Talk:The Weight of Chains/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prof. Marković and Milica Kankaraš comments

Hope no one minds me creating this section out of sequence, the topic seemed related to prev.

Having had a quick look at Prof. Marković, [1], this appears to be from a post-screening panel discussion, whether that counts as a critical response, and whether the source is a RS, I don't know. The original text is very brief.

It is difficult to know what the Milica Kankaraš is:- [2], the artist's comment is very much a 'passing comment' in a posting about other subjects. Unless the artist has relevant notability, I don't think that it is usable. Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Question re: Prof. Predrag J. Marković, is 'professor' being used in its UK/US sense or European usage (any teacher) ? Pincrete (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: The following paragraph, is a response to this post [3], that post and my response were originally in the wrong section. note added by Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I agree with Somedifferentstuff's revert, since it makes sense for ALL of us to get agreement about crit response, I haven't inserted any new reviews without agreement. I've already left a post above about Markovic and haven't ruled out using it, (though it is a bit odd to use a very brief edited version of a discussion). I would like to hear other editor's opinions once they've had the oppurtunity to assess WHAT it is. … … ps Kilibarda is a course director at McMasters, who has published in reliable Balkan journals, he was previously CD at York's, he was a teaching Asst. from 2004 and the inclusion of his material had your agreement. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC) … … I originally moved two posts up to this section, UV restored his post to its initial location. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Marković link is now dead (for me at least, I've tried many times). I was able to access it at first and have attempted to describe WHAT it is above. I note that this is NOT the main dnevnenovine site (which is dnevne.me not dnevnenovine.rs). I am neutral about its use, but note that Marković does NOT appear to be a Professor in the UK/US sense, but rather in the European sense (ie any university teacher, akin to 'tutor' or 'lecturer' in UK/US), therefore the use of it as an honorific would not only be superfluous, but in this case also wrong. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So, your only issue regarding the source is whether to write 'professor' or not in the article? If that's the case, we can omit that word, and add the critical response. Is that right? --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, no that is NOT the ONLY issue. Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of others: The source dnevnenovine.rs:[4] appears to be simply a 'front page', linking to stories in 5 other Serbian news sources, (it has no apparent connection to Dnevne Novine, which is a Macedonian print/online daily paper, which is online here:[5]). The section 'saopstenja', simply means statements, I don't know what that means in context. Adding all this together, I don't know WHO wrote/posted the original Marković story, and don't think this can count as a RS, I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise though, as long as Marković's comments are not given undue weight. The link works for me about one day in six, the text is so short that Google translate will probably give an adequate impression. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, you advocated the inclusion of a blog as a source just because Kilibarda is 'relevant'. Now Prof dr. Markovic is not relevant to you because it doesn't say where the original article was posted? Seems to me you're trying an awful lot to discredit everything I put forward, doing tons of research to make sure sources I present aren't used, when simply typing "Predrag J. Markovic Tezina lanaca" on Google shows an article from the Media Center of the Faculty of Media and Communications of Singidunum University where Markovic teaches, written by Dimitrije Gasic. So, now you know where it's from. Will that be all? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, re your remark:- Now Prof dr. Markovic is not relevant to you because it doesn't say where the original article was posted?. Isn't knowing where/by whom, the article was posted/written a vital part of the definition of a RS? ... Re Your remarks about the Kilibarda review, his review had your explicit agreement recently, therefore repeatedly MIS-representing it, does not show good faith on your part. ... Re Predrag J. Marković (who isn't a Professor, he is a PhD and junior 'visiting lecturer', not dis-similar to Kilibarda), I remain neutral about its inclusion, conditional on it being given 'due weight' and having the agreement of other editors. Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, again: We have now been supplied by UV with an original source, namely the site of the Faculty of Media and Comm. of a bona fide University. The author of the short article (Dimitrije Gašić), according to his own blog in February this year, is a student of M & Comm:-[6] at that University, which is presumably what he also was in 2012. A Google search yields no other results for Gašić apart from his Facebook & Twitter accounts. The Marković quote UV wishes to use is an accurate reflection of what appears in the Gašić article, though that article yields little info as to what else was said in the panel discussion. I remain neutral as to whether this quote is used, only that the context in which the words were said should be clear and neither Markovic, nor the quote be given undue weight. Pincrete (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete behaving like he/she owns this page

First of all, Pincrete, please stop moving other users' comments to places where you prefer them on this talk page. Every time I come to this talk page I have to try to discover where you placed my comments after removing them from where I posted them. Second of all, if you want to play the game that nothing can be added without the approval of everyone on this talk page, I'll go ahead and revert every change you and your friend Somedifferentstuff make and disagree with every edit you two make, and then the article can either stay like this forever, or we'll have to quarrel over every insignificant detail before Wikipedia's higher instance dispute resolution pages. More likely, we'll all get blocked, and if you want to indulge in disruptive behavior (this goes for Somedifferentstuff as well, who simply reverts without discussion - also disruptive behavior), I'm surely not going to do so. But, since I do find your edits on all Malagurski-related articles to be very malicious, and I've already explained why (surely you've relocated my comments somewhere on this page where you can easily find them), I am going to wait a few days for other editors to voice their opinion on the Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic critical response regarding the film, and then re-add it. If you choose to continue behaving like you own the article and the talk page, I will be forced to report you for disruptive behavior. Consider this your last warning, as I'm tired of having to deal with your disruptive behavior when all I want is to contribute to Wikipedia in an area I'm interested in. Consensus doesn't mean "it doesn't go in the article 'till I say so", but there are Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and the Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic reference fully meets them. Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved your posts ONCE recently, I asked you beforehand, and waited approx 15 hours before making the move. This post and your previous one are now in sections completely disconnected from the subject under discussion, thus making it impossible for other editors to follow the conversation.

UrbanVillager, can I ask you to STOP making personal remarks about other editors. My response to Predrag J. Markovic, is in the section above with his name. Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC) … … ps, also, do you still regard Socialist Standard and Brightest Young Things to be RSs as critical responses? Questions are in relevant sections above. Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you're going about this the wrong way and I encourage you to take another path. Acting obnoxious and attacking other editors will not get you what you want. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

All I want is to not be reverted every time I add sourced content that meets Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing just because one user objects to every source that doesn't describe Boris Malagurski as a scumbag. Pincrete obviously has personal issues with Malagurski and is likely User:Opbeith or his/her sock, something I discussed here and Pincrete conveniently hid from this talk page by quickly archiving it, so if you want to go ahead and manipulate Wikipedia regulations, that's your issue, not mine. But take a look at this latest example of Pincrete going above and beyond to discredit a source using the absurdest of reasons. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Ricky81682, archived almost THE ENTIRE TALK, including ongoing discussions, I presume he did this because he wanted the page to have a 'clean slate'. I restored it and then re-archived/hid elements which were no longer ongoing or no longer seemed pertinent. What exactly is your complaint? That Ricky archived it? That I restored it, or what? (I also informed Ricky81682 and everyone else of my actions.)

UrbanVillager, can I ask you again to STOP making abusive remarks about myself and other editors. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making abusive remarks, you're abusing Wikipedia consensus guidelines. The article was doing fine until you decided that there should be 5 pages of text on the talk page for every change made to the article. Now that really is abuse. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, stating that Pincrete "is likely User:Opbeith or his/her sock" is DISRUPTIVE. There are appropriate places to file complaints regarding sock-puppetry, etc. Regarding the "Critical response" section, because it has been contentious, we need to discuss any changes here and see what consensus is. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, if you feel that I, Somedifferentstuff, bobrayner or anyone else is not behaving properly, or unfairly excluding/including material, there are procedures for dealing with your complaint. The talk page is meant to be for discussing the article, nothing else. Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I archived the entire page because honestly, discussions that are a week old or longer are not likely to have actual movement. If there's a discussion that adds upon a prior one, a link to the archive is more productive than keeping long, long discussions that go all over the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving talk page content around, especially from an active talk page to an archive, is the standard way to manipulate article discussion for the benefit of those who want to own it. As well as effectively closing down discussion on topics moved to the archive, editors new to an article do not generally read through pages of archives, so do not become aware of ongoing problems in an article or the positions of "editors in residence". In order to remove the perception of manipulation we should be very cautious about moving things when there has been heated discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, in general terms I agree with you. This talk is actually set to 'auto-archive' any threads which have not been added to in 3 months, ordinarily that is generously safe. I think Ricky81682 wanted to create a 'clean sheet' and was a little TOO severe. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tiptoethrutheminefield, that's fair. However I removed these sections because I hadn't seen any indication that there was any dispute about the not merging the sequel, or about the actual reviews (disputes that at least moved to edit warring), based on I believe a week if not longer. The general re-structuring wasn't being argued any more it seems and the rest were largely unproductive attacks which are better archived than kept around at all. Either way, that's just my view, if people want to keep it here, that's fine with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete's latest edits

The removal of the Ann Arbor screening in the "Festival screenings" section under the argumentation that the screening was "not official part of Ann Arbor" (-Pincrete) is factually flawed, at least according to the source, Ann Arbor's website - annarbor.com, which does say that "The Weight of Chains" was screened as a part of the "Ann Arbor Docu Fest". So, Pincrete, unless if you have some evidence that this source is invalid, please revert your edit. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wayback is the only source for this event at all. Wayback leads to a free monday evening showing at 'Cafe Ambrosia', which is exactly that, a single front, mainly take-away cafe with a few internal tables. Wayback (for same period) gives no other results on Ann Arbor for 'docufest' and film is not listed on that month's (fairly extensive) films list. Therefore there is no evidence that 'docufest', was anyhing more substantial than a 'promo' by a local cafe. If there is evidence that contradicts this, I will re-instate. Cafe Ambrosia:[7]Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps, as mentioned elsewhere, could you please NOT name sections needlessly after editors, apart from making it impossible for others to follow the 'thread', it also personalises content issues. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

update, I've just found these refs on Wayback for Ann Arbor Docufest : [8],[9], if consensus is that this is meaningfully/notably a film festival, let it go back in.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Baffling

Fkpcascais,

But it not you who care if it is reasonable for you or not

What on earth are you talking about? bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't allways have the adequate time to write what I want, but I beleave it is quite clear what I meant, and that is that it is not important what you consider a conspiracy theory, but that needs to be considered by someone important to the subject, not bobrainer the Wikipedia editor :) FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I have no idea WHO disagrees with WHOM about WHAT here. If this is about the 'conspiracy theory' tag, can we discuss it below? Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Claims made in the film

Re:Contentious claims in the film. What the synopsis does fairly well now is to present two strands, the 'economic' argument of the film and the 'human stories'. What the synopsis does NOT contain, is any reference to the many contentious claims in the film about events within/concerning the Yugoslav wars. Many of these claims are too 'esoteric', to be of importance to anyone except the most dedicated 'Balkanologist'. However one aspect which would be of general interest (and which is widely commented on by reviewers), is the film's coverage of Srebrenica. I'm adding a paragraph about that coverage, my sources are the 'Miller' review and the script itself. Anyone wanting to verify the accuracy/appropriateness of my new para can A) watch the film on Youtube (approx. timings:50:25-53:30) B) I've posted part of the 'script' (from approx 49:20 - 54:00), here: [10], I'm posting the script externally as it may be copyvio. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm creating a new section, as it occurred to me AFTER posting the Srebrenica para in synopsis, that it MIGHT be appropriate to have a seperate section devoted to the film's claims (inc Srebrenica) . These need to be subject to the same provisoes, ie likely to be of interest to the 'general reader' . Also, I'm a bit uncertain about the 'legality' of using the film's script as a source, (and how we 'cite' words actually used in the film). Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::::nb this section re-instated January 2015. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories

The article makes the claim, "The film presents the fall of Srebrenica "as a stage-managed ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia".[2] That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes; and it's supported by sources. (To the extent that anything in this article is reliably sourced). It should be categorised appropriately. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a direct source, not a conspirative association of thoughts of the kind you are doing. FkpCascais (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Diff please provide a source, not your own interpretation of one of a million facts the documentary deals with. It is not Wikipedia editors who will decide what conspiracy theories are based on their own opinion. Provide a source please, otherwise please revert yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think FkpCascais is broadly right here, unless it is widely and explicitly reported that this is a film presenting conspiracy theories, the category tag is inappropriate. I have re-instated a section archived only today Claims made in the film, above. Where I asked HOW we represent the many claims made in the film, and which are worthy of inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about: the article seems to clearly state, with references, that fall of Srebrenica is a "stage-managed ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia... asserts that there are "trustworthy witnesses" who claim that Bill Clinton had indicated that "5,000 dead Muslims would be the price of NATO intervention" etc. -- all of which would mean that the dominant historical view would be wrong, and the poor Serbs a victim of a conspiracy. Remove the category yourself if you wish -- I for one won't revert again. I don't really give a WP:FUCK, tell you the truth. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal, I wasn't aware until yesterday that there even existed a 'Documentary films about conspiracy theories', category. Unlike most other categories (novels set in Tuvalu), it is inherently subjective. For that reason, rather than because I agree/disagree with you, I think the category inappropriate for ANY film, unless a reasonable number of RS have explicitly categorised it as such. The source you quote (the Miller review), doesn't. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Then remove feel free to remove the category: I won't. All I've done is cite the text and source that has been added to this article as editors use it for a WP:BATTLEGROUND for god knows what position. Categorization requires a source for contentious claims: but no more so than claims within the text. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's supported by the sources, so the categorisation is appropriate - but the usual suspects keep on reverting. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobrainer, what is supported by sources?

I don't find correct to add such a category without having at least someone expert on the subject claiming it. You cant pick up just one issue among the many which the documentary deals with, and because of it to claim that the documentary is conspiracist. Basically every good documentary makes some exceptional claim, exposes some new founding or perspective, something different than what everyone already knows, or otherwise it is not a documentary but just a history lesson. Yes, Malagurski does show a different and more complex perspective of the conflict than the usual one, but I still believe that considering it conspiracist (something the category automatically implies) is wrong in this case. Not only we don't have any consensus among critics that the documentary is conspiracist, but we actually don't have even one person claiming that. And Srebrenica is just a tiny part of the documentary, an issue among so many the documentary deals with. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner, it's actually me that has reverted this time. My logic is as I put to Shawm. While I would defend to the hilt any clear statement of WHAT the film's many claims are, I don't think evaluative category labels are very useful. In the absence of EXPLICIT sources, we should let the reader be the judge of which of/how much the claims are valid arguments and which are something else. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains 2 deletion review.

There is a discussion here:[11] about a proposed re-instatement of The Weight of Chains 2 article. The proposed article is here:[12]. Current editors on this page were invited to contribute to that discussion here:[13]. Pincrete (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Update, The Weight of Chains 2 is re-instated.Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)