Talk:The Presumption of Justice

Message Board Controversy

There is a discussion here Talk:Boris Malagurski#Proposed text and in the section following about what the content of 'Message board controversy', should be. broadly speaking the consensus was that we should not go into details of either side of the controversy, simply report and link to it. These edits :- [1] and [2] ignore that consensus and also introduce discussion about 'VP of the Government of Vojvodina', who is in no way connected to the film. I have therefore reverted them.

I personally don't believe that this 'controversy' belongs on this page at all, since the incident was prompted by, but not connected with the film. I am linking this section to the main 'controversy' discussion.Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, please stop removing this sourced content:

Antić also condemned the then VP of the Government of Vojvodina who endorsed the threats, noting that these included promising to Malagurski they would "explain some things with a metal rod on his face", "close one or both of his eyes", and "advocating sexual violence against Malagurski and Rajović".

The sentence comments on the VP of the Government of Vojvodina, who is a notable individual, endorsing the threats, which is highly controversial, as well as quotes what the threats are. Since the first part of the section discusses that "Malagurski's actions and the court's decisions were criticised by'", it's only fair to note what the other side criticized and this really is as concise as possible.

Also, please stop renaming the section as the "Message board controversy", my arguments on the matter are on the Boris Malagurski talk page. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'Controversy' is fairly meaningless unless you identify WHICH controversy, the controversy isn't about the film 'P of J'. Since we nowhere mention the 'VP of the Government of Vojvodina', nor how he supposedly endorsed the threats, there is no good reason to rebut his supposed endorsement and anyway, what exactly is his connection to the film?

We have a long-term consensus to NOT go into either the details of the defence case nor accusations/counter accusations in papers. The article says "Malagurski's actions and the court's decisions were criticised by … ", then we say Malagurski replied in responses published by … … Historian Čedomir Antić criticised Malagurski's accusers in … , what exactly is unfair about that? Accusations were made (which we do not describe), replies were made (which we ALSO do not describe). Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So long as there's only one controversy regarding this film, "Controversy" is enough for the section title. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've renamed it 'Threats controversy', UrbanVillager, you previously wanted 'threats' and previously wanted 'controversy', so is that OK? … You haven't answered WHAT the connection of the 'VP of the Government of Vojvodina' has to the film nor WHY we need to go into details of what Antic says, but omit details of the critics. At present the 'word count' favours BM slightly. I've already said at the head of the page I think this whole section is pretty tenuously connected to the film. ps … … In addition to the irrelevance of 'VP of the Government of Vojvodina' to the film, there are BLP issues in your edit claiming that the VP 'endorsed the threats which included … … ', … … we don't even know what the VP said but are condemning him in 'our voice'!.Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Threats controversy" is OK with me, if you insist.

The threats were made at a message board that didn't discuss the film, but discussed Boris Malagurski (I believe the title was "Malagurski, profile and works"). They were made after the premiere of The Presumption of Justice and those issuing the threats wanted to "explain some things with a metal rod on [Malagurski's] face" and "close one or both of his eyes". If we're talking about threats, there needs to be a mention of what those threats are.

As for the VP of the Governme nt of Vojvodina, when such a high-ranking official endorses the threats made after a film premiere, how can you even ask if there's anything linking him to the threats made after a film premiere? Does he need to say "Oh, and I mean those threats made after the film premiere, the film, The Presumption of Justice, that film, yes"? It's not like some bozo on the street endorsed the threats, we're talking about the Vice President of the Government of Vojvodina, and to mention that in a few words is very important - not to mention that it's well sourced. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the source as to what the VP said? If you want to mention the criticism of the VP, you have to have what he said, (not UV's version of what Antic says the VP said). This still has little connection to the film and is trying to have a whole paragraph of details from those who endorse BM, compared to a single sentence (without details), from the critics.

The message board DID discuss the financing and content of the film according to the sources, but that's irrelevant as we don't go into details for either side. Anyway, Antic does not "condemn the then VP of the Government of Vojvodina", he quotes alleged Twitter remarks, quotes the original 'threats' and then asks the rhetorical question "Do you agree … Vojvodina since its inception in 1945 has not had much luck with its politicians". Where in that is anything that justifies the word 'condemned'?

That Antic is criticising ALL BM's accusers is already covered neutrally and adequately. What possible justification is there for OUR singling the VP out for attack when he has no connection to the film and isn't even mentioned among the critical articles ? … … ps Who is the "then VP of Vojvodina"? Does he have a name? Pincrete (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz & RealButter, I am naming you both as you contributed to the discussion here. StSch, your final comment was here:[3], which formed the basis of a consensus on the appropriate content of this section.

IF either of you feel able to contribute to the discussion above, concerning these edits :- [4] and [5], I would be grateful.Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the VPs 'endorsement of the threats'. Nothing on the Twitter exchange comes anywhere near to that description. Single sentence tweets are anyway hardly RS. Besides, what does this have to do with the film?Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the film?

Are you serious? Online threats against Malagurski were made in direct response to the film he made and ideas he communicated in it. Upon receiving the threats Malagurski filed a criminal investigation request with the prosecutor's office. Prosecutor's office investigated the online threats and raised charges against three individuals. A year later, Belgrade's district court found the individuals guilty and sentenced them. When the sentence became public, government official Ješić endorsed the threats which is explicitly documented in his own words on his Twitter account.

Where is the VPs 'endorsement of the threats'. Nothing on the Twitter exchange comes anywhere near the 'endorsement of the threats' description

You seem not to have any (or enough) comprehension of the Serbian language. And we've been down this road before. Ješić's statement literally and explicitly endorses the online threats. "A to što si tužio ljude je sramotno. Ako ćeš biti javna ličnost onda trpiš. Eto. I tuži i mene pošto potpisujem sve što su napisali". (Ješić addressing Malagurski in response to the Belgrade court sentencing the three individuals for making online threats against Malagurski: "Your filing of the investigation request is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. Now file an investigation request against me since I second everything they wrote.").Zvonko (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What you have quoted above is NOT an 'endorsement of the threats', he also says (from memory), 'people shouldn't be in prison for writing things' and accuses BM himself of dishing out abuse to public figures. 'I second everything they wrote' could just as easily mean 'I endorse their criticisms of you and the film'. A tweet is hardly an in-depth analysis nor very RS for WP to make a criticism in its own voice.

If anyway the VP took the attitude that the original remarks were not actual threats (the attitude taken by the defence and BM's critics), he could hardly endorse something that wasn't real in the first place. Defending someone's right to free-speech in a 'private space', is not endorsing their right to make threats.

Calling the above an 'endorsement' is pure WP:Synth. The controversy was mainly about whether the original remarks WERE threats (as opposed to abusive remarks) and whether the 'message board' trial was therefore fair. A tweet is anyway hardly proof of anything and WHAT does it have to do with the film? And why must one side of this controversy have less than one line, with no details, while the other has a whole para? There are BLP issues relating to this, but you seem happy to ignore them on the strength of your own (and BM's) interpretation of a tweet.Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that they (Rastislav Dinić, Nemanja Poleksić, and Marko Nikolić) didn't just criticize Malagurski, they at best verbally abused him and at worst made plans to injury him severely. The Belgrade Higher Court characterized their remarks as threats, but this whole section needs to be expanded so that it's clear who said what to/about whom. And I just did that.Zvonko (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

'They at best verbally abused him', precisely the defence point! 'Verbally abusing' someone in their absence is NOT usually a criminal offence in most European countries, it's offensive perhaps, not criminal. Your expansion is un-neutral, excessively detailed (while avoiding the 'core issues'), the use of 'Twitter' is WP:OR, and it all has almost NOTHING to do with the film. Pincrete (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ps this section is now the longest in the article, it was precisely in order to AVOID that the original coverage was 'minimal'.Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything you listed here is your personal POV, mostly devoid of any specificity and sense. We have a series of instances of people from the Serbian public weighing in on issues that arose from Malagurski's film as well as from reactions to Malagurski's film. Those instances need to be properly summarized and imparted to the reader in terms of what, when, and who. I did so to the best of my abilities. If you feel that hasn't been achieved, state specific instances of where it hasn't instead of wasting everyone's time with your layman's remarks on European countries' respective legal systems and musings that the section is too long (some things require an explanation especially when specific info is available).

The arguments of those (Milica Jovanović, Dario Harjic, and Jovana Gligorijevic) that characterize Dinic's, Poleksic's and Nikolic's online remarks against Malagurski as nothing more than "verbal abuse" is presented and explained. So are the arguments of those that don't agree with that characetrization. Finally, your suggestion that quoting Jesic's Twitter remarks constitutes original research is ridiculous.Zvonko (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't 'quote Jesic's Twitter remarks', you interpret them. Even if you did quote them, it would be Synth to use the words 'endorse threats' and OR to use them as a source for that interpretation. This article is meant to be about a particular film, not about justifying or condemning either BM or his accusers. It simply doesn't justify the space, especially with such poor sourcing.

BM himself devotes some of HIS article to musing on 'how different it would be if this weren't Serbia', so excuse me for having pointed out that HIS prosecution would have been impossible in most European countries. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't 'quote Jesic's Twitter remarks', you interpret them.

Yes I interpret them. In case you hadn't noticed, interpretation is a legitimate technique for writing Wiki articles. 90% of Wikipedia is interpretation. The key is whether the interpretation is correct or wrong, that is whether it correctly conveys the ideas and sentiment in the person's quote. What's your beef? Are you saying I wrongly interpreted Jesic's words?

Then you say "even if Jesic had been quoted verbatim it would still be WP:Synth to use the Jesic endorsed Dinic's, etc. threats wording". Well, good thing then since I changed the wording to "endorsed Dinic's etc. online remarks".

Then you say that person saying something on Twitter isn't appropriate to be included in a Wiki article, which is plain ridiculous. Jesic said something on Twitter and the thing he said, the circumstance he said it in as well as the context is appropriately summarized.

Your continual sprinkled-in protestations that "none of this is appropriate to be included in an article about a film" are also ridiculous. This simply has no bearing in the reality of what is being described here. All of the things described in this section organically came out instances of different people reacting to the film and as such ARE connected to the film.Zvonko (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a film, it is inappropriate for this issue to take over the article, if it is important in its own right, then it belongs on the director's page. You have improved the neutrality by your more recent wording, but it is still excessively detailed, he said - she said 'to-ing and fro-ing'. It is reliably sourced that BM ACCUSES the VP, but it is very debatable whether the VP was doing anything more than saying 'go ahead sue ME', but regardless a tweet isn't RS.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "90% of Wikipedia is interpretation', that statement is nonsense, theoretically NO editors' interpretations are used. Neutral, un-synthed summary is NOT the same as interpretation. In an attempt at neutrality you have changed 'endorsed threats', to 'endorsed Dinic's etc. online remarks', except Jesic doesn't mention 'Dinic' or 'online remarks' and what he DID say can be interpreted in several ways. I have no interest in proving to to you that your interpretation is wrong, simply in arguing that ANY interpretation of these few tweets inevitably involves WP:Synth and is WP:OR from inadequate sourcing.Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Zvonko, why have you removed the refs in English? Not only apparently do you wish to put 'your interpretation', you also want to make it impossible for 99% of Eng WP readers to read the sources. I have restored (keeping both Eng + Srb).Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So, first you have no interest in "proving to me that my interpretation of Ješić's quote is wrong". I would dare say that your lack of desire to do so actually has to do with your inability to do so since my interpretation of Ješić's quote isn't wrong. But then, two seconds later, your desire to "prove to me that my interpretation of Ješić's quote is wrong" has briefly come back and you give it a halfhearted try anyway - your "proof" being that Ješić's quote doesn't contain the exact terms 'online remarks' and 'Dinić'. This is becoming quite sad and embarrassing.

Once again, the thoughts in Ješić's quote ARE accurately interpreted in the section. And you know that, so since in multiple tries you haven't been able to state what's incorrect in the way Ješić's quote is interpreted, you resort to a ridiculous combination of:

a.) deflection ("I'm not even gonna try to prove to you that the way you interpreted Ješić's quote is wrong")

b.) laughably erroneous "what-the-hell-it's-worth-a-try" argument based on Serbian language comprehension even though you clearly have zero comprehension of Serbian beyond recognizing the same string of letters in two places ("oh, even though I just told you I'm not even gonna try to prove to you that the way you interpreted Ješić's quote is wrong, I'll still throw out a ridiculous claim that the way you interpreted Ješić's quote is wrong because the exact strings of letters 'Dinić' and 'online remarks' do not appear in his quote"). So let me get this straight, you claim that I didn't interpret Ješić's quote accurately because his quote doesn't contain 'Dinić' and 'online remarks', despite the fact it's clear even to a 2-year-old with basic Serbian language comprehension skills that Ješić is talking about what 'Dinić' wrote online - hence Dinić's online remarks.

c.) nonsensical WP:wikilawyering about how thoughts and ideas can't be conveyed through Twitter.

Also, in addition to not comprehending Serbian you seemingly posses very little understanding of the concept of interpretation as well as its use on Wikipedia so let me give you a little schooling on that too. First, let's start with the definition of the term "interpretation"

in·ter·pre·ta·tion /inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/ - the action of explaining the meaning of something.

You may have noticed in your two and a half years on Wikipedia that an overwhelming majority of the Wikipedia articles' content doesn't consist of quotes. It consist of interpretations of events, ideas, thoughts, quotes, claims, remarks, concepts, etc. One of the key questions on any given article is whether the interpretations that the article consists of are accurate or not. In the case of Ješić's quote in this article, its interpretation is correct and accurate.

Finally, I do not appreciate in the least your veiled accusation that my action of replacing the translated versions of the referenced articles with their original versions constitutes an attempt to prevent the English-speaking Wiki readers from understanding them. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that assuming good faith is one of its key behavioural guidelines and I suggest you exercise it every now and then. The reason why I replaced the links to the translated articles with links to their original versions in Serbian is that I noticed inaccuracies in the way they were translated. They were translated from Serbian into English by people with obviously inferior English language skills. Off the top of my head, one of the many inaccuracies I remember noticing was the failure to present a distinction between a criminal investigation request (krivična prijava) and a charge (optužnica) and usage of the word charge completely inaccurately.Zvonko (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Zvonko, there was nothing 'veiled' about my comment on your replacing refs without offering any reason. Whatever your motives the effect was as I described, despite minor flaws in the phrasing and grammar, translation of the English version, the document was readable to 100% of EngWP readers, your change used a 'perfect' version accessible only to a tiny percentage of readers.

The fact that you can find ONE part of ONE definition of interpretation is just silly, WP:synth goes into depth about what we do NOT do when summarising sources. Equally silly is the logic of 'I don't want to debate the meaning of the tweets, because I can't'. I have already given several possible meanings, but my main point is not you are wrong and I am right, it is that the inter-change is so brief and vague that any summary would involve Synth, and would anyway be OR.

While demanding good faith, you question my motives, my understanding of English (I'm sorry, your own is far-from-perfect). You don't seem interested in the difference between 'summarising' and 'synth', this conversation is going nowhere.Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ps, (hopefully more constructive) the distinction between 'filing a criminal investigation request (krivična prijava) and a charge (optužnica)' is slightly lost on me. NOT because of failing to understand the words, but rather because of being unfamiliar with Serbian legal practice. Taken literally, the first in the UK would probably mean only 'reporting something to the police', whilst the second MIGHT mean 'instigating a private prosecution' (a fairly rare occurence when one person takes another to court on a criminal matter).Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Having both versions is fine. I also want to set the record straight since you accused me of trying to "prevent readers of this article from being able to understand the references".

The flaws in the translation are more than 'minor' as far as I'm concerned. Yes, one can still get a general idea of what is being talked about by reading the English translation, but specific details and nuances matter in this case and they're poorly captured because the inividual(s) who did the translating obviously don't posses enough knowledge of English and are especially lacking when it comes to accurately translating legal terminology.

Furthermore, specifically to your accusation that "I'm preventing readers from understanding the references", this statement is problematic on so many levels. Besides showing bad faith (I explained above what my actual motive was), this statement is also logically fallacious. Because of this Wiki article's subject matter, most of its readers more than likely have some level of Serbian language comprehension (I can't imagine too many readers that have zero connection to Serbia and zero knowledge of Serbian language being interested in a documentary whose topic mostly deals with a local Serbian matter), so this notion of yours that having links to original articles in Serbian would have led to "only a tiny percentage of readers being able to verify what's going on" is way off. Besides, even if we were to take your highly questionable suggestion that all readers of this Wiki article only understand English as 100% true, loading that Serbian language reference text into Google Translate produces about the same quality level of output translation as those Peščanik translators did. Therefore nobody would've been nor was ever shortchanged in terms of basic comprehension of references, so stop trying to imply some sinister intent on my part.

Once again, having both versions is fine, I'm simply setting the record straight here as per your baseless accusations.

The fact that you can find ONE part of ONE definition of interpretation is just silly

Huh? You act as if the word interpretation has three million meanings and as if I tricked you by pulling out some obscure definition!!!? The meaning I used (which is clear to anyone but you) is the primary definition of the term "interpretation" - and I even drew it out for you with the help of the dictionary.

you question my motives, my understanding of English

Both things you said here are inventions. Where did I question your motives? Point out a paragraph where I questioned your motives. Also, where did I question your understanding of English? Point out a paragraph.

I said you "posses very little understanding of the concept of interpretation as well as its use on Wikipedia", which you clearly do since you took "interpretation" to mean some kind of 'misconstruing' rather than its basic meaning that I had to lay out for you from the dictionary. How you got that I questioned your "understanding of English" from this is anyone's guess.

You don't seem interested in the difference between 'summarising' and 'synth'

As for these continual ridiculous suggestions of WP:Synth when it comes to Ješić's Twitter quote, they're so preposterous that they're too ridiculous to even entertain, but I'll indulge you beyond what I already said before.

So, let's again repeat the facts here. Malagurski and Ješić had a Twitter conversation in the aftermath of Dinić, Nikolić, and Poleksić being sentenced by the Belgrade Higher Court to one year in prison for making online threats (court characterization) against Malagurski and Rajović, co-authors of The Presumption of Justice. Dinić's, Nikolić's, and Poleksić's September 2012 online remarks took place in the context of an online forum discussion on the topic of Malagurski's and Rajović's recently released documentary. Dinić, Nikolić, and Poleksić had an extremely negative reaction to it, expressing their aggressively harsh remarks that reportedly included suggestions of "explaining Malagurski some things with a metal rod on his face", "closing one or both of Malagurski's eyes", and "advocating sexual violence against Malagurski and Rajović".

Also, the Ješić-Malagurski Twitter communication immediately followed the occurrence of Jovana Gligorijević writing a piece about the sentencing of Dinić, Nikolić, and Poleksić as well as other connecting aspects around that event in Vreme, Serbian weekly mainstream news magazine, traditionally one of the two biggest and most established print periodicals in the country. This was the first instance of this sentence being discussed and value judged (as opposed to just being reported on) in a major outlet as prior to this it had only been discussed in comparatively smaller online outlets such as Peščanik. In her Vreme piece, Gligorijević generally took a stance critical of Malagurski and expressed a personal opinion that Dinic's, Nikolic's, and Poleksic's online remarks weren't threats but insults.

Now, the Jesic-Malagurski Twitter conversation came about via Malagurski first tweeting at Marko Drazic (editor of Serbian satirical site Njuz.net) to correct Drazic's passing claim that Malagurski "sued" Dinic, Nikolic and Poleksic.[6] Malagurski corrected Drazic that he didn't sue Dinic, Nikolic and Poleksic, but only filed a criminal investigation request and that they were then charged by the prosecutor's office. Jesic then jumped in calling Malgurski an idiot and eventually tweeting: "Your filing of the investigation request is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. Now file an investigation request against me since I second everything they wrote"

Your suggestion that this can be interpreted many different ways is ridiculous. It can be interpreted one way, and that is the way it's been presented in the article. Nothing was synthesized, either in Ješić's quote or in terms of other circumstances or other people chiming in. In his tweet, Ješić is talking about Dinic, Nikolic and Poleksic while reprimanding Malagurski for filing a criminal investigation request against Dinic, Nikolic and Poleksic and Ješić endorsed their remarks made online about Malagurski. There's nothing in either the context of the conversation or Ješić's specific quote to suggest otherwise.

the distinction between 'filing a criminal investigation request (krivična prijava) and a charge (optužnica)' is slightly lost on me

Upon seeing law being broken or thinking that they saw the law being broken, depending on the severity of the transgression, citizens of Serbia have an option of filing a criminal investigation request (krivična prijava) or a misdemeanor investigation request (prekršajna prijava). Misdemeanor investigation requests are, I believe, analyzed by municipal authorities, while criminal investigation request get looked at by the district public prosecutor's office and either get thrown out or acted upon in terms of ordering a formal investigation, which is then done by the police. If the investigative process is opened, it may end with no charges being raised in which case the process is done or with charges being raised (optužnica) in which case the whole thing goes to a court trial before a judge.Zvonko (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are, I believe a speaker of Serbian at native level, I am not. I would not argue with you about the precise use of a particular word in that language. There are several common uses of the word 'interpretation' which imply introducing a subjective/unverifiable element, it was in that sense that I used the word. Lest this was not clear, I linked to Synth, which is WP terminology. I have to go to work now and have not yet read your reply fully. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(interspersed out of sequence by Pincrete to complete prev. post)Zvonko, I have only now had the chance to fully read your post, above, thankyou for the legal clarification. Thankyou also for contributing to a calmer tone. As I have said before, I don't think we need all the details and I still believe that there is an element of synth and OR in using the 'tweets'. However, even if I am wrong, why is the 'endorsement' statement important, but the 'no one should go to prison for what they write' NOT important (I'm quoting that from memory), I believe it was an earlier tweet, it seems rather better to summarise what he was saying. My PERSONAL interpretation of the 'endorsement' is that he was saying 'go ahead and sue ME, (I dare you) 'rather than 'I encourage people to threaten BM in this way' , which is what 'endorse the threats/endorse everything that was said', implies. But as I have said ANY summary of these tweets almost inevitably involves synth and is possibly OR.Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, you ignored me asking for evidence for your accusation that "I questioned your motives" and that "I questioned your understanding of English". Since you can't produce any evidence because I didn't do either of those things, I would appreciate you ceasing to throw baseless accusations around from now on.

However, even if I am wrong, why is the 'endorsement' statement important, but the 'no one should go to prison for what they write' NOT important (I'm quoting that from memory)'

Because Ješić never said that. You got that completely wrong or you just invented Ješić saying it. Besides, nobody's going to jail here because the sentence is suspended in place of 3-year probationary period. In addition to endorsing the remarks Dinić, Poleksić, and Nikolić made online about Malagurski and Rajović, Ješić's only other tweets on this topic included calling Malagurski an idiot and then clarifying that he called Malagurski an idiot because of not liking his movie.

My PERSONAL interpretation of the 'endorsement' is that he was saying 'go ahead and sue ME, (I dare you) 'rather than 'I encourage people to threaten BM in this way' , which is what 'endorse the threats/endorse everything that was said', implies.

Your personal interpretation is wrong. By saying "The fact that you sued those people is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. Now sue me since I second (I'm signing my name under) everything they wrote" here Ješić clearly supported what Dinić, Poleksić, and Nikolić wrote online on the Parapsihopatologija forum about Malagurski and Rajović. I also expanded the explanation to better provide the context of the quote. The term endorsement is quite appropriate here and it implies nothing other than what Ješić conveyed in his tweet — a clear pat-on-the-back agreement with Dinić's, Poleksić's, and Nikolić's online remarks about Malagurski and Rajović. Once again, I'll refer you to the dictionary.

en·dorse·ment /inˈdôrsmənt,enˈdôrsmənt/ - an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.

But as I have said ANY summary of these tweets almost inevitably involves synth and is possibly OR

What synth? It's a single tweet from Ješić's that couldn't be more clear.Zvonko (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Zvonko, thankyou for your recent edits, they go some way to achieving neutrality. You don't need to define basic English words for me, and to do so is rather insulting. Once again I must be brief, put simply, was Ješić endorsing the remarks or their right to make such remarks without going to prison for doing so?

I didn't respond to some of 'personal' points, because I thought we might both have become 'over-heated' and I didn't wish to further contribute to that, if you still wish any of them answered, I will do so.

There is only one way to precede here, which is to take the matter to RSN, to settle whether tweets are RS and whether the use of them is OR, or if you know of any guideline regarding their use, perhaps you could point it out to me. ps Having had a look, I cannot now find the 'No-one should go to prison' tweet, in which case I clearly mis-remembered, as that is the case, I apologisePincrete (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Zvonko, further to above, WP:synth isn't mainly about 'synthesizing' (fabricating) content, it is largely about (often inadvertent) adding of implications to the original. EngWP works on the premise that it is serving ALL English speakers, we might include additional info to those who speak the 'subject language', we don't ASSUME that ANY of them are familiar with that language. Since you Zvonko are happy for the Eng version to be ref'd and I am happy for the Serbian one to be there also, the issue is now resolved. The guidelines are very equivocal about the use of 'tweets', they are here:[7].Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For the seventh time: Jesic was endorsing Dinic's, Poleksic's, and Nikolic's remarks. He said so explicitly. The way this is conveyed in the article's section even goes above and beyond the bare bones, giving the entire context of his statement. As for your continual "was he endorsing their right to make such remarks without going to prison for doing so" questions/suggestions, no he wasn't. He never said any such thing.

Didn't notice any "mutual over-heating"; all I saw was you accusing me of "questioning your motives" and "questioning your understanding of English". Since I know I did no such thing and since you still seem to be implying I did, yes, lets see your evidence.

I don't think there's any reason to take this to RSN. It would be a giant waste of time over something extremely straightforward that's already taken way more time and energy than it deserves. The guidelines (WP:TWITTER, WP:Twitter) are mostly concerned with whether the account belongs to the person it is claimed it belongs to, and there's not a shred of doubt that this is Jesic's Twitter account.Zvonko (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Zvonko, I used the word 'interpret' in a way with which you are unfamiliar. Printing the first line of a very basic dictionary definition was hardly helpful or courteous (nor likely to prove anything). You apparently don't think "The meaning I used (which is clear to anyone but you) is the primary definition of the term "interpretation" - and I even drew it out for you with the help of the dictionary" is insulting? Especially ironical since I used the word first and you misunderstood my usage. My use of the word is perfectly standard English, even if it isn't the only usage. (do you want the dictionary refs, or shall we both just drop it?)

IF the use of 'Twitter' IS deemed acceptable by an RSN, I have an alternative proposal. Since the main two tweets are actually shorter (31 words according to my count, using your translation above) than our current 'summary' of them (54 words from 'lambasted' to 'as well'). Why not just quote the original text and let the reader be the judge of what is meant?

I have other concerns regarding neutrality, put crudely, BM's 'accusers' get 29 words (from 'they opined …'), whilst 'defenders' (BM himself and Antic) get 241 (all para 2, deduct proper names, linking text etc for fairer comparison). Of course my objections are more specific than 'word count', but word count is a reasonable barometer of whose side of the controversy is being put here.

The grammar and phrasing are also pretty 'clunky' at times, but there is no point fixing that while content is still disputed.Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I read the discussion carefully and I'd like to comment. Pincrete wrote "What you have quoted above is NOT an 'endorsement of the threats'" in regards to Zvonko's translation of what Jesic wrote. While Zvonko's translation is fairly accurate in the spirit of the English language, Jesic's last sentence "I tuži i mene pošto potpisujem sve što su napisali" literally translates to "And sue me as well, as I sign everything they wrote". If signing something someone wrote isn't an endorsement, and if the words "everything they wrote" makes you think that he 'meant' something different than what he very bluntly wrote, Pincrete, not only are you clueless when it comes to the Serbian language, you don't understand English very well either. Not to mention that in colloquial Serbian, when you say that you sign something someone else wrote, it means that you endorse it.

I support Zvonko's edits and think he's doing a good job at making the article more informative and balanced. Pincrete, I've already expressed my views on your agenda in regards to Malagurski-related articles, so I won't repeat them. It really is ironic that Pincrete is complaining about Zvonko using "interpretation" when noting that Jesic endorsed something by endorsing it, when Pincrete is actually the one (falsely) interpreting what Jesic meant by the words "everything they wrote", claiming that it, well, he "could just as easily mean 'I endorse their criticisms of you and the film'", when Jesic very specifically wrote "I sign everything they wrote", which included threats. Pincrete, either learn Serbian or stop trolling Wikipedia by commenting on Serbian sources. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, first of all, when the discussion started on the BM talk page, you were in favour of keeping the coverage minimal in order to avoid synth or OR. Secondly when exactly did a twitter exchange become a RS? Thirdly, the FULL quote And sue me as well, as I sign everything they wrote, is quite clearly challenging BM to DARE to sue him. Lastly you might be better spent remedying the GROTESQUE errors of grammar in sentences such as 'Malagurski's response to Gligorijević's piece got published in …' rather than trying to (rather pathetically), question my understanding of English. As I said to Zvonko above, I have never argued with him, (or you or any other editor), about the meaning of words or sentences in Serbian, nor insulted him or you about your understanding of that language. Since you lack the good manners to extend me the same courtesy, you should at least acquire the brains to do so.Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep it brief:

1. This is not the BM talk page, scroll up.
2. Earlier Jesic's remarks didn't spark controversy, endorsement of threats did and were addressed in at least 2 published articles (Malagurski's and Antic's).
3. Stop trolling Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the initial controversy provoked at least 5 substantial articles (3 critical of BM, 2 by BM replying). The 'tweets', if I remember correctly, are mentioned briefly (one or 2 paras) in a further article by BM and more fully in a brief 'op-ed' by Antic. So, thinking the controversy unimportant, but the 'tweets' important is a bit strange.

You don't address the question whether you consider (selective), use and interpretation of the tweets to be OR, nor whether tweets are 'RS' in your opinion. You don't address the question why (half of) the 'endorsement' should be in the article, but other parts, should not. You have never addressed the question WHY one of the 'threats' must be quoted (no one doubts that they were highly abusive and obscene), when the central controversy is not what the content of the 'threats' was, but rather whether these were simply angry remarks made in what the writers believed to be a private space, where such language was acceptable and threatened no one.Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Message Board Controversy key issues

I am starting this sub-section in the hope of re-focusing discussion on key issues (as I see them).

Background A long-term consensus existed that we should not go into details about either side in this controversy, as per here:[8] This position was as a result of discussion at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Proposed text and in the section following. I don't necessarily think that the consensus HAS to be upheld, but only point out that the advantage of that position, was to completely by-pass issues of synth, OR and neutrality and to keep things brief.

Are tweets RS? Guidelines are here:WP:Twitter, they are very equivocal. They link to [9], which includes Twitter in the list of 'Links normally to be avoided'. The guidelines also link to primary sources, here: [10] where it categorically states, several times "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" . I interpret this as meaning that ANY 'explanation' is unacceptable, but that accurate quoting would not be (btw, I have NO problem with 'I sign to/ I put my name to/ I second everything they wrote', 'I second' is the shortest and has the right rhetorical flourish.)

nb There is a RSN discussion here about the use of these tweets:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using tweets to support 'endorsement'

Neutrality, put crudely, at present BM's 'accusers' get 29 words (from 'they opined …'), whilst 'defenders' (BM himself and Antic) get 241 (all para 2, deduct proper names, linking text etc for fairer comparison). Of course my objections are more specific than 'word count', but word count is a reasonable barometer of whose side of the controversy is being put here. More specifically, no attempt is made to communicate WHY they 'opined etc.' (that THIS was the defense case, but that the defense were denied the opportunity to call witnesses to prove that this was 'abuse', not threats and that the remarks were made in a 'closed' section, where such language was normal).

Coatrack?/Undue This section is now the largest by far of the article. Very little of the section connects directly to the film (a passing comment about funding). I have always thought that this belongs on the BM page with only the briefest mention/link on this page. Possibly the film related matters could be covered here and the more general on the BM page.

Phrasing Grammar and phrasing are also pretty 'clunky' at times. The opening para seems needlessly detailed (eg why do we need to know WHEN the investigation began?) but there is no point fixing these while more substantive content is still disputed.Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please stop trolling Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

nb The RSN discussion about the use of these tweets, archived here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Using_tweets_to_support_.27endorsement.27 concluded that the 'tweets' are not RS and several editors have also concluded that their use is OR. I have therefore removed the content.Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Endorse? The link which UrbanVillager provides to justify the word 'endorse':[11], lists 'endorse' as its 4th meaning, and draws attention to its use as 'endorse a check' etc. (ie sign it). 'Endorse' 'ratify' 'undersign' etc. are formal words with legal implications, the use of 'second' was suggested by Zwonko and endorsed(?) by me as having the right informal, rhetorical tone. I think we are all agreed that the literal meaning is 'add my name to'. However given that there are much bigger neutrality issues than a single word, I am not at present going to quibble over one word.Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Presumption of Justice. 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 archive.org/web/20131029223454/http://www.alo.rs/stari-alo/Istina_o_smrti_Brisa_Tatona/48100 to http://www.alo.rs/stari-alo/Istina_o_smrti_Brisa_Tatona/48100

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} 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)