Talk:The Hunting Party (2007 film)

Rodovan Karadzic

Sorry guys, I don't know much about wikipedia or how to edit it, so i will leave that part up to the pros and just make a suggestion. Alot of this movie is based on the true story of Rodovan Karadzic who, during the end of the movie is said to be still free, was recently apprehended and put on trial for war crimes. Maybe this bit, or the fact that it is sort of based on this story, should be mentioned somwhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.246.116 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Title change

This movie's name has been changed from Spring Break in Bosnia to the Hunting Party. I will make the necessary adjustsments. Spring Break in Bosnia was the working title. Just check out the IMDB profile.SAWGunner89 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian film?

Is this really a Bosnian film, as it is said in the category? --Harac 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

while the movie did seem to have an anti serbian bias i think that be put down to the fact that it was the serbian government who instigated a genocidal ethnic cleansing, holocaust, and there are numerous mention of atrocities and war crimes being committed by the other side, an example is (i forget her name) the female informer who mentions she and her school friends were gang raped. (she is serb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.211.66 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this movie and probably won't, but I'm going to take a stand against genocide denial. The genocide in Bosnia was committed primarily by Serbs against Croats and Muslims, and this is a documented fact (see Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation by Laura Sibler and Alan Little, Bosnia: A Short History by Noel Malcolm, Love thy Neighbor: a Story of War by Peter Maass, The Bridge Betrayed by Micheal Sells, as well as the writings of numerous other journalists and historians and the findings of Nato and the UN). Somebody needs to fix this section.Lexington1 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The charge of "genocide commited by Serbs in Bosnia" is a ridiculous statement. The country of Bosnia-Herzegovina (it's Muslim part more precisly) sued the country of FR Yugoslavia (now Serbia, it's legal successor) for genocide in the International Court of Justice. It lost, according to the Febryuary 2007 verdict.Zvonko (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal feelings aside, the "Controversy" section goes way beyond POV in it's language. The entire thing violates NPOV standards in terms of the language used, and it needs to be fixed. I'll take a stab at it when I get a chance. --CWSensation^t 08:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the controversy section to be as NPOV as possible; personally, I almost feel it should be removed without any sort of citations (the only one listed is Parenti's book). I took out the reference to Noam Chomsky until someone can provide a citation for it, and a large portion had to go because it was out-and-out editorializing, not statement of facts. Other lines, like "For example, a large percentage of Croatians believe that they are the sole victim of the "War of Independence"; even if 600,000 Serbs fled their homes and many went missing" are more arguments about the war itself and not the film, which is not meant to be a purely accurate historical account of the war.

Phrases like "This is largely due to biased film such as The Hunting Party; such films magnify Serbian wrongdoing while not showing any Croatian wrong doing. This film exemplifies, to this day, the bias that Serbs are exposed to" are so opinionated that there is no way to include it in a Wikipedia article in any form of re-wording. And let's be honest; if your sentence includes "Therefore, the viewer should be mindful when watching this film", then you're not writing an NPOV Wikipedia article, you're editorializing and critiquing the film. Save it for your blog, folks, and next time read WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV before editing an article. --CWSensation^t 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Your reply proves my point. You have no idea how 600,000 SERBS had to leave their home forever. My friends mom was killed right in front of my house by the advancing Croatian army. The mother (RIP) and her two sons were hit by a artillery shell while running to a basement for cover. So WHY does the Hollywood only show Serbs as the guilty ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.19.38 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a real bias against Serbs in this movie, always the emphasis was givne that the bosnian muslims were the victims and Serbs were the culprits. They could have made the film in a more impartial way Worldplayer (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Worldplayer

I'd say that the movie definitely has a bias against "The Fox", the character representing Karadzic. Just because the premise was about going after one war criminal who happened to be on one side does not mean that other war criminals, perhaps on other sides, aren't out there, as well. To take a parallel example, just because some Germans were involved in war crimes at one time does not mean that Germans in general are bad people. CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

HONESTLY, I THINK THE ISSUES IS RESOLVED... PLEASE WRITE HERE TO EXPLAIN YOUR VIEWS IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE. I UNDERSTAND THAT MUSLIMS WERE KILLED, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT ITS UNFAIR NOT TO INCLUDE THE SERBS AS WELL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.19.38 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Serbian goverment was found not to be guilty of the alleged genocide. I do feel sorry for the families that have to live with the fact that they lost the loved ones. I just dont see why dead Serbian civilians should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.19.38 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire controversy section, as it is unsourced original research and political commentary that does not belong in an article about a movie. If there are sources regarding the movie's bias (and not the bias of the West and NATO), feel free to add them. Otherwise, take this dispute to Bosnian War. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of wikipedia, i will respect your request. I will look for sources that back the claims up. Until found, the section will remain deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section had been replaced since the previous comment above. This section reads as an opinionated and somewhat biased argument for why the Serbs were not the only agressor in this conflict. While this may or may not be true(and Im sure theres some truth to it), this wikipedia article should not and cannot be a forum for debating such issues. There was also a feeling that the author(s) were trying to excuse the genocidal acts in question, by arguing that one side was as bad as each other. In any case, the language used does not fit the type of language that should be used in an encylopedia. Simple, neutral and impassionate acknowledgement of any controversy or disagreement aligned with the film should suffice. Comments such as "only 15 people attended the premiere in a Serbian city" should either not be included or should be replaced with language such as, "due to the controversial nature of the film, and the feeling of unfair bias contained within the plot, the film was largely ignored or fared poorly in Serbian areas(with citation)". In any case, I have edited the article accordingly and reduced it to something that is much more concise and neutral. Please edit in future with care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma365 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Having talked to many Serbs, there is a consensus that there is no official statement saying that the movie is biased. Thus, I propose that the section should only include the following: "Some viewers of the film have stated that its storyline shows a bias against the Serbian people, since the emphasis was given on the Bosnian Muslims as the only victims, with the Serbs as the primary culprits."

Mike Babic (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the policy on verifiability. If you want to put in a statement like that, it needs a source. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you can't put a statement like that in there an source it to a blog. Find some reliable sources, or leave it out. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

just because but there is one uncited fact the whole section doesn't need a banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Premieres

What does this section has to do with an encyclopedia? -79.180.79.22 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Hunting Party (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071017141434/http://efilmcritic.com:80/feature.php?feature=2256/ to http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2256/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)