This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobrayner (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 23 June 2014 (→Weight of Chains 2 ?: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:46, 23 June 2014 by Bobrayner (talk | contribs) (→Weight of Chains 2 ?: agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Weight of Chains article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Weight of Chains article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Archived Material
A considerable amount of relevant discussion on this film has been archived to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains/Archive_1
I'm not sure why as much of it is younger than material retained here … I think it would be of interest to anyone joining the discussion.Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Glad it's archived, just tried to read it. Three or four editors going round and round in circles. A film like this is never going to be to everybody's taste. I appreciate some say it leaves out relevant issues which would make a difference though those arn't the important factors as the movie is made not to retell the breakup story but the decency of the people: all sides are criticised in the movie. And with the target of the film being the West, you can see why much actual information taking place in wartime Yugoslavia was never reported by the mainstream media loyal to their benefactors. That's why I added the link, Malagurski himself often rebuts the criticism levelled with him. Staro Gusle (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
As one of the "three or four editors who were going round and round in circles", I would just like to say that it was not the point of view of the film to which I objected, it was its total dishonesty and use of almost wholly discredited sources. Why Staro Gusle should think that the entire (largely politically free and well funded) mainstream media should have got everything wrong, whilst the (totally partisan, politically muzzled and underfunded) local media got their analysis right is a bit of a puzzle to me ..... I'm sure there is much that the rest of the world did not understand, however this film does nothing useful to enlighten us, simply repeats ancient rumours and hearsay (and some outright lies) AS IF THEY WERE FACT!Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I am removing the Malagurski statement link as it adds nothing useful about the film and only serves the purpose of making this page even more of an ad for the film than it already was (most of the content of the page is, or was a direct copy from the film's website, including typos, bad grammar and incorrect use of words). Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Intersting point you have there on the press. Of course I would personally never say media in the former Yugoslavia has ever "got everything right" (and in times of conflict, they contradicted each other anyway, my side, your side) because there has always been a propaganda machine and it will never go away. And indeed the "politically free and well funded" media is also right about a lot. In my experience it has never been the actual content that has been the problem but rather the way it has been reported, and to what a journalist/reporter draws particular attention. But the quoted marks could provoke an essay if an analyst was to respond properly. In layman's terms, a medium could be "free" or "well funded" but together is a contradiction in terms. If he is funded, he is funded for a reason, and the person funding him is cetainly not doing so for his employee to give him the facts he doesn't want to hear. Likewise, there may be no "financial" pressure on a reporter, so it must be realised that "free to report" = "free to tell lies", simple equation. By the same principle, partisan state news in a dictatorship wouldn't necessarily have to lie, particularly if the propaganda boost came courtesy of the real facts which in conflict, can and does happen on some things. I believe those who say that this film doesn't appeal outside of its core audience but if an outsider used to Fox News is to watch it, it is nice to know he will see the other side to what he has been fed. PS. I have watched the film. Zetatrans (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
How did this debate spring up?? I was only raising attention to the bitching and bickering which seemed to go on for months if not over a year. @Zetatrans. What you're saying is patently obvious but what is the point discussing a hypothetical scenario? I wasn't talking about one specific incident and for each there is a separate assessment. What was the issue, who reported it, what did they say, what do other publishers say, what do eyewitnesses for mainsteam sources say as opposed to the same for the other side. Even blogs, what do they say? Combine it and the reader makes his own mind up, but without one case to speak of, the overview is pointless. @Pincrete. I must ask you not to remove the Malagurski statement please, it really does fit onto the article and taking it off cannot make it better. With resentment in certain quarters which nobody can deny, it is only fair to have the director's reply to his detractors. The other thing is that the film very much enlightens people, especially those with open minds who hitherto only got the picture from the mainstream. Watching it you realise how spin can be used and how the nature of these mainstream soundbites can be manipulated to narrow the range of thought thus preventing ordinary people from venturing near the protected areas of knowledge. Staro Gusle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that. The suggestion that people watching Fox know more about what is happening on the ground of a state-run media territory is absurd. I was born and grew up in Montenegro so was there for full duration of all Yugoslav wars, it is not as if people could not travel and talk on the phone and by the time of the Kosovo crisis, there was internet too and chat rooms, the lot. Everybody knew what CNBC, Fox, CNN was reporting and what was said about Yugoslav media being a propaganda machine. But what those networks did not do was prove 99% of reports from Politika, RTS and RTCG false, at most they "failed to independently verify" the one thing they were telling viewers whilst throwing all emphasis on that, like a half hour bulletin talks about that single thing. Zetatrans (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies guys, I regret opening up a discussion about the character of EITHER Western or local media, of course there are good and bad in both the West and locally in former Yugoslavia (by good I mean trying to present a full rounded picture, by bad I mean pandering to an audience's prejudices or pushing an 'official line). As one of the editors trying to sort out this page last year, our problem was that the page was at that time WHOLLY copied from the film's publicity handout. The SPECIFIC claims made in the film could not be stated (original research), the points in the film which were knowingly inaccurate (eg the film claiming that particular documents shown said certain things, which they did not if one froze the film and read them), this could not be stated, and since the film has not been reviewed or written about by any mainstream political journalist or academic, no criticisms of the films arguments or omissions could be included, however endless repeats of the films publicity COULD be included, since these WERE reprinted in reliable sources (almost wholly Serbian).
I'm not trying to push any line on the wars, but I do think that Misplaced Pages has a duty to supply an 'innocent' reader with as full a picture as possible, in order that they can come to some INFORMED judgement as to whether the arguments in the film are supported by known facts, unfortunately that is not the case at present. I had vowed to stay out of this one, but only returned ... OH GOD, I don't know why!Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Criticism
There appears to be an e-Novine article reviewing the film written by a Damjan Pavlica. He also writes for Pescanik, a site which even UrbanVillager is fond of. Since I know the subject of e-Novine's reliability is going to be challenged by UrbanVillager regardless, it's worthy to note that e-Novine was featured prominently in articles of many reliable sources including the Focus magazine and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Opinions of its editors and journalists are mentioned in a number of news stories including those of Deutsche Welle and Die Welt . In addition it's cited in the Southeast European Times and both covered and cited by B92 and Dani . Given this, I believe the article is more than reliable for inclusion for this obscure film's article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- We already had a discussion about E-novine and there was no consensus on whether the source is reliable or not. In fact, in a Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion, we were given a neutral opinion that the source is not very reliable . Also, the fact that you call the film "obscure" suggests that you don't have the quality of the article at heart, but rather to add criticism at any cost, even if its presented in an unreliable source, as is the case with the self-published blog called E-novine. Please stop going in circles. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. After providing a one-sided rant for why it was unreliable you got a passerby to agree with your points without any further investigation so don't push it as anything remotely conclusive. This is not your article and this a new discussion on a different news article. It will not be blindly dismissed with your "please stop going in circles" rubbish. Did I pull a chord with "obscure"? Would "relatively unknown" have sounded better? It's a bit rich to hear you claim others aren't concerned with the article's "quality" when one could say that you're avoiding "criticism at any cost". This talkpage and the relevant others are evidenced with you acting as a gatekeeper of information with double standards for sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- E-novine is written by a critic. He is reliable as a source of his own views per WP:SELFSOURCE. The proper question is whether he is sufficiently notable to be given so much space in the article. Also I see several instances of poor grammar and unencyclopedic language being used. I would like to offer my help to clean up this article. I suggest that we compromise by cutting the amount of space allocated to the E-novine criticism in half. Just take off the second half of the paragraph. It has no inline source citations anyway, and the real "meat and potatoes" of the criticism is in the first half. Please offer your thoughts and comments. Let's try to resolve this in an amicable manner. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Phoenix and Winslow, thanks for joining the discussion! I'm all for resolving this issue and have placed my input during the last dispute on the very same matter. The problem is that E-novine is actually a web portal that re-posts blog entries, as is the case with 'articles' that deal with "The Weight of Chains" on E-novine. The other source used in the "Criticism" section is PoliticsRespun.org, another blog (the "Blogroll" is listed in the right column if you scroll down the blog), which I also don't believe is reliable enough. I'm all for criticism - this article and topic deserves it - but I'm against adding blogs as sources, just for the sake of having criticism at any cost. Perhaps we could work on finding actual reliable sources that criticize this film? Or look through the existing references in the article and find criticism there? I think that approach would be much more constructive than forcing E-novine. Any thoughts? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, "I love criticism" yet I avoid it like the plague. We've heard it before. The link I posted (different from the IP's edit) is not a blog post, but an original article of the website. In any case even the New York Time's has a section where it publishes blog posts as does the Economist so I don't understand the immediate dismissal and demonization of blogs. E-novine is cited, covered, and its journalists are contacted for their opinions in numerous reliable publications. It is a relevant source and if it's reliable enough to be cited by the SETimes for Karadzic's defense prep extension alongside Radio Free Europe, Press Online, Vecernje Novosti, and Nezavisne Novine (favorites of UrbanVillager for info he enjoys) then its certainly reliable enough for a review of this film. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Phoenix and Winslow, thanks for joining the discussion! I'm all for resolving this issue and have placed my input during the last dispute on the very same matter. The problem is that E-novine is actually a web portal that re-posts blog entries, as is the case with 'articles' that deal with "The Weight of Chains" on E-novine. The other source used in the "Criticism" section is PoliticsRespun.org, another blog (the "Blogroll" is listed in the right column if you scroll down the blog), which I also don't believe is reliable enough. I'm all for criticism - this article and topic deserves it - but I'm against adding blogs as sources, just for the sake of having criticism at any cost. Perhaps we could work on finding actual reliable sources that criticize this film? Or look through the existing references in the article and find criticism there? I think that approach would be much more constructive than forcing E-novine. Any thoughts? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- As PRODUCER has indicated, some blogs are a lot better than others — and we need to avoid cultural bias. Assuming that blogs are only reliable if they're attached to American and British news organizations would be one way to exhibit cultural bias. For example, if Damjan Pavlica is the Paul Krugman of Croatia, then his blog should be treated as a reliable source. (This is a hypothetical example — I've never seen his name before and have no idea, but will investigate.) I suspect that E-novine may also have its own fact-checking, and wouldn't provide a portal if its editors didn't consider Damjan Pavlica to be reliable. Let's investigate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Pavlica either, and after Googling him, his articles on E-novine popped up first , followed by his blog . Interestingly enough, there's an article about him on Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages , written by a user called "Mladifilozof" , while on Damjan Pavlica's blog, there's a link titled "Damjan's articles on Misplaced Pages", and when you click on it, it takes you to the "Mladifilozof" user page, which means that he wrote an article about himself on Misplaced Pages. He identifies as a rock musician and political author, but I would think that authors have to write books in order to be called "authors", not just blog posts that are later carried by web portals. Upon closer inspection, I found out that he did write two books that are available online , but on the books themselves and on the Internet - I couldn't find the names of any publishers. And quite frankly, they look very... 'do it yourself', so to say... The only reliable media source in the Balkans I could find that interviewed Pavlica is Dnevni avaz . I could do some more research, but I'm not very convinced that this person is relevant as a blogger or 'author'. I'd question his relevance in the music world as well, as his "music project", as he calls it, which he started in 2009 - "Damjan od Resnika" - doesn't seem very relevant either. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again this is an article reviewing the film not the blog post from the same site that the IP edited in. Stop with the purposeful confusion. I don't know much of his musical career nor do I find it relevant to this discussion. It appears that he's notable enough to be interviewed by Dnevni Avaz, a major Bosnian newspaper, and his works pertaining to the history on Kosovo were published in Pescanik and in the Bosnian Report , a magazine led by prominent historian Noel Malcolm. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Pavlica either, and after Googling him, his articles on E-novine popped up first , followed by his blog . Interestingly enough, there's an article about him on Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages , written by a user called "Mladifilozof" , while on Damjan Pavlica's blog, there's a link titled "Damjan's articles on Misplaced Pages", and when you click on it, it takes you to the "Mladifilozof" user page, which means that he wrote an article about himself on Misplaced Pages. He identifies as a rock musician and political author, but I would think that authors have to write books in order to be called "authors", not just blog posts that are later carried by web portals. Upon closer inspection, I found out that he did write two books that are available online , but on the books themselves and on the Internet - I couldn't find the names of any publishers. And quite frankly, they look very... 'do it yourself', so to say... The only reliable media source in the Balkans I could find that interviewed Pavlica is Dnevni avaz . I could do some more research, but I'm not very convinced that this person is relevant as a blogger or 'author'. I'd question his relevance in the music world as well, as his "music project", as he calls it, which he started in 2009 - "Damjan od Resnika" - doesn't seem very relevant either. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- True, he doesn't seem very notable until you consider that he's been published in Pescanik and in the Bosnian Report, cited by PRODUCER. E-novine has also published his work. They're notable, but they're also anti-war and anti-establishment, a bit like Mother Jones or The Village Voice here in the US. They don't have a print edition, but neither do Slate or Salon, which are American e-zines that are considered reliable sources. They're struggling financially, but so are a lot of other media these days. One thing I find that puts me off is that they've explicitly stated they are abandoning objectivity, which is the Prime Directive of real journalists. Pavlica has been referred to as a "journalist," but I haven't noticed a reputable news organization that he calls "home," so evidently he's a freelancer. I think we can use him for one or two sentences in the mainspace, if we carefully attribute those statements to him, "portaled by the anti-establishment online magazine E-novine ..." AND if we start the paragraph with some reliable, truly notable criticism. Which we should find first. There are already some established, reliable sources cited at the bottom of our article. Do these contain any real criticism of the film? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm convinced about Pavlica, I think Peščanik does have a history of carrying articles of relevant experts on a topic and well-known political dissidents, but I'm not sure how writing for Peščanik makes someone relevant in itself, without any professional references to back up the reasoning behind re-posting his blog entries. And when it comes to a film about the economic, military and geopolitical causes behind the breakup of Yugoslavia, which includes interviews with prominent UN officials, diplomats, politicians, economists, professors, journalists, and musicians, I would expect someone at least close to their ranks to be considered relevant enough to discuss a film of this sort, if he has no reliable media source standing behind him. On the other hand, I fully support browsing the already existing reliable sources for criticism, and looking for new sources that are reliable and critical towards the film. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've edited the article, cleaned up some grammar and punctuation, removed a non-encyclopedic phrase or two, and cut the criticism by 50% — as a proposed compromise to reflect the limited notability of Pavlica. The second half of the criticism is still there, but hidden in case we choose to use it later. The criticism by Konstantin Kilibarda is sufficient to ensure that Pavlica isn't the only critic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your help here however you used Burgić's article not Pavlica's. Also where does he identify as a Croat? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please feel free to make corrections as you feel are appropriate, I was in a hurry and it was a complex edit. I saw Pavlica described as a Croat when I did my initial research on him a few hours ago, but couldn't tell you where I saw it. It could have been the article about him on the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages. If necessary, leave his ethnic identity out and just call him "Freelance journalist Damjan Pavlica." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Phoenix and Winslow, you came here with your proposition of a compromise at the beginning of the discussion and decided to unilaterally resolve the matter in the manner you suggested at the beginning, even after the arguments put forward in favor of a different resolution of the dispute. I think its obvious to any neutral editor that a blogger who writes his own Misplaced Pages article to boost his relevancy and whose blog entries are then carried by a few web portals speaks more about those web portals then it does about Pavlica. And considering Pavlica then uses those re-posts by the above mentioned websites as his professional references on his blog, it makes the whole issue laughable. PoliticsRespun, as well, is an irrelevant blog. I think a fair compromise would be to leave out these irrelevant blogs (which would make the pro-reliable-sources camp happy) and look for criticism in the existing reliable sources and try to find new reliable sources critical to the film (which would make the pro-criticism camp happy). If everyone's happy, we have a consensus. Phoenix and Winslow, you yourself said that you made your recent edits in a hurry, this is not a dispute that needs a quick fix, we have been discussing this for many months. I am strongly against using E-novine as a source, as it is highly unreliable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here we go with nothing else to resort to UrbanVillager has to launch pathetic ad hominem attacks against the author. It's already been proven that e-Novine is a reliable source which has been cited, covered, and contacted by many numerous reliable sources including Focus magazine, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt, Southeast European Times, B92, and Dani. It's already been proven the author has been covered and published in numerous reliable sources above and that includes e-Novine, Dnevni Avaz, Pescanik, Bosnian Report, Oslobođenje and even the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia . It really is astounding as a "pro critic and reliable source lover" the lengths you will go to dismiss sources you disagree with in order to make you "happy".--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Phoenix and Winslow, you came here with your proposition of a compromise at the beginning of the discussion and decided to unilaterally resolve the matter in the manner you suggested at the beginning, even after the arguments put forward in favor of a different resolution of the dispute. I think its obvious to any neutral editor that a blogger who writes his own Misplaced Pages article to boost his relevancy and whose blog entries are then carried by a few web portals speaks more about those web portals then it does about Pavlica. And considering Pavlica then uses those re-posts by the above mentioned websites as his professional references on his blog, it makes the whole issue laughable. PoliticsRespun, as well, is an irrelevant blog. I think a fair compromise would be to leave out these irrelevant blogs (which would make the pro-reliable-sources camp happy) and look for criticism in the existing reliable sources and try to find new reliable sources critical to the film (which would make the pro-criticism camp happy). If everyone's happy, we have a consensus. Phoenix and Winslow, you yourself said that you made your recent edits in a hurry, this is not a dispute that needs a quick fix, we have been discussing this for many months. I am strongly against using E-novine as a source, as it is highly unreliable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please feel free to make corrections as you feel are appropriate, I was in a hurry and it was a complex edit. I saw Pavlica described as a Croat when I did my initial research on him a few hours ago, but couldn't tell you where I saw it. It could have been the article about him on the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages. If necessary, leave his ethnic identity out and just call him "Freelance journalist Damjan Pavlica." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your help here however you used Burgić's article not Pavlica's. Also where does he identify as a Croat? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unlike Producer, I'm not going to repeat my arguments, because I'm tired of us going in circles. Apparently nobody else is interested in a compromise and consensus, so if Misplaced Pages is a democracy, it's two against one, and my arguments are irrelevant. This is not what I read in WP:NOT though. I await a response in regards to my offer for a fair compromise and consensus. E-novine is unacceptable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- E-novine is written by a critic. He is reliable as a source of his own views per WP:SELFSOURCE. The proper question is whether he is sufficiently notable to be given so much space in the article. Also I see several instances of poor grammar and unencyclopedic language being used. I would like to offer my help to clean up this article. I suggest that we compromise by cutting the amount of space allocated to the E-novine criticism in half. Just take off the second half of the paragraph. It has no inline source citations anyway, and the real "meat and potatoes" of the criticism is in the first half. Please offer your thoughts and comments. Let's try to resolve this in an amicable manner. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. After providing a one-sided rant for why it was unreliable you got a passerby to agree with your points without any further investigation so don't push it as anything remotely conclusive. This is not your article and this a new discussion on a different news article. It will not be blindly dismissed with your "please stop going in circles" rubbish. Did I pull a chord with "obscure"? Would "relatively unknown" have sounded better? It's a bit rich to hear you claim others aren't concerned with the article's "quality" when one could say that you're avoiding "criticism at any cost". This talkpage and the relevant others are evidenced with you acting as a gatekeeper of information with double standards for sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Correct, it's selective for a start and you don't find the same criticism in better sources. Staro Gusle (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- neither the appraisals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.7.14 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Takes one to spot one eh! I was being serious. Pavlica might be okay but where can we find similar remarks on other sites. That was my main point. Staro Gusle (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am very sorry that UrbanVillager is dissatisfied. Much of the criticism has been removed and the remaining criticism has been carefully attributed to the sources. Let's try to find more reliable sources of criticism. The fact that there's no English language (dubbed in) version of this film, or versions in other foreign languages such as French or German, limits its potential audience so criticism is going to be hard to find. In the meantime, if UrbanVillager would like to add a sentence from some other source that criticizes the reliability of E-novine, I think he has a right to do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The movie and the author are 3rd league (no matter that they attempt desperately to show otherwise) , so it is very little possibility that mainstream will be involved with this. The most sources that criticize e-novine are their political rivals- Serbian pro-right newpapers and their political sponsors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.7.14 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't make a difference who criticizes it, it is the quality of the arguing that matters. Still, only goes to show nothing is reliable, it either suits side A or side B. Staro Gusle (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Takes one to spot one eh! I was being serious. Pavlica might be okay but where can we find similar remarks on other sites. That was my main point. Staro Gusle (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- neither the appraisals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.7.14 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Kilibarda came up in our discussions before Xmas, at that time the only other reviews we could find were vetoed by UrbanVillager (see archived material and my talk page).... Good luck guysPincrete (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- For those editors not up to speed on the latest enwiki Balkan drama, I should point out that Staro Gusle has been blocked as a sock, and hence there's mroe chance of making progress on this article now. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Critique/Criticism I have just altered a section heading from Critique to Criticisms. A Critique is a detailed critical evaluation of something, the heading therefore suggests that what follows is itself such an evaluation. What follows the heading is a summary of criticisms made against the film. Perhaps there is a better word, in other films we might head this section 'Critical response' or some such, 'controversy' might be appropriate but as a simple fix I changed it to Criticisms.Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I still find it absurd that we're listing blogs as references on Misplaced Pages. Maybe I'll open my own blog (even get a domain name for a few bucks a month), fancy it up, and present my personal opinion or the opinion of my friends under the banner of "most critics". I'm sure this section won't stay here for long, since it doesn't comply with Misplaced Pages policy on references, but right now there's more biased editors whose goal is to present this film in the worst possible way than there are administrators who are interested in this topic enough to enforce the rules of Misplaced Pages, so this section will, for now, remain a silly mockery of the Misplaced Pages article, hijacked by biased editors... --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, is that a response to me changing an incorrectly used word to a (hopefully) more correct one? Or is it just huffing & puffing?Pincrete (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Categories: