Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UrbanVillager (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 21 October 2012 (→"Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Film: Canadian Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.

Yugoslavia Start‑class Low‑importance

The Weight of Chains is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article received a tag for possible copyright violation, but the content, although listed on the web-site, is also in the press kit and was used for several online and print publications, so I reworded it a bit, but it's mostly pure information. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All the usual deadbeat Serb propagandists, even down to Trifkovic. This is clearly promotional material ahead of the release of the film rather than a genuine article about a film that is publicly viewable. Still, it's useful to have the article here as further evidence of the people Lewis MacKenzie likes hanging round with. Opbeith (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you have against Lewis MacKenzie? From the people I noticed were interviewed (look at the website) I really see people from different ends of the spectrum - Marko Franciskovic (Croatian nationalist who ran for President), members of Dubioza Kolektiv (who are for a unitary Bosnia), Joze Mencinger (Slovenian Minister of Economy), Veran Matic (CEO of B92, probably the most pro-Western Serb out there), etc, etc. Why don't you, like me, wait and see the film and then form an opinion about it? Besides, this isn't the first or only article about a film that hasn't been released yet, so would that make every article about an unreleased film 'promotional material' instead of a 'genuine article'? Come on, let's give it a chance, and then we'll comment on whether we think it's this or that. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Opbeith, who refers to public figures as "deadbeats," is not someone who should be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages pages at all. He has POV written all over his posts and edits, and he is harming the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages shouldn't have pages for movies that are not yet released?? What a statement... Tell that to Hollywood! --A.Molnar (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A.Molnar, as you're aware, Misplaced Pages does not deny editors the right to their private opinions as long as they restrict themselves to relevant factual treatment of the subject in articles. In fact some might consider "deadbeat" rather a neutral term to use for stars of the film like Srdja Trifkovic, categorised as a "a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;" Opbeith (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Being serious about the film, its nature is rather clearly signalled by the treatment of Srebrenica. Malagurski has apparently modified the soundtrack to include a brief acknowledgment that thousands of Bosniaks were killed and ethnically cleansed but challenges the legal findings about the nature of their death and emphasises the disproven claims of James Corwin that the number of the prisoners executed in the week following the fall of Srebrenica was no more than the number of Serbs killed in the villages surrounding Srebrenica during the entire course of the siege. Corwin's former UN credentials are highlighted without any mention of the content of the findings contained in the report of the UN's own official inquiry into the fall of Srebrenica and its rebuttal of claims concerning Serb deaths, eg at Kravica. Srdja Trifkovic, who was the spokesperson for the Bosnian Serb Presidency and spent much of the period during which the massacres were taking place at Presidency headquarters meeting with Radovan Karadzic and his advisers, is allowed to make highly contentious assertions unchallenged. From what I have seen of it this film does not provide an objective treatment and the content is disingenuously slanted in order to give an untrue picture. While participants such as Lewis MacKenzie have shown their willingness to speak out forcefully and publicly on other matters, they have shown no desire to comment on the integrity of the film they have chosen to associate themselves with. Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith, there are no "stars" in a documentary film. Furthermore, please give a significant reference for your claim that Malagurski modified the soundtrack, no original research please. I've seen Malagurski's film in its full length, and nothing is different in the film from the clip that was posted on YouTube. The film showed both sides of the argument, even Srdja's main argument was based on claims by Bosnian Muslims. Also, who's James Corwin? Malagurski mentioned Philip Corwin, there's no James in there. Keep your facts straight.

Your arguments about why you don't agree with claims in this film are better said on a private website or blog, or better yet, I suggest you contact Malagurski about it and tell him how you feel. But to come here to Misplaced Pages and troll about how the participants have no desire to comment on the film is unacceptable. How do you even know that the participants have seen the film? From the film's website, we can see that it hasn't even been released in Eastern Canada yet, where most of the interviewees live. It's not even relevant unless they make a statement that confirms or denies your claims. Maybe you should write to them and ask them to make public statements. In any case, at this point these discussions do not have a place on Misplaced Pages and I suggest you take your frustrations elsewhere. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, my mistake, you're quite right, it was Philip Corwin, not James, I was thinking of a James at the same time.

You're also quite right that there are no "stars" in a documentary film. I thought you might have surmised that I was referring to the participants generally in the same way as you referred to Lewis MacKenzie's role in Weight of Chains - he "stars" in the film - when you inserted it directly in the MacKenzie article.

For all your confidence in laying down the law about practice at Misplaced Pages you don't seem to have much idea of the distinction between a Talk page and an Article. To remind you, on a Talk page relevant background information can be discussed without the discussion being subject to the same rigorous criteria that apply in the article.

If you're familiar with the laying down of the soundtrack and can assure me that it wasn't modified, I'll have to take your word for it. I'm simply saying that it sounded modified to me. Raising the question is legitimate.

You humph and harrumph and slip past the substantive issues, like Malagurski's failure to give Corwin's and "prescribed principal officer" Trifkovic's observations proper objective presentation. Is it "trolling" to mention these inadequacies on the Talk page? You seem quite sensitive when these issues are raised.

If you can tell me what identity Boris Malagurski is currently using on Misplaced Pages I'd be very happy to discuss his film with him here. As long as he's not exposing himself to claims of conflict of interest by modifying the text of the article himself I have no problem engaging in free and open discussion with him. Opbeith (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contact Malagurski to express your thoughts about the film. By the way, have you even seen the film? --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you tell me that was Original Research? Opbeith (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You're already commenting your personal opinions on the film, while I suspect that you haven't even seen it. But you're right, let's not discuss opinions anymore. --UrbanVillager (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Srdja Trifkovic's back-story

Urban Villager, I added brief details of Srdja Trifkovic's role as unofficial spokesperson for the Bosnian Serbs' Republika Srpska before during and after the killings at Srebrenica genocide because they seemed relevant here, given Trifkovic's prominent appearance in the segment of The Weight of Chains dealing with Srebrenica (per the Srebrenica clip from TWOC posted at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1Yc2aMY1M).

Trifkovic makes no secret these days of his role advising the authorities in Republika Srpska about how to present themselves and their case to the international public - when he appeared before the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in 2008, giving evidence for the defence of Ljubisa Beara, ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in genocide, he was happy to describe the way he had busied himself translating press releases in the office of the Bosnian Serb Presidency http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/trans/en/080904ED.htm. He publicly acknowledges his role as consultant to Biljana Plavsic (convicted war criminal) and Radovan Karadzic (on trial charged with genocide).

Given that the subject of the film is the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, Trifkovic's close involvement with the group whose secession was the cause of the outbreak of the Bosnian War is highly relevant, perhaps rather more so than the details of Lewis MacKenzie's medals you considered warranted including in the summary cast list. So why do you delete the information that I added, without explanation? Is it that raw fact is uncomfortable to accommodate in your efforts to dissimulate the reality of this propaganda film? Mr Malagurski was clearly not unaware of Trifkovic's background.

The modest young man self-styled by the new trailer for The Weight of Chains as "the Serbian MichEel Moore" was at Vancouver Airport waiting to escort Trifkovic to the Serbian Students Society meeting at UBC where Trifkovic was expected to give a reprise of his notorious talk to the Providence College Rhode Island Youth for Western Civilisation and expressed (rather mild) outrage that Trifkovic was being denied his right to free speech.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhKkv0Ezd6w

As Trifkovic complained to the Gates of Vienna blog, he was refused entry to Canada because of his position as a "prescribed senior official" who had served with a government responsible for war crimes, under the provisions of Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/02/canada-feels-heat.html

The Canadian government considered that Trifkovic was inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of the service he had given the Bosnian Serb government, found responsible for genocide by international courts at the very highest level. So when this article describes this film as a "Canadian perspective", Trifkovic's own unacceptability in Canada certainly casts an interesting sidelight on the involvement of Canadian luminaries such as Gen MacKenzie and former ambassador Bissett. But that's by the by. The purpose of all this is to reassure you that I am very clear that the extra information that you deleted without explanation is important to this article and to the reader's appreciation of the film. Opbeith (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the information you added can stay. Bear in mind that an interviewee in a documentary doesn't necessarily share the same views as everyone else interviewed in the documentary. I'm sure you understand that Veran Matic and Branislav Lecic don't have the same views as Srdja Trifkovic or Scott Taylor, etc. who were all interviewed in the film. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The film certainly includes a number of interviews with individuals who worked in an honest and dedicated way to preserve the harmony of a multiethnic Yugoslavia. I wonder whether the film's maker has shown them how their contributions have been used in the film and its narrative? Has Mr Malagurski returned to Veran Matic, for example, and checked with him whether he is entirely happy with the way in which the interview he granted Malagurski has been used? And have all the interviewees been able to comment on how their views were incorporated into the film's narrative? Opbeith (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to article

The production section information is taken from one source...which happens to be from the weightofchains website. The interviewees section has no reference to it. And the synopsis doesn't say anything about a "Canadian perspective" and even if it was true, it'd be only ONE canadian perspective, not THE canadian perspective, and the link for the synopsis redirects you to another site that shows you nothing of the information posted in the synopsis section. If these don't call for the necessary changes, i don't know what does.Sleetman (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleetman, it's obvious this article is intended to promote a piece of propaganda. Under pressure UrbanVillager has modified some of the more clearly photocopied sections of the press pack but with no obvious intent to produce an objective article about the subject.

Malagurski is Canadian when it suits him, Serbian when it suits him. In addition to his activities as an organiser of Serbian nationalist activities in Vancouver and abroad, he has a history at Misplaced Pages of Serb nationalist activity and tricksiness. If this film is a genuine Canadian perspective on the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, it's hard to see why it has attracted such minimal attention in the Canadian media beyond the efforts of Malagurski's Canadian sponsor, Michel Chossudovsky's anti-Nato/pro-Serbian Center for Research on Globalisation.

Even anyone unfamiliar with the background of the majority of the film's interviewees - well-known/notorious Serb apologists like Srdja Trifkovic, Canadian supporters of the Belgrade interpretation of recent history like James Bissett, Michel Chossudovsky and Lewis MacKenzie and a collection of American fellow travellers like Lituchy, Parenti, etc. - would get a fairly clear indication of where the film was coming from if you looked at the list of his backers at http://www.weightofchains.com/sponsors.html and read the media coverage quoted at the film's website http://www.weightofchains.com/press.html (if you don't understand B/C/S an automated translator like Google Translate will give you a reasonable idea of the content). That bias is not touched on by UrbanVillager in his/her article.

UrbanVillager's style is rather familiar, from the time a few years ago, in the period before the International Court of Justice decision, when Serb nationalists such as "Laughing Man" were busy with Malagurski trying to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for their misrepresentation of events during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia. UrbanVillager's determination elsewhere to ensure that Malagurski is seen as a Canadian film-maker rather than a Serbian nationalist is inconsistent with the reality of Malagurski's activities, including his close association with Radovan Karadzic's spokesperson Srdja Trifkovic and his outrage on Canadian television that Trifkovic might be identified by the Canadian government as a collaborator with war criminals.

The evidence suggests to me that UrbanVillager is reverting your changes in bad faith.Opbeith (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the article UrbanVillager cites as a reference source - http://www.vesti-online.com/Dijaspora/drzava/Kanada/Vesti/127741/Okovi-raspada-bivse-Jugoslavije - for the list of the film's interviewees features a photograph of Malagurski standing in front of the Clinton statue in Pristina giving the Serb nationalist three finger salute. The article reports Malagurski's "painfully sobering" discovery that the Kosovo Albanians have realised that their liberation from Serb rule was actually a process of colonisation. It seems unlikely that the majority of ordinary people on the street in Pristina would express themselves to a known Serb nationalist in this way. It would be useful if UrbanVillager could provide some reference sources about how the film-maker selected interviewees, conducted interviews and edited the material that might explain the counter-intuitive results. Perhaps UrbanVillager is now able to explain why the film was withdrawn abruptly from its showing at the Kustendorf International Film and Music Festival as the article reports.Opbeith (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A piece of advice to Opbeith, and Urban Villager : get a room boys!! 109.245.147.143 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

UrbanVillager, your very recent expansion of the "Synopsis" section is less than comprehensive in the way it deals with some of the issues touched on or avoided by the film. Your reference to the film's treatment of the issue of ethnic cleansing refers to the distress of Serb villagers as their "Muslim" (?Bosniak) neighbours left. Does the film indicate the whereabouts of this village and the reasons the departing villagers gave for leaving? Your synopsis makes no mention of the film's treatment of genocide and war crimes and in particular to the way it represents the events at Srebrenica that are key to understanding the nature of the Serb project. Your synopsis appears to offers us Hamlet without the Prince. The film's treatment of Srebrenica may offer us some insight into its objectivity and the innocence or otherwise of Mr Malagurski's cinematographic activities.Opbeith (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the film? --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was you who was providing the Synopsis?Opbeith (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How about you discuss topics that you actually know something about? This is an article about the film and how the film presents the breakup of Yugoslavia -- not an article about the breakup of Yugoslavia. The film can be one-sided if it wants to, so give it a rest. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not in fact talking about the break-up of Yugoslavia or even about the film and its purposes, what I'm referring to is the accuracy of your synopsis. Apart from it being unreferenced - hence the Original Research that you appeared to find so unacceptable previously - the synopsis appears to be selective and inaccurate. You're trying to give the film a personal write-up that gives it a misleading air of objectivity. By all means write an article about the film but don't use the article to make the film out to be something other than it is. Opbeith (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, will you please say whether or not you have any connection with the making of this film, its distribution or publicity for it? Your interventions here have not been straightforward and this synopsis you have inserted gives even more cause for concern that have an interest here. Do you have any connection with User:LaughingMan or with User-Malagurski or User:BorisMalagurski or any of the other muliple former manifestations of the film's director during the period when he was busy attempting to manipulate Misplaced Pages in the past? Opbeith (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm not sure what your problem with Urban Villager is, but from your own edit history, I can see that you're using Misplaced Pages to propagate a pro-Bosnian Muslim view on the 90s and it's quite inappropriate for you to pretend to be a 'neutral voice' in this whole issue. Are you a member of the Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada perhaps? Who are you representing on Misplaced Pages? And I have the same question as Urban Villager -- have you even seen this film? --109.121.66.133 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

109.121.66.133, I'm not propagating any "view" on the 90s, simply seeking to ensure that the content of Misplaced Pages articles on the subject of the Bosnian war of 1992-1995 is not distorted away from the findings of international courts and commissions of inquiry, in particular by proponents of the Serb nationalist viewpoint. As I assume you are well aware this is an area in which Boris Malagurski was very active at Misplaced Pages not all that long ago - neither UrbanVillager nor yourself seem anxious to address this issue.

I am certainly not neutral as far as attempts to misrepresent the verifiable truth about genocide and other war crimes are concerned and make no pretence otherwise. Certainly I am aware that supporters of the Serb nationalist position do not consider the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the United Nations, the most prominent international human rights organisations and prominent scholars of international humanitarian law to be neutral. I'm happy to rest my neutrality or otherwise alongside theirs. I am not in fact representing anyone other than myself and, hopefully, anyone else who considers the use of Misplaced Pages to promote misleading portrayals of human rights abuses on a massive and monstrous scale inappropriate.

In particular I am not a member of the Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada though I am familiar with the Institute's activities and I am well aware of the Institute's complaints to the Canadian authorities when Boris Malagurski's associate Srdja Trifkovic was invited to address the Serbian Students Association at the University of British Columbia. As I am aware of Malagurski's outrage on Canadian television at Vancouver airport when he tried to welcome Trifkovic to Canada and the Canadian authorities' refused to allow Trifkovic entry into Canada on the basis of what Trifkovic acknowledged to be his work on behalf of the Bosnian Serb government (falling within the scope of the Canadian Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act). And I'm aware too of the media campaign that was then directed against the Institute by Trifkovic's and James Bissett's Lord Byron Foundation and internet "denial of service" attacks carried out against the Institute.

No, I haven't seen the entire film but I have seen the trailers that Malagurski has released, including the trailer featuring the film's segment on Srebrenica which UrbanVillager seems reluctant to discuss or even acknowledge in his synopsis (a synopsis that he is reluctant to acknowledge as "original research" but doesn't choose to provide alternative sources for). Since the genocide at Srebrenica is central to one of the film's main concerns - "the division of the ethnic groups within Yugoslavia" - it's legitimate to ask someone familiar with the film like UrbanVillager how the film deals with the topic and to ask why UrbanVillager has omitted it from the synopsis.

Of course I have a problem with UrbanVillager when his interventions here tend in one direction. It is hard to escape the impression that he wants to bolster the appearance of objectivity that Malagurski has sought to give the film while at the same time promoting a very particular interpretation of his subject. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by pretending that I have no viewpoint on UrbanVillager. The synopsis effort and the blustering about unsubstantiated screenings simply confirm the impression that here as at other articles he is doing his best to promote Malagurski and his films. Please correct me if I am mistaken, your current interventions suggest that you may be in a position to comment. It seems a reasonable guess that you are in contact with UrbanVillager, so could you please remind him of my question: "UrbanVillager, will you please say whether or not you have any connection with the making of this film, its distribution or publicity for it?".Opbeith (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'll keep it short and sweet. You say it's legitimate to ask someone familiar with the film how the film deals with the topic. Um, how about just seeing the film yourself? I mean, you obviously have a prejudice towards the film without even seeing the whole thing, and whatever I write here, you'll dismiss as "Serbian expansionist nationalist genocidal extremist terrorist" propaganda, so what's the point... Simply put, don't comment on something you haven't even seen -- the film is 2 hours long, get some popcorn, make a movie night, and that'll answer some of the questions you have. And stop asking me personal questions, I don't work for Malagurski or anyone connected to this film! --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, it is not a personal question to ask you if you are connected with the film when you have provided the bulk of the content of the article either from the producer's own materials or as a personal account of the film's content. The form of words that you use avoids answering my question. Opbeith (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've answered all questions regarding the topic of this article. All personal issues should be addressed outside of this talk page and preferably Misplaced Pages as well. Stop trolling, thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that in the market research industry they use the expression "So shall I take that as a Yes, then?". Don't worry, I have no interest in your personal issues, all I am after is straightforward answers to questions of relevance to your contributions to this article. Opbeith (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you connected with the film? I'm not interested in whether you're employed by Malagurski, I simply want to know whether you are involved with the film in any capacity and it's very hard to get an answer from you. It should be easy enough to say No if that's the case. Opbeith (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not connected with the film. I thought I made myself clear on that. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The other problem that needs to be dealt with is whether the synopsis that you have come up with is accurate. I don't see any reliable sources cited. Instead I see the section on Srebrenica which Malagurski considered important enough to post to YouTube completely omitted from your synopsis. If the film is as its purported to be about responsibility for ethnic division in the former Yugoslavia, Srebrenica and the issue of genocide is of central importance. So one assumes that it is dealt with in the film but you have chosen not to refer to it in the synopsis. You are the person writing this article, not me, so please don't stall by telling me to grab some popcorn. Is Srebrenica referred to in the film or has the section been deleted? If it is still in the film, why are you offering a defective synopsis? Opbeith (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A synopsis is called a synopsis because it offers a short overlook of the film, and doesn't include every single detail. You make personal assumptions that Malagurski considered the Srebrenica segment important for the film, while it could very well be possible that it was so unimportant that he didn't feel the need to 'surprise' the audience in the film, but rather put it out there to attract attention. Which one is it? Only Malagurski knows. Furthermore, Srebrenica takes up about 2 minutes from the 124 minutes of the film (how important it must be!), and I know your main purpose on Misplaced Pages is to promote Bosniak interests in regards to Srebrenica (this is quite evident from your one and only infobox, as well as your contributions), but this is not the place to do it, so please stop trolling and give it a rest. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A synopsis includes the important details. If the Srebrenica segment was one of three Malagurski from the film considered worth YouTubing, and Malagurski thought it would attract attention to the film as you suggest, that might not be unconnected with the fact that, as the worst crime committed on European soil since World War II in the words of the UN Secretary General, the genocidal murders at Srebrenica are considered by most people to be key to understanding the factors involved in the "ethnic division" of Yugoslavia which is the film's subject.

You say that Srebrenica is dealt with in 2 minutes. Srdjka Trifkovic and Philip Corwin account for a substantial chunk of that. So it seems unlikely that Malagurski has devoted any significant time to the mainstream view of what Srebrenica signified - ie the intent on the part of the Serb nationalists to permanently remove any other ethnic group from the Drina Valley and eliminate the border between "Republika Srpska" and Serbia. If that's the case, the film seems likely either to be a trivialisation of its subject matter or simply propaganda. You seem unable to understand how your reluctance to deal with this issue seriously communicates the serious message that you are trying to avoid reporting any serious analysis of the film. As you are very well aware, Misplaced Pages isn't a vehicle for self-publication. The film has now been shown to the Serb diaspora in Sydney, Toronto and Washington. If it has any notability there should be some mainstream media reviews to reference to as well as your own little essay. Instead of telling me to stop trolling you should start thinking of some serious answers to the questions that I have asked. Opbeith (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God, you keep talking about politics. This is an article about a movie, and you can't discuss whether what it covered was accurate or one-sided or whatever - it is an alternative view on what happened and what's happening and the movie lists its sources. From what I saw, Malagurski did mention that Ratko Mladic overran Srebrenica, with thousands of Muslims killed and ethnically cleansed - isn't that the mainstream view on Srebrenica? Besides, I'm not going to debate Srebrenica with you on a movie talk page, especially because the main topic of this film is the colonization of Yugoslavia. If you don't agree with the film (which, by the way, you confessed to not even seeing), that's your problem, and if you don't like what's said in the movie - again, that's your problem. And for the last time, the movie lists sources for its information, so it's not up to me, who's not even part of this film project, to explain anything to you. I simply wrote down what the film covers, as I've seen the film. My goal here is not to promote what the film claims, but to write down what the film claims. This is why I used "The film explains..." and "The film discusses" a lot. So please keep your anti-Serb views at home, stop trolling, and start contributing to the article constructively, as you did with the Kustendorf edit. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand that what we're talking about is the adequacy of your article about the film, and politics is relevant in the sense that this is a political film which you seem determined to write about in a less than straightforward way - as per your reference to Srebrenica, where you seem unwilling to give an accurate summary of the balance of the film's content, with its reliance on Trifkovic's and Corwin's analyses. But as I say, that is simply an example of where you are not reliable. Please provide support for your account of the film's content. Opbeith (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Apologies - I have just deleted my reference to the question about your connection with the film - I hadn't seen that you'd interpolated an answer between the two parts of a previous post - my mistake. Opbeith (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Urban villager (who I believe has been responsible for writing some of the page), repeatedly says "This is an article about a movie, and you can't discuss whether what it covered was accurate or one-sided or whatever - it is an alternative view on what happened" .

Now I find this line of logic strange.... I thought that the film intended itself to be taken seriously as a documentary ..... Now we have it from the mouth of the man writing the page, that balance, accuracy and verifiability of the content of the film is irrelevant.

We are elsewhere urged by UrbanVillager to get some popcorn before watching (personally, when I watch a documentary I prefer to lay in a six-pack of critical faculty, scepticism and a few reminders of the known facts .... but each to his own I suppose).

I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote from early on in this section - "The film can be one-sided if it wants to, so give it a rest. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)". The authority has spoken. Opbeith (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, Goodwin's law states that whoever mentions the Nazis in an argument first automatically loses whatever debate was in progress. Everything that was said in this film was supported by solid references, most of them Western (such as the 1984 National Security Decisions Directive 133 and US Foreign Operations Appropriations Act from 1990), with interviews by mostly Westerners commenting Western involvement in the breakup of Yugoslavia, plus some Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian and Slovenian interviewees. This is Misplaced Pages, not an internet forum, so please either bring some solid references concerning this film, or take your opinions elsewhere. Thanks! --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, actually Goodwin's Law does not say that, but thanks for the link. ..... Unless it was not clear, I was comparing NO-ONE to the Nazis. Merely choosing an example, which we are probably all likely to broadly agree about to make the point that it is very easy to be totally intellectually dishonest and to risk being totally morally bankrupt in any 'factual account' (documentary, news report history book), simply by selecting the facts which one includes ... integrity does not lie in simply having verifiable sources for what you DO say. Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts.

I am also genuinely puzzled by the logic which sems able to switch between 'Its a documentary presenting an alternative view', (which implicity deserves to be taken seriously) and 'It's a movie, put your feet up' (I paraphrase various comments). Either one set of criteria or the other need to apply, particularly given the seriousness of the topic.

Since this page is meant to be comments about the wiki-page, rather than simply the merits of the film or the rights and wrongs of the war. I will end with, what I believe is a valid criticism of the page. Why are there no references or links to any criticisms of the film? Only to (mainly Serbian) sites that praise the film or repeat its press releases.

BTW, for the record, I'm an Englishman with no connection to anybody or anything in former Yugoslavia. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, this article is basically a joke played by someone who's just a bit too clever for his own long-term good. It's put together by Malagurski and friends, the only people who would have dared imagine they could get away with it. But when the bona fides of the acolytes were referred to the experts of Misplaced Pages UrbanVillager was given a clean bill of health, so we have no choice but to behave as if the article is a sort of legitimate summary rather than the interest-conflicted puff for a piece of blatant propaganda we might imagine it to be. An objective documentary that leaves Srebrenica to Trifkovic and Corwin? - Malagurski's pretty upfront about where he's coming from. If only Veran Matic had got round to publishing what he thought when he realised Malagurski had played him for a dummy. But all that said, UrbanVillage you still need to get rid of all that unreferenced self-generated stuff in the Synopsis section. Opbeith (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, thanks I understand your feelings and admire the dignity with which you have attempted to defend the integrity of Misplaced Pages and your own moral position, most particularly the 'I am certainly not neutral ...'section. I have myself just removed a rather foolish and feeble joke I tacked onto my comment yesterday. I was myself led to this page by following a comment trail from a download site of this film (the comment was of the 'If you want to know the REAL truth watch this film' kind). I was fairly disconcerted when I got to the page by some apparent dis-information and paricularly by the absence of any mention of the criticisms and charges made against the film. That absence, I believe, deprives the uncommitted reader of any context in which to form his own judgement.

I cannot escape the feeling that those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it could be an extremely dangerous corner. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-modernism?

Quote: "The Weight of Chains is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. ... This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale."

Delusions of grandeur or what? Is Malagurski starting to slip the surly bounds of Earth? Are there truly no limits to his genius/capacity for self-promotion/manipulation of Misplaced Pages? At this rate "The Weight of Chains" is going to end up some sort of masterpiece of the modern cinema. The spirit of Piero Manzoni has inspired a kinetic memorial! Opbeith (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see an adjustment reflecting life in the real world! Opbeith (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Changes like this are not vandalism. They may pose a neutrality problem, but hey, so do most edits around here. bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded this. Bob, you have to search for compromise, and stop project wide slow motion edit warring. Urban, you suppose to raise the question on talk, and not just revert back. --WhiteWriter 13:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is less bad, but it is still impossible to reconcile with Serbian constitutional law. bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Serbian constitutional law?? Who cares about that here? This is article about film. --WhiteWriter 15:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The change you made is about the actual history of Kosovo and Serbia. The change you made is impossible to reconcile with Serbian constitutional law. If you are now changing your position and feel that this article shouldn't mention it, I will happily remove the the spurious historical claims - this article already has a WP:COATRACK problem, after all. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with WhiteWriter, we must stick to what the film is discussing and not get into a political debate here. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you agree, why are you using this article to push an alternate view of history? &c. I find it frustrating that comments on the talkpage are so different from actions in the article. And why do you continue to label good-faith edits as vandalism? bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the first link: No reference. No grammar. Forum-like style. Obvious bias. Obvious vandalism. But the "no reference" part is enough. Find me a credible reference that makes such claims and we can talk. I already explained everything in regards to the second link, but if you're so bent on changing that, how about we just take that part out altogether? So that there's no "Kosovo's re-accession into Serbia's sovereignty in 1912" nor "Serbia's conquest of Kosovo in 1912", even though there is a consensus to leave the first option, I'm willing to agree to remove it, I'm a cooperative person :) Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am responsible for the first edit (which Bobrayner kindly labelled 'non-vandalism). I apologise for the typos and any shortcomings in grammar or style.

However, I am curious as to what EXACTLY I must provide evidence of, in order that the substance of my edit be included. That Kosovan Albanians were deprived of the rights accorded to other nationalities, even in Tito's time? That they were systematically driven out of Kosovo in their thousands by the Serbian 'army'? That the film does not mention these facts ? .... OR .... that the film is therefore selective and lacks objectivity or credibility?

The first two assertions I am happy to provide HIGHLY credible sources for ... the last I would be happy to amend the wording of to something more neutral, e.g 'the film has been criticised for etc...'. I am also curious as to what my supposed 'obvious bias' is, but will leave that matter aside.

I am also perplexed by the 'no reference' logic. Is it seriously being suggested that were a film to come out about Nixon which did not mention Watergate, Misplaced Pages would not be able to note the omission ? Would Misplaced Pages simply repeat all the nice stuff in it, cuddling babies and patting dogs?

There are of course other substantive omissions in this film discussed elsewhere on this page. Therefore, the principle of whether these omissions are to be noted, albeit in more neutral language than my initial post, seems to me to be critical.Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, this is where knowing how to play the Misplaced Pages game comes in. Misplaced Pages is not about real world truth but about verifiability and reliable sources. It's not really important that there are omissions from the film, the problem is that "reliable sources" haven't mentioned those omissions. Malagurski gives an interview - his version is reported and becomes verifiable. No newspaper worth its salt thinks it's worth criticising - there's no reliable source containing criticism that can be cited. Voila. (Of course, even if you find a source that cites the omissions someone is sure to remind you of the Misplaced Pages policy that tells you that particular source is unreliable or not notable or disqualified in some way or another and suddenly there'll be a collective term of contributors turning up to show that the consensus agrees that there's no consensus for its acceptance.) It's important not to roll over dead, but it's best to be aware what lies in store. Opbeith (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, till you can get another interview to cite, all that imaginative stuff in your Synopsis will have to come out, it's simply your rosy-eyed gloss on the content. Opbeith (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, Pinecrete, are either of you aware of what a synopsis is? It's just a description of what is said in the film. It's not a lesson in history or politics. The film itself is the reference for a synopsis, as there are no views on the film, but a mere description of the content. If you want to talk about the controversy that the film might have sparked, feel free to add a section called "Controversy" and add text that is supported by solid sources (i.e. not by unknown internet forum bloggers like Zijad Burgic or whatever his name is), and Misplaced Pages will always fully support the addition of criticism on any topic published in reliable and relevant books, print media or other renowned media sources. Opbeith, I understand your frustration, I too think the film is one-sided in some respects, but that's just my opinion that has absolutely no merit when it comes to the article. If you feel like there should be sources of the type that Misplaced Pages recognizes that criticize the film, maybe you could get in touch with some relevant Croatian, Bosnian or Albanian media sources, send them information about the film and see if they'd be interested in writing columns or articles about the film and in case they decide to write negative reviews, then we could add that to counter the sources that speak positively about the film. I think that would make it justifiable to add the "Controversy" section that I mentioned, because at this point, from what I've seen, there's no official negative stance about the film provided by a single media source of the type that Misplaced Pages considers as relevant. E-novine posted the story by blogger Zijad Burgic after he wrote it on his blog, but they can't be considered a secondary source since they don't have a print edition and their reliability is completely diminished if they simply pick up blog posts and put them on their website. They're nothing more than a blog. If we see Jutarnji List, Dnevni Avaz, or Koha Ditore write a negative review of the film, then we have something solid. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of disgruntled Misplaced Pages users that simply don't like the politics in the film and want to impose their opinions on the article. This is especially true of Pincrete, who came to Misplaced Pages just to talk about this film, obviously not realizing that this is not an internet forum, but rather an encyclopedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, it's hard to see how your synopsis is any less of a primary source than Zijad Burgic's piece describing the film (I think there was a link to the original here before you deleted it but it's reproduced at http://bosniagenocide.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/full-review-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-weight-of-chains%E2%80%9D-2010/ ). In other circumstances a personal synopsis might not be controversial, but the article you have constructed frames this film as an objective documentary, so in the absence of any reliable third party perspective your synopsis is essentially a restatement of Malagurski's contentious viewpoint - ie just repeating propaganda.

On a separate point, thanks for your comment about Pincrete's involvement - you're always good for a laugh, in particular with your reference to imposing opinions on the article and the notion that the Misplaced Pages process has actually created something here that might reasonably be described as "encyclopaedic". Malagurski has shown in the past that he knows how to use Misplaced Pages to serve both his own interests and those of the Serbian Ministry of the Diaspora and Misplaced Pages has shown that it is simply incapable of keeping up with him. It's interesting to see how you impose your own characterisation of Pincrete's perfectly reasonable dissatisfaction with this miserable and misleading piece in order to discredit his questioning of its "encyclopaedic" credentials. What he has in fact done is to describe how disturbed he was by the promotion of the film he found elsewhere on the internet, how he came here for objective information and how he as an outsider found the article so inadequate. His comments should be cause for concern to any honest editor rather than the opportunity for a put-down. Opbeith (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?'

UrbanVillager, are you planning a follow-up new article about "Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?" http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/09/fracturing-serbia-vojvodina-next-powder-keg

It appears that Malagurski has abandoned Canada and returned to Belgrade for good, so to speak, and he has now turned his forensic analytical skills on his own home province of Vojvodina - whose autonomy in the former Yugoslavia was removed, like Kosova's - by Slobodan Milosevic. The new film is quite a bit shorter than "The Weight of Chains" but perhaps once you're no longer a student you don't have quite so much spare time on your hands.

I came across a review in Slobodna Vojvodina by Milos Podbarčanin of Boris's new blockbuster, "Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?" ("Rastakajuća Srbija: Da li je Vojvodina sledeće bure baruta?") - http://www.slobodnavojvodina.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1320:vojvodina-sa-teinom-lanaca&catid=36:drustvo&Itemid=56. Milos Podbarčanin reports that Boris Malagurski has recorded another Greater Serbia propaganda documentary. For some reason Podbarčanin, Slobodna Vojvodina's political commentator, is a little underwhelmed by the piece and even seems rather suspicious of it. He considers Boris's account of "secessionism" in Vojvodina a rather one-sided expression of an official Serbian point of view. He describes how Boris relies once again on the "wholehearted support and assistance" of the notorious Greater Serbia propagandists Srdja Trifkovic and John Bosnich - names that crop up so frequently in Boris's life and oeuvre - in his attempt to persuade the world that Vojvodina is an inseparable part of Greater Serbia.

Reflecting on Boris's enthusiasm for "conspiracy theories" about the involvement of unacknowledged forces in the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, he suggests that the origins, role and backers of Boris's Canadian-registered Serbian Youth Community organisation, closely associated with what he describes as the notorious "Kosovo je srce Srbije" ("Kosovo is the heart of Serbia") organised by Vojislav Kostunica, might bear equally close examination. He suggests that the support Malagurski's activities receive from the media, diplomatic bodies and even the Orthodox Church is possible only because of the involvement of the Serbian secret service, in whose name and for whose account he says that Boris Malagurski works. He considers that the one unanswered question in all of this is the role of Global Research TV.

Interesting stuff on the face of it. I presume you'll be able to read the Podbarčanin article or get one of your contacts/associates here like Tadija to translate it. Perhaps you could give us your comments. Opbeith (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that Slobodna Vojvodina photoshopped a "BIA" badge, probably trying to prove that Malagurski works for BIA - Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge, and aside from the fact that the author's name, Miloš Podbarčanin, is actually fake, as the last name Podbarčanin doesn't really exist (try typing it in Google and only Miloš will pop up with a few of "his" articles on Slobodna Vojvodina), the website is basically an opinionated blog with absolutely no merit on Misplaced Pages. It's interesting that another "person" who writes "articles" for the website is Lazar Rotkvarac, probably also a fake name, as the Vojvodinian city of Novi Sad has two parts of the town called Rotkvarija and Podbara. Opbeith, I'd suggest you stop looking blogs that make wild accusations about Malagurski based on absolutely no facts (in fact, I believe Malagurski could sue the website for slander, as they accuse him of working for BIA with absolutely no evidence), and try finding actual media sources like Dnevnik ("Slobodna Vojvodina" redirects there, since it's the original name of that newspaper), Jutarnji list, Dnevni avaz, Koha Ditore, Politika, Blic, RTS, HRT, FTV, BN, etc. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class Canadian cinema articles
• Canadian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Start-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Low-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles