Revision as of 08:42, 1 October 2014 editRicky81682 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users161,010 edits →Re-jigging Kilibarda review← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:48, 1 October 2014 edit undoUrbanVillager (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,469 edits →Re-jigging Kilibarda review: please watch something before describing itNext edit → | ||
Line 631: | Line 631: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
: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) |
Revision as of 11:48, 1 October 2014
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
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. |
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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. |
Weight of Chains 2 ?
Completed section collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
I couldn't find any mention of a release date for WofC 2 on the Malagurski web-site as claimed by the article .... Also the (named) sponsors are once again principally Serbian Diaspora organisations. What is the official position about a film that hasn't even been released yet? … ps The section isn't even grammatical.Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Further to above, Even if the release date is confirmed, I suggest single sentence additions to the existing refs to WoC2 covering: 1). Release date (and location if known) 2). that the film was funded in the same way as WoC. The present section (apart from being ungrammatical) reads like a press release.Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC) UrbanVillager, could you explain to me how removing a 'cyclic link' (a link which sends the reader back to the same point on the same page that they are already on), constitutes 'vandalism'? Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Release date There is no mention on the BM site of a release date for WoC2 ... merely a 'watch this space' notice ... I propose therefore to merge the two refs to the sequel. Any objections anyone?Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Merge proposal I propose a merge of the two refs to W of C 2 thus:- A trailer was made for a sequel, "The Weight of Chains 2", but - as of June 2014, - a release date has not been announced. The sequel is being funded in a similar manner to the original. (+ refs to funding & release info) … anyone disagree ? Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It has simply been a question of me not having time … the merge and some other tidying will happen ASAP.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) … … ps now done.Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Inappropriate & dead links
Completed section collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
Not sure about proper procedure here, but two of the refs attached to the 'Raindance' screening are to Serbian sites. I don't quite see how they verify that the film was shown in London. One of them is anyhow dead and the other seems to be a general article about BM. The film WAS clearly shown at London Raindance and the UK link is still live. Should other refs be removed ?Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A seperate dispute (a revert war?)about dead links on 'screenings' seems to be going on between UrbanVillager and Bobrayner. Not only do I confirm that most/all of the links are dead, I also confirm that they have been dead since at least Autumn 2012, when many of these links were the subject of discussion on talk. UrbanVillager knew many/most of them to be dead at that time because he introduced me to 'Wayback', which enabled me to access some of them, therefore my sympathies are presently wholly with Bobrayner on this matter, these links are dead. Whether it is customary to mark links as dead, is a matter about which I know nothing, except a tendency to think that it is helpful to the reader to do so. There are also other 'un-productive' links in this article, such as the 'Ann Arbor' link which takes one only to the AA site, on which there are no records of WofC at all, (this again has been the case for at least two years) ... it all seems very unhelpful to the reader.Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Update Links 13 & 20 also lead 'nowhere useful' ...I checked all of those marked as dead by BobR and confirm them again to be dead ... Some are accessible using 'Wayback' or similar.Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Two refs are word-for-word duplicates (ie one is simply a mirror) both appear to end 'the author announced today' ie self-sourced … (but my Serbian is not good enough to guarantee that).Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) amended Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Multi-stage edit
Completed section collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
I have just performed a multi-stage edit. Stage 1 I reverted to Bobrayner's last edit in which (most of) the dead links were marked, some of these are accessible using 'Wayback', but that doesn't make them live. If i have time I may replace present links with their Internet Archive address. Secondly I removed the named sponsors (GRC was mentioned twice) , this was the subject of extensive discussion in the past, concensus was that a 'general' statement about the method of funding was in order, since it was noteworthy (diaspora organistions + individuals) and specific mention of GRC, since its founder is both an interviewee in the film and a cited source for info about the film - but, there was no good reason to mention organisations or individuals by name. Thirdly, I merged the two refs to WofC2 and tidied the phrasing. Stage 2 I clarified the phrasing of the Pavlica criticism, I realise that this has been very controversial in the past, I modified the Pavlica comment ONLY to the extent that I said that the 'technical' criticism (using fiction film … a fairly minor breach of documentary ettiquette), was ONE of his criticisms. I may do further tidying when I have time. Two changes which I can't work out HOW to make, but which annoy me greatly result from using a film template, these are 'screenplay' is usually only used for a fictional film (script or narration or writer for a documentary, normally), similarly, you can't STAR in a documentary!Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Stage 3 I have updated some dead references to their internet archive address ... I also merged the 6 lines of the 'Beldocs ec/ho' screenings as this is (as I understand it) a 'touring festival' with screenings in numerous towns. The previous layout displayed more space to these screenings than does the source! I also did this in order to save amending 6 references (the same ref.in fact).Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
- nb … … There are still dead links and links which need to be 'Waybacked'.Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In what sense Canadian?
Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
UrbanVillager, it was not me, but Bobrayner who removed the 'Canadian' description, though I wholly agree with it, I DID add the reference to the location of his film company (and copied it from one of the other BM pages). Re: your comment "What matters is that it's a Canadian film.". Firstly you aren't consistent, when another editor described the film as 'Serbian' you said 'films don't have ethnicity' ... apparently they do have nationality! What matters is to state as accurately/fairly and as succinctly as possible what its claim to being Canadian IS. Normally there is no problem with a film, if its creative input is French, if the funding is French, if the film company is established in France and the filming is done in France, and the core audience is French, then it is a French film. None of these apply to WoC, its claim to being Canadian is solely the registered office of the production company. Therefore I believe that to be both accurate and fair to the film. On several sites the film is described as being 'Serbian', I would not agree to putting that in the article either, just as I do not agree with describing it as 'Canadian' … I think sticking to factual information is better. Just for analogy, 'China News Agency' probably have registered offices in London, I don't think that makes them a 'British News Agency'. Do You?12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
The film's distributors describe the film as Serbian, as do some of the film festivals, some other festivals categorise it as being a Serbian film but from Canada, therefore its nationality is not as clear-cut as you suggest. So, what is wrong with stating what the Canadian connection is CLEARLY - which is (as you've just said) - that BM's Prod Co. is registered there? BTW I haven't mentioned the ethnicity of private contributors anywhere and haven't added anything of that sort in any of my edits, ever. BTW 2 (read above), it was NOT me that removed 'Canadian', but it was me that pasted in the film company location (copied from another BM page!).Pincrete (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "For the love of God, watch The Weight of Chains on YouTube, at 1:59:03 where it says "This is a Canadian film"". UrbanVillager, the film was posted on YouTube by BM himself, now we all understand what your understanding of a reliable source is! The nationality of the film is not clear-cut and is shown differently on various sources, (including BM's own distributors) . Therefore I propose to remove the 'Canadian' reference.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, you have had three days to answer why certain sources are inviolable, whilst others are disregardable on the matter of the 'nationality' of this film (actually you've had since June 30th, see above). You have come up with no arguments at all since June 30th, apart from 'BM says' and 'I say'. I intend therefore to modify the text as per the suggestion above, "the filmaker and (neutral way of phrasing some others), describe the film as Canadian (UV's refs), whilst the distributor characterises it as Serbian. It has appeared in the 'Serbian' or 'Balkan' films category at several film festivals (refs to distributor and appropriate festivals)". The removal of 'Canadian' has been the wish of the majority of recent, and long-term editors of this page. Since you INSIST on BMs claim being included, this, as far as I can see is the only way of resolving this (and getting on with more important things like the 'synopsis').
nb the following was written at the same time as UV's immediately above, due to an edit conflict it is posted after and is NOT a response. Second compromise proposal: These all seem to be true:- 1) The nationality' of a film is NOT objectively verifiable (a film doesn't have citizenship, nor a passport) … … 2) the nationality of a film is not necessarily the same as the nationality of the film maker (I don't think anyone would consider City Lights a British film]] … … 3) An equal number of RSs describe this film as from Serbia (presumably BM had the opportunity to dispute with Raindance and Journeyman about their descriptions at the time). Therefore, we don't need to 'nationalise' the film at all, but rather to describe the film maker. The only source we have for that is BM's own self-identification as 'Serbian-Canadian' (source on, I believe, 'his page). Therefore the text would read 'documentary film by Serbian-Canadian film maker Boris M.'. … … Is this acceptable to anyone/everyone?. I think enough time has been wasted on this, but I intend to stick with it as it clearly indicates UrbanVillager's WP:ownership of this article, and that the ownership is being used to ensure that Misplaced Pages mirrors whatever is claimed by the film maker, (as it still does in respect of the synopsis, nearly four years after this article was created). UrbanVillager, your vandalistic reverting over many months, your reliance on abuse of fellow editors, (both on this page and in your edit summaries, and for which you have never once apologised, even when shown to be clearly wrong) and the fact that your clear intent is not to improve this article in any meaningful sense, simply to use it as an 'outpost' of the BM publicity machine, all of these are unacceptable.Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) UrbanVillager, Re this edit reason: , yes of course, any film maker can call a film the funniest comedy in the world - or anything - if he wants to … … but we are not simply a mouthpiece for any film maker nor an extension of his/her publicity machine. Several prominent RSs (for whatever reason), say this film is Serbian (the director should have taken this up with Raindance and his distributors at the time … not here).Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this discussion continues below here: . If anyone wishes to move that section to THIS section, I have no objection, so long as sequence and content are maintained.Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
Changes to 'Interviewees' and external refs
Discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
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)
|
Synopsis
I am starting a new section in order to focus on what I see as being the shortcomings of the present synopsis. The present synopsis is very largely a 'cut and paste' job from the press pack and website of the film maker. The synopsis does not attempt, (with the one exception of one issue), to present the claims or arguments of the film, nor to give any context by linking to historical events covered in the film (the obvious example is the lack of any mention in the synopsis of the film's 'take' on Srebrenica).
The 'one exception', is the synopsis presently covers fairly thoroughly the 'economic' arguments of the film, (though this could probably be précis-ed without any loss of content). The difficulty (as I see it), is that the film makes SO MANY contentious claims (though often not actual claims, rather inferences), that distinguishing exactly what those claims are, which are important, and how to represent them fairly and neutrally is difficult.
Should there be any new-comers to this page, there is a lot of discussion about the synopsis in the archives at the top of this page (though I would be the first to admit, those discussions ended going round in circles, but there may be 'wheat among the chaff').Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis. The point is not to debate on the arguments presented in the film, but to merely describe what the film talks about. That's it. So, none of "the film says this, BUT this is SO not true" here. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, re your remark:- In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work … … 1). please draw my attention to where … … 2) One minute you claim to be an ordinary Joe who happens to follow BM's work, now (and quite often recently) you are suddenly an authority on film and festivals … … 3) I am happy to divulge to you my PROFESSIONAL involvement with the admin. of film festivals if you wish, but Misplaced Pages is collegiate and that would be irrelevant … … 4). Would it be possible for you to make your point, just once in a while, WITHOUT attempting to denigrate the person you are addressing?
- Re- The point is not to debate on the arguments presented in the film, but to merely describe what the film talks about, … … I wholeheartedly AGREE that the point of a synopsis of a documentary is not to 'debate' or 'comment on', or 'verify' or 'disprove' the film's arguments, (what in my previous posting suggests to you that I don't know that or even that I would wish it to be otherwise?). However the point of a synopsis IS to IDENTIFY what those arguments are and to try to represent them in a neutral fashion, and specifically the guidelines state that where a documentary covers historical events, links should be provided to pages where those historical events are covered more fully. I do wish you would read more carefully what has been posted before reacting. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed tidy of the synopsis
I have prepared some thoughts for tidying the synopsis. These are NOT as a result of today's copy vio clean-out, however the present synopsis deviates very little from the film's website and press pack. These suggestions are NOT intended to make substantial changes to the MEANING of the present version, nor are these suggestions meant to be a FINAL form, since many of the themes of the film are not covered at present and others may be 'over-covered'. This is simply intended to 'clean up' and précis the present synopsis as an interim framework. I have italicised particularly problematic text and bold numbered each point. I have attempted to explain WHY I think there is a problem and sometimes made suggestions.
The Weight Of Chains presents a perspective on (1) … ('woolly'?? … is there not a clearer way to say 'the film is about')
Western involvement in the division of the ethnic groups within Yugoslavia, (2) … (is this true of the film ? Is it not clearer to say 'the break-up of former Yug.' or 'the ethnic conflicts in the FYR' or 'the division of Yug', or similar)
and claims that the war was forced from outside, while ordinary people wanted peace. Malagurski says extreme factions on all sides, fuelled by their foreign mentors, outvoiced the moderates and even ten years after the last conflict, the hatred remains and people continue spreading myths about the 1990s. (3) … (The sentence, from 'and even ten years later' , is almost certainly true but IS IT in the film? There are two thoughts here, perhaps the first IS at least implied in the film).
… (this citation is unnecessary and should go)
NOTE the text up to this point has already been removed for copyvio
The film starts with a brief history of Yugoslavia, explaining the concept of Yugoslavia (4) … (is this necessary? I'm not sure what the 'concept' of a country is. I suggest 'brief history of Yugoslavia, and how it came to exist', linking to next)
and how it came to exist. Narrated by Malagurski, the film explains what happened in Yugoslavia during World War II and how Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia was formed. The pace slows down as Tito's death is documented, (5) … (is a less reverential tone appropriate, simply linking one time-frame to the next? … plus is 'explains' the right word ie neutral, it's a very particular take on history. I suggest 'covers' or similar … plus is the narrator not already named in the article?)
and the author moves on to changes in the Yugoslav economy in the 1980s, with specific mention of Ronald Reagan's National Security Decisions Directive 133 from 1984. This presents U.S. interests in Yugoslavia as promoting the "trend towards a market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure". The role of the National Endowment for Democracy in Yugoslavia is then analyzed and , (6) … (would it not be better to go straight to the claim … ie I suggest ' NEDY is connected to formation of G17 etc. '?)
connected to the formation of G17 Plus. Privatization through liquidation is explained, and (7)… (same reason as previous, ie I suggest 'liquidation is presented as etc.')
presented as a major cause for the rise of ethnic tensions in the late 80s and early 90s, further fueled by Foreign Operations Appropriations Act 101-513, enacted during the George H. W. Bush era.
Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman and Alija Izetbegović then receive criticism, all of them (8) … (similar reason to previous, I suggest 'all described as being power-hungry etc.' )
described as being power-hungry and without much concern for their people. Domestic war-mongers are mentioned also. (9) … (similar reason to previous, bit meaningless to say 'mentioned' … suggest linking ie 'Domestic war-mongers and the regional media are presented etc.' )
The regional media are presented as having a major influence on mobilizing public opinion in favor of a conflict. The film then alleges that the West – openly diplomatically and covertly militarily – supported separatist groups and encouraged conflict so that NATO could jump in as peacekeepers for their own interests. The film includes new (10) … (is new footage notable?)
footage of a village in Bosnia where Serbs and Bosniaks lived together up to the end of the Bosnian war, but were then separated – with Serbs saying goodbye to their Muslim neighbours, who decided to collectively leave to their own entity, in tears.
The topic of Kosovo is covered most out of all the issues, (11) … (is this necessary? suggest 'is covered most and the history of the region etc')
and the history of the region is explained (12) … (word is not neutral … it is a very particular version given in the film … … I don't have a suggestion)
to show why the Kosovo war broke out. The film talks about the medieval Battle of Kosovo, the inclusion (13) … (inclusion is the wrong word in terms of MEANING, (you can ONLY be included in something plural a list, group, set etc.) I suggest 'incorporation' as being both neutral and semantically correct)
of Kosovo into the Kingdom of Serbia in 1912, the persecution of Kosovo Serbs during World War II and Tito's Yugoslavia, as well as alleged plans by Albanian nationalists to create an ethnically pure Greater Albania. The film then discusses what interests the Western powers had in Kosovo and why they decided to intervene in a secessionist war in 1999. Questions such as why a cigarette factory was bombed by NATO (and later bought by Philip Morris) are tackled, (14) … (are they 'tackled', aren't they just 'asked' or similar?)
with the author concluding that the purpose of the war was to economically colonize the country.
This film also presents positive stories from the war – people helping each other regardless of their ethnic background, stories of bravery and self-sacrifice. For this purpose, the widow of Josip Reihl-Kir (former police chief of Osijek, Croatia) Jadranka Reihl-Kir was interviewed (15a) concerning her husband's attempts to resolve ethnic issues back in 1991 in a peaceful manner.
The widow of Milan Levar, Vesna Levar, was also interviewed (15b) and spoke of her husband's fight to expose policies of ethnic cleansing in his hometown of Gospić, Croatia, where Croat forces killed dozens of Serb civilians. Another story covered is that of a young Serbian man by the name of Srđan Aleksić, whose father tells how his son saved a Muslim man from an attack by soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska. … (I've put italics on these two (15) references to interviews, as I'm not sure these were original interviews … ignore if I am wrong … though even if I am, cannot we just say 'Levar talks about her husband's etc' … … also is 'Army of' the appropriate term, it's what they are called NOW, not how they were referred to at the time).
After discussing the wars of the 1990s, the film deals with what happened afterwards and how policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank affected the newly created former Yugoslav states. The author presents his theory that Eastern European states were never meant to be colleagues and equals with the European Union and the West, but rather markets for Western industrial goods and sources of cheap labor. The way in which the debt of the former Yugoslav countries has changed from 1990 to 2010 is graphically depicted, with revelations of how much tax money each citizen of the former Yugoslavia would have to pay in order for their countries to be debt free. (16) … (this final sentence could be précis-ed without any loss of content, but I've made enough suggestion for one day!) Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Rephrasing of Intro
I think for historical reasons (inc editors rightly restoring neutrality), we end up with a slightly 'mangled' and incomplete intro:- which analyzes the nature of the role that the United States, NATO and the European Union allegedly played in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Since this film advertises itself as presenting 'an alternative account', can we not find a clearer form of words that says (briefly), what that account is (and drop the word 'analyses' … simply, clearly, state 'this is what the film says it's about'). I don't have suggestions for solution at present. Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My general view is that talk page comments about plans for editing (versus just doing the planned editing) is the wrong path. Make the edits you'd like and if there's a dispute then discuss it here. Otherwise, I don't know if you're waiting for approval or something but that's not the way WP:BOLD works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Repeated removal of entire criticism section.
Discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
UrbanVillager,there was extensive discussion on talk last year about criticism, here: , I took very little part in that discussion but 'watched it with interest'. The background to that discussion was an edit war, followed by an admin dispute, here: , as I read the discussion, the consensus was that the three criticism sources COULD BE USED, subject to clear attribution and not disproportionate to the total content of the article. You appeared to (grudgingly, perhaps) accept that decision. Apart from changing one of your (incorrect) words to a correct one I took no part. Had I done so, I would have added to what others said that Kilibarda is a professional academic, with extensive experience of researching and writing about 'Balkan' matters and economics and some reviews of books and films (do any of the sources you regard as sacrosanct have ANY experience of commenting on economics or history ?). To complicate matters, two of the four participants in that discussion have since been permanently banned (Staro Gusle and Phoenix and Winslow, SG for being a 'puppet'). Now, suddenly nearly 12 months after consensus was reached, UrbanVillager, you are removing the section in its entirety, citing 'no consensus' and 'vandalism'. The one change which I made today was to clearly attribute (as per consensus), using quote marks and to add a phrase since it is meaningless to talk about well established role without saying what Kilibarda considered that role to be (plenty of people might think 'Slobo's' 'well established role' was as heroic statesman). It seems however that any change in any section leads you to tantrums and the revert button. You seem less concerned that the entire 'synopsis' is a copy/paste from the WoC website. You seem determined to prove your WP:ownership, vandalism, unwillingless to work with or respect other editors, unwillingless to acknowledge RS information that doesn't suit you … … in addition to the personal abuse, racist remarks etc. that we all already knew about.Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|
"The Weight of Chains" is a Canadian film
Continuation of 'Canadian' discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
I believe this ends the discussion on the matter. Pincrete, please stop reverting or we can add this to the article as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out, that the 'Beldocs' ref following 'Canadian', is in fact a word-for-word copy of the BM site, therefore simply a 'mirror' or copy-paste. Does anybody object to me removing this ref ? Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus
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 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)
|
Recent review
Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
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)
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) |
Restructuring reviews
The criticism section is definitely out of date. E-novine is a blog, the author Damjan Pavlica was kicked out of E-novine and called an "idiot" by the E-novine editor, and if an irrelevant blog calls an even less relevant "reviewer" an "idiot", the source really has no place on this encyclopedia. Not to mention that Pavlica is a computer programmer and has no reputable expertise to write film reviews, even from a technical standpoint. So, this goes out.
On the other hand, Kilibarda does seem to be a relevant source for criticism, and this should be expanded. Also, I found another review on BrightestYoungThings, this author actually went to the Washington, DC premiere of the film and wrote a high quality review. This can go, together with Kilibarda's review, into the article. Also, Raindance, in association with VICE, wrote a review of the film (), this is probably the most professional review yet, so it should definitely go on top of the section.
So, it could look something like this:
Reviews
The Raindance Film Festival, in association with VICE magazine, wrote a review of the film, describing it as "a sardonic look at how US foreign policy brought about the demise of Yugoslavia in the late 80s." According to the review, the film is "elegantly edited", and "makes the whole documentary feel like a history lesson as relayed by an endearing teacher with an average sense of humour." The review notes that, in the film, "experts tell grim stories about how fractured groups of people were exploited by power-hungry domestic leaders" and that "soon Yugoslavia is in the grip of one of history's most heartbreaking periods of civil war and ethnic cleansing." 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:-Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … Amended for clarity. Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Re:- 'Brightest Young Things above', I'm pretty sure that this was rejected in the past as a RS by just about everyone (inc. UV), I'm neutral, and as I was new to this page then (late 2012), I took no part in the discussion.
However, that isn't the main point of my comment, which is that, strangely, when I read this source, I find:- it is a sprawling, often meandering, hodge-podge of arguments, which ultimately, had they been presented in a more coherent fashion, might have been persuasive, but combined with the often-gratingly blatant bias of the film maker, the message at times gets lost in the delivery. More specifically, Malagurski employs a quippy sarcastic tone in his voice-overs that instead of sounding factual sounds …well… incredibly petulant and snarky and, at times, too amateur for the gravitas subject matter. The film is rife with odd concatenations of subjects jammed together that occasionally smack of him implying causality instead of correlation. Not to mention certain parts are downright groan-inducing like “Nationalism, what nationalism! There was no nationalism or ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia. It was all peace and daisies! … … … … … … … … later:- It is at this point that Malagurski starts making some really questionable arguments. … … the film somehow makes it seems as though the fires of ethnic hatred were fanned entirely from outside the country by Western interests—reductionistic at best. At some point, he almost glosses over the Srebrenica massacre and brushes off “ethnic cleansing” accusations as again, mere propaganda from the West, meant to demonize the Serbs. … … … … … … … … then even later:- Nevertheless, on the overall, spending 30 minutes on Kosovo and barely mentioning what really happened in Srebrenica leaves me questioning the director’s choice in taking this approach. While the movie itself is not necessarily meant to be about the war , 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. Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, I'm 'mentioning' you in order to ask whether you still consider 'Brightest Young Things' a usable source ? Needless to say (as you see from my post above), I think your suggested text mis-represents the review totally. However, I have no objection to discussing the inclusion of SOME of what BYT says. Conditional on editors AGREEING a text that is a reasonably balanced summary of the review. I don't know whether BYT is a RS, and don't want to waste time finding out, if you no longer wish to use it. Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Where we stand now
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.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.
|
UrbanVillager, if we could get back to the serious business in hand, it occurs to me that there ARE positive elements to the Kilibarda. The problem is, that he is an academic giving detailed arguments (acres of text), and I think you'll agree, his OVERALL assessment is negative ('makes this film a very questionable enterprise' … from memory). If we could agree on a form of words such as 'KK, of McMaster Uni, while broadly sympathetic to the economic arguments of the film … …… continues approx. as now', and - if necessary - including the 'very questionable etc', to make clear his overall assessment. Anyway, we don't want (and can't have), acres of text from any reviewer.
Secondly, I am quite happy to take the VICE dispute to whoever decides on these things, ON CONDITION, that it is these specific links and text that are submitted, I don't see any point in assessing whether VICE itself is RS, since the essence of the disagreement is whether, in this case, Raindance = VICE and whether Raindance has selectively edited a VICE review (if that is what it is). Also, clearly, we would STILL need to decide how much and which bits of 'VICE' should be used. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC) … … … UPDATE: I have asked for 3rd opinion on 'VICE' at the RS film noticeboard, here:- … … contributors have been invited to make their comments at Vice article section below :- , or on the noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
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 "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)
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) |
Vice article
My opinion on the Vice article is that it is too promotional. I do not think it is a professional review in the sense that MOS:FILM requires. It seems to be more of an advertisement than anything else, especially given that it exhorts readers to buy tickets at the end. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
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)
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)
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)
|
- I agree with Nishleeya and RichardWilson78 on VICE. Add it. I noticed 23 editor was for adding VICE as well. And I agree with Nishleeya about removing e-novine. I have explained my reasons in detail, Pincrete keeps adding new requirements for a consensus. First he wanted VICE to say it was a review, when I sent him a link where they wrote that it's a review, he thought of new requirements, we can go in circles forever. Enough, Pincrete, there is a consensus, let's move on. Also, stop calling editors to revert, I think it's really low how you keep canvassing Bobrayner. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, Nishleeya and RichardWilson78, registered as editors 7 days ago and 2 days ago. I did NOT ask you for 'a link', I asked for MEANINGFUL proof that this was an independent review. If we are counting, 4 experienced editors (apart from me), have so far said this is NOT a review, 23 editor MAY agree with you, but he put as his edit reason 'Sundance and VICE Magazine', Sundance - as you probably know - is not Raindance, and so far there is no evidence that this ever was in their magazine. I want to be sure you know all this before you do anything. Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC) … here:- 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. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Reviews submitted by RichardWilson78
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. RichardWilson78 (talk) 23:31, 14 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."
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)
If theyre too long, one paragraph for positive reviews, one for negative, I don't agree to just negative, it's not fair. How is consensus "YES, LET'S JUST HAVE NEGATIVE", this is not consensus, what are you talking about?? RichardWilson78 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC) |
Using Elich interview as Review
Unproductive discussion collapsed by Pincrete |
---|
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)
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)
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) |
NSPM and Pecat
I added new reviews, check them out, neither of them are interviews, nor are they promotional, but actual reviews in two Serbian magazines, one is Nova srpska politička misao, the other is the Pecat magazine . --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I totally agree that the article should include both positive and negative reviews for neutrality's sake. If positive reviews from reliable sources are available, then they most certainly should be added. At the same time, I would like to ask all editors to refrain from edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's just going to lead to blocks so cut it out. I, personally, am not willing to get bogged down in a protracted and likely-fruitless discussion over several sentences worth of content when I know that I can be contributing to Misplaced Pages elsewhere. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, there is no consensus for inserting these 'reviews', perhaps they contain usable stuff, perhaps they don't. On first impression they seem to be articles not reviews, either way, they have been inserted - with your selective editing - without any attempt to achieve consensus, without even asking any of the editors here. You do understand that don't you? … …
ps Since you created the article, you also know that one of the 'reviews' is from a small magazine that BM writes for. Small world isn't it?Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, there is no consensus for inserting these 'reviews', perhaps they contain usable stuff, perhaps they don't. On first impression they seem to be articles not reviews, either way, they have been inserted - with your selective editing - without any attempt to achieve consensus, without even asking any of the editors here. You do understand that don't you? … …
- 23 editor, I agree, where there are RS reviews, they should be taken into account whether + or -, I also agree that I'd much rather be working on other articles. On this (and related) articles, unfortunately a lot of the 'editors', have turned out to be 'puppets', so sincere as you may be, you might as well ask a wolf to stop taking the sheep. Again, whether you agree or disagree about VICE, I invite you to put your opinions on the RSs noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- If something is written in a magazine, yes, it's an article. Articles can be film reviews, opinion pieces, political views, you name it. So, the argument that "these are articles, not reviews" doesn't make sense. Second of all, the fact that Malagurski writes for the same magazine doesn't mean he has influence on what other people write in it. Unless if you have evidence that Malagurski is the owner of the magazine or has some function there other than being a columnist like all the other columnists, your second argument also doesn't make sense. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, so far, in this discussion, you've said 1) An advert can be a review, it doesn't matter that it is written by people trying to sell you tickets … 2) an interview between someone IN the film and the director can be a review, since they know a lot about the subject … 3) an article can be a review since there is no difference between a feature article, a news story and a review. … (Can the back of the DVD be a review in your opinion ? Or the poster outside the cinema? You'll pardon me being ironic).
- If I've misrepresented any of your views, I apologise, perhaps you could correct me. But I think you are going to find that these views deviate somewhat from what most people - and Misplaced Pages - defines as a review. … … ps also I apologise for my 'small world' comment about BM, which wasn't helpful.
- Now important matters, can you explain to me WHY you thought you had consensus for inserting these reviews, since there was an admin. instruction that no changes were to be made to this section without consensus, and not only was there no consensus, nobody was allowed to see any of this before you translated, edited and inserted them ?Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with SDS's most recent edit (here:-) and think it's only fair to non-Serbian's that we should be able to read the whole review, in English, in order to assess WHAT it is, what is usable and what is a fair representation of what it says. I've said from the beginning that there MAY be usable stuff in these two but at the moment we are all 'at the mercy' of the only native level Serbian speaker amongst the editors (I think that is true, I may not know some editor's 'hidden talents'). Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Good and bad news: I just want it to be a matter of record, that there is NO consensus for the inclusion of ANY of the NSPM or Pecat material, editors have not been consulted about its inclusion IN ANY WAY. Also I think the 'one good one bad' formula should NOT dictate our editing decisions in the long run - we are required to be neutral, not to be 'fair' (if fair means we have to say one + one - alternately). ..... (that was the bad news)
However, I think SDS, made some good judgement calls in his edits yesterday, and since he & UV have 'voted with their edits', I also agree to Pecat staying, until we have had a chance to assess its worth and assess whether it has been appropriately edited. Also the 'one good one bad' formula allows us to move forward at present. I'm deciding this in order that we shouldn't go round and round in circles. ..... (that was the relatively good news) Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Re: prepositions/phrasing in Pecat article, the phrasing "Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in the reaping the benefits for foreigners as well" is clearly missing a preposition. Temporarily I have fixed by amending to 'of the benefits', also the original phrase translates as "the collection of the cream of/for foreigners". … … 1) I don't see why we need to alter the 'cream' phrase as it also works in English, though would read better as 'collecting the cream' … … 2) I am unclear (since prepositions do not translate reliably), whether the appropriate translation is 'of foreigners' (ie 'from') or 'for foreigners' (ie 'on behalf of').
- Having looked at the Pecat article, I would now say this ISN'T a review, (partly because it concerns itself more with the politics behind the film rather than the film itself), however it IS a response. Also I note it is 'Pecat online', (which I don't object to), but do we know if this was IN the magazine? Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- HOWEVER, the NSPM is neither a review nor a response, what little it says about the film, is EXPLICITLY quoting the 'Beldocs' (film festival) website. This piece is a 'chatty' account of a showing of the film. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest
WP:OUTING applies, any suggestions belong at WP:COIN or other places not here |
---|
Looking at UrbanVillager's edit history I see a possible conflict of interest. Comments. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: the above comment was inserted by UrbanVillager out-of-sequence with my post below. Note added by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Messy attribution in old reviews
Editor Tiptoethrutheminefield, left a (who) tag on some of the old 'Critical reasponse'. Quickly looking through the whole thing, it seems a problem goes back to here:- 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).
btw … I wasn't editing here at that time and was taking over a year's break from this page. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Socialist Standard Review
I'm reposting this from above, since it seems to have got lost there, it's just another review 'on the table' and if any content is used, it could perhaps be 'merged' with the Kilibarda paragraph, as he takes a very similar position on the film. … … "There is a recent review of this film, printed in the UK's Socialist Standard, the review is at :- , it was published January this year." Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with using this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- UrbanVillager, I'm 'mentioning' you again, in order to ask whether you still consider 'Socialist Standard' a usable source? I don't want to waste time trying to edit this, if you no longer think it is a RS, I'm NOT of course asking you to agree to specific text, merely to its use as a source. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-jigging Kilibarda review
Another possibility on the table is some re-jigging of Kilibarda. Although this is already posted above, it got lost, so I'm copying it to a new section here, next to Soc. Standard:-
- " There ARE positive elements to the Kilibarda, (which we aren't using). The problem is, that he is an academic giving detailed economic/political examples and arguments (acres of text), and I think, his OVERALL assessment is negative ('makes this film a very questionable enterprise' … from memory).
- If we could agree on a form of words such as 'KK, of McMaster Uni, while broadly sympathetic to the economic arguments of the film … …… continue approx. as now', and - if necessary - including the 'very questionable etc', to make clear his overall assessment. Anyway, we don't want (and can't have), acres of text from any reviewer." Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather than discussing possible wording, why not put in the wording you want, and if someone else disagrees, then discuss it here. If editors just choose to revert without discussion then they can and should be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ricky, you wrote some rather false things about the film. It doesn't start with the battle of Kosovo until about the 6th minute of the film. If you'd like to shorten the synopsis, that's fine, but can you please watch the film first? Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)