Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:42, 1 October 2014

Weight of Chains 2 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate & dead links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-stage edit

I have just performed a multi-stage edit.

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

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

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

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

|}

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

In what sense Canadian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think enough time has been wasted on this, but I intend to stick with it as it clearly indicates UrbanVillager's WP:ownership of this article, and that the ownership is being used to ensure that 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject of this discussion continues 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)

"The Weight of Chains" is a Canadian film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated removal of entire criticism section.

UrbanVillager,there was extensive discussion on talk last year about criticism, here: , 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

UrbanVillager, re your remark:- In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work … … 1). please draw my attention to where … … 2) One minute you claim to be an ordinary Joe who happens to follow BM's work, now (and quite often recently) you are suddenly an authority on film and festivals … … 3) I am happy to divulge to you my PROFESSIONAL involvement with the admin. of film festivals if you wish, but 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)