Talk:The Weight of Chains

NSPM and Pecat

I added new reviews, check them out, neither of them are interviews, nor are they promotional, but actual reviews in two Serbian magazines, one is Nova srpska politička misao, the other is the Pecat magazine [1]. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article should include both positive and negative reviews for neutrality's sake. If positive reviews from reliable sources are available, then they most certainly should be added. At the same time, I would like to ask all editors to refrain from edit-warring and sock-puppetry. It's just going to lead to blocks so cut it out. I, personally, am not willing to get bogged down in a protracted and likely-fruitless discussion over several sentences worth of content when I know that I can be contributing to Wikipedia elsewhere. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, there is no consensus for inserting these 'reviews', perhaps they contain usable stuff, perhaps they don't. On first impression they seem to be articles not reviews, either way, they have been inserted - with your selective editing - without any attempt to achieve consensus, without even asking any of the editors here. You do understand that don't you? … … ps Since you created the article, you also know that one of the 'reviews' is from a small magazine that BM writes for. Small world isn't it? Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

23 editor, I agree, where there are RS reviews, they should be taken into account whether + or -, I also agree that I'd much rather be working on other articles. On this (and related) articles, unfortunately a lot of the 'editors', have turned out to be 'puppets', so sincere as you may be, you might as well ask a wolf to stop taking the sheep. Again, whether you agree or disagree about VICE, I invite you to put your opinions on the RSs noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If something is written in a magazine, yes, it's an article. Articles can be film reviews, opinion pieces, political views, you name it. So, the argument that "these are articles, not reviews" doesn't make sense. Second of all, the fact that Malagurski writes for the same magazine doesn't mean he has influence on what other people write in it. Unless if you have evidence that Malagurski is the owner of the magazine or has some function there other than being a columnist like all the other columnists, your second argument also doesn't make sense. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, so far, in this discussion, you've said 1) An advert can be a review, it doesn't matter that it is written by people trying to sell you tickets … 2) an interview between someone IN the film and the director can be a review, since they know a lot about the subject … 3) an article can be a review since there is no difference between a feature article, a news story and a review. … (Can the back of the DVD be a review in your opinion ? Or the poster outside the cinema? You'll pardon me being ironic).

If I've misrepresented any of your views, I apologise, perhaps you could correct me. But I think you are going to find that these views deviate somewhat from what most people - and Wikipedia - defines as a review. … … ps also I apologise for my 'small world' comment about BM, which wasn't helpful.

Now important matters, can you explain to me WHY you thought you had consensus for inserting these reviews, since there was an admin. instruction that no changes were to be made to this section without consensus, and not only was there no consensus, nobody was allowed to see any of this before you translated, edited and inserted them ?Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SDS's most recent edit (here:-[2]) and think it's only fair to non-Serbian's that we should be able to read the whole review, in English, in order to assess WHAT it is, what is usable and what is a fair representation of what it says. I've said from the beginning that there MAY be usable stuff in these two but at the moment we are all 'at the mercy' of the only native level Serbian speaker amongst the editors (I think that is true, I may not know some editor's 'hidden talents'). Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good and bad news: I just want it to be a matter of record, that there is NO consensus for the inclusion of ANY of the NSPM or Pecat material, editors have not been consulted about its inclusion IN ANY WAY. Also I think the 'one good one bad' formula should NOT dictate our editing decisions in the long run - we are required to be neutral, not to be 'fair' (if fair means we have to say one + one - alternately). ..... (that was the bad news)

However, I think SDS, made some good judgement calls in his edits yesterday, and since he & UV have 'voted with their edits', I also agree to Pecat staying, until we have had a chance to assess its worth and assess whether it has been appropriately edited. Also the 'one good one bad' formula allows us to move forward at present. I'm deciding this in order that we shouldn't go round and round in circles. ..... (that was the relatively good news) Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: prepositions/phrasing in Pecat article, the phrasing "Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in the reaping the benefits for foreigners as well" is clearly missing a preposition. Temporarily I have fixed by amending to 'of the benefits', also the original phrase translates as "the collection of the cream of/for foreigners". … … 1) I don't see why we need to alter the 'cream' phrase as it also works in English, though would read better as 'collecting the cream' … … 2) I am unclear (since prepositions do not translate reliably), whether the appropriate translation is 'of foreigners' (ie 'from') or 'for foreigners' (ie 'on behalf of').

Having looked at the Pecat article, I would now say this ISN'T a review, (partly because it concerns itself more with the politics behind the film rather than the film itself), however it IS a response. Also I note it is 'Pecat online', (which I don't object to), but do we know if this was IN the magazine? Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HOWEVER, the NSPM is neither a review nor a response, what little it says about the film, is EXPLICITLY quoting the 'Beldocs' (film festival) website. This piece is a 'chatty' account of a showing of the film. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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, [3], 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:- [4], 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 [5], 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:[6] 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:[7]). 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:-[8] 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)

Rewrite of synopsis

Ricky, you wrote some rather false things about the film. It doesn't start with the battle of Kosovo until about the 6th minute of the film. If you'd like to shorten the synopsis, that's fine, but can you please watch the film first? Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I now realize you tried to organize the synopsis chronologically according to the history of Yugoslavia. I'd like to remind you that the synopsis of a film should be organized chronologically according to the film, not the history it talks about. So, the first things discussed in the film are described first, we're not writing an article about the history of Yugoslavia, but about the way the film presents that history, regardless of how we see it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Urbanvillager is correct in what he says about the chronology when writing a synopsis. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Ricky is trying to organise thematically. There were odd-nesses about his re-ordering but I appreciate this as a 'sound framework' of the themes. When it's a documentary, are we obliged to follow the film's sequence throughout? I've corrected some of his odd-nesses and attempted to consolidate its 'themi-ness'. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The manual of style guidelines for the plot sections of film articles (yes, people do think this much) suggest an overview of the main events of the film not the scene by scene minutia currently there. I expect a documentary about history to go back and forth but we are currently at more than four times the suggested length because of that minutia. Further, I expect editors to treat others with the respect of actually revising other editors and not blindly reverting if they disagree with a portion of their edits. If you thought that part was incorrect, reorganize it but full-scale reverts are appropriate only for vandalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, intentionally or not, what you have done is arrange the synopsis thematically, rather than sequentially (or historically). Personally I think that's a VERY good approach, but I have just removed/amended some of your 'linking text' when it suggested sequence WITHIN the film (or within history). Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It was an intentional attempt to organize it thematically. The sequence within the film was incorrect it seems, that's worth correcting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ricky, thematic approaches are fine, but when you write "The film starts with..." but the film really doesn't start with what you're writing, then it's just wrong. I'm sure you agree. I think your editing here was largely OK, I just re-added the bit about the Bosnian village, this really is the crux of the story and this previously unseen archival footage that is presented for the first time in this film, so I think that definitely shouldn't be left out. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've 'pruned' slightly, partly as 'new footage' isn't notable in a new film. .... ps also added 'para' to seperate 'human stories' from 'main thrust' Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC) … … I moved two talk page posts up to Prof. Marković section: [9] Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Ricky81682, how would you describe this [10]? Isn't that reverting without discussion? I added sourced material, critical response by Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic, historian and scientific adviser at the Institute for Modern History in Belgrade, but that has to be a subject of a 'consensus' (i.e. His Royal Highness Pincrete has to allow Wikipedia to see this high-profile source as worthy of being included in the article), while teaching assistants at a Hamilton university are "respectable" and "notable" for HRH. The second source I added, with Milica Kankaraš, isn't that interesting as she doesn't say anything crucial, but I think the Predrag J. Markovic response is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received, considering that Markovic is a well-known historian and the film deals with history, but also because Markovic teaches at the Faculty of Media and Communications as well, and he is talking about a film. Can we please re-add this to the article? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2014 (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: [11], 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)

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:[12]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 : [13],[14], if consensus is that this is meaningfully/notably a film festival, let it go back in.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Critical response additions

I've made one addition to 'Critical response' section (Miller - Socialist Standard), this review had the agreement of UrbanVillager and Somedifferentstuff, though not agreement on actual text. I intend to add Brightest Young Things, which previously had the agreement of UrbanVillager (though not which text). It's possible that I have included too much, but found it difficult to decide both what 'typified' the review and what were the distinctive points made by each reviewer. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, reviews were not arranged by ethnicity, they were positive first negative second and it is perfectly normal to summarise, eg:- 'positive in UK, negative in USA'. I think such a summary relevant and justified. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dividing sources into "Serbian" and "non-Serbian" is arranging sources according to ethnicity. In this case, it's also repetition. Saying that a source is Serbian and then noting "Serbian historian..." is repetition. I think it's best to note what the reviewers said, not classify them according to their "Serbian" or "non-Serbian" nature. It's irrelevant which country they come from, as well as which ethnicity they have. Kilibarda, for example, is a Serbian/Montenegrin last name, and it's not up to the article to discuss reviewers' ethnicities or countries of origin, but rather to note what they wrote. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

They were not arranged according to ethnicity, they were arranged + first - second, at Ricky's suggestion. If a - review comes from Serbia, it also will go with the other negs, and the converse. 'Serbian' to describe Markovic was copy-pasted from you. It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews, which bad and was not phrased prejudicially. The alternative is to put 'proper reviews' first and articles and comments later. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You wrote "It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews...". Countries don't give reviews. I think your attempt to tie in reviewers with their countries and present them as how people in a certain country see a film is POV. Once again, reviews are reviews, let's let them speak for themselves. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If this film were Bambi and if it received significantly different reviews IN (not from) certain countries than it did in others, that would be noteworthy. Even more so since the film proposes very controversial versions of recent historical events.

You aren't even consistent UrbanVillager, the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying would make sense if there were a bunch of reviews from one country that had a certain slant. This could justify that the film is perceived a certain way in a country in general. But taking two reviews from Serbia, one from Canada, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom and saying that the film has "significantly different reviews IN certain countries" is simply stereotyping. However, I do agree when you say that "the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.". Glad you finally realize these are two completely different things. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, possibly you should check out the meanings of stereotype and irony. Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, as Bobrayner and yourself are forcing an edit war, I'd like to note that I will take no part in it. As can be seen from the above discussion, there is no consensus for classifying reviews by ethnicity or country of origin, let alone "Serbian" and "other". So, please remove this and let's try to get along. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In your edit description for the revert, you noted "Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments". 1) Saying that a source is Serbian is classifying it by country and ethnicity (it can be "Serbian" as "from Serbia" or "Serbian" as "of ethnic Serbs"), while 2) there needs to be consensus for the addition of this original research. Once again, if you can find me a source that explains why it is important to note the ethnicity or country of origin of certain reviewers, we can discuss the matter further. If not, please remove this as there is no consensus for the addition of what you're adding. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the good first/negative second set-up, then reviews would need to be organised according to their authority. I don't think that a 'passing remark' by a media tutor at a film showing (written up by a student, with no context at all) would carry much authority, nor a passing comment in a magazine, these are not RS film reviews at all. At present there is an attempt to present the arguments in favour of the film (which are wholly from WITHIN the country called 'Serbia') , FIRST. I believe this arrangement is wholly/generously fair. Are those who criticise this arrangement saying that the film has been widely praised OUTSIDE that country. Perhaps they need to find some reviews that corroborate that PoV, rather than attempting to rewrite the evidence or criticise its presentation. Pincrete (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I reported Pincrete for edit-warring. He added the national remarcs, they were opposed, and he is the one (with the help of bobrainer) who is edit-warring to keep his edit in place. That goes against WP:BRD and the discussion here was not over neither he got consensus for the edit (far from that), so his edir-warring is purely disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Without having read the above, it seems to me that, to say that Serbians are the only ones who liked it, is synthesis -- and possibly original research if not properly cited. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, if it is normal to summarize in that way, could you provide examples? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, I will answer more fully when I have time/should you wish, but briefly ALL 'proper film reviews' of this film are VERY negative and are ALL from UK/N.American sources. If present wording is 'synth' or OR, then let it be changed, but what is being objected to exactly? Noting the nationality is both necessary (most people won't know who/what Pecat is), and appropriate (since this film deals with FYR and Serbian/US/UK/EEC political matters). BTW the article did NOT say 'only Serbs liked the film', and I was careful to find positive remarks made by ALL reviewers, in addition to their negative responses. The positive responses are NOT full film reviews, one is a brief paragraph in a magazine, the other is a passing comment by a college tutor, written up by a student. They were included out of a sense of fairness to another editor. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC) … … ps Schindler's list devotes an entire section to Jewish response to the film [15], and this is clearly 'ethnicity' rather than nationality. Almost all WP film articles have an intro of the the film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews kind, this intro is almost always referenced ONLY by the content of the reviews which follow and in that sense is an editor's summary of response, and therefore technically 'synth'. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, the wording to which you object has been in place for 99% of the time since approx. October. If it is inappropriate, let us change it, but please don't misrepresent my actions HERE or at the edit-warring board. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)