Talk:The Weight of Chains

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Srdja Trifkovic's back-story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opbeith, I've just watched almost all of this film (the things we do for art!) .... Re coverage of Srebrenica, apart from the participants you mention and a reporter (John Bosnitch? ... who claims that only stories which supported the West's agenda, i.e. anti-Serb stories were allowed out via the media) ....the principal coverage is to assert that Izetbekovic and Clinton colluded to stage-manage the fall of Srebrenica, in order to justify NATO air strikes, since it seems obvious to Boris that the UN could have given protection to the Muslims if its purpose there were not more sinister than mere peace-keeping. From memory, the figure of dead Muslims there is given as under 2000 and the claim is made that the number killed was no more than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding area ... Only pictures of victims are the pristine white graves of what I presume are recent memorial sites ... lots of bombed out 'Serb' houses .... also lots of pictures of Ratko Mladic kissing icons .... I may have mis-construed some of the inferences, as - frankly - inference is piled on inference until your head hurts ... I wasn't quite sure who was supposed to be responsible for Srebrenica except poor Ratko and his boys were obviously, sneakily 'suckered in' to provide the pretext for NATO action .... I think I got that right, but honestly, the line of logic was so tortuous that I'm not sure .... Thought you might (not) want to know. 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Brave and self-sacrificing endeavour, Pincrete. Malagurski's film raises a number of different controversial issues. The reasons for the UN's failure to intervene firstly to prevent the fall of the town and secondly to prevent the execution of 4000 prisoners taken away via Bratunac have not been authoritatively resolved, which continues to provide the murderers with scope for arguing that someone else was responsible for the crime that they carried out.

The Clinton/Izetbegovic argument has been spun around an ambiguous comment (on the face of it a hypothetical prospect) made by Izetbegovic to Hakija Meholjic, leader of a delegation from Srebrenica, which has acquired a life of its own in the mythology of the propagandists.

I wonder (don't subject yourself to another endurance test to find out) whether Malagurski accepts that even 2000 were actually executed. The standard denialist/apologist responses insist that of this number the majority were killed in combat and the remaining few (according to Darko Trifunovic, author of Report about Case Srebrenica, and like Malagurski himself banned from Wikipedia for his manipulations, amounting to less than a hundred) were victims of revenge-taking inspired by the number of Serbs killed in the area surrounding Srebrenica by the defenders of Srebrenica.

That figure is one of the pivots of the Serb propaganda effort aimed at excusing the genocide at Srebrenica. It's been referred to as the "Myth of Bratunac" - the number of those killed in the attack on Kravica has been inflated by factors of ten and even a hundred, and the deaths elsewhere in the area similarly blown up.

The prime source of this last and many other misrepresentations is the arch Serbian propagandist Milivoje Ivanisevic. The Weight of Chains seems to be, as your account appears to confirm, Malagurski's own flashy, glib packaging of myths, untruths and truths subverted by context to communicate the propaganda machine's output for a more sophisticated international public. The piece is substantially more likely than Ivanisevic's Chronicle of Our Graves to convince an audience of the committed/uninformed that the whole of contemporary history is explained by the interests of Western power structures and thus the crimes of the Bosnian War can be laid at anyone else's door than Serbia's. It's all said a hundred times elsewhere but never by quite such a genius in the art of presentation.

Of course that doesn't stop the film from being noteworthy in its own terms. It's just that somehow the film never seems to get judged with reference to anything other than its own terms and none of the above considerations emerge in the synopsis or the article as a whole, giving the puffery what seems to be very significantly undue weight. Thanks for the effort! Opbeith (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the difficulties of coming up with any rational criticism of the arguments in the film is that there really ARE NO arguments. A machine-gun spray of inferences drawn from (probably) unconnected facts, rhetorical questions answered by 'clever-dick' cynical answers or answered by emotive images (as you point out elsewhere, the Muslim bidding farewell to his 'Serb brother' is presumably doing so because he longer feels safe in the Serb area, however it is used in the film to suggest the inherent tolerance and brotherliness that SOMEONE has destroyed, of course not us, nor the demagogues we followed) .... Some interviews feel 'set-up' or dishonestly used, but (without proof) that is, not a valid Wiki-criticism. Much of the time Milosevic is referred to as 'Slobo' (everybody's favorite uncle?) ... which in itself would make the film incomprehensible to a non-local audience.

I did a Google search to find reviews of the film before getting involved in this issue .... Unfortunately the only reviews/interviews are from Serb/diaspora sources and the Burgic one which you attempted to insert (also one on an American White Supremacist site! Judge a man by his friends?) .... only the Burgic one is anything other than a repeat of press releases, or 'local boy makes film' type.

I don't know Burgic's credentials either as a political commentator or film critic, I personally found his review too dependent on detailed knowledge of events and personalities and at times understandably, (but not necessarily constructively), over-heated, but it's the best there is at present.

I was unaware of any controversy about the reasons underlying the failure of the UN peacekeepers to act. I know that there was (from the beginning) a lack of resolve and a fear of becoming embroiled on the part of the UN and most of Europe. The use of the term 'safe area' rather than 'safe haven' is itself indicative of that avoidance of the issue, apparently the term 'safe haven' has a precise definition in international law, which would have REQUIRED the UN and member-peacekeepers to defend it militarily. According to this thesis, the UN hoped that a few white landrovers (and the 'eyes of the world'), would inhibit the worst excesses (and satisfy the 'folks at home that something was being done'). I don't know whether this thesis is correct, I know it is consistent with UK government in-action at the time. I also know that it was a very, very long time before the UK public (including myself) began to understand the issues and began to recognise the need to DO something other than wring our hands. Since a similair in-action happened around the same time in Rwanda, I've always accepted the 'lack of resolve' thesis.

Regarding the '2000 killed' question, I honestly cannot remember ... memory tells me that the reference was to 'less than 2000' and the matter is glossed over pretty quickly to show burnt-out 'Serb' houses (which could of course have belonged to anyone ... How would we know?)... I'm fairly sure that there is NO reference to HOW they died either way.

I'm fairly sure that this film is NOT going to receive any attention outside its core audience and a few people who would believe anything, so in a sense I don't know why I am bothering, except it really does annoy me and annoys me to see Wikipedia being used to give it a spurious legitimacy.Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC) .... p.s. I've just found this review http://politicsrespun.org/2012/02/undermining-solidarity-in-the-balkans-reviewing-boris-malagurskis-the-weight-of-chains/ the author is a 'resident researcher' at York University with an MA from Toronto ... wonder if it's useful? .... It's as much a critique of left/liberal tendencies as a review of the film, but it does have some meat on itPincrete (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Also this http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/articles/movie-review-weight-of-chains-opens-in-dc.htm .... which is largely sympathetic to the economic colonisation thesis, but very critical of the film-making and finds the 'no ethnic tension' aspects laughable. Another thought, are the infiltration (of Wikipedia) accusations provable ? This does seem relevant to the integrity of the film-makerPincrete (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Pincrete, I hope you don't mind me adding indents to your text to clarify the sequence of comments. You don't have a Talk Page yet - perhaps you could start one as it's probably more appropriate to discuss the specifics of the UN issues there. The main ones concern whether Gen. Janvier blocked the air strikes as part of the arrangement with Mladic that had earlier secured the release of hundreds of peacekeeper hostages and the role of Yasushi Akasi the Secretary-General's Special representative, his reporting to the Security Council and his negotiations with Milosevic.

But as far as the film is concerned the main issue is the thesis advanced by Trifkovic that there was a Western conspiracy to abandon the enclave in order to provide the excuse for NATO to attack the Bosnian Serbs. Trifkovic appears to be particularly close to Malagurski who features his views a lot in his films. Trifkovic on his own admission was working in Karadzic's inner office on his press releases while the killings were taking place at Srebrenica. Srebrenica is a key event in how the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia worked itself out. Malagurski gives significant emphasis to Trifkovic's views regarding Srebrenica and Western conspiracies without posting any warning about issues relating to Trifkovic's objectivity. UrbanVillager dismisses concerns about this. .

I completely agree with the detailed points of your analysis and your judgment that this nonsense is unlikely to interest or attract anyone who is not already inclined to subcribe to Malagurski's/Chossudovsky's thesis that Serbia was the West's targeted victim in bringing about the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. The film's existence and publicisation reinforce the framing of this viewpoint as a legitimate one and that's where this Wikipedia article comes in (with the bonus that it helps inform the rest of the world about the existence of BM). Just my point of view of course, as I'm sure UrbanVillager will remind me. Opbeith (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding yourself, I appreciate it. :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, Indent away, no offence taken. I've started a user page, also if I have time, I MAY edit out of this page any of MY comments that are not fairly directly relevant to the film.Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Those references look relevant, I'll try to have a look a bit later, a bit tied up at the moment. Opbeith (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

PoliticsRespun.org is a blog, it has it's own "Blogroll" in the right column (their own phrasing) where all the contributors are listed, and it even says "powered by Wordpress" at the bottom. They identify themselves as a blog, too. As for BrightYoungThings.com, I'm a bit more optimistic, as it's clearly not a blog, although I'm not really sure what kind of website it is. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'm a bit unclear as to what constitutes a valid source on this page. On the one hand links are included to a Toronto based Serbian community paper (I don't wish to be rude but local community papers ANYWHERE are hardly renowned for in-depth research) ... On the other hand links are rejected because they have 'Wordpress' somewhere on them (Wordpress is only the software used surely!).... as for 'blog', according to Wikipedia "More recently "multi-author blogs" (MABs) have developed, with posts written by large numbers of authors and professionally edited. MABs from newspapers, other media outlets, universities, think tanks, interest groups and similar institutions account for an increasing quantity of blog traffic." .... Therefore it seems valid to reject sites using the word blog ONLY when the character of the site is a user-posted blog rather than being excluded simply because of the word. I am not competent to judge the quality/character of the Serbian news outlets which are linked to on the page

Pincrete, as I understand it Wikipedia allows synopses to be presented unreferenced as long as any statements about the content can be compared with an accessible source. I presume this is why UrbanVillager felt that it was acceptable to write his/her own. So as long as the synopsis accords with the content with which you and UrbbanVilager are familiar and there is no controversy we should be OK drawing on the material contributed via any source, particularly when they're signed by a real world identity. Please see my filleted source material in the latest section, located at the end of this Talk Ppage for clarity and ease of accerss. Opbeith (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

On a second point, could you point me to WHERE in the film the interviews with Albanian Nationalists/Irredentists are .... I managed to miss that bit ? Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to bold your quote, it's not that relevant. Yes, multi-author blogs do account for an increasing quantity of blog traffic.Bold text They're still blogs and not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. As for the "Albanian Nationalists/Irredentists" comment, take a look at 1:05:47 in the film, the film actually quotes a New York Times article regarding the matter. That's a pretty big point in the film, I'm surprised you missed it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the guidelines on sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources .

I can see nothing there that automatically prohibits the use of 'a reliable blog'. There is much on the sources page that says that usage depends on many factors, including what is being verified/whether the writer has appropriate credentials / whether the site has taken editorial responsibility for the content etc. ....... Thanks for the timings and link ..... I must have nipped out for more popcorn at that point.Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opbeith, thanks I understand your feelings and admire the dignity with which you have attempted to defend the integrity of Wikipedia and your own moral position, most particularly the 'I am certainly not neutral ...'section. I have myself just removed a rather foolish and feeble joke I tacked onto my comment yesterday. I was myself led to this page by following a comment trail from a download site of this film (the comment was of the 'If you want to know the REAL truth watch this film' kind). I was fairly disconcerted when I got to the page by some apparent dis-information and paricularly by the absence of any mention of the criticisms and charges made against the film. That absence, I believe, deprives the uncommitted reader of any context in which to form his own judgement. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits, I have just made some minor edits which I hope are not controversial ...'fractions', I presume was intended to be 'factions'. I changed 'Albanian irredentists' to 'Albanian nationalists' only because it seemed a more accessible term (and the nationalists' alleged wish to create a Greater Albania is already stated). I put in a few hyphens because some sentences seemed to need some 'parenthesising', I am happy for someone else to improve - or make more consistent - the intended effect ... a few other minor changes were made to be more consistent with UK English, if they seem wrong in Wiki-English, please reverse them. A change I did NOT make in the end, though it is one to which I draw attention is 'regular people', this term is meaningless to most UK ears (or suggests regularly-shaped people). I did not make any change because I am unsure as to whether many/most/average/normal etc. would be most the most appropriate alternative, or whether it should just be left as it is.Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. I also changed "a fair dose of critique" to "a fair dose of criticism", since (in UK English at least), you cannot have an amount of critique. A critique = an analysis/evaluation, whereas I presume what is meant is 'Boris tells us what they did - or failed to do - which was wrong'. Once again if US or Wiki-English allows this use of the word critique, apologies.Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) ....p.p.s. I have just removed 'a fair dose of' as it sounds a bit of a muddled metaphor .... by all means insert 'considerable' or some such quantifier if wanted. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)I also altered 'never before seen footage' to 'new footage' since the former suggests s priceless discovery, rather than just distinguishing the footage from archive material.Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also changed "myths about what really happened in the 1990s" to "myths about the 1990s" .... Since if it is a myth, it cannot possibly be about "what really happened" ...... Someone else may wish to re-phrase this.Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

More significant edit I have altered the section :"as well as plans by Albanian nationalists to create an ethnically pure Greater Albania.[10] to "alleged plans etc.". The original synopsis treats the existence of these plans as a fact .... In reality, the film says: "01:08:38 As for the Albanians who want to secede from Yugoslavia, Becir Hoti, executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo, said that 'nationalists have a platform of two objectives - firstly to provide what they call an ethnically pure Albanian republic and then to unite with Albania to form a Greater Albania'." 01:08:56. ..... As I recall the statement was made in the early 90's. Also the link which supports this assertion [10] does not (for me at least ... possibly because I am not a subscriber) mention anything about Nationalists or anything else. I am still unhappy with the wording, but have put it in as a temporary fix.Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re. More significant edit above. Re. the section The film talks about ..... as well as plans by Albanian nationalists to create an ethnically pure Greater Albania.[10][not in citation given] (into which I inserted 'alleged' recently as a temporary fix). The film doesn't actually TALK ABOUT these alleged plans or the secessionists objectives at all, it simply makes the Becir Hoti quote as though the the plans/objectives were 'a given'. Is there some better way of phrasing this section? Such that the full claim of the film is made clear, or how.?
Incidentally, I have pointed out below that link 10. above is 'dead'(apart from an opening para.), also it is not on WayBack, and PRODUCER has pointed out that the link does not corroborate the claim's presence IN THE FILM (as opposed to in history).Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Privatization through liquidation is explained in a plastic manner", could someone explain to me what "a plastic manner" is ....Perhaps it's US usage, but I'm fairly sure it's meaningless in UK English (or I'm even dumber than I thought I was)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Another edit I have amended "Another story covered is that of a young Serbian man by the name of Srđan Aleksić, whose father talks how his son saved a Muslim man from certain death." .... To "Another story covered is that of a young Serbian man by the name of Srđan Aleksić, whose father talks how his son saved a Muslim man from an attack by soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska." .... My logic was twofold, firstly that there is no indication that I can find that the friend was going to suffer 'certain death', but more significantly, if one is going to give the ethnicity of the hero and the friend, why not the killers?
I have also altered the interview list in a similair way.

Re. another edit above. Would the appropriate name for the killers of Srđan Aleksić be 'the VRS' (which is a term not known to most people), 'the Bosnian Serb Army' (how they were generally referred to in the West at the time) or 'Army of Republika Srpska' (their present name)?
The link has been corrected by me to lead to the 'Army of Republika Srpska' page rather than the Rep.Srp page.Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also altered "Visar Ymeri - Kosovo Albanian activist and politician." .... to Visar Ymeri - Kosovo activist and politician (consistent with his description on Wikipedia). I have made this consistent with the descriptions on the rest of the page, where the ethnicity of politicians is not mentioned, unless it is immediately relevant.

Comparison to other documentary film articles on Wikipedia

Since I noticed that it's not entirely clear to all the users who are commenting on the Synopsis of the film, what a synopsis actually is, I'd like to note that a synopsis merely summarizes what goes on in the film, without addressing the deeper meaning or intent of the film. People here are discussing whether they agree with what's said in the film, but for the synopsis - that doesn't matter. A synopsis means: "This film talks about this and that and says this and that", not "this film wrongfully says this and rightfully says that" or "this film fails to mention this and misinterprets that". I took the liberty of comparing this article with some other articles on documentary films that have a similar genre as this film, and sure enough, the synopsis used the film itself as a reference, as it should:

• An Inconvenient Tax
• The Corporation
• The Take
• Fahrenheit 9/11
• Debtocracy
• The Economics of Happiness

etc.

In fact, I noticed that The Weight of Chains documentary film article has more reference than the average Wikipedia article regarding this matter. Of course, it can always use more reliable references wherever needed. If criticism is what some users want, then I suggest a section called "Critical reception", although at this point, I only see irrelevant bloggers attacking this film, so I believe it's too soon for that section in the article at this point. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I took a brief look at F.9/11, in fact that film constantly uses words like 'the film claims/alleges etc.' (and it's claims are far less in number & far less contentious than THIS film). This synopsis constantly repeats AS FACT assertions made in the film and avoids mentioning the more patently absurd/dishonest/refutable claims of the film.Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This synopsis in this article constantly repeats how the film claims things, not that it's a fact. It's not up to the synopsis to determine whether the claims are absurd, dishonest or refutable. Let me show what every sentence in the Synopsis has:

1. The Weight Of Chains presents ... and claims that the war...

2. However, according to the author of the film, extreme factions on all sides...

3. The film starts off with a brief...

4. Narrated by Malagurski himself, the film explains what...

5. the author moves on to explain what...

6. The role of the National Endowment for Democracy in Yugoslavia is then analyzed...

7. ...and presented as a major cause...

8. ...all of them described as being...

9. Domestic war-mongers are mentioned also.

10. The local media are presented as having...

11. The film then argues that the West...

12. The film includes new footage of a village in Bosnia...

13. The topic of Kosovo is covered most out...

14. The film talks about the Battle of ... as well as alleged plans by...

15. The film then discusses what...

16. Questions such as ... are tackled, with the conclusion that...

17. This film also presents positive stories...

18. ...Jadranka Reihl-Kir was interviewed concerning...

19. ...Vesna Levar, was also interviewed and spoke on...

20. Another story covered is that of a young...

21. After discussing the wars of the 1990s, the film deals with what...

22. A theory is presented that Eastern European states...

23. ...from 1990 to 2010 is graphically depicted...

The synopsis was written in a neutral way, so as to simply depict what the film is claiming, not going into whether its true or not. If there is criticism by reliable sources, that can be added in a separate section. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'm sorry but a lot of your list above are not neutral at all (neutral as to the truth or not), or are NOT covering claims made in the film, simply listing interviewees etc. (allege/claim/a theory/argue/according to/presented as .. are all clearly neutral. However the ONLY use of the word 'alleged' was added by ME only a few days ago, so you can hardly take credit for that). Previously the page stated AS FACT a description emanating from an early 1990's Kosovo Comm. Party politician, talking about his political enemies, truly neutral I don't think!

If you cannot see the difference between 'explains how little green men came from Mars' and 'claims little green men came from Mars', then I think we inhabit different linguistic planets.

I would actually like to see more of BM's claims and assertions included in the page, but, accompanied by links to Wiki-pages where the mainstream viewpoint on events is presented. This might then begin to give the page some context, which at the moment it lacks.Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Post-modernism?

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

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

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

Not vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you agree, why are you using this article to push an alternate view of history? [1] [2] &c. I find it frustrating that comments on the talkpage are so different from actions in the article. And why do you continue to label good-faith edits as vandalism? bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was about to write my own defence when I discovered that Opbeith had already done it for me, thankyou. I wholly endorse what he says as to my motives and add that as a long time USER of Wikipedia, I had never previously felt any need to add/remove or edit anything before now, because - whether I liked everything in an article or not - I respected the intention to supply the reader with as complete a picture as possible. The apparent uncritical endorsement which the page gave to this film shocked me. I was naive perhaps as to the process of editing, but that - as far as I know - is not a sin. Since UrbanVillager rejects the Burgic article mentioned above (which I would describe as occasionaly overheated, but basically sound in its criticisms), why are there links to press releases and - seemingly - to every local newspaper or festival anywhere where this film appears to have been shown. I do not believe it is the duty of Wikipedia to 'take sides' regarding this film, I do however believe that it IS its duty to reflect the charges made against it, which are - fundamentally - that it is SO selective as to be intellectually dishonest.

BTW Opbeith does not describe me as an 'editor', nor would I describe myself thus, except in the most literal sense of having attempted one short edit. Yes I am a 'he'! No, I have no idea who Opbeith is apart from the contact on this page.Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're listing a website that has the text "wordpress" in the address? Please. As for Pincrete, check his or her contributions before you call him or her a Wikipedia editor, as Pincrete hasn't edited a single article before coming to talk about this film. I'm not putting anyone down, I'm just stating facts. By the way, Opbeith, how to you know Pincrete is a "he"? I hope you're not inviting your friends to make accounts on Wikipedia just so they can support you in a debate, because that would not be cool. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked to the copy at the Bosnian Genocide blog as you got rid of the original link and I'm not providing any input to the Wikipedia article, just making the content available. If you can find the Burgic article and show that the content has been distorted by the Wordpress reproduction you haver my apologies in advance. Go for it.

I don't know Pincrete from Adam, Boris or Charlie. I apologise, I shouldn't have assumed that only males would be suckered into believing that everything would be above board behind the scenes at a Wikipedia article with a Serbian apologist connection.Opbeith (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC) ..... Opbeith, don't apologise, I earlier described myself as 'an Englishman' and most of those are 'he's'!Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do please keep us posted if he does decide to sue. Opbeith (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not his lawyer. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, of course, I wouldn't expect a lawyer to be keeping the public informed of the details of a celebrity's life and works. Opbeith (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of the inadequacies of the current Synopsis

I'm afraid that whatever UrbanVillager's rulebook may indicate, ongoing geological processes are now making the time-layered stratification of comments in the Synopsis section impenetrable to any innocent outsider stumbling on the discussion, so I'm starting a new section.

Pincrete, Kilibarda needs to be treated with care as an authority since, as he acknowledges, he was formerly a supporter of Jared Israel's take on events in Bosnia at Emperor's Clothes (Israel collaborated with RTS in producing and circulating the propaganda piece "Judgment", blood brother to "The Weight of Chains"). Brightest Young Things makes the unfortunate error of confusing treatment with subject in describing TWOC as an "important film". Nevertheless both are thoughtful, coherent reviews that provide apposite accounts of the film's narrative (along with its shortcomings). Collectively, along with Burgic, elements of their synopses merit inclusion with UrbanVillager's individual unreferenced effort as long as the comments can be checked against the source. I'll give some thought to it. Opbeith (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, again, you're dismissing the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. The topic you're discussing has its section above, the section is called Synopsis, please discuss it there and don't create multiple sections for the discussion of identical topics, it confuses editors and is not allowed on Wikipedia. I'll repeat that the same goes for your opening of identical sections/discussions on multiple talk pages, as in the case of Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains, please stop doing that. WP:TALK clearly states that "Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." Wikipedia is not a forum. I've already stated all of this on the Boris Malagurski Talk page, so as to remove the possibility of repeating this procedural violation in the future, and yet Opbeith decided to call the rules of Wikipedia "UrbanVillager's rulebook". Please keep in mind that this is the third time that you have broken the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Disscuss the topic above, thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Did you notice the injuction "# Keep the layout clear"? My object in starting a new section is to avoid the discussion becoming impossible to follow. It is already very difficult to follow new additions embedded deep in the old Synopsis section. I'm not trying to confuse editors, the opposite. Your complaint is one of form not substance. You seem to like throwing your weight around in order to impress us with the authority you wield in this protected little Alice-in-Wonderland sub-domain of Wikipedia devoted to promoting the Wikipedia fraud and manipulator Boris Malagurski. Opbeith (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, my arguments have substance, but I respect the guidelines of the encyclopedia of which I'm an editor. I've created a subsection In the Synopsis section, as per Wikipedia recommendations for these types of discussions, since you complained that there wasn't any clarity, we can continue the discussion there, if you'd like. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Material for consideration in expanding/modifying the Synopsis section

I've been through the Burgic, Kilibarda and Brightest Young Things reviews of the film and have done my best to pick out references to the film's content and remove elements of review and analysis. So the following may be useful for incorporating into an amended version of the synopsis in order to give a more informative account drawing on synopsists who have identified themselves by name. I break up the contributions into paragraphs which it may be easier for those familiar with the film to comment on from the point of view firstly of the accuracy of my version of the commentators' reports and secondly of the usefulness of incorporating all or part into the synopsis.

Zijad Burgic

(1) The film claims to offer an answer to the question “why did Yugoslavia fall apart in a bloody war”, emphasising “the complex theme of western involvement in the internal affairs of the former Yugoslav republics, then and now”.

(2) The film holds some of the parties to account for their responsibility for the Balkan wars of the 1990s sharing the major portion of blame between US economic interests (in the context of international globalisation) and the Ustasha movement in Croatia and radical Islam in Bosnia (the local Balkan-level causes of the break-up of Yugoslavia.

(3) The film begins with scenes describing pre-war Yugoslavia in positive terms and provides a summary account of 20th century Yugoslav history in which the break-up of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is attributed solely to World War II and the wartime Serb Chetnik forces commanded by Draža Mihailović are acclaimed as “anti-fascists” and “the first guerrillas” of Europe.

(4) The mythic Battle of Kosovo in 1389 is alleged to usher in the rule of the Ottoman Empire. References are made to Turkish methods of government [any clarification?] and the spread of Islam in the Balkans [any clarification?].

(5) The film claims that the break-up of Yugoslavia was brought about by U.S. interests and large corporations and by the impact of the globalization process worldwide. US government documents from the 1980's are presented which reveal decisions and actions aimed at protecting US economic interests that, it is claimed, played a key role in Yugoslavia's disintegration. Particular reference is made to the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy and CIA involvement.

(6) The Ustasha movement in Croatia and radical Islam in Bosnia are the local Balkan-level causes of the break-up of Yugoslavia that are mentioned.

(7) The film features interviews with prominent U.S. and Canadian advocates for the Serb cause - Gregory Elich, Barry Lituchy, John Bosnich, General Lewis MacKenzie, James Byron Bissett (former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1990-1992), Srdja Trifkovic. Dialogue from films featuring prominent film stars of the era is used along with interviews with individuals recognised as trustworthy such as Rade Aleksic (father of Srdjan, who was killed by drunken Serbian soldiers protecting fellow citizens of other ethnicities), the Balkan rap artists Vedran Mujagić of the Sarajevo band “Dubioza kolektiv” and Bosko Ćirković of the Belgrade band “Beogradski sindikati" and Vlade Divac (the former Yugoslav basketball national team representative and NBA star).

(8) The film uses other interviews that point to the criminality of the Croatian state - an interview with the widow of Josip Kir, pre-war police chief of Osijek assassinated by Croatian nationalists (using the story of Kir’s heroism) suggests that the Croats were responsible for the war in Croatia, and similarly an account of the murder in 2000 of the Croat Milan Levar, assassinated by Croatian nationalists allegedly because of his knowledge of war crimes committed against Serbs in Gospic.

(9) The film blames the break-up of Yugoslavia on “new leaders” such as Alija Izetbegovic, accused of being a “Nazi collaborator” during WWII.

(10) The film describes the break-up process in limited detail. The Serbs in Croatia present a legitimate demand for cultural autonomy and there is isolated reference to the destruction of Vukovar and the bombing of Dubrovnik.

(11) The film engages in a limited discussion of war crimes and war criminals, focusing on a “different truth” from the standard account of war crimes perpetrated against Bosnian Muslims, citing a supposed agreement between Bill Clinton and Izetbegovic that 5,000 Srebrenica residents would need to be murdered in order for the U.S. to intervene.

(12) Journalists working for major news agencies are described as mere agents of their countries of origin, reporting non-objectively and laying all blame for the wars on the Serbs. It is also claimed that they received money and publicity for dishonest reporting..

(13) Much of the film deals with the secession of Kosovo and the role of the US and NATO.

+++

Konstantin Kilibarda (mostly review/analysis)

(1) The film presents various commentators including Srdja Trifkovic and Michel Chossudovsky whose contributions support a narrative that arguers the case for Serbian victimization during the 1990s, pointing out that other ethnicities also committed war-crimes and that Serbs were victims as well, Serbs were historical victims of a greater genocide in WWII and Serbs were reluctant to enter the conflict but were forced into it by the nationalist and separatist agendas of other ethnicities.

The film also interviews subjects including Bosnia’s popular dub-reggae trio Dubioza Kolektiv, the families of Josip Reihl-Kir and Milan Levar, etc. whose testimony describes a narrative of economic crisis and ethnic conflict fuelled by neoliberal pressure for market oriented reform and economic plunder by newly emerging elites, often cooperating across ethnic divides.

+++

Brightest Young Things - Toni Ti

(1) The film aims to “take a critical look at the role the US, NATO, and the EU played in the tragic break up of a once peaceful and prosperous Yugoslavia.”

(2) The film begins with a history of Tito’s Yugoslavia - portrayed as a multi-ethnic state, with a flourishing mixed economy of private capitalist enterprise and state-run industries (6.1% GDP growth, 90% literacy), a model of development and thorn in the side of Western and US powers because of its recalcitrant non-aligned orientation and its blend of semi-socialist and free market principles.

(3) A survey of the complex history of the region refers to the brutal reign of the Ottoman Empire and its ethnic legacy of a population of Muslims of Slav origin, described as having been forcefully converted to Islam.

(4) The film makes unexpected connections and often ignores chronological sequence. It highlights how the 1984 Reagan administration Directive 33, intended to “sponsor democracy,” inspired policies with very negative economic implications for Yugoslavia. It claims that covert US attempts to achieve a dominant influence led to the creation of the G17 party as a result of which the country’s economy came under the control of economists who were puppets of US interests.

(5) It describes how “privatization through liquidation” combined with rising unemployment, IMF-led austerity measures and debt caused the devastation of the economy and enable politicians to foment nationalistic conflict within a desperate population. It features the stories of local heroes who refused to join in violence against neighbors and rejected murderous rhetoric.

(6) The film suggests that ethnic hatred was promoted entirely from outside the country by Western interests. It argues that the massacre at Srebrenica and “ethnic cleansing” accusations are evidence of Western propaganda aimed at demonizing the Serbs. The film claims that the US had a strategic interest in portraying Serbs as aggressors but also states that all parties in Yugoslavia were equally responsible.

(7) The film criticises the US bombing of Serbia in defence of Kosovo as a sordid, untidy story. The segment points to questionable US motives. 30 minutes are spent on Kosovo in comparison to limited mention of what happened at Srebrenica accounts for is barely mentioned

(8) The argument for the influence of US geostrategic interest is illustrated by reference to US support for the KLA and corrupt Kosovan politicians and warlords. The bombing campaign against Serbia is described in detail - notably the bombing of factories and the power and telecommunications grids with the express purpose of facilitating subsequent takeover by US firms.

(9) In the final segment, the film looks at the implications of possible EU and NATO membership. The prospect of EU membership is described as posing economic problems for farmers and businesses and causing unemployment to skyrocket. The debts of all of the former Yugoslav countries are reported to have grown 10 fold. The film questions the advantages of membership of the two organisations. Opbeith (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Further Claims made by the Film (source BM's narration in the film ...with approx. timings). Added by Pincrete. I have added these here, in the list as it seems the best place. The film claims :-

1.The DECLARED mission (of Kosovo war) ..... was to topple 'Slobo' (1.02).

2.US state dept. classified KLA as 'terrorist organisation with links to Osama BL and the Mafia' (however the book shown at this point is clearly NOT a US government document)(1.10).
(addendum taken from KLA talk page "The sources in this article asserting that the KLA was de-listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department in February 1998 are not based on physical State Department documents. If one goes to the State Dept. web site at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/ one will see that the KLA was never listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization". .... So I guess that explains why it wasn't a US Govt. document in the film)Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

3.That US and Germany supplied KLA with arms, also CIA, US Army and British Special Forces ensured KLA's training. (the aim being to provoke a Serbian reaction in Kosovo).(1.11)

4.That Helena Ranta PROVED that the Racak massacre was a fake.(1.15)

5.That Artisaari threatened 'Slobo' that if he didn't withdraw from Kosove, Belgrade would be flattened in a week.(Bosnitch interview)(1.17)

6.When it comes to (Kosovo)peace agreement, BM claims secession was promised to Kosovo within 3 years (however document SHOWN says 'An International meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people ... opinions of relevant authorities etc." ... No mention of secession. )(1.13)

7. That schools, hospitals, bridges and TV stations (within Serbia) were targeted by NATO during Kosovo War (though the schools and hospitals shown are interiors of what appear to be undamaged buildings).(approx 1.03)

8. That NATO did not act in Kosovo to 'save Albanians', since it killed large numbers of them. This was simply a pretext for destabilising Serbia and colonising the cou
ntry (my summary of approx 5 minutes of film within the 1.05 - 1.15 area).
Many of these are significant claims, I have listed them here for consideration as to whether/how they be included in the synopsis. I have to say that this little list is the result of approx. 20 minutes of film, so two hours would yield a VERY LONG LIST of BM's assertions.Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, no original research. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So I can't watch the film then? Or read the script? Is BM's script not a reliable source (as to what is in the film)?Pincrete (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, you're not just writing what's said in the film, you're adding your opinionated comments and original research about whether what is said in the film is true or not. Click on the link in my previous comment, read it through. Also, a Synopsis is supposed to summarize the entire film, not take out 5 minutes and focus on them in such depth. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my description of the bombed-out schools/hospitals is an opinion (that's why it says 'appears') .... In point 8. I have precis-ed a longish section into a few words. Everything else is in the film, including the (demonstrably 'phoney') documents.

There is nothing 'opinionated' about being able to freeze a DVD and being able to read what the document shown in a film ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than what the voice reading CLAIMS it says, that is called being literate, not being opinionated. Is there some Wikipedia guideline that says I may not note that discrepancy on the talk page?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understand what a synopsis is(but the present one bears a striking resemblance to the press-release on BM's website, which I was looking at 20 minutes ago). Until it is established WHAT the claims/assertions of this film are, one cannot decide which of them are important. Of course I am not suggesting that these points go into the article (certainly not with their current wording). However I post them here so that others can find the relevant points in the film and judge for themselves which are important.

I had already looked at the 'no original reasearch link'

I made a point several days ago, which I will now repeat : "my understanding of Wikipedia norms is that where a factual claim is made in a film/book etc. which significantly differs from the generally held factual account, not only is it allowed to point out the discrepancy, it is a REQUIREMENT to do so (without of course saying which claim is true).

Is this a correct assumption on my part?Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The first two sources are blogs, so disregard them completely, BYT is a non-print unreliable online magazine, which has as its mission statement: "1. Collect underpants, 2. ?, 3. Profit!", as per their Facebook page. Opbeith, since this is going into circles, although I hate repeating something that I've already written - User:Psychonaut alerted me about your troubling contribution history, that your "condemnation of others distoring, manipulating, and misrepresenting facts is entirely disingenuous", that you've "shown [yourself] to have no compunctions whatsoever in introducing into articles [your] own factual distortions and misrepresentations when they serve to advance [your] point of view." He also said that "[your] criticisms of [my] edits are grounded in neither Wikipedia policy nor reason itself, nor [are you] willing or able to identify specific problems with the article text, even when pressed with direct requests to do so." I also noticed that User:WhiteWriter commented on your talk page saying: "You are so deep in your pov that any further conversation from my side would be completely pointless". I realize now, Opbeith, that when I was trying to reason with you, I was actually engaging in a pointless discussion with an internet troll. As per Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I'm not going to feed the troll anymore. Stop wasting my time and the time of other serious Wikipedia editors. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to hearing the opinions of the rest of your friends. Opbeith (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I intend to look closely at the points raised by Opbeith (and again look at the film), however, I do think there are serious points here which should not be dismissed out of hand ... The fact that these may be blogs is irrelevant to our discussion on talk ... It's the value or otherwise of the points, anyhow blogs are not NECESSARILY excluded, it depends on other factors.Pincrete (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, although I welcome your latest edits in the Synopsis section of the article and find that they're quite constructive, your sentence "The fact that these may be blogs is irrelevant to our discussion on talk" leads me to inform you that article talk pages are not blogs or forums, so if a reference is irrelevant by being a mere blog post, all discussion posts on Wikipedia talk pages about its content are irrelevant as well. Keep up the constructive edits though! :) All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Pincrete, even if we ignore that Zijad Burgic is a blogger, at the end of his "review", he states "A good portion of the film deals with the secession of Kosovo and the role of the United States and NATO in this regard. However, this part of the story is less relevant when it comes to evaluating the work of Boris Malagurski and his team." - which makes it questionable whether Burgic even watched all of the film, especially because he makes no mention of the economic section of the film in the second half. A "reviewer" who decides that the second part of the film is not "relevant", that's the first time I've heard such nonsense. Feel free to add sentences that describe activity in the film without any commentary on whether its true or not, and without biased colclusions such as "the interviewees are advocating the Serb cause", but rather "the interviewees make direct claims that this and that happened", etc. That's what a Synopsis is all about. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The film is about the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. By the time that Serbia's hegemony in Kosovo came under challenge, most aspects of the break-up were already complete. Malagurski's decision to devote such a disproportionate chunk of this film to Kosovo when he had already made another film dealing specifically with Kosovo suggests more concern with Serbia's current political issues rather than with the break-up of Yugoslavia as a whole which was notionally his subject. So it was a legitimate comment on Burgic's part. Opbeith (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a false premise there. Please don't worry about feeding the troll if it distresses you, simply try to stay within the boundaries of honest discourse. You might explain why you consider reports of the film's contents provided by named individuals are any less trustworhy than the synopsis provided by your own self, whose reliability has frequently been called into question. Opbeith (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which false premise Opbeith is referring to, so I'll add my own reply. Firstly UrbanVillager, the reviewer Burgic did NOT say that the second part of the film is not relevant, he said that it "is LESS relevant to EVALUATING the work etc." i.e. the 'core' of the film lay elsewhere for him. I fail to see what is nonsensical about this assessment or how it indicates that he didn't watch the end.

Secondly, what I mean by "The fact that these may be blogs is irrelevant to our discussion on talk", is simply that their source is irrelevant,as they are not being used to corroborate anything. The only question which IS relevant is 'are the claims made by the reviewers accurate factual accounts of the content/claims/arguments of the film? (since the film itself is the source). I am grateful to Opbeith for having extracted from these reviews, some of the claims made by the film and saving me the effort of re-watching, pen-in-hand. If these claims ARE NOT actually made in the film or they are a significant mis-representation, then, .... end of discussion. If these claims ARE in the film, then the question becomes how best to articulate those claims on the main page (I would have thought that BM would appreciate such close attention to his carefully crafted arguments). Of course not all of Opbeith's material - with necessary expansion - could possibly be used on the main page, but it does represent a basis for discussion as to what EXACTLY the film's arguments and claims are, in order that a reader of the page can critically assess the film's arguments within a context.

Lastly my understanding of Wikipedia norms is that where a factual claim is made in a film/book etc. which significantly differs from the generally held factual account, not only is it allowed to point out the discrepancy, it is a REQUIREMENT to do so (without of course saying which claim is true). The obvious example of this is BM's claim as to the numbers who died at Srebrenica, the manner of their deaths, etc.. I want to re-watch the film before expanding this point. BM may regard Srebrenica as un-important, however the differences between BM's account and the findings of internationally recognised authorities needs to be noted with links to the relevant Wikipedia pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The content from those sources that you're discussing is irrelevant as all of those sources fail WP:RELIABLE. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum, please take your discussion elsewhere. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your peremptory commands give the impression that you think you own this talk page/article(/?Wikipedia). Opbeith (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, Are these claims/arguments made by the film or not?

That is surely the only question at present, as I said before, if they are not or are an unfair representation of claims made in the film... end of discussion .... I am myself in the process of establishing which claims are made by watching the film closely ... I have if anyone should want access, a text version of BM's commentary (this is imperfect and is possibly a Google translate of the Serb subs, however it is an aid when viewing the film.).Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I appreciate you have been busy elsewhere, BUT .... Are these claims/arguments made by the film or not? .... Having rewatched the film closely on Sunday, 1) I think that the majority of them ARE made in the film 2) Some 6 or 8 other HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS claims are made which I hope to add to the above list shortly ..... Whether these claims came from a review, a blog or a genie whispered them to Opbeith in his sleep is irrelevant, these are the claims upon which BM bases his arguments, and they are therefore the content of the film.Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sponsors

PRODUCER's latest edits are clear POV pushing. A production company finances the production of a film. Whether the production company gets money from individuals, receives it from companies or organizations, or gets funding from film funds is the business of the production company. That means that the production company is the financier of the film, not every single donation that goes towards the production. Let me explain it this way: If I give money to you or your company so that you or your company can produce a project, you or your company are still the financiers of the project, unless if you or your company and I sign a co-production agreement, in which case we both have to be listed as financiers. Only if a co-production contract is signed - then we can list several financiers. There are 101 people and organizations which donated towards the production, but only one financier - the Malagurski Cinema production company. Either we list all of the contributors, which is a precedent on Wikipedia and simply illogical, as many production companies get smaller donations as well, or none at all, which is in tact with Wikipedia guidelines, as the production company is the only one that matters and where the company gets money is up to the production company - this can be talked about in an article about the production company, if its ever created. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to look at the above, it sounds like it's very much UrbanVillager's own development of the topic, with no relationship whatsoever to any Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Opbeith (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Take, for example, the article Bowling for Columbine - the studios and producers are listed, they are the financiers. They have co-production contracts, I'm sure. They never discuss where they actually get the money for the films (it had to have come from somewhere), but it's not Wikipedia's job to investigate such things. Especially considering there are no secondary sources to back up PRODUCER's edits. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, for once. Bowling for Columbine, like any other article about a documentary, should details of the significant financial backers. Any documentary should be transparent about its sources of finance if it's intending to be straightforward with its target audience. There's a difference between being one of a number of small subscribers and being a significant contributor or an organiser of contributions. When a film has little prospect of a commercial return, as I presume was the case for a production by a small-scale unit like Malagurski Cinema that hasn't finished developing its track record, the people funding it are not doing so in the anticipation of a financial return on investment. Disclosing the names of the major - ie potentially influential - sponsors provides information that helps assess the possibility of influence and bias. It's not unreasonable to support a film that offers a point of view consistent with your own. The issue is how reputable and legitimate that point of view is. It seems extraordinary that time after time we have to go through these basic principles of common sense while you accuse people of pushing their points of view, declaring "End of story" or simply trying to avoid the inclusion of relevant information. You're simply not comfortable with other people's efforts to achieve balance and transparency. You once confirmed for me that you had no connection with the film. Would you be prepared now to confirm once and for all that you have no connection with Boris Malagurski or his backers? Opbeith (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, the self-published "poem reading on Srebrenica grave sites" (check it out on YouTube, quite disturbing) blogger and author Zijad Burgic wrote one thing about The Weight of Chains that caught my eye: "One website that propagandized the content of the film – the film was displayed without any indication of who the author was – stated that the film had been recently aired on Russian television, without any mention of which channel it was on, leaving one to assume that it was aired on state television." Um, fact check? Actual journalists and authors would check if it really was aired on Russian TV before making asumptions (from what I could find, it wasn't. Only Malagurski's Kosovo: Can You Imagine? was broadcasted on RT) and at least cite the website. "One website", well, could say whatever it wants, no? If we set aside the fact that the text originated on a self-published blog and that Burgic is an unestablished nobody with no credentials, this sentence makes his credibility equal to zero. End of story. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As you say, a side note. Back to my last sentence in my preceding observations, which as far as I can see you still haven't answered: would you be prepared to confirm that you have no connection with Boris Malagurski or his backers? Opbeith (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First you say all the individual contributors must also be added or else is POV pushing which is just nonsense. What POV could I possibly push? Now you say a "co-production contract" must exist. What? You're throwing whatever possible reason you can out there to not include this. Hell the page even says "this is our film". You say only two of the eight are put in there and that there must secondary sources to back the claim up which is again nonsense. In reality the major financial backers are identified. Funny enough the film's website can be used to state when the production ended, a sponsor's site for where the filming took place, but god forbid you add the sponsors to the article. You do not get to personally and arbitrarily pick and choose which information you like to stay in the article. If you want to talk about consensus two different have users have reverted you so far and believe the information should be included. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, it's as simple as this: according to the website, there are 101 sponsors (all of them are listed on the "Sponsors" tab of the website), either you list them all, or none at all. Two of the sponsors in the "Sponsors" section within the "Sponsors" tab are fundraisers which you didn't add - why? Perhaps you considered fundraising not really being a "sponsor". In that case, you were right - fundraising doesn't mean that everyone or every organization which gives money is a producer of the film, so take into consideration that the producer is always the only official financier of the film - in charge of fundraising, and later funding the project. If you or your organization gives a $1,000 for this film this wouldn't get you a ticket to appear on Wikipedia. Films are considered productions by encyclopedias, and the production company finds funds, sponsors, etc., not the film itself. You can't donate to a film (that's a concept I think nobody can comprehend, as a film isn't registered as a company and doesn't have a bank account), you donate to the production company, and the company is the only sponsor, unless if it signs a co-production deal in which another production company gives money for the project (that it can also provide with fundraising), in which case the two are the only sponsors. In light of those two strong arguments, please stop adding that sentence and promoting these insignificant organizations and individuals, thanks. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong? Heh. This all or nothing proposal is just nonsense. There are eight sponsors, the rest are contributors. Recognize that. Again why do you think it's appropriate to use the film's website to state when the production ended, but not who sponsored the film? Why can a sponsor's site be cited for where the filming took place, but not point out that they are a sponsor? Why are you discussing the funding process? These organizations "donated to this film project" as stated on the website. As simple as that, your original research is absolutely irrelevant. For the love of god stop conflating discussions. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, they're all in the "Sponsors" tab. If you're citing the film website, then note all of the 101 sponsors. You say these organizations "donated to this film project", well the contributors "donated to this film project" as well, according to the source you're citing. Please try to understand how project funding works and how these things are dealt with on other Wikipedia film articles. The only sponsors are the production companies in charge of financing the film. Where the production company gets money is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, might I note that sometimes films projects get approved for film funds (such as Eurimages, for example) and in that case the funding organizations become sponsors because they actually co-produce the film. In that case, you can list a sponsor, as it's also a co-producer (it would be absurd to go further and investigate where Eurimages got the funds to fund a film on that film's article). The Weight of Chains only has Malagurski Cinema as a producer (production company). Please get informed before you start adding nonsense to the article. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Still evading questions. They are under the contributor section separate from the sponsor section. The website itself says who the financial sponsors are and not whoever you wish to personally proclaim. We aren't discussing producers. They "donated to this film project", this "film project" has a wikipedia page, this information can be included. You do not get to say what's relevant and irrelevant for Wikipedia as if you speak on the behalf of the entire Wikipedia. You've got three editors that think the information is appropriate. The consensus is clear here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not evading questions, I'm trying to explain how film funding works. You won't find any articles on Wikipedia that disclose how a production company funded a film, i.e. whether it raised funds with donations or sponsors, or whether it just paid for it from its company budget. I'm trying to explain that this is irrelevant, even when the company discloses it on a website - it's for promotional purposes, while Wikipedia is not here to promote insignificant companies and individuals. Only if there's a co-production, you list all the companies that officially funded a film project. If you find evidence of a co-production between Malagurski Cinema and the organizations you'd like to add to the article, then they can be added. Please don't pretend there is a consensus, especially when your arguments are out of sync with every other film article on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, other stuff will always exist. The film MOS says that the production section should include "securing of financing". These donations by sponsors are a part of that financing and can therefore be included. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the film MOS says it's important to include how the production was funded, not to list all individual sponsors and donors. As a sign of good faith and willingness to reach a compromise, I suggest the addition of a sentence that says "The film was produced and funded by the Canadian production company Malagurski Cinema, based in Vancouver, and according to the film's website, the project was supported by around 100 organizations and individuals who donated towards the production of the film." We're not going to pick out certain sponsors from the "Sponsors" tab (and give the organizations free advertising on Wikipedia), or list all 101 of them, but I guess it's OK to mention that the production company funded the film with the help of donations, if you insist. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Further promoting Malagurski whilst obscuring the background? That's not a good "compromise". bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Listing insignificant groups for their promotion on Wikipedia is not allowed. I think its important to have a lasting consensus and I am offering a compromise. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Still evading the issue. You're transparent, even if Malgurski's funding isn't. Opbeith (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you consider them significant or insignificant is your personal opinion. Merely mentioning an organization isn't promotion. Your "compromise" is absolute rubbish. The edits are in line with the film MOS and at least three editors have formed a consensus for it to be included. Consensus does not need to be unanimous and you are not the gatekeeper for this article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is based on arguments, not the quantity of editors. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is based on the agreement of editors after arguments were heard. Arguments were made, Wiki policies were brought, and the quality of arguments were judged. Three still believe it should be included with you as the odd one out. No Wikipedian is required to endlessly attempt to appease another in order to get a unanimous consensus and this gatekeeper mentality increasingly illustrates your attempted ownership of the article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Misinterpreting the Wikipedia film MOS is not an argument. The only article on Wikipedia that lists sponsors is The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is specifically about film sponsors and that's why it lists them. No other article about a film has what you're suggesting. You can't build a consensus that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. You can't donate $1,000 to a film production company and instantly earn a ticket to being mentioned on Wikipedia, it just doesn't work that way, sorry. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a misinterpretation or contrary to guidelines, it clearly pertains to "securing financing" and is not a form of promotion, it's simply a statement of fact. Constantly repeating that other crap exists is futile and comparing this film with Hollywood ones is hilarious. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a Hollywood film, find me any film on Wikipedia that has what you're asking for. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. To repeat what I inserted above, all these rules and recommendations cited by UrbanVillager appear to have no basis whatsoever in any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, they're just cobbled together to support UrbanVillager's control of the article's content. What a surprise. Opbeith (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think SOME mention of the sponsors is appropriate, especially since 1) One of them is an interviewee on the film 2) So many are connected with the cause(s) the film promotes 3) The method of funding is relatively unorthodox. However I think that the present position is inappropriate (should be after NOT before opening Para. ...) I also think that some other form of phrasing might be appropriate eg (After naming principal sponsors)'including Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals' with a link . I don't see any logic at all in any of UrbanVillager's arguments and they look awfully like a smokescreen, also I consider his 'compromise' to be a joke and endorse BobRayner's analysis above. BUT GUYS, DON'T LET THIS DETRACT US FROM THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF REMEDYING THE REST OF THE PAGE.Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia film MOS has the funding first in the production section. I agree with your other suggestion. Would this be good in your view?: "Sponsors for the film include the Serbo-Australian Information & Welfare Centre, the Serbian KOLO Association, the Serbian National Shield Society of Canada, the Global Research Centre, and a number of other Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wikipedia film MOS says "securing of financing and producers", and the producer is Malagurski Cinema, and, as such, is in charge of financing. Every film is funded by a production company, while sponsors and individuals can fund the production, and they're mentioned only if co-production contracts are signed. This is how it works on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, please find me one film article on Wikipedia that advertises organizations and individuals that donated towards the production of a film, just one (other than The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which is specifically about film sponsors and that's why it lists them). This is the third time I'm asking. Wikipedia can not provide free advertising for insignificant organizations. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask a fourth time if you wish. Put it in bold, caps, italics, and underline it too if you want. I have no obligation to find anything for your other crap exists nonsense. The MOS and indeed common sense are both already clear on this. I've already read and responded to your repeated comments enough times now and would like to hear Pincrete's response. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already given my reasons (above) for WHY I think some mention of funding is appropriate, it was only an opinion as to WHERE this should go, I'm happy to accept standard MOS practice, or whatever 'reads best'. PRODUCER's wording seems a bit heavy handed but mention of GlobResCentre seems appropriate (since this is run by one of the interviewees) ... Also perhaps any sponsors with explicit political agendas or strong links to the film. Thereafter I don't know why specific organisations should be mentioned, am I missing something? It seems to me that most would be adequately covered by the 'catch-all' description and links to the web address for those who wish to know the full list. Just an opinion.

I still think however that UrbanVillager is putting up a smokescreen here, for reasons best known to himself.Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, I'm not putting up a smokescreen, just show me one article on Wikipedia that does these kinds of things. Financiers are production companies, not whoever donates towards a production. Ever wondered why Coca-Cola or the US Army don't appear on the financiers list of many films, but just get a "thanks" in the credits, even though they donate towards the films? That's because they're not co-producers, and only producers are co-producers are considered official financiers. From what I noticed, while the other organizations and individuals just gave money, which is not notable for Wikipedia, the Global Research Centre did participate in the production (with Michel Chossudovsky being interviewed), it does get mentioned a lot when describing this film ([3], [4], etc.), so I guess we could list that organization for giving support and funding, "together with other organizations and individuals who donated towards the production of the film." How's that? --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not dealing with the point - transparency is important where an op-ed documentary is concerned, less so in the case of a primarily commercial production. Knowing the sources of substantial contributions in cash or kind is important as an indication of potential conflicts of interest or sources of influence. As you note, Global Research Centre are Malagurski's partners in the film and that's useful to acknowledge, but they are not his only substantial backers. It would be helpful if you would make it clear that there are no echoes of the Gibraltarpedia conflict of interest issue as far as either the film or its reporting are concerned. This is very much a current concern at Wikipedia and not to be dismissed flippantly. Opbeith (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, I'd rather hear what others have to say since they probably know more than I about the sponsors .... but immediate response to your suggestion? ... Errrrrr, difficult, but I think there's a word missing from my suggested wording ... Now what would that be ? ... Let me try to remember .... I'm sure I'll remember it soon! Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pincrete, there are a number of issues, but one that is immediately apparent is that listing the names of sponsors other than Global Research Centre will highlight the presence of the word "Serbian" in their names and cast doubt on the impression of "third party neutrality" bolstered by the film's self-description as a Canadian film. The producer and general factotum appears to have asserted "Serbian-Canadian" nationality during his studies but there is no evidence that he was ever more than an overseas student. Perhaps UrbanVillager can confirm whether Malagurski has ever possessed dual nationality. The auteur was heavily involved in Serbian nationalist activities during his time in Canada and took his film back to Serbia for its initial promotion and launch. Now his studies are completed he has returned to the country of his birth to pursue his career there. His "Serbianness" is clearly important to the film and avoidance of its mention and the reluctance to name any sponsor other than the Canadian Global Research Centre suggests something less than openness.

Radio Television Serbia made a very substantial contribution to the financial viability of the film through its willingness make archive material available free of charge. I myself have tried to obtain a minimal amount of archive footage from a broadcaster and in normal circumstances the cost is very substantial, so Radio Television Serbia's waiver of charges represents a very significant contributory factor in balancing the film's overall production budget. Given the much-criticised nature of Radio Television Serbia's activities during the period covered by the film, the film's apparently uncritical use of RTS archive footage from the period in itself raises the question of the film's good faith. The Wikipedia article on RTS provides sources that describe how the Serbian media was accused of embracing "Serb nationalism" and promoting "xenophobia" toward the other Yugoslav ethnicities in Yugoslavia. RTS paid little or no attention to acts of war carried out by Serbs while heavily reporting Croatian and Muslim atrocities and "atrocities". (Dušan Mitević, director of RTS at the time, has since acknowledged the warmongering role of the state-controlled broadcaster in carrying false information and biased reporting.)

The nature of the film's disclosed financial support arrangements is certainly relevant. But again and again UrbanVillager resists efforts to move towards greater transparency. Opbeith (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, your comments about RTS really show you didn't even watch the film. Try from 0:28:39. Any further discussion with you is pointless since you have no knowledge of the topic you're discussing. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, your link to Malagurski's YouTube channel takes me to George Kenney saying that the US decision to recognise Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia was politically-based because desk officers at the State Department didn't know about it in advance. Then we get Boris's glib interpretation of Kenney's words followed by Marko Perkovic/Thomson singing about killing Chetniks. Nothing whatsoever about RTS providing footage. Your knowledge of the film doesn't seem that much deeper than mine. Opbeith (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the YouTube Channel announces: "Published on Aug 11, 2012 by Boris Malagurski - Like it? Please, buy it! :) http://www.weightofchains.com/buy Also, 'like' the director's fan page :)" while the clip itself includes intermittent display of a banner soliciting donations to fund the follow-up "The Weight of Chains 2" and the website address. Doesn't this meet Psychonaut's criteria for spamming? Opbeith (talk)

Unsurprisingly, I'm baffled. I followed your link to the

Ah 'Serbian' ...That's the word ... Yes of course, why couldn't I remember it ... I knew there was something that UrbanVillager had left out of my suggested 'catch-all' sentence ... Silly of me!

Getting back to the serious business of coming up with an agreed form of words re. sponsors/backers. How about "The film was sponsored by Global Research Centre and others including Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia"

Links could then be added to the fund-raising website and to the 'proof' that RTS gave the footage free (I think it is in one of BM's interviews. As I believe is also BM's account of 'how much' RTS footage was used) and to more info about RTS (on Wikipedia?). If there is any other major contributor with a good reason to be named (apart from G R Centre), they could be after GRC.

I think we DON'T want a list a mile long, nor do we want to demonise the good ladies of the South Adelaide Serbian Women's Knitting Circle just because they organised a coffee morning for BM.Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Serbian organizations actually gave as much or more money than the GRC. Thus it seems odd to present them after the GRC. I also don't think the sentence length or the concern for "demonization" is a valid reason to not mention them. They are free to associate with whom they wish and there is no crime in statements of fact. Your sentence form is still a great improvement from UrbanVillager's "compromise". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't 'my bag'. I joined in only to offer some support to others - including yourself - who I thought were making a valid argument. My reason for putting GRC first was because its founder is an interviewee. I think there needs to be valid SPECIFIC reasons for mentioning others by name rather than them being in the 'catch-all' sentence. My argument here is not so much how much money people put in, rather the kind of argument that Opbeith mentions above of transparency/vested interest. I do think that whatever form of words is used, it does need to be 'readable' and to provide links to anyone who might want the 'fuller picture'.

As I said though, not 'my bag', (partly because I have no idea who many of these organisations are, who for example are 'Mirovna Akcija Humanista' .. Peace Action Humanists ... who apparently supplied footage ... " I got an exclusive clip from Jezdimir Milosevic from Peace Action humanists where Serbs and Muslims forgive the tears in the village Vrhbarje Sokolac" translated from BM interview at http://www.glassrpske.com/plus/teme/Boris-Malagurski-Zajedno-moramo-promeniti-svet/lat/69579.html ).Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum : BM himself says "Most of the donations were from Australia, and this has helped us enormously Branislav Grbović from Perth, who organized the fundraiser in Australia, and many other organizations.". This is on the Subotica link on the main page, so yes you are factually right. I still don't see any reason to name organisations or individuals without a good reason though.Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess it could be OK to mention that the Vrhbarje footage came from Jezdimir Milosevic, of the the Peace Action of Humanists. I agree with Pincrete when he says, regarding donations, that he doesn't see any reason to name organizations or individuals. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't QUITE say that I don't see any reason to name orgs/individuals, what I said earlier was that there needed to be valid, SPECIFIC reasons for naming either. Reasons such as a clear vested interest in the film / appearance in it etc. .... Thanks for the links below, I will try to look at them.Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound?: "The film was sponsored by numerous Serbian diaspora community organisations and by the Global Research Centre. A number of private individuals also donated. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia" The specific names aren't mentioned, but they are first in the sentence since they gave as much or more than the GRC. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to 'go with the flow' on this one, but my own logic was to list the 'vested/conflict of interest' ones first rather than how much was given, hence GRC. I think the sentence could be 'telescoped' a bit ... e.g "The film was sponsored by Serbian diaspora community organisations and private individuals also the Global Research Centre. A significant amount of archive footage was supplied free by Radio Television Serbia".Links could be provided to RTS & GRC.

Also we need to verify that RTS footage was FREE and that the amount was 'considerable (I think I've seen both these points in interviews by BM). Do we want to acknowledge to the 'Vrhbarje' footage mentioned above ? I don't see why we should .... As I said though, I'll probably 'go with the flow'Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your phrasing. I think this is ready to go in the article. I don't where the RTS claim comes from nor do I see the significance of the Vrhbarje bit. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the RTS mention might have to wait till I can find the reference again. It was in an interview BM gave but I can't find it again at the moment. Vrhbarje footage was contributed by Jezdimir Milosevic of Peace Action of Humanists, also of Radio DISS Sarajevo, an NGO in Sarajevo catering to the Serb community which received large amounts of money from Western donors but was noted to be taking a long time to make any broadcasts to its audience. Jezdimir Milosevic turns out to be a production assistant in the credits, but there's no indication whether he paid for or was paid for the footage. Opbeith (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Opbeith, it's worth waiting a few days till it is established WHO gave footage, whether it was FREE, HOW MUCH footage and then decide who to list, how to phrase. Better to get this right! I don't see any reason though why 'funding' text should not go in now though.Do we have agreement?Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that part is at least ready. Also I want to comment on your statement here. [5] When I first introduced the material I provided a link to the official site then I added a web mirror archived link of the official site to go alongside the link to the official site itself. [6][7] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the following should be inserted into the article "The film was sponsored by Serbian diaspora community organisations, private individuals and the Centre for Research on Globalisation amongst others." .... with links to the BM interviews that corroborate the 'sponsor' element, to the donations website and to the CRG Wiki-page ? I have slightly tidied the wording of my previous suggestion. My own feeling is that this should go AFTER the opening para. of 'Production' (after 'Post-production ended in October 2010.'), but will 'go with the flow'.

I would especially welcome agreement (or objection) from those who have recently accused some of us of inserting unsourced/unbalanced information into the page.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing is fine with me. I don't know what you specifically meant with "links to the BM interviews" however. Also to my knowledge the CRG doesn't have a proper Wikipedia page just a redirect to Michel Chossudovsky. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing is fine with me too. The redirect from CRG to Chossudovsky is appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would put the general category "private individuals" last unless there are reliable figures available showing that any of them were more significant contributors to the funding than the Serbian diaspora groups or CRG, in which case the donor could be named. Opbeith (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - although in some cases it's very hard to distinguish between a "group" or "organisation" versus, say, an active individual so we should avoid wasting 'too much effort separating them. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Links on the article page

While trying to check out various bits of information over the last few days, I discovered the following problems with links (numbers are as they appear at present on the main page):

10. ^ Exodus of Serbians stirs province in Yugoslavia By Marvine Howe, The New York Times Foreign Desk, July 12, 1982
This link leads to a single paragraph in NYTimes of 1982, the paragraph does not support ANY of the statements made in the proceeding section.

This is definitely NOT on Wayback as it is pre-1996Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

13. ^ Težina lanaca: Kritika uloge NATO, EU i SAD i raspadu SFRJ BELDOCS 2011 .... 15. ^ Best films of "Beldocs" Dnevnik newspaper
These two both lead to a 'page not found' notice

17. ^ a b c d e "BELDOCS" on a tour throughout Serbia B92.net
This leads to the CURRENT Beldocs festival programme. A WofCh search on the website led to a 'nothing found' notice. Since this is the source for 5 showings of the film, it is important.

20. ^ Radio Television Serbia | The Weight of Chains in London This leads to an 'error' message

21. ^ MIFF Schedule End of World Showcase
This leads to the CURRENT MIFF festival programme. A WofCh/Miffest search on Google led only back to the Wikipedia page. This is the source for another showing of the film.

25. ^ "Okovi raspada bivše Jugoslavije" (in Serbian; "Shackles of the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia", by Gorana Gligorević, Vesti Online, 1 April 2011, accessed 25 May 2011
This is a duplicate of link 11 and so could be merged.

I tried all of the 'failed' sites several times, sometimes over a number of days, but always got these results. I don't know what correct procedure is in these cases and am at present only drawing attention to the problem.Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related point, can anyone tell me (even approx.) where in the film Visar Ymeri and Veran Matić are interviewed ? I cannot find them in the subtitles. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, web pages get changed and updated, sometimes deleted. Feel free to use the Wayback Machine to access cached versions of those links. As for Visar and Veran, Visar appears on 0:58:57, Veran on 0:31:12. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wayback machine doesn't find the Press article cited, "New Documentary by the Serbian Michael Moore" at http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/dzet_set_svet/story/160324/Novi+dokumentarac+srpskog+Majkla+Mura.html Opbeith (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC) ...... This link is still LIVE (for me)Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC) For some reason I can't get it, even when I switch browsers. Opbeith (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC) ... Definitely good for me, I'm currently outside the UK, so perhaps that has an effect.I'll copy the text onto my talk page! To my eyes, there's not much that's new herePincrete (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot - have read and deleted because of possible copyright implications. What we have there is the "reliable source" for the description "boy wonder" - the Serbian refers specifically to BM as "vunderkind"! Opbeith (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is new to me, but I was unable to access ANY of the dead links on it, perhaps I'm doing something wrong.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged some of the links. Also I have to point out that two sources are inappropriately used in the synopsis to support the views that Malagurski has in his film, but not that they are expressed in the film. In other words in the synopsis section a source should support the fact that the film is making a claim and not the claim itself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussions elsewhere - Dispute resolution and Conflict of interest

These relevant discussions elsewhere haven't been signposted adequately for interested parties:

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard - Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk: The Weight of Chains

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: Boris Malagurski - Now closed

Opbeith (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Another edict from Wikipedia on high:

"The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close - UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Accordingly, editors should refrain from asserting that UrbanVillager has a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Closed by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)"

Again, no explanation whatsoever provided. Let us eat cake. Opbeith (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of the above C.of I dispute on the BM page. Since an assertion has been made by UrbanVillager and Psychonaut umpteen times on this page and elsewhere, let me say this for the nth time in simple plain English. NO ONE HAS TRIED TO INSERT UNVERIFIABLE MATERIAL FROM BLOGS INTO THIS ARTICLE. (at least not as far as I know, not I, Opbeith or Bob Rayner)

Also UrbanVillager, I don't know why you are accusing me in the BM page dispute since in your own 'statement' you say "Pincrete exclusively edits and discusses The Weight of Chains". Something of a logical inconsistency there don't you think? I can hardly make repeated attempts to insert material into a page I've only visited once! Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did I bother? The same accusation has just been made by UrbanVillager on yet another dispute board.

Could we possibly get back to the serious business of improving this article? Or is that too much to ask?Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Subtitles

Legal position of subtitles What is the legal position re. ownership of a text file of the subtitles? My reason for asking is that I downloaded a set of English subtitles from a 'subs-site'. The subs bear all the hallmarks of being a Google translate of the Serbian subs (which are packaged with the film). I am using them as an aide to finding my way around the film, and am quite happy to be doing this 'at my own risk'. Clearly the translation would need to be checked against BM's original English commentary before being used in any way in the main article, however I just wondered where ownership lay.
The text of the commentary itself is presumably in the public domain, since the whole film is on YouTube.Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily - he may have made it available to watch but not to reproduce - though it's not an unreasonable assumption that since the film's valueless other than for its propaganda use he's unlikey to have imposed restrictions that would limit use. Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add - uploaded to YouTube by Boris Malagurski himself on his YT channel, complete with his own fund-raising banners. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)