Talk:Boris Malagurski/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Message board controversy

In September 2012, Malagurski filed a criminal investigation request at public prosecutor office against 12 members of the internet message board Parapsihopatologija for alleged threats. (link:A parody of justice) Three of them were charged and found guilty in March 2014 at the trial court in Belgrade, each sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for three years of probation period. While admittedly insulting and rude, defendants claimed their words were by no means threats but expressions of anger out of helpless frustration after the premiere of The Presumption of Justice and despicable justification Malagurski gave in the movie trying to present convicted murderers of French football fan Brice Taton (Serbia football fans jailed for 2009 Brice Taton murder BBC News, 25 January 2011)[1] as victims of foreign pressure. In the movie, Malagurski advocates on behalf of criminal groups of hooligans well organized and in decades long connection with corrupt police officials and politicians in Serbia. (Insajder B92 Ne moć države, link:-)[2] While the case is now pending appeal, it has already raised fears that this could be a sign of future online censorship and further constraints on freedom of speech in Serbia where public dissent is still considered unpatriotic and traitorous by jingoist majority.

The above was (I believe) posted by an 'anon' editor, regarding this edit/content [3] , what seems to have happened therafter is an edit war involving anons and various editors, but (as far as I can see), no attempt to discuss or to fix the content.

While it is clear that UrbanVillager (and others) were wholly right that the second half of this content (from approx. BM advocates, onwards, also some wording before this) is largely PoV, contravenes BLP or is irrelevant (being about journalism in general rather than THIS case), The first half (and other material in the source), whilst not always perfectly phrased, does seem both rescue-able and relevant.

However, rather than 'opening old wounds' by re-inserting (an improved version) of the content I am posting here, partly because I am curious about the logic of 'Pescanik involved in controversy' (given as part of the edit reason above), how involved? and does that involvement invalidate them as a source? I am also adding the Pescanik source here:A parody of justice. Of course also the BBC source in the orig content needs either to go or to be carefully placed since it is about the 'Taton murder' verdict rather than the 'threats' case. … … ps I hope nobody objects to me altering the name of this section.

UrbanVillager, I'm drawing your attention to the question WHY/HOW Pescanik's 'involvement' invalidates them as a source? Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any reasons, I presume it is OK to try to 'fix' this text, as per MY para two above.Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

In September 2012, Boris Malagurski and Ivana Rajović (co-director), filed a criminal investigation request at Belgrade public prosecutor's office against 12 members of the internet message board Parapsihopatologija for alleged "organized threats to their life and personal and professional safety", made after the premiere of The Presumption of Justice. Three of the 12 were charged and found guilty in March 2014 at the trial court in Belgrade, each was sentenced to a year in prison, suspended for 3 years of probation.(Ref:A parody of justice

The defendants claimed their words were not threats but expressions of anger caused by helpless frustration after the premiere of the film, and - what they saw as - "the despicable justification Malagurski gave in the film for the actions of the convicted murderers (cite BBC for conviction) of French football fan Brice Taton", and, they claimed, the fact that Malagurski "had withheld information about the film’s funding". Moreover, they argued "the lawsuit filed by Malagurski for those insults could prove to be a more effective threat than the curses in the forum". (Ref:A parody of justice

The message board users were sentenced for the criminal offense of endangering safety, paragraph 3, which provides additional protection for officials, and persons who perform work of public importance in the media. In this case, the court estimated that this is indeed a person whose production is in the public interest, not a private entrepreneur. (Ref:A parody of justice

This is a draft text for inclusion in the article, as this is a BLP matter, I'm putting it here for comments.Pincrete (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with http://pescanik.net/2014/03/a-parody-of-justice/ - is there a reason to assume it is a reliable source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pescanik is used as a source fairly extensively on various pages related to BM, (possibly this article page). It is because this is a BLP matter that I am posting here, rather than inserting. There are reliable sources (inc BBC online), for the use of 'convicted murderers', otherwise this is largely dependent on Pescanik. As you see above I 'rescued' this from very POV insertions from several anon editors. If we are not sure about its use, we could take to BLP noticeboard, to check both phrasing and RS issues. There may well be other sources, (for the 'threats' trial), but these would probably be in Serbian. Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to shorten this very much, without all the back-and-fore. This is getting much too far away for a biography, especially if the sourcing is weak. Why do we need the convicted murderers to begin with? And why would we need to source it if its a claim by the defendants? At most we only need a source about their statements - independently verifying it goes very much into WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTHESIS. Going chronologically, I would suggest something like "After the premiere of The Presumption of Justice, Malagurski was strongly criticised on an internet message board. In September 2012, he and the movie's co-director Ivana Rajović filed a criminal investigation request for "organized threats to their life and personal and professional safety" in Belgrade. Three members of the board were charged and each sentenced to a one-year prison sentence, suspended on probation." - if we can find decent sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, constructive, especially 'clipping' details, and minimising the 'murder trial' (as opposed to the 'threat trial'). I think it is worth recording the broad 'justification'. Pescanik is generally regarded as RS and it seems more a question of phrasing and degree of coverage. I don't see how it would be OR to find additional sources (covering the 'threat' trial). I've so far resisted too much paraphrasing PRECISELY so we can quote defendants verbatim, the source for which (at present) is Pescanik. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, thanks for your input, I'd like to note that one of those convicted for "organized threats to their life and personal and professional safety", Rastislav Dinic, works as a columnist at Pescanik ([4]), Pescanik being the source Pincrete is advocating as a reliable one, so considering they're involved in this dispute makes it questionable how neutral they are, especially considering that the "A Parody of Justice" article on Pescanik, from where Pincrete wants to take out details regarding the trial, heavily criticizes the verdict, but also Malagurski and his work. Also, if we're quoting the defendants (their views are the only ones expressed in the Pescanik source), it's only fair we quote Malagurski as well, the other side in the trial. In this article, he wrote a response to Pescanik's claims: [5]. But as Shulz said, I think it's enough to say that the authors received threats, reported them and three were convicted, without what Malagurski or the defendants said about the trial. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think one of the accused working for Pescanik INVALIDATES them as a source, but I had already agreed with SS about the 'pruning'. Thanks for the new source UrbanVillager. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text additional sources

I have spent some time going through this page and noticed that it's very sensitive, so I thought I would share my suggestion here first. It appears there is push-back from Pincrete in utilizing Pescanik as a source. I have found two sources from the magazine Vreme.

To ensure this is not one-sided, I would recommend we include Malagurski's rebuttal. Please see the links below:

Thanks, --RealButter (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RealButter, sorry I'm too old or too UK to be sure what 'push-back' is! SO, to be clear, I have NO objection to using Pescanik, though I have rather let this issue 'sleep'. When I have time I will relook at all the available material and yes of course rebuttal should be covered. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RealButter, I think it prudent to 'ref' to the rebuttal, I think it is only necessary to say something minimal, (from memory), that BM wrote that he was genuinely afraid and denied accusations in the 'Vreme' article. Have to go to work now, but will re-look when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and consistency of recent edits

The consensus in the discussion above about what the content of 'Message board controversy', should be, is -broadly speaking - that we should not go into details of either side of the controversy, simply report and link to it. These edits :- [6] and [7] ignore that consensus. I have therefore reverted them, giving my reasons here [8]. I am especially concerned about removal of WHERE the threats took place ( on a message board) and the alteration of the title to 'threats', when central to the criticism and to the defence case is that these were not REAL threats at all, simply obscene and abusive language in a 'private' internet space. For neutrality we cannot describe them as threats, nor go into details unless we also state the defence argument, which would involve excessive detail.

Similar changes have been made to the equivalent section of the 'film page' [9] and [10] and I am linking the two discussions Talk:The Presumption of Justice#Message_Board_Controversy. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC) … … ps I don't object to re-titling the section, merely to any title that makes the 'threats' unquestionably 'real'.Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to this post:[11]. All of the critical sources emphasise WHERE the 'threats' took place (on a closed message board). The 'pro' articles tend to emphasise the content of the 'threats'.

According to the critical articles, the accused were denied the opportunity to present evidence in court that strong and abusive language was normal on this message board. A threat is only a threat if the threatener directs the words at the threatened (by phone, email, by letter or in person). Abusive/offensive words written in what one believes to be a 'private space', are not threats, since there is no reason to think 'the target' will ever hear/read them . The critics say that the accused were denied the opportunity to present these arguments, which is why (I presume) the Pescanik article calls the trial 'a parody of justice'.

The controversy, has many aspects to it, but central to it is whether the accused were given a fair trial. No one is arguing about what the actual remarks made by the accused were, nor whether they were offensive (not even the accused), they ARE arguing about whether these WERE threats, whether the trial was fair and other matters. I don't understand the objection to the title, I'm afraid.Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevant discussions elsewhere

Discussions regarding (essentially) the same content have been going on here:Talk:The_Presumption_of_Justice#Message_Board_Controversy and here:Talk:The_Presumption_of_Justice#Message_Board_Controversy_key_issues

There is also a RSN discussion here about the use of tweets in the article:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using tweets to support 'endorsement' … … … retrospectively 'signed' Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [12]

Too many references, disruptive behavior

This article is one of the most referenced articles on Wikipedia, practically every sentence is well-referenced, with some sentences having up to five references. However, whenever a sentence anywhere is added, without any doubt raised or research done on whether that sentence is accurate or not, User:Pincrete attacks it, attempts to remove it or demands a source that says exactly what was written in the sentence. This is obsessive and is undermining WP:BOLD, especially considering that Pincrete doesn't ever do a simple Google search to check if something can be backed up with references, thus editing constructively, but first disputes everything and demands that others prove to him that the sentence can be backed up with references, before he gives it his blessing. This is very disruptive, and not at all good faith. I suggest that some references be removed, like the one about Malagurski discussing Balkan-related topics for RT, as 5 references really are making the article look absurd, but Pincrete apparently demands that many references to prove that he talks about "Balkan-related" topics, as if Kosovo is not in the Balkans. Pincrete, if we were to copy everything word for word from the references without explaining what's written in our own words, it would cause several copyright issues, so please stop attacking any editor who doesn't write something in a way that you decided in your head, it's extremely disruptive. Having to justify every edit to you personally with you using "consensus" as a blackmailing tool is extremely counter-productive, as you don't own Malagurski-related articles, nor do you own Wikipedia. Nobody does. So unless you start accepting that there is no room for personal agendas here, I will have to gather all the examples of your disruptive behavior (which includes re-organizing talk pages to suit your personal organizational preferences) and report it. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course Kosovo is in the Balkans, the Balkans are in Europe, Europe is on earth, we don't use that to justify 'BM discusses global subjects.' If BM is entirely commenting on domestic/Serbian matters, which does appear to be the case, why not say so? Why choose language that implies BM is RT's pan-Balkan expert? Nobody objects to 'communicating in own words', except where the words used are incorrect or obfuscate and aggrandise, rather than clearly state what sources say. Please report me if you feel that you have a case.Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) ps there does not appear to be any mention of BM in one of the two 'flooding' sources, again please, correct me if I'm wrong.Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The Telegraf article posted Malagurski's report at the bottom of the article. Did you even click on the source??? STOP TROLLING WIKIPEDIA!--UrbanVillager (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right. By default I have 'flash' de-activated, so no I didn't click, simply read the text. You can hardly blame me for being cautious given your interpretation of the 'Best Film' text above. Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing filmography section without consensus

Please don't do that. Check out Michael Moore, it's a regular way of summing up someone's published work at the end of the article. Also, The Canada Project is already mentioned at the Background section, while the Kosovo movie was the first movie widely seen by larger audiences. As for the source regarding Beldocs, for the 100th time, stop editing in regards to Serbian sources until you learn Serbian. Google Translate is not a reliable source for editing Wikipedia articles, some of us are trying to build a reliable encyclopedia here. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't called 'Filmography'.I'm well aware of the custom of putting such a 'Filmography' section towards the bottom of an actor's etc. page. It summarises and 'chronologises' the person's work, also adding minor works not covered in the article. In this case however every film + TV prog was already listed chronologically, with details (EXCEPT Canada project). Therefore the whole section was redundant. If you REALLY want to duplicate everything, I have no objection, only let's call it 'filmography'. The MMoore page starts with books (which are 'published'), films and TV are not. btw I asked the 'redundancy' question here[13]

There is no consensus to deviate from the standard practice of listing an artist's works/screenings chronologically, a practice which has been in place for several years. Nor as far as I can see any good reason to do so.

You've been asked many times NOT to name sections after other editors, it personalises content dispute in a way which is unhelpful. I am therefore renaming this section[[14]].Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Beldocs awards

Rather than criticising my Serbian, could you please tell me WHERE in the source used [15]. There is any mention of 'awards', I am unable to see such a mention.Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Beldocs 'Award'. As far as I can see, what it says in the source used is Beldocs will go on tour to show some of the best and most intriguing feature documentary films that were part of the programme this year. This is not a 'Best Film Award', or indeed any award. If I'm looking at the wrong ref, please point me to the relevant text someone. I have re-instated the 'not in cit tag' until some evidence of an award is supplied.Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, just to check, could you tell me where in the source is the 'Best Film Award' referred to ?Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

6 films were selected as best films, and toured Serbia as such. "The Weight of Chains" is listed among them. What is unclear? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference between 'some of the best and most intriguing films etc.' (as part of a press release) and 'Best Film Award' seems lost on you. This is not evidence of any kind of award. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, what is an award if not a selection of a best film in some regard? --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that question so self-evidently silly, that it almost defies answering. An award is when the organisers/judges officially announce 'the winner of the Blah Blah Blah Award is … …', or somesuch. A passing comment 'SOME of the best films' is actually indicative of NO award having been awarded to anything. So there was nothing wrong with my Serbian after all? [16] [17] [18].Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Serbian? I thought you had no connections to the former Yugoslavia whatsoever. And tell me, for this particular festival, which films were awarded, if not these six? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In the ref used, there is no mention of ANY films receiving ANY awards. We don't invent awards just because SOME film must have won. Why only one award, if the 'blurb' says 'some of the most interesting, original, intriguing and entertaining films', why not deduce that there were 4 awards? Indeed let's claim an award for every adjective used in every source. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But there is a distinction between the films that toured and the ones that didn't, you can't ignore it. Some films, which were described as best (among other superlatives), were selected to tour Serbia, since the festival is based in Belgrade (Beldocs) and only those that are best are rewarded/awarded the tour - how would you rephrase the award since it apparently has no official name? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no 'official name' for the award, because there is NO AWARD and therefore no reason to list it under 'awards'.Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is right. UrbanVillager should stop misrepresenting sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, so in spite of the above discussion, you re-instated an award, which you know has never existed [19]].Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is a textbook example of a promotional puff piece

This article is a textbook example of a promotional puff piece and of an autobiography which exists solely to promote the subject/author. It's really hilarious in all its excessive details and embellished praise, and quite the opposite of encyclopedic. It really needs a lot of cleanup. I seriously doubt whether we need separate articles on all the videos Malagurski has made; they should rather be redirected here. The user:Bormalagurski appears to have been banned for this kind of activity and other disruption years ago. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

At the current state of the article, I cant see anything wrong there. Its all crude facts. Maybe you could provide some concrete exemples of parts of the article you find to have promotional tone or something else you consider wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz Nowak, I agree with FkpCascais to this extent, you need to be specific and (where appropriate) find sources or find WHERE the article deviates from or embellishes or misrepresents the sources it currently uses. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Replacing "Serbian-Canadian" With "Serbian" Incident

In regards to Pincrete's unilateral act on deciding whether Malagurski is Serbian or Serbian-Canadian by removing the "Canadian" part, I'd like to once again point out that numerous sources, including Boris Malagurski himself, regard Malagurski as a Serbian-Canadian filmmaker. Considering that his first films were made in Canada and likely is a Canadian citizen (he has said so on several occasions), all the sources are much more relevant than Pincrete's personal opinion on the issue. In any case, if Pincrete would like to contact Boris Malagurski for him to personally show him his citizenship cards or passports, that's between Pincrete and Malagurski, because I don't see anyone asking for that kind of paperwork concerning some other public figure on Wikipedia. All we can use are reliable sources, and unless if I see some very reliable sources arguing that Malagurski isn't Canadian as well, Pincrete's original research is out. Let's also not forget that anyone can declare him or herself however he or she feels. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the argument here, that BM IS Canadian, or that he self-declares as Srb-Can, I have no objection to the latter and left it in place. The first however, either is or is not an objective fact. I checked out as many directors as I could think of (inc Chaplin, S.McQueen, Hitchcock, Costa-Gavros), in every case the lead described their citizenship (ie Chaplin+McQ=English, Hitch+C-G=US/France since the latter changed both 'nationality' and residence). Many sources describe BM as Srb (does anyone speak of 'the Canadian Michael Moore?). btw, first films were made before going to Canada and 'working time' there is very short. There is no reason to believe that either citizen-ship or residence is Canadian. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should describe him as Serbian, not as "Serbian-Canadian". His only claim to fame (even if relatively marginal) is Serbian nationalist activism. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you Tadeusz Nowak even know what Serbian nationalist activism is? You seem to have a too partisan approach to be able to deal with this subject objectively. FkpCascais (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing BM's nationality should have NOTHING to do with his politics. 'Serbian-Canadian', appears to be self-identification (ie not citizenship or permanent residence). There are sources that say Serbian, others (though older) that say Canadian, others that say Serbian-Canadian. Actually I mis-remembered Hitchcock, who is described as 'English' who became 'American' in the opening para. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz, this is not a forum where you can chat about your personal opinion on Malagurski. If you have reliable sources making certain credible claims, present them. And Pincrete, can you prove that Malagurski doesn't have either Serbian or Canadian citizenship or permanent residence? According to his interviews, he lived in Canada from 2005 to 2011, that's more than enough time to get a Canadian citizenship, so considering that certain reliable sources do describe him as 'Canadian' as well, don't you think that there's more reason to believe that he does have a citizenship than not? Actually, how would you check anyone's citizenship for a Wikipedia article? --UrbanVillager (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, that BM has not been a Canadian resident since circa 2011 is reliably sourced to interviews with the man himself. I do not need to prove that BM is NOT a Canadian citizen, the onus is on others to provide some reason to believe he IS. To the best of my knowledge, citizenship is not ordinarily, certainly not easily available to 'foreign students' in most countries, including Canada, so me making 'guesses' about whether he does/does not is just silly. There seem to be as many sources that describe BM as Serbian as describe him as Canadian.

There is anyhow another issue, Chaplin, S.McQueen, Hitchcock etc. are described in their intros by their country of birth (with it being noted in the case of Hitchcock that he later took US citizenship), is their some good reason to deviate from that norm ? Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agata Tomažič from Delo noted that Malagurski has a Canadian citizenship. [20] --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Still the norm seems to be to say first nationality at birth (FedRY?), then note change/addition of citizenship.Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hence the description "Serbian-Canadian". --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hitchcock is not described as an 'Anglo-American', he is an Englishman who became American … … ditto thousands of other entries on WP + Serbian did not exist as a nationality in 1988.Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Awards section

Since Pincrete [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Malagurski&type=revision&diff=661827208&oldid=661821747 edited] the screenings section when I moved the Mexico Festival sentence up to the Screenings section and removed the Awards section, I'll assume that Pincrete agreed with the move and we have consensus on the matter. It really is more convenient to just list everything under the Screenings section, as to have an entire section for just one award makes no sense. --UrbanVillager (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, your assumption is wrong, I have no fixed opinions on WHERE Mexico should be, and only re-inserted the accurate, long-term wording clarifying the 'Silver Palm'. Since majority opinion seems to be to retain an awards section, there is no concensus for its removal. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager does not have consensus to remove that section and knows that edit-warring is not a solution. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

SDS said it before me, UrbanVillager, what about my previous post is unclear?Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, just saying "there is no consensus" without argumentation is not an argument. What's the point in repeating the Mexico festival information twice in the article? And Pincrete, what "majority opinion" are you talking about? If you're neutral about the matter, and Somedifferentstuff is talking about some consensus without any argumentation, could you please elaborate as to why the Mexico festival is so significant that it deserves a separate section? --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, if you are concerned about duplication, then remove the duplicated info from 'screenings' (where it recently appeared[21]complete with a misleading description of the 'Silver Palm'[22]). Present 'awards' wording/sectioning has been in place for almost 12 months, so consensus needs to be established by those who want a change. 3 editors recently taking broadly this position, 1 taking another is what is generally understood by "majority opinion". It's difficult to shake off the impression that you are very keen to give prominence to awards only when their significance is inflated. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, you haven't listed a single argument for having an entire Awards section for one award that you, in fact, keep presenting as fairly insignificant (by adding "one of 14 in student category"). It doesn't matter if the section stood for 12 months or 12 years or 12 hours, nor is Wikipedia a place where editors vote on issues without explaining their argumentation on the issues - what is your reasoning for having a separate section for one festival student award? I propose removing the Awards section for now and perhaps even removing mention of the award, as it doesn't seem too notable to me if 15 films received it. Mentioning the screening at the festival is enough. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal has already been considered and rejected by several editors, including myself. The Silver Palm is a notable achievement which deserves mention, but not falsification. … … ps also strange that you insist on the duplication of 'filmography'.Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the only argument you've presented for its removal is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which isn't an argument. The Silver Palm is a meaningful award (one step above the Bronze Palm Award) and the information is sourced. As far as turning the Awards section into a subsection (which you've already done), I don't have a problem with that. Lastly, in terms of weight, one could argue that Awards are actually more significant than Screenings. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pravda.rs/2012/06/23/protest-ispred-zgrade-rts-video

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boris Malagurski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mexicofilmfestival.com/Festival_2007/past_winners/2009_Silver_Palm_Winners.aspx
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mexicofilmfestival.com/Festival_2007/past_winners/2009_Silver_Palm_Winners.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140905005032/http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/tema-dana/196119.sr.html to http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/tema-dana/196119.sr.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Boris Malagurski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Irish diplomat Mary Walsh??!

There was an Irish politician Mary Walsh, but she died in mid-1970s, so I am sure she didn't help the filming of a documentary in the 21st century, except maybe as a medium in a necromantic spiritist session. Are you sure Mary Walsh who helped Malagurski is not CANADIAN actress Mary Walsh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.177.97 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boris Malagurski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tags and other matters

@Santasa99:, would you care to give the community more information as why you added a total of 4 tags to this article? As far as I can see, the 2017 discussion does not give a large basis for such addition. The main dispute which fellow editors had back than was about a number of POV issues. The current version of the article is well-coverd, there is a lot of sources (a great example), its style is encyclopedic, informative, and the whole article is per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Is this yet another case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it? The main contributor to the article was in the last six months was fellow editor @IndexAccount:, so I shall tag him or she in order to have a discussion and not tête-à-tête. Please do not restore the tags while we have an ongoing discussion. thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed the tags. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Vladan Petkovic review and danasrs as source

Regarding user Tataral's recent edits, I'd like to point out that:

The reference being used from Ny Tid is not supported with a link, even though all of its articles are posted online. I did a search on the article name on Ny Tid's website and couldn't find anything. Please, provide a link, as its existence is disputed at this point.
Furthermore, the disputed article was apparently written by a man called Nils Gjerstad, while the quotes are all from an alleged review by Vladan Petkovic. Is there a link showing Vladan Petkovic ever said these things? I couldn't find it.
Petkovic notes that "Malagurski belongs to the nationalist oriented part of the Serbian diaspora in Toronto" - Malagurski lived in Vancouver, not Toronto. This is Fact Checking 101. Therefore, I don't see how reliable Petkovic is.
Now, if an appropriate link is provided, I could agree that some of Petkovic's views should be added on Wikipedia, but the location where Tataral placed them is inadequate. The section "Reception" Tataral created suggests that only Petkovic had anything to say about Malagurski, which is extremely one-sided. Since Petkovic talks about The Weight of Chains and Malagurski's film on Kosovo, these quotes could be added to Kosovo: Can You Imagine? and The Weight of Chains in the critical response sections, though the Kosovo movie comments are quite vague.
Calling Malagurski a "Serbian nationalist" is pure POV.
The top section of the article is meant to be as short as possible, without labeling anyone according to other people's views. I added that Malagurski is best known for his film The Weight of Chains - this is common knowledge in the Balkans (though I supported it with a relevant reference) and it's not the task of Wikipedia users to declare the movie good or bad, the author nationalist or communist, this is not something that goes on top, but can be presented from several sides in the rest of the article. This is why I also removed the last sentence in the intro, because this is already discussed in the "Political views" section, not to mention that it was falsely copied, with the exclusion of the part in which Malagurski notes "NGO sector that deals with politics and receives money from abroad", not all "civil society organisations" as agents of foreign interests. It's not up to Tataral to generalize such things, it's up to all of us at Wikipedia to have a balanced approach and present different views with references about a topic.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Printed sources are perfectly admissible on Wikipedia and there is no requirement that an article must be available online. Nevertheless, the newspaper is available online through various subscription services and anyone who works at a university or another institution with a decent number of subscriptions can access it, for example using the service Retriever which gives access to a ton of newspapers from several countries of northern Europe. However, I have uploaded the PDF of the article here: https://www.scribd.com/document/347441870/Ny-Tid It's not a review by Petkovic, but rather an interview with him on Serbian cinema, in which he discusses Malagurski and others. His main message is that he would like to see more Serbian films that deal critically with Serbia's past during the Yugoslav Wars, and Malagurski is discussed as an (extreme) example of the opposite tendency.

The claim that the "top section of the article is meant to be as short as possible" is wrong. Per WP:LEAD, "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." The lead currently only includes two sentences, one of which is quite trivial and unnecessary (about Malagurski owning his own production company). --Tataral (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

First, do not change the section name in Talk. It's just plain annoying. You can create your own section and call it whatever you like, but don't change mine. Thanks.

Second of all, yes, printed sources are admissible, but as per WP:OFFLINE, offline sources can be challenged. I always assume good faith, but in this case, you're quoting an author who missed Malagurski's city in Canada by 3,300 km, so that's grounds for disputing reliability, regardless of whether you posted a scan or excerpt from that source. If you live in Madrid and I say you live in Moscow, it's safe to say I'm not a reliable source when it comes to commenting you. Frankly, I'm surprised Ny Tid would publish something like that without doing some basic fact checking. But OK, when it comes to his films, his views could be relevant and, as I've said, these views can be added to those films' articles in the critical response sections. Can we agree to that?

A "concise overview of the article's topic" is not writing your POV that Malagurski is a Serbian nationalist. That's not an overview ("concise", by the way, does mean "as short as possible" as well), that's labeling someone according to your opinion. And, yes, it is your opinion, because you posted it as a fact, not as Petkovic's or someone else's view, which is disputable. You can't pick one opinion that you agree with and label a person in the "overview" as such. The overview is not here to paint someone according to someone's beliefs, but to neutrally describe who they are, what they do. When it comes to "prominent controversies", I'm not sure how many prominent controversies define Malagurski - there is a "Controversies" section, so maybe you could add some there (if you feel the need to), though I doubt you could find a source that defines Malagurski on the basis of some controversy (like when someone is recognized on account of a scandal). I agree, though, that Malagurski owning his own production company is a trivial fact. Still, adding criticism at all costs is not a measure of neutrality - the point is to describe a person fairly, analyzing the essence of his or her work, and this is not done by taking one source that is heavily critical (and factually inaccurate) and using it as an overview of someone. That's pure POV. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The section on the talk page is not "your", but belongs to anyone taking part in the discussion in the section, and your use of my user name in the section title constitutes harrassment. Please do not do that again. A section title is not a signed comment and anyone is entitled to change it, something you in fact agree to when you edit Wikipedia in the first place. --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning a user's name in the section title constitutes harassment? Where does it say that in the Wikipedia guidelines? I'd like to know, for future reference. It's not customary to change section titles, as it can cause confusion. Per WP:TP, it's important to add a suitable title, preferably not something generic, which is why I added a title regarding your recent edits, not recent edits in general. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is in fact quite customary to change section titles, and it is not customary to mention a specific user in a section title. This discussion is just as much about your edits. --Tataral (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You might be thinking of article section titles (which are always up for debate and change), not talk section titles, which are there so that users can find the section in the discussion they're interested in more easily (without having to read everything on the talk page), something that isn't possible if they're constantly being changed - hence the need for precision. Again, could you please tell me where the Wikipedia guidelines say that mentioning a user's name in the talk section constitutes harassment? You made a serious accusation and I'd like to know, for future reference, if this is really the case. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm clearly talking about talk pages, and it's entirely normal to change section titles, especially bad ones, such as titles that don't accurately reflect the discussion in the section in question, or titles that are biased, inappropriate or rude, or mentioning a specific editor for no reason (in fact I've seen examples of the latter changed numerous times). Your proposed title is inappropriate because the discussion isn't about my edits, but just as much about your own, or substantially about whether to include Petkovic' views etc. Considering how little discussion there is here, the problem about editors not being able to "find" this discussion doesn't seem like a real problem, but you could easily find a more specific title that wasn't inappropriate or biased or attacking a particular editor, e.g. "Inclusion of Petkovic' views" or something like that. --Tataral (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)--Tataral (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In regard to WP:LEAD which states that "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and also mention the most relevant controversies, it seems to me like there is

a controversy in the sense that several sources consider Malagurski's films to be "nationalist propaganda" and "conspiracy theorist"
a controversy over whether Malagurski belongs to the extreme right, something he acknowledges himself that he has been called by critics, while disputing the characterization[23]

In any event, a discussion of these issues would belong to "a concise overview of the article's topic" that stands on its own, because fundamentally his films are political and of a controversial nature, and a discussion of him without mentioning this specific context is meaningless. So the lead should mention in some way that Malagurski's films are seen as Serbian nationalist by critics (including Serbian ones). --Tataral (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You fundamentally don't understand that Wikipedia is not about POV. This is not a place to draw your own conclusions on whether someone is controversial, which is what you're doing. Look at, for example, Emir Kusturica's article. Some also see him as a Serbian nationalist, but this is not what defines him and his work. Or Michael Moore, we could also agree that he causes controversy with every film, but you don't see that in the lead (nor, actually, anywhere else in the article). You see that in the articles about his work, i.e. his films, where there are "Response" sections. When your source says that Malagurski's movie is "more extreme, horribly made and with absurd explanations of the Kosovo conflict" but doesn't say what's extreme about it, what are these "absurd explanations", this is not a concise overview, it's just stating someone's personal opinion, and people are not defined by someone else's personal opinions, they are defined by what they actually do. Even if a million people personally think you're a lunatic, that doesn't mean you are one (like many probably think Michael Moore is a lunatic or worse, even serious reliable people), just as many call Malagurski a Serbian nationalist, but provide no evidence of him actually being nationalist. In fact, if you watch his films, you realize that he condemns nationalism to a great extent - this is what defines him. Is there any evidence that Petkovic, as a film critic, ever saw Malagurski's films? How much can he know much about Malagurski if he misses his city by several thousand kilometers? Look at, for example, the most famous Serbian film critic Dubravka Lakic, what she wrote about Malagurski's work. It's very detailed and factual, you can tell she actually watched the film and talked about the film, not about how she feels about the film, but this also doesn't go in the lead about Malagurski, it goes in the critical response section of the film being discussed. I want to believe you don't have an agenda (i.e. making Malagurski look like a Serbian nationalist, which is what you previously added to the article as a fact), so if you really want to make the article better, look at researching Malagurski and his work, instead of just adding unreliable negative POV at any cost. I respect your POV, as well as everyone else's, but Wikipedia just doesn't care. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with UrbanVillager that reviews of films belong on the relevant 'film' pages. However, why is there a 'views' section at all? I thought this guy was supposed to be a documentary film maker, however IF there is a 'views' section it must inevitably allow criticism of those views. This isn't BM's Facebook page. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ps it matters not one cent where BM lived in Canada

@Tataral:, regarding your Scribid document (article from Norwegian paper), I would like to ask you, and I would really appreciate, if you could release it from their (Scribid) Premium Content policy, so that article can be read without need for download through upload-for-download requirement, which is horribly annoying. At this point only first page is readable. But if you are willing to go to your Account Settings and scroll down, you will see section Document Upload Settings at the very bottom with Reader Access setting which you need to place button to "on" (it gets blue-green). This article, although in Norwegian, could serve as an excellent reference for this article, and if I understood correctly from your discussion above, Vladan Petkovic's views should be restored through your edits or rewritten, either way I think Petkovic said some important things. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversial BLP

To place a reasonably justified template message one is not required to seek consensus - it's matter of dispute and I am disputing this article as possible COI and certainly as non-neutral, unbalanced BLP, and here's why: this person is controversial because of his views, which he espouse through doctored propaganda, presented as "documentaries", yet it is a clean as a whistle, whitewashed from any critical assessment. So, don't remove templates unless you are willing to balance narrative, or prove it has been written by neutral and/or unrelated editor. Now, about Sadko's following - I have warned you to stop following me around just few days ago, and here you go again, and on the very article where I warned you first time around in January. I'm asking you one more time, before I file a report, because I am fed up of this.

You can start here for an overview of numerous controversies and his reputation in general, not that he has one:

You did not give any sort of explanation prior to this one. On the other hand, two editors, me included, did not agree to add those templates a few months ago. After giving this mild explanation you have reverted me again. Do you understand that your move is wrong? Kudos, you have "determined" him as a controversial based on 3 articles (including an opinion piece) by 2 portals, of which only one makes some sense and gives a depper analysis, which can be mentioned in a sentence or two but is not worth enough to add the tags.

My "following" on a page I had on my watchlist for years. If you do not like having your views and actions opposed, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. As for the general behaviour which can be seen from this and several other little comments I've seen so far - it might easily be a ricochet. I encourage you to make a hounding report and stop bothering me with what bothers you, as nobody else is complaining.

Back on-topic, how does any of these linked articles gives weight to add the tag about "systematic bias"?

How did you determine that somebody with close connection to the article made edits? What is your methodology? Which examples can you present? I asked and will ask again - where is this systematic bias? It seems to me that most of the article is mostly written per NPOV. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Malagurski advocates conspiracy theories and has close ties with the populists. I've had one really minimal contribution to this article. I was interested in adding parts that criticize his work and statements, but I couldn't find reliable sources. My opinion is shared only by some posts on social networks, personal blogs and generally primary sources. However, I think that the current version of the article doesn't show a systematic bias because, for instance, there are no reliable sources claiming that he is controversial.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources claiming Malagurski is controversial and the current version of the article doesn't show a systematic bias, it's fairly NPOV. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, thankfully, there is an appropriate procedure for determining the reliability of sources, and this is not one of them. You have no consensus for removal of Template Messages - check the wikipedia policy on how to remove TM in the right way.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources claiming Malagurski is controversial", that's because there are few sources saying anything about BM - a handful of interviews and press releases (ie self-sourced info) and a very small number of reviews - reviews which are clearly very polarised and which tend to split along national/ethnic lines. I do not recall a single positive review in an "English" publication. A filmaker that says Srebrenica massacre, didn't happen, that says the Jugoslav wars were some kind of neo-liberal plot to undermine a healthy, ethnically peaceful, socialist heaven. That is accused of falsifying interviews, that rails against the EU, but who happily has his films shown at EU sponsored events, etc etc etc. No I cannot imagine what anyone would think had ever been remotely 'controversial' about BM.

Personally I think a great deal of the 'political views' stuff should go, but if it remains, then inevitably those who criticise his views should be given equal billing.Pincrete (talk)

17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You do have some points but most of it is far-fetched or based on personal interpretations. There is indeed very little RS which describe him as controversial. No arguments or explanations were given for "systematic bias", that has not been addressed. In fact, there is no consensus for adding those tags - not the other way around. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree here with Sadko. Also, I would like to see more explanation on WP:AB and WP:COI tags. --IndexAccount (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There are sources saying the films are crap and dishonest. There are sources criticising the views laid out in the films, whether this biog page is the right place for them is another matter. I agree however that 'page tagging' is not the way forward. The editor should propose specific improvements. There is no personal interpretation on my part except the observation that opinion tends to be polarised around nationality/ ethnicity, which is hardly radical and which I would not seek to insert in the article anyway. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I fully agree, including removal of political views. However, he is public personality and his work is medium, which means that those few critiques, and I mean, those written by credible mainstream commentators and critics, deal with his style and techniques, which they labeled propagandistically deceptive. I am copy-pasting Serbo-Croatian sources from above, where he and his works are aptly described and analysed in very relevant and illustrative way.

Machine will give decent translationn.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I this regard, any previous attempt in improving the article has been denied by gate-keepers, which is evident from prior discussions, especially by creator Urban Villager. Editor Tataral really gave their best to argue their improvements, but was dismissed - with that in mind Template Messages are the only way forward for now. Is person controversial, well overwhelmingly evidences show he is - not just controversial but he is described in ways that point to him being nothing more than a crank. Even in Serbia, there are progressive intellectuals who dismisses him as a radical nationalistic propagandist (see above in Tataral edits)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There could be evidences that this is indeed COI, simply by looking at Urban Villager's edit-count probability is very high.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The insulting notion "gatekeepers" is not per WP:AGF and it's not per WP:CIVILITY. Next, the total of five editors have disputed the tags you are propposing. Only one out of 3 offered sources (I'm not sure if that's "ample") goes in depth to analyse his work. While it's per WP:RS it is not enough to justify this tag bombing. None of my raised questions have been answered. I suggest that you revert yourself, rather then edit-warring and please do quit the "my way or the highway" attitude, until we reach a consensus, which is very much needed for proposed three tags. It could be COI. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So, you admit "(i)t could be COI" but your solution to that extremely problematic aspect (see and read a little bit on WP:COI, but also on WP:AB) is to remove Template Messages (nothing is "bombed", there are only three of them) so that such high probability could be hidden from reader's and editor's view, that's what you propose!? From neutral and experience editor I would expect that he/she take Urban Villager to the task of outing his/her possible COI or stop gate-keeping the article content (by the way, I am convinced that term "gate-keeping" is not offensive and it's fairly frequent in usage, it may be that I am wrong, in which case I wouldn't flinch if I had to offer apology to the offended), because if it gets to WP:COIN, and upon investigation it is concluded that it's indeed case of COI, it could have dire consequences for both, the article and the creator.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Expectations aside, until anybody can prove that it is COI - it shall be treated only as potential COI i.e. - not COI.

That's exactly what it is, three tags is tag bombing, based on weak links/references and personal opinions. Tags have been reintroduced after they have been rejected several months ago (without the debate on the TP) which can be interpreted in several ways...

This has nothing to do with the director's ideology or the level of quality of his movies. Rather than going in circles, do present better sources and try to present a better case at the TP. There are other tools available if you would like to challenge something on the article. Until then - remove the tags, as five editors have disagreed with them so far. That's the sensible and rational think to do, not to mention that it's per Wiki guidelines. Other potential problematic aspects can be debated here, that would be very good as such discussions would improve the article. 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak references compared to what - Sputnik, Serbia Today, RT.com, Večernje Novosti, Alo, PressOnline, and other media agents of Russian influence in Europe and Balkans, or Politika.rs, RTS.rs, Nova srpska politička misao (New Serb Political Thought), or mind-boggling usage of PressTV, on whose references article heavily relies ?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with the train of thought which clearly show that all sort of Serbian references are not good enough to you because - they are Serbian. Not to mention the notion that all of them carry "Russian influence". Read - WP:COMPETENCE That is the key information, thank you, as Malagurski is sometimes seen as Russophile. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is extremely obvious. Even if they did, so what? It's all a geopolitical game, and nobody is really backing any country of the Balkans, only their own interest. This goes hand in hand with previous comments which were dismissive of any medias from Republika Srpska. The very notion that somebody can mix all of those very different medias in the same sentence, as far as I can see, shows systematic bias, and I am not talking about this article's tag. If there is a problem with any of these sources feel free to raise it as a problem on appropriate Wiki pages. I can see that my comment which is stating the fact that there is no consensus for tag-bombing was ignored, which means that we have a case of Stonewalling. Not okay. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Been there, done that", you should too: Perennial sources and List of suggested sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fake_news#Serbia
List_of_fact-checking_websites#Croatia
I also use this neat script, which can't be accused of having bias or for "I don't like it" behavior User:Headbomb/unreliable.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a nice script, ty. Regardless, will you remove the tag yourself and start working on determining is it COI? That would be a good start. @Santasa99: Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor Urban Villager

Urban Villager the template messages in this article are posted there because I strongly and justifiably suspect that you are a COI, and it is obvious that this article looks like a CV, or rather a promotional pamphlet. Any attempt to edit this article with more balanced more reliable sources than those used, you are regularly obstructing by persistent reverts - a few other editors who edit from a certain pro-Serbian perspective sometime support your reverts, but mostly you are the one who vigilantly gatekeeping any contribution to this article for years. This is also quite obviously the only purpose of your presence on the English wikipedia, which is evident from your contribution history - your contributions are mainly related to this article and a few closely related to this BLP. I also checked your logs and visited all of AN’s discussions about the suspicions raised by various editors regarding your possible socking problems and COI. You had some close calls back then, and I really think that the fact that your activities haven't changed at all in these few years after the aforementioned AN on sockpuppetry doesn't work in your favor, because you are still fully dedicated exclusively to this BLP and a few related articles. You should disclose your overly obvious COI and then adjust your conduct and activities in accordance with the policies and guidelines designed to manage such contribution.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

1) You still have no consensus for your tags and general explanations are very weak and mild. Subtle "threats" or hints of involved editor's activity on other parts of the project to not present a good image of yourself. And it's an epic fail as well.

2) Even if that's his main interest, so what?

3) This needs a serious explanation - from a certain pro-Serbian perspective Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor who declares loudly and clearly commitment to their "ancestors" and describes his contribution to English Wikipedia as a "duty to my ancestors" probably has certain bias toward editing from the perspective of an identity group they themselves declared their own ancestral group.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not spin, your views of my "motivations" are irrelevant. That was one case and I fully stand by my words, therefore you can swim away with that "argument" which is an unfortunate attempt to discredit me.

You did not answer anything, which means that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but to bicker. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk about spinning, right. (Remarkably I didn't mention you anywhere, but you know best what you're talking about, and now that you have doubled down on what you have said before, not once but twice, it's worth knowing that you are standing fully by it.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99, the talk page is not the place to make accusations against another editor, nor is tagging the way to move forward on content matters. IF you feel that you have reasonable proof about another editor, there are places to go to resolve that. I have yet to hear about any actual content which you propose either for this page or any of the individual film pages. Also, to a large extent, the quality of local 'partisan' sources is irrelevant. The content on this page is not about the truth/otherwise of any specific event in the Balkans (there are 'history' articles for that) - this article is mainly about reactions to films and the 'truth' or otherwise is only relevant to the extent that reviewers respond discussing that. I do think that some of the less well known films fail to include any negative reactions. To some extent that is because the films tend to have been shown to receptive audiences, but so be it - we can't write reviews which haven't been written. Actual content proposals are needed though rather than 'grapeshot' accusations against other editors/Serbian sources/ BM himself.Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete you're right about the place, I should have raised this last section on the user's Urban Villager TP and not here on the article TP, it is an oversight on my part in reading the WP:Open a COIN. Otherwise you are sometimes quite confusing, you raised the same question about the sources just a few raws/para's above and now what is the reason behind the sudden change of heart is beyond my comprehension, also I think that you yourself participated in a few ANs while trying to make a reasonable contribution to the narrative, but without much success. In any case, this is not a matter of content dispute, it is impossible to contribute in any way to this article, while placing appropriate template messages is editing too. The most important thing is that this is a question of COI and WP:OWNERSHIP.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That is, if this is what you meant when you said that I am accusing editor(s) of something here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2020

This edit request to Boris Malagurski has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

The following tags:

{{Multiple issues|collapsed=January 2020|
{{autobiography|date=January 2020}}
{{COI|date=January 2020}}
{{systemic bias|date=January 2020}}
}}

Should be removed until a consensus has been reached for adding them, because they were added without consensus and currently there is none. UrbanVillager (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Wrong version. Please establish a positive consensus in the RFC above to keep/remove them. Izno (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem?

@EdJohnston:. Looking at editing history of editor UrbanVillager from beginning (2010) to this day it is evident that he is interested in the topics which are in professional occupation of Boris Malagurski or concerning him privately. Some examples from beginning of editing, edit Bunjevci article(ancestry), Kosovo(professional occupation), Yugoslav Wars(professional occupation), some people from Canada(some with Serbian origin), this article, etc. Otherwise, it can be seen that article is nicely developed, since probably no one knows who is Boris Malagurski, that's a little weird, + Facebook source(personal information), private media source, etc. I also read this article for a long time (a few days,before this Rfc)) just as editor @Mhare: and I find it strange how detailed the same article is. Now with this last edit on talk page (Protected edit request on 6 July 2020) of editor UrbanVillager there are also signs of nervousness as if the article will be deleted. I'm interested in whether this way of editing articles(some personal connection) is allowed on Wikipedia and what can be done to prevent it. Mikola22 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear how it's forbidden to edit Wikipedia articles about topics in which you're interested in. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The COI tag that some people wish to include is presumably in reference to User:UrbanVillager. In my opinion it will be hard to document a specific COI, though as always, people who show that they cannot edit neutrally in the domain of WP:ARBEE risk getting a topic ban. Here is the most coherent summary I have seen anywhere of the nature of UrbanVillager's edits regarding Malagurski. It is a post by User:Opbeith from a 2012 SPI complaint which, however, was declined:

Here is the post, from 31 August 2012

As I've commented before, UrbanVillager's style strikes me as different from Malagurski's. Nevertheless his contributions began at the time The Weight of Chains was being promoted for imminent release, they are almost entirely on Malagurski-related subjects (even when for some reason removing someone else's reference to Malagurski at the Bunjevci article (about an ethnic minority with a significant representation in Malagurski's home town of Subotica). His created articles are on Malagurski-related subjects - The Weight of Chains itself, created prior to release, Nova srpska politička misao, a journal which publishes articles by Malagurski, and Jože Mencinger and John Bosnitch, both of whom are featured in The Weight of Chains. Almost the entirety of UrbanVillager's contributions are to articles about other persons featured in The Weight of Chains - Slobodan Samardžić, Srđa Trifković, Škabo, Branislav Lečić, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor (journalist), Vlade Divac and Lewis MacKenzie. UrbanVillager's contributions have tended to promote the interest of the film, in particular at the Weight of Chains article itself. He/she has been determinedly persistent in defending the hyperpositive tone of the Malagurski-related content of the articles of interest to him/her and the way Boris Malagurski is represented, eg at the Lewis Mackenzie article. UrbanVillager is not Malagurski himself but his/her association with Malagurski appears to be a very long way from being an objective one. Opbeith (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager was named as a suspected sock. The three editors who geve input to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive were User:Joy, User:Opbeith and User:Bobrayner. The complaint was closed with no action by User:AGK. The SPI complaint against UrbanVillager was reopened in November, 2012 by User:PRODUCER and you are all invited to read the rest of the SPI, but I didn't have the patience to read it. Once again, no action was taken, in part because of WP:TLDR. If I had been the closer I might well have done the same. —EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. One interesting information. UrbanVillager create article of John Bosnitch on 24 July 2010, and editor John Bosnitch(with one edit in life) in ‎28 September 2010‎ puts this information "The politico-economic documentary "The Weight of Chains," by Canadian filmmaker Boris Malagurski, features Bosnitch commenting as a journalist about the techniques used by the United States and various accomplices in breaking up and colonizing the former Yugoslavia. Bosnitch is featured in the trailer for the film."[24] source for this information was official trailer [25], where is this information visible in official trailer? The official film came out a month after this edit. Who knows this information from the edit before the movie comes out, it is probably someone involved in making the movie, or John Bosnitch personally or Boris Malagurski. Mikola22 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, if there is a need for a longer COI discussion it should take place over at WP:COIN. It is hard to justify keeping the article tagged for COI for a long time. Anyone concerned about the COI ought to try to get some admin action taken about the person responsible. If there is no action then the tag would normally be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I spent whole weekend browsing through the history of this case, also following User:Opbeith, who's in command of arguments, being an educator from UK, which they usually uttered in the most eloquent manner. He also noted, it must be said, at some point between those two main SPI (broadly 2010-2014) that he believed UrbanVillager (UV) was (probably) not a sock of any of those suspected other accounts, and certainly not of Boris Malagurski, who himself was really involved and subsequently blocked through SPI's. Opbeith was for COI, so he pursued that course of action with COIN 1 (6.-13. Nov 2012), which failed because inapt handling of closure by (not-so-experienced?) User:Uzma Gamal (which is pointed to by User:Gigs), followed by immediate reopening of COIN 2 (15.Nov 2012), which upon good(?) evidence User:Gigs closed the same day, seeking ARBMAC enforcement discussion, which was opened but then inexplicably (too much evidence?) went stale. Then on 31 Oct. 2014, ANI was opened by User:Ricky81682, proposing topic ban for UrbanVillager naming earlier attempt by Urban Villager to veaponize AN process (which failed) against two other editors, namely User:Bobrayner and User:Pincrete, as a reason. This one is closed by User:Drmies on 21 Nov 2014 citing no consensus on a topic ban. This AN was actually formal iteration of topic ban proposal for UV which was suggested per Boomerang immediately in that very ANI launched by UV, and was supported by User:Joy and Ricky (while some editor who was later blocked commented against). Now, I prepared a report for new COIN, and with excellent Bobrayner's tabular display of UV's edits back in 2012, and the fact that similar tabular display of edits between 2012 and now would show that little has changed in UV's edit habits since the last COIN 2, except that few new films are produced and then articles created and edited, with addition of few new film characters, whose articles, if not created by UV, would then certainly drew UV's attention. Aside, UV is now launching ANI against me, while, as you probably already know, skillfully cultivating suspicion that you are in some way in a conspiracy against them and this article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I just checked that ANI, so it was not on me, per se, it was rather on you and User:Mikola22(?), nevertheless my name and my actions do fare prominently in that complain, I might add. I believe that right thing to do would be moving to COIN, and if you are willing to do that, I would try to compile combo-table, just like in COIN2, which was User:Bobrayner's excellent work, with those description on old edits, and those since then.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)