Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

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.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

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

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

UrbanVillager, you have just removed the refs which I added to a statement which has been on the page for a very long time (previously unreferenced) … You have just removed that Mackenzie is 'best known for his controversial views' (which I think YOU wrote originally, but which has been there for a long time) and which is on the WoC website … … you have asked for a citation that one interviewee was an adviser to SM & RK (which is on the WoC website) … … I WILL if you wish add refs to each of these statements, though, I believe them to be covered by the general ref 'interviewees'. … … You have removed (referenced) background info relevant to WHO the person is/was in FYR, because 'they don't talk about ……' (Does Skabo talk about rap, does Mackenzie discuss his medals, does ANYBODY talk about basketball ?). … … ps I am replying to you here as this is the relevant section. I don't consider your reply above adds anything to what you have already said. … … … pps the texts concerning Mackenzie's 'controversial views' and 'defence witness etc"' to which you SUDDENLY take such great exception, have both been here (previously unreferenced) since at least Dec 2012 (I got bored with looking for the exact date) see: - . … … 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:- .Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

While it's perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation, I've noticed that Pincrete is canvassing (see WP:CAN) in order to fabricate a consensus that serves his anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav bias. This is neutral land, not "Malagurski-land" as Pincrete described it in his comment to Bobrayner and declaring me the 'owner' of this article is another personal attack (see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks) in a long line of attempts to discredit anyone who doesn't show up to bash Malagurski and his work. Since I came to 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 Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). 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. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, poor, noble, misunderstood UrbanVillager. I can only repeat Psychonaut's advice, if you think you have a case, seek a third opinion or take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard :- here … (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. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

'Criticism' isn't inherently the wrong word - in context - Criticism = 'what (film) critics have written' (praise or disapproval). However, I myself suggested 'Critical response' (the section heading used on other film pages), I suggested it here , 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. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with changing it to Critique.

As for e-novine, you can't be serious that you expect the blog to come up with a list of articles disowned by them together with Pavlica. The editor called Pavlica an idiot and kicked him out. This shows how much weight Pavlica's articles have on e-novine and this source by itself really doesn't meet any of 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 here, we could start from there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavlica's credibility as a source was established in the discussion last year. The link (showing your participation in that discussion) is here:- … 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:- Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diannaa, would this be OK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A professional review needs to meet certain criteria to be included on 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? Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 RichardWilson78, I hope you don't mind, I put this in a new section to make it easier for readers to follow, and to seperate YOUR new material from the VICE discussion. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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.Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything written after the blurb, YES, is an interview. YES, Elich is in the film. But the blurb describing his thoughts about the film seem perfectly fine to me. Besides, you yourself have used interviews as sources on 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. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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