the argument that "these are articles, not reviews" doesn't make sense. Second of all, the fact that Malagurski writes for the same magazine doesn't mean he has influence on what other people write in it. Unless if you have evidence that Malagurski is the owner of the magazine or has some function there other than being a columnist like all the other columnists, your second argument also doesn't make sense. --] (]) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


However broad consensus seems to be that the previous 'lead in' was 'synth'. Therefore could we agree on some other lead-in and how to organise/describe reviews/responses accurately and imformatively. ], there may be other responses/comments, however there are now unlikely to be further film reviews, since the film was released more than 4 years ago. Therefore I suspect that what is currently here has to be worked with. I am mentioning ], and ] as they have expressed opinions over the last few days. ] (]) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::], so far, in this discussion, you've said '''1)''' An advert can be a review, it doesn't matter that it is written by people trying to sell you tickets … '''2)''' an interview between someone IN the film and the director can be a review, since they know a lot about the subject … '''3)''' an article can be a review since there is no difference between a feature article, a news story and a review. … ''(Can the back of the DVD be a review in your opinion ? Or the poster outside the cinema? You'll pardon me being ironic)''.


], apologies if the above is defensive. In case it is not clear, I ACCEPT your argument that the 'sample size' is too small to draw conclusions. I still reject other arguments and accusations, however they are no longer relevant. ] (]) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: If I've misrepresented any of your views, I apologise, perhaps you could correct me. But I think you are going to find that these views deviate somewhat from what most people - and Misplaced Pages - defines as a review. … … ''ps also I apologise for my 'small world' comment about BM, which wasn't helpful''.
=== Critical response proposal===
Since the article will be unlocked shortly, I propose the following alterations to the 'critical response' section, ''(italicised text is my comment)''.


''1). Intro sentence on section, add:'' … 'The film has not been widely reviewed, however positive responses include:'
:::::Now important matters, can you explain to me WHY you thought you had consensus for inserting these reviews, since there was an admin. instruction that no changes were to be made to this section without consensus, and not only was there no consensus, nobody was allowed to see any of this before you translated, edited and inserted them ?] (]) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


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


''3). The text and order of reviews should remain unaltered (ie positive first/more negative second, and with no 'general summary' except the preceding comments) EXCEPT, The Pecat review needs to be identified to establish the who/what/where, therefore it should be altered thus:'' … 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat magazine wrote that' … ''becomes'' … 'Vladislav Panov of Serbia's Pečat magazine wrote that'. ''If anyone has a better brief description of what/where 'Pečat' is, I would be happy to use that instead. Pečat doesn't have a WP article to link to.''
Good and bad news: I just want it to be a matter of record, that there is NO consensus for the inclusion of ANY of the NSPM or Pecat material, editors have not been consulted about its inclusion IN ANY WAY. Also I think the 'one good one bad' formula should NOT dictate our editing decisions in the long run - we are required to be neutral, not to be 'fair' ''(if fair means we have to say one + one - alternately)''.'' ..... (that was the bad news)''


], ] and ], I am mentioning you as you have expressed opinions over the last week. Without some kind of linking 'editorial' text, I feel we have an apparently randomly organised set of, (relatively marginal), responses. Maintaining +first/-second avoids problematic arguments about the relative 'authority' of the reviews used, and I hope the proposed 'linking text', explains our organisation of those responses without being contentious. ] (]) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
However, I think SDS, made some good judgement calls in his edits yesterday, and since he & UV have 'voted with their edits', I also agree to Pecat staying, until we have had a chance to assess its worth and assess whether it has been appropriately edited. Also the 'one good one bad' formula allows us to move forward '''at present'''. I'm deciding this in order that we shouldn't go round and round in circles. ..... ''(that was the relatively good news)'' ] (]) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


:In my view your proposal ] seems quite fine. You found a perfect neutral formula I think. ] (]) 04:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Re: prepositions/phrasing in Pecat article, the phrasing "Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in the reaping the benefits for foreigners as well" is clearly missing a preposition. Temporarily I have fixed by amending to 'of the benefits', also the original phrase translates as "the collection of the cream of/for foreigners". … … 1) I don't see why we need to alter the 'cream' phrase as it also works in English, though would read better as 'collecting the cream' … … 2) I am unclear ''(since prepositions do not translate reliably)'', whether the appropriate translation is 'of foreigners' ''(ie 'from')'' or 'for foreigners' ''(ie 'on behalf of')''.
:Regarding Pečat, I found this short description at which is sort of website which collects all publications in Serbia. It says the following about Pečat:
:Original in Serbian:
:"''Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, i stekao epitet jedinog slobodnog štampanog medija koji bez cenzure analizira teme iz društveno-političke i kulturne stvarnosti naše zemlje."''
:My translation:
:"''Pečat is a weekly political magazine published every Friday. After four years t became the most readed magazine of this type in Serbia, and it made name as the only free published media which, without censorship, analizes social and political issues and the cultural reality of our country (Serbia)".''
:Its a bit free translation of mine almost verbatim. ] (]) 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


:: Having looked at the Pecat article, I would now say this ISN'T a review, ''(partly because it concerns itself more with the politics behind the film rather than the film itself)'', however it IS a response. Also I note it is 'Pecat online', ''(which I don't object to)'', but do we know if this was IN the magazine? ] (]) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC) ::], many thanks, to keep the description brief, I intend to insert: 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat, a weekly political magazine in Serbia, wrote that' etc. ] (]) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


:: HOWEVER, the NSPM is neither a review nor a response, what little it says about the film, is EXPLICITLY quoting the 'Beldocs' ''(film festival)'' website. This piece is a 'chatty' account of a showing of the film. ] (]) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) :::I have re-instated the linking sentences between broadly+ and broadly- reviews. I draw attention to the discussion above. The alternative to some 'linking structure' seems to be either to get into the problematic area of which reviews should go first, second etc., or an alternating + - structure. With no linking text at all, what we appear to have is a randomly arranged ''(relatively marginal)'', set of responses.] (]) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::]re: your recent reverts, I draw your attention to the discussion above. If any rewrite of the 'linking text' is called for, or some other basis for organising reviews proposed, can we discuss it here? However, simply removing it isn't very constructive. ] (]) 12:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Pincrete, why do you want to classify reviews in any way? What is your motive for doing so? Do you have a source to claim that a review is completely negative or completely positive? Or more negative than positive? How would you measure that? What is your goal here? --] (]) 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


::::::My motive is that it provides some structure/coherence to the organisation ''(as explained above)''. Since the wording says MORE - ''(not wholly negative)'', I won't respond to that question. The other advantage to a linking text, is that it avoids any problematic discussions about relative positions of proper reviews/comments or the relative authority of the sources. This arrangement did have ]'s endorsement. ] (]) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
== Prof. Marković and Milica Kankaraš comments==
::::::Other possibilities include listing alphabetically by name or by publication date. Whichever way is preferred, some linking text is needed to give coherence to the structure. ] (]) 20:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hope no one minds me creating this section out of sequence, the topic seemed related to prev.
:::::::Update, I have ordered reviews by publication date, putting a brief explanatory sentence at the start of the section. Is this acceptable as a temp fix? At the same time I removed the sequel section and put a linking sentence in the lede. I don't regard publication date as a very logical basis for ordering reviews, but acceptable as a 'temp fix', if we are unable to agree some more logical basis and some linking text, I suggest we post a RfC to resolve the matter. ] (]) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


=== Pečat translation===
Having had a quick look at Prof. Marković, , this appears to be from a post-screening panel discussion, whether that counts as a critical response, and whether the source is a RS, I don't know. The original text is very brief.
::There is another question relating to the Pečat review, at present we have: 'Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in collecting the cream for foreigners as well'. … original here: . Relevant text: 'Boris je hrabro detektovao i glavne domaće (G 17 Plus) izvršioce u sakupljanju tog kajmaka za strance, zbog čega je verovatno njegov film u prvo vreme bio „nezgodan za prikazivanje“ srpskoj publici.'


::There are two translation questions … Q1. should the preposition be 'FOR foreigners' ''(ie 'on behalf of foreigners')'' or 'OF foreigners' ''(ie 'from them')''? Q2 we have 'collecting the cream', is this correct or would it be more correct to use 'skimming off the cream' ''(an expression that suggests something dishonest about the process)''. I have been offered both versions and am not competent to make the assessment, as prepositions and expressions are both notoriously difficult to translate and dependent on usage. I will leave 'as is', until/unless there is some clarification. ] (]) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It is difficult to know what the Milica Kankaraš is:- , the artist's comment is very much a 'passing comment' in a posting about other subjects. Unless the artist has relevant notability, I don't think that it is usable. ] (]) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


:::::'''Question''' re: Prof. Predrag J. Marković, is 'professor' being used in its UK/US sense or European usage ''(any teacher)'' ? ] (]) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC) :::What the sentence wants to emphasize is that Boris found that the ] were making the dirty work domestically for the foreigners. I am still trying to find the best expression. ] (]) 04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


NOTE: The following paragraph, is a response to this post , that post and my response were originally in the wrong section. ''note added by'' ] (]) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC) ::::I noticed the omission of G17+ from the translation, but didn't realise there was a WP article. We should probably re-insert the mention of G17+ as there is such a link. 'Domestic culprits' implies dishonourable/didhonest behaviour, but therafter I'm not sure how 'accusatory' the tone should be. ] (]) 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::], I agree with Somedifferentstuff's revert, since it makes sense for ALL of us to get agreement about crit response, I haven't inserted any new reviews without agreement. I've already left a post above about Markovic and haven't ruled out using it, ''(though it is a bit odd to use a very brief edited version of a discussion)''. I would like to hear other editor's opinions once they've had the oppurtunity to assess WHAT it is. … … ''ps Kilibarda is a course director at McMasters, who has published in reliable Balkan journals, he was previously CD at York's, he was a teaching Asst. from 2004 and the inclusion of his material had your agreement''. ] (]) 08:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC) … … ''I originally moved two posts up to this section, UV restored his post to its initial location.'' ] (]) 15:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
:::The Marković link is now dead ''(for me at least, I've tried many times)''. I was able to access it at first and have attempted to describe WHAT it is above. I note that this is NOT the main ] site ''(which is dnevne.me not dnevnenovine.rs)''. I am neutral about its use, but note that Marković does NOT appear to be a Professor in the UK/US sense, but rather in the European sense ''(ie any university teacher, akin to 'tutor' or 'lecturer' in UK/US)'', therefore the use of it as an honorific would not only be superfluous, but in this case also wrong. ] (]) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


:::::He is directly accusing G17+ of working in the interest of the foreigners, so I guess the tone can be quite direct. Please feel free ] to use the most adequate expression you think would be proper, you can certainly do it better than me because English is not my native language. The sentence in Serbian is not easy to translate verbatin, but we can always simplify it and go straight to the point which in this case would be that Boris Malagurski detected that ] were the main domestic allies(or culpits) of the ''foreigners'' and because of that reason his movie was initially undesirable to be released in Serbia (as at that time G17 Plus was in the ruling coalition). ] (]) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::So, your only issue regarding the source is whether to write 'professor' or not in the article? If that's the case, we can omit that word, and add the critical response. Is that right? --] (]) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


::::::I have slightly tweaked the translation, adding G17+, used 'skimming the cream' ''(which suggests something 'dodgy')'', and changing 'for' to 'on behalf of' ''(which is more explicit)'', I'm sure it could be made better, but I'm reluctant to go too far. I didn't add the stuff about difficulty of being shown in Serbia as, whilst it might belong somewhere, it didn't seem to belong as part of a 'critical response'.
:::::], no that is NOT the ONLY issue. ] (]) 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
'''For the benefit of others''': The source dnevnenovine.rs: appears to be simply a 'front page', linking to stories in 5 other Serbian news sources, ''(it has no apparent connection to ], which is a Macedonian print/online daily paper, which is online here:)''. The section 'saopstenja', simply means statements, I don't know what that means in context. Adding all this together, I don't know WHO wrote/posted the original Marković story, and don't think this can count as a RS, I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise though, as long as Marković's comments are not given undue weight. The link works for me about one day in six, the text is so short that Google translate will probably give an adequate impression. ] (]) 21:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Pincrete, you advocated the inclusion of a blog as a source just because Kilibarda is 'relevant'. Now Prof dr. Markovic is not relevant to you because it doesn't say where the original article was posted? Seems to me you're trying an awful lot to discredit everything I put forward, doing tons of research to make sure sources I present aren't used, when simply typing "Predrag J. Markovic Tezina lanaca" on Google shows an from the Media Center of the Faculty of Media and Communications of Singidunum University where Markovic teaches, written by Dimitrije Gasic. So, now you know where it's from. Will that be all? --] (]) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::UrbanVillager, re your remark:- ''Now Prof dr. Markovic is not relevant to you because it doesn't say where the original article was posted?''. Isn't knowing where/by whom, the article was posted/written a vital part of the definition of a RS? ... Re Your remarks about the Kilibarda review, his review had your explicit agreement recently, therefore repeatedly MIS-representing it, does not show good faith on your part. ... Re Predrag J. Marković ''(who isn't a Professor, he is a PhD and junior 'visiting lecturer', not dis-similar to Kilibarda)'', I remain neutral about its inclusion, conditional on it being given 'due weight' and having the agreement of other editors. ] (]) 15:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Messy attribution in old reviews ==
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pravda.rs/2012/06/23/protest-ispred-zgrade-rts-video


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Editor Tiptoethrutheminefield, left a ''(who)'' tag on some of the old 'Critical reasponse'. Quickly looking through the whole thing, it seems a problem goes back to here:- in which somebody proposing text got two reviews mixed up ''(I believe he was parachuted in as a 3rd opinion)''. One is the Pavlica, the other is . I actually always thought that this second source WAS credited. It seems that we have been wrongly attributing two reviewers for nearly a year ''(both are in Serbian, which doesn't help)''.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
btw … I wasn't editing here at that time and was taking over a year's break from this page. ] (]) 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
== Socialist Standard Review ==


== External links modified ==
I'm reposting this from above, since it seems to have got lost there, it's just another review 'on the table' and '''if''' any content is used, it could '''perhaps''' be 'merged' with the Kilibarda paragraph, as he takes a very similar position on the film. … … "There is a recent review of this film, printed in the UK's ], the review is at :- , it was published January this year." ] (]) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'd be fine with using this. -- ] (]) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


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


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Re-jigging Kilibarda review ==
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140826115514/http://www.sense-agency.com/sense.48.html?case_id=84&type=gallery to http://www.sense-agency.com/sense.48.html?case_id=84&type=gallery


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Another possibility on the table is some re-jigging of Kilibarda. Although this is already posted above, it got lost, so I'm copying it to a new section here, next to Soc. Standard:-


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


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:If we could agree on a form of words such as 'KK, of McMaster Uni, while broadly sympathetic to the economic arguments of the film … …… continue approx. as now', and - if necessary - including the 'very questionable etc', to make clear his overall assessment. Anyway, we don't want ''(and can't have),'' acres of text from any reviewer." ] (]) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


== Bad faith removals ==
Rather than discussing possible wording, why not put in the wording you want, and if someone else disagrees, then discuss it here. If editors just choose to revert without discussion then they can and should be blocked. -- ] (]) 08:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
== Ricky81682's rewrite of synopsis==
:Ricky, you wrote some rather false things about the film. It doesn't start with the battle of Kosovo until about the 6th minute of the film. If you'd like to shorten the synopsis, that's fine, but can you please watch the film first? Thanks, --] (]) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:I now realize you tried to organize the synopsis chronologically according to the history of Yugoslavia. I'd like to remind you that the synopsis of a film should be organized chronologically according to the film, not the history it talks about. So, the first things discussed in the film are described first, we're not writing an article about the history of Yugoslavia, but about the way the film presents that history, regardless of how we see it. --] (]) 11:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
::Urbanvillager is correct in what he says about the chronology when writing a synopsis. ] (]) 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I think Ricky is trying to organise thematically. There were odd-nesses about his re-ordering but I appreciate this as a 'sound framework' of the themes. When it's a documentary, are we obliged to follow the film's sequence throughout? I've corrected some of his odd-nesses and attempted to consolidate its 'themi-ness'. ] (]) 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: The ] (yes, people do think this much) suggest an overview of the main events of the film not the scene by scene minutia currently there. I expect a documentary about history to go back and forth but we are currently at more than four times the suggested length because of that minutia. Further, I expect editors to treat others with the respect of actually ''revising'' other editors and not blindly reverting if they disagree with a portion of their edits. If you thought that part was incorrect, reorganize it but full-scale reverts are appropriate only for vandalism. -- ] (]) 18:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::], intentionally or not, what you have done is arrange the synopsis thematically, rather than sequentially ''(or historically)''. Personally I think that's a VERY good approach, but I have just removed/amended some of your 'linking text' when it suggested sequence WITHIN the film ''(or within history)''. ] (]) 20:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It was an intentional attempt to organize it thematically. The sequence within the film was incorrect it seems, that's worth correcting. -- ] (]) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:Ricky, thematic approaches are fine, but when you write "The film starts with..." but the film really doesn't start with what you're writing, then it's just wrong. I'm sure you agree. I think your editing here was largely OK, I just re-added the bit about the Bosnian village, this really is the crux of the story and this previously unseen archival footage that is presented for the first time in this film, so I think that definitely shouldn't be left out. --] (]) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::I've 'pruned' slightly, partly as 'new footage' isn't notable in a new film. .... ''ps also added 'para' to seperate 'human stories' from 'main thrust''' ] (]) 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC) … … I moved two talk page posts up to Prof. Marković section: ] (]) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Urbanvillager, , on material which you then removed and . The only recent change has been to re-order the final criticism since it is the oldest. The order is chronological, and the reason it is chronological is because you previously edit-warred when reviews were ordered + first - second and also when reviews were ordered 'Balkan' followed by 'outsiders'.
So, ], how would you describe this ? Isn't that reverting without discussion? I added sourced material, critical response by Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic, historian and scientific adviser at the Institute for Modern History in Belgrade, but that has to be a subject of a 'consensus' (i.e. His Royal Highness Pincrete has to allow Misplaced Pages to see this high-profile source as worthy of being included in the article), while teaching assistants at a Hamilton university are "respectable" and "notable" for HRH. The second source I added, with Milica Kankaraš, isn't that interesting as she doesn't say anything crucial, but I think the Predrag J. Markovic response is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received, considering that Markovic is a well-known historian and the film deals with history, but also because Markovic teaches at the Faculty of Media and Communications as well, and he is talking about a film. Can we please re-add this to the article? Regards, --] (]) 07:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Your reasons for rejecting reviews are ridiculous. Why is one writer publishing in an established publication, 'biased', but a student publishing in an online blog is 'neutral'. The arguments are absurd and do nothing except reveal your own lack of neutrality.
==Pincrete behaving like he/she owns this page==
First of all, ], please stop to places where you prefer them on this talk page. Every time I come to this talk page I have to try to discover where you placed my comments after removing them from where I posted them. Second of all, if you want to play the game that nothing can be added without the approval of everyone on this talk page, I'll go ahead and revert every change you and your friend Somedifferentstuff make and disagree with every edit you two make, and then the article can either stay like this forever, or we'll have to quarrel over every insignificant detail before Misplaced Pages's higher instance dispute resolution pages. More likely, we'll all get blocked, and if you want to indulge in disruptive behavior (this goes for ] as well, who simply reverts without discussion - also disruptive behavior), I'm surely not going to do so. But, since I do find your edits on all Malagurski-related articles to be very malicious, and I've already explained why (surely you've relocated my comments somewhere on this page where you can easily find them), I am going to wait a few days for other editors to voice their opinion on the Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic critical response regarding the film, and then re-add it. If you choose to continue behaving like you own the article and the talk page, I will be forced to report you for disruptive behavior. Consider this your last warning, as I'm tired of having to deal with your disruptive behavior when all I want is to contribute to Misplaced Pages in an area I'm interested in. Consensus doesn't mean "it doesn't go in the article 'till I say so", but there are Misplaced Pages guidelines on sourcing and the Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic reference fully meets them. Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up. --] (]) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


The removals on compromises which you yourself previously proposed are extremely bad faith. ] (]) 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::I've moved your posts ONCE recently, I asked you beforehand, and waited approx 15 hours before making the move. This post and your previous one are now in sections completely disconnected from the subject under discussion, thus making it impossible for other editors to follow the conversation.


:I suggest an order of positive, negative, positive, negative, positive, negative, etc. reviews. I think that's the most fair. It can start with either positive or negative. --] (]) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::], can I ask you to STOP making personal remarks about other editors. My response to Predrag J. Markovic, is in the section above with his name. ] (]) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC) … … ''ps, also, do you still regard Socialist Standard and Brightest Young Things to be RSs as critical responses? Questions are in relevant sections above.'' ] (]) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


::This is precisely what was rejected 2 or 3 years ago, any childish notion that + or - should alternate equally. 'Fairness' is decided by the character of the reviews given and listed in some neutral coherent fashion that reflects the range of reviews and their weight. This is called Misplaced Pages, not 'We have to be equally-nice-ipedia'. Funnily, , arguing that that page is for his views only, not criticism of those views. ] (]) 17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::UrbanVillager, you're going about this the wrong way and I encourage you to take ]. Acting obnoxious and attacking other editors will not get you what you want. -- ] (]) 00:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::All I want is to not be reverted every time I add sourced content that meets ''']''' just because ''']''' objects to every source that doesn't describe Boris Malagurski as a scumbag. Pincrete obviously has personal issues with Malagurski and is likely ''']''' or his/her sock, something I discussed here and Pincrete '''''' by quickly archiving it, so if you want to go ahead and manipulate Misplaced Pages regulations, that's your issue, not mine. But take a look at this '''''' of Pincrete going above and beyond to discredit a source using the absurdest of reasons. --] (]) 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::UrbanVillager, Ricky81682, archived almost THE ENTIRE TALK, including ongoing discussions, I presume he did this because he wanted the page to have a 'clean slate'. I restored it and then re-archived/hid elements which were no longer ongoing or no longer seemed pertinent. What exactly is your complaint? That Ricky archived it? That I restored it, or what? ''(I also informed Ricky81682 and everyone else of my actions.)''


:::I seriously question Petkovic's qualifications for discussing Malagurski and his work, when he places Malagurski in a group that Malagurski didn't belong to. Just because Petkovic is a film critic doesn't give him the right to provide false information and get away with it. This is why I believe his review should be removed altogether. It's not about criticism, there are other critical reviews of Malagurski's film that are in the article, rightfully so, but rather a matter of Petkovic's credibility to comment on something he clearly didn't even research. --] (]) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::], can I ask you again to STOP making abusive remarks about myself and other editors. ] (]) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'm not making abusive remarks, you're abusing Misplaced Pages consensus guidelines. The article was doing fine until you decided that there should be 5 pages of text on the talk page for every change made to the article. Now that really is abuse. --] (]) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::UrbanVillager, stating that Pincrete "is likely User:Opbeith or his/her sock" is DISRUPTIVE. There are appropriate places to file complaints regarding sock-puppetry, etc. Regarding the "Critical response" section, because it has been contentious, we need to discuss any changes here and see what ] is. -- ] (]) 21:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


], if you feel that I, ], ] or anyone else is not behaving properly, or unfairly excluding/including material, there are procedures for dealing with your complaint. The talk page is meant to be for discussing the article, nothing else. ] (]) 20:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC) ::::Member of which group? This isn't a valid criteria anyway, I'm sure every film critic makes minor factual errors from time to time, that doesn't invalidate their opinion. ] (]) 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:27, 14 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Weight of Chains article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: Canadian / Documentary
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
WikiProject iconYugoslavia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThe Weight of Chains is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Misplaced Pages. They must be written in original language to comply with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Misplaced Pages's Copyright FAQ.

Critical response additions

I've made one addition to 'Critical response' section (Miller - Socialist Standard), this review had the agreement of UrbanVillager and Somedifferentstuff, though not agreement on actual text. I intend to add Brightest Young Things, which previously had the agreement of UrbanVillager (though not which text). It's possible that I have included too much, but found it difficult to decide both what 'typified' the review and what were the distinctive points made by each reviewer. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, reviews were not arranged by ethnicity, they were positive first negative second and it is perfectly normal to summarise, eg:- 'positive in UK, negative in USA'. I think such a summary relevant and justified. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dividing sources into "Serbian" and "non-Serbian" is arranging sources according to ethnicity. In this case, it's also repetition. Saying that a source is Serbian and then noting "Serbian historian..." is repetition. I think it's best to note what the reviewers said, not classify them according to their "Serbian" or "non-Serbian" nature. It's irrelevant which country they come from, as well as which ethnicity they have. Kilibarda, for example, is a Serbian/Montenegrin last name, and it's not up to the article to discuss reviewers' ethnicities or countries of origin, but rather to note what they wrote. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
They were not arranged according to ethnicity, they were arranged + first - second, at Ricky's suggestion. If a - review comes from Serbia, it also will go with the other negs, and the converse. 'Serbian' to describe Markovic was copy-pasted from you. It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews, which bad and was not phrased prejudicially. The alternative is to put 'proper reviews' first and articles and comments later. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You wrote "It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews...". Countries don't give reviews. I think your attempt to tie in reviewers with their countries and present them as how people in a certain country see a film is POV. Once again, reviews are reviews, let's let them speak for themselves. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If this film were Bambi and if it received significantly different reviews IN (not from) certain countries than it did in others, that would be noteworthy. Even more so since the film proposes very controversial versions of recent historical events.
You aren't even consistent UrbanVillager, the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What you're saying would make sense if there were a bunch of reviews from one country that had a certain slant. This could justify that the film is perceived a certain way in a country in general. But taking two reviews from Serbia, one from Canada, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom and saying that the film has "significantly different reviews IN certain countries" is simply stereotyping. However, I do agree when you say that "the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.". Glad you finally realize these are two completely different things. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, possibly you should check out the meanings of stereotype and irony. Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, as Bobrayner and yourself are forcing an edit war, I'd like to note that I will take no part in it. As can be seen from the above discussion, there is no consensus for classifying reviews by ethnicity or country of origin, let alone "Serbian" and "other". So, please remove this and let's try to get along. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In your edit description for the revert, you noted "Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments". 1) Saying that a source is Serbian is classifying it by country and ethnicity (it can be "Serbian" as "from Serbia" or "Serbian" as "of ethnic Serbs"), while 2) there needs to be consensus for the addition of this original research. Once again, if you can find me a source that explains why it is important to note the ethnicity or country of origin of certain reviewers, we can discuss the matter further. If not, please remove this as there is no consensus for the addition of what you're adding. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone objects to the good first/negative second set-up, then reviews would need to be organised according to their authority. I don't think that a 'passing remark' by a media tutor at a film showing (written up by a student, with no context at all) would carry much authority, nor a passing comment in a magazine, these are not RS film reviews at all. At present there is an attempt to present the arguments in favour of the film (which are almost wholly from WITHIN the country called 'Serbia') , FIRST. I believe this arrangement is wholly/generously fair. Are those who criticise this arrangement saying that the film has been widely praised OUTSIDE that country. Perhaps they need to find some reviews that corroborate that PoV, rather than attempting to rewrite the evidence or criticise its presentation. Pincrete (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I reported Pincrete for edit-warring. He added the national remarcs, they were opposed, and he is the one (with the help of bobrainer) who is edit-warring to keep his edit in place. That goes against WP:BRD and the discussion here was not over neither he got consensus for the edit (far from that), so his edir-warring is purely disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Without having read the above, it seems to me that, to say that Serbians are the only ones who liked it, is synthesis -- and possibly original research if not properly cited. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, if it is normal to summarize in that way, could you provide examples? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Jsharpminor, I will answer more fully when I have time/should you wish, but briefly ALL 'proper film reviews' of this film are VERY negative and are ALL from UK/N.American sources. If present wording is 'synth' or OR, then let it be changed, but what is being objected to exactly? Noting the nationality is both necessary (most people won't know who/what Pecat is), and appropriate (since this film deals with FYR and Serbian/US/UK/EEC political matters). BTW the article did NOT say 'only Serbs liked the film', and I was careful to find positive remarks made by ALL reviewers, in addition to their negative responses. The positive responses are NOT full film reviews, one is a brief paragraph in a magazine, the other is a passing comment by a college tutor, written up by a student. They were included out of a sense of fairness to another editor. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC) … … ps Schindler's list devotes an entire section to Jewish response to the film , and this is clearly 'ethnicity' rather than nationality. Almost all WP film articles have an intro of the the film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews kind, this intro is almost always referenced ONLY by the content of the reviews which follow and in that sense is an editor's summary of response, and therefore technically 'synth'. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
FkpCascais, the wording to which you object has been in place for 99% of the time since approx. October. If it is inappropriate, let us change it, but please don't misrepresent my actions HERE or at the edit-warring board. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I wasn't on Misplaced Pages since yesterday so only now I managed to respond.
My opinion seems to be that the classification of critics to Serbian/non Serbian is OR and too early, and it seems to me it is more made in order to discredit Malagurski than being a real objective analysis of the critics - "Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't". I am not sure we have enough critics in order to make such a wide claim. It is definitely safe not to add such synthesis. FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not a wide claim, nor indeed any kind of claim, (and my wording was not as crude as you have represented it) the three film reviews (from UK, USA and a 'Canadian' academic) are fairly devastatingly negative. The two Serbian responses are relatively positive, but are not reviews (one is written up by a student, perhaps that response should NOT be included at all, but was included at the wish of another editor).
The only question is how to represent these facts without prejudice or synth. You are surely not saying that we should not state the nationalities of the magazine/University that the responses came from (since Pecat magazine would be unknown to most readers)? I believe that there are also negative Serbian responses/comments, but have not had the time to track them down/verify their RS status, there are also other 'Balkan' responses, which are largely negative.
If we were to follow the custom of other film pages and start with a The film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews, sentence, it would have to say the reviews were VERY negative. … … ps no apology needed, we all have other things to do in late Dec., and we may be on different time zones. Pincrete (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Nationality/location clarification

Let us be clear, neither the ethnicity nor nationality of ANY individual reviewer has EVER been mentioned by me in the 'reviews' section. Sufficient information to establish the who/what/where of the magazine/website/University HAS been included with every review/response (except currently Pecat magazine, which is not identified at all). I have on several occasions removed references to individual nationality, where that was not RS or was unnecessary. Also the reviews are not organised according to ethnicity/nationality, they are + first - second. Therefore I find some of the language/accusations flying around over the last few days perplexing (I don't think that anyone would consider it an 'ethnic slur' if an article noted that a film with a UK connection was better received in the UK than elsewhere and the reviews THEMSELVES would be sufficient source for the assertion, could someone explain why this film is different?).

Also the article NEVER said "Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't" or "Serbians are the only ones who liked it", which is how the article is mis-quoted above by User:FkpCascais and Jsharpminor.

However broad consensus seems to be that the previous 'lead in' was 'synth'. Therefore could we agree on some other lead-in and how to organise/describe reviews/responses accurately and imformatively. User:FkpCascais, there may be other responses/comments, however there are now unlikely to be further film reviews, since the film was released more than 4 years ago. Therefore I suspect that what is currently here has to be worked with. I am mentioning Jsharpminor, and Bbb23 as they have expressed opinions over the last few days. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, apologies if the above is defensive. In case it is not clear, I ACCEPT your argument that the 'sample size' is too small to draw conclusions. I still reject other arguments and accusations, however they are no longer relevant. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical response proposal

Since the article will be unlocked shortly, I propose the following alterations to the 'critical response' section, (italicised text is my comment).

1). Intro sentence on section, add: … 'The film has not been widely reviewed, however positive responses include:'

2). Add divider sentence before 'Kilibarda' review: … 'However more negative responses have included:'

3). The text and order of reviews should remain unaltered (ie positive first/more negative second, and with no 'general summary' except the preceding comments) EXCEPT, The Pecat review needs to be identified to establish the who/what/where, therefore it should be altered thus: … 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat magazine wrote that' … becomes … 'Vladislav Panov of Serbia's Pečat magazine wrote that'. If anyone has a better brief description of what/where 'Pečat' is, I would be happy to use that instead. Pečat doesn't have a WP article to link to.

Jsharpminor, Bbb23 and User:FkpCascais, I am mentioning you as you have expressed opinions over the last week. Without some kind of linking 'editorial' text, I feel we have an apparently randomly organised set of, (relatively marginal), responses. Maintaining +first/-second avoids problematic arguments about the relative 'authority' of the reviews used, and I hope the proposed 'linking text', explains our organisation of those responses without being contentious. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view your proposal Pincrete seems quite fine. You found a perfect neutral formula I think. FkpCascais (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Pečat, I found this short description at novinarnica.net which is sort of website which collects all publications in Serbia. It says the following about Pečat:
Original in Serbian:
"Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, i stekao epitet jedinog slobodnog štampanog medija koji bez cenzure analizira teme iz društveno-političke i kulturne stvarnosti naše zemlje."
My translation:
"Pečat is a weekly political magazine published every Friday. After four years t became the most readed magazine of this type in Serbia, and it made name as the only free published media which, without censorship, analizes social and political issues and the cultural reality of our country (Serbia)".
Its a bit free translation of mine almost verbatim. FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
FkpCascais, many thanks, to keep the description brief, I intend to insert: 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat, a weekly political magazine in Serbia, wrote that' etc. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have re-instated the linking sentences between broadly+ and broadly- reviews. I draw attention to the discussion above. The alternative to some 'linking structure' seems to be either to get into the problematic area of which reviews should go first, second etc., or an alternating + - structure. With no linking text at all, what we appear to have is a randomly arranged (relatively marginal), set of responses.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
UrbanVillagerre: your recent reverts, I draw your attention to the discussion above. If any rewrite of the 'linking text' is called for, or some other basis for organising reviews proposed, can we discuss it here? However, simply removing it isn't very constructive. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Pincrete, why do you want to classify reviews in any way? What is your motive for doing so? Do you have a source to claim that a review is completely negative or completely positive? Or more negative than positive? How would you measure that? What is your goal here? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My motive is that it provides some structure/coherence to the organisation (as explained above). Since the wording says MORE - (not wholly negative), I won't respond to that question. The other advantage to a linking text, is that it avoids any problematic discussions about relative positions of proper reviews/comments or the relative authority of the sources. This arrangement did have User:FkpCascais's endorsement. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Other possibilities include listing alphabetically by name or by publication date. Whichever way is preferred, some linking text is needed to give coherence to the structure. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Update, I have ordered reviews by publication date, putting a brief explanatory sentence at the start of the section. Is this acceptable as a temp fix? At the same time I removed the sequel section and put a linking sentence in the lede. I don't regard publication date as a very logical basis for ordering reviews, but acceptable as a 'temp fix', if we are unable to agree some more logical basis and some linking text, I suggest we post a RfC to resolve the matter. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pečat translation

There is another question relating to the Pečat review, at present we have: 'Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in collecting the cream for foreigners as well'. … original here: . Relevant text: 'Boris je hrabro detektovao i glavne domaće (G 17 Plus) izvršioce u sakupljanju tog kajmaka za strance, zbog čega je verovatno njegov film u prvo vreme bio „nezgodan za prikazivanje“ srpskoj publici.'
There are two translation questions … Q1. should the preposition be 'FOR foreigners' (ie 'on behalf of foreigners') or 'OF foreigners' (ie 'from them')? Q2 we have 'collecting the cream', is this correct or would it be more correct to use 'skimming off the cream' (an expression that suggests something dishonest about the process). I have been offered both versions and am not competent to make the assessment, as prepositions and expressions are both notoriously difficult to translate and dependent on usage. I will leave 'as is', until/unless there is some clarification. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
What the sentence wants to emphasize is that Boris found that the G17 Plus were making the dirty work domestically for the foreigners. I am still trying to find the best expression. FkpCascais (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the omission of G17+ from the translation, but didn't realise there was a WP article. We should probably re-insert the mention of G17+ as there is such a link. 'Domestic culprits' implies dishonourable/didhonest behaviour, but therafter I'm not sure how 'accusatory' the tone should be. Pincrete (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
He is directly accusing G17+ of working in the interest of the foreigners, so I guess the tone can be quite direct. Please feel free Pincrete to use the most adequate expression you think would be proper, you can certainly do it better than me because English is not my native language. The sentence in Serbian is not easy to translate verbatin, but we can always simplify it and go straight to the point which in this case would be that Boris Malagurski detected that G17 Plus were the main domestic allies(or culpits) of the foreigners and because of that reason his movie was initially undesirable to be released in Serbia (as at that time G17 Plus was in the ruling coalition). FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have slightly tweaked the translation, adding G17+, used 'skimming the cream' (which suggests something 'dodgy'), and changing 'for' to 'on behalf of' (which is more explicit), I'm sure it could be made better, but I'm reluctant to go too far. I didn't add the stuff about difficulty of being shown in Serbia as, whilst it might belong somewhere, it didn't seem to belong as part of a 'critical response'.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Weight of Chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Weight of Chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith removals

Urbanvillager, here you propose a compromise, on material which you then removed yesterday and today. The only recent change has been to re-order the final criticism since it is the oldest. The order is chronological, and the reason it is chronological is because you previously edit-warred when reviews were ordered + first - second and also when reviews were ordered 'Balkan' followed by 'outsiders'.

Your reasons for rejecting reviews are ridiculous. Why is one writer publishing in an established publication, 'biased', but a student publishing in an online blog is 'neutral'. The arguments are absurd and do nothing except reveal your own lack of neutrality.

The removals on compromises which you yourself previously proposed are extremely bad faith. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an order of positive, negative, positive, negative, positive, negative, etc. reviews. I think that's the most fair. It can start with either positive or negative. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely what was rejected 2 or 3 years ago, any childish notion that + or - should alternate equally. 'Fairness' is decided by the character of the reviews given and listed in some neutral coherent fashion that reflects the range of reviews and their weight. This is called Misplaced Pages, not 'We have to be equally-nice-ipedia'. Funnily, you reject all criticism on the BM page, arguing that that page is for his views only, not criticism of those views. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I seriously question Petkovic's qualifications for discussing Malagurski and his work, when he places Malagurski in a group that Malagurski didn't belong to. Just because Petkovic is a film critic doesn't give him the right to provide false information and get away with it. This is why I believe his review should be removed altogether. It's not about criticism, there are other critical reviews of Malagurski's film that are in the article, rightfully so, but rather a matter of Petkovic's credibility to comment on something he clearly didn't even research. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Member of which group? This isn't a valid criteria anyway, I'm sure every film critic makes minor factual errors from time to time, that doesn't invalidate their opinion. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Categories: