Talk:Boris Malagurski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on Template messages and Article sections[edit]

Should this article be tagged with WP:COI, WP:AB and WP:NPOV template messages. Also, because we already have sections on "Views", "Activism" and "Controversies", should we balance its narratives, while we could also create a section on "Style, Techniques and Themes". I have found three excellent sources in Serbo-Croatian (see above sections), there is one in Norwegian provided by User:Tataral. It would be great to have few in English. --౪ Santa ౪99° 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, I seriously considered your suggestion for RfC immediately after the AN, but I was unable to set aside some of my time during the last couple of days. I will have more spare time during the weekend so I intend to go through with the COIN report as well. I have reverted back template messages, as UrbanVillager never participated in current discussion nor responded to my concerns regarding COI, and more importantly, I think it would be for the best if you could give this RfC some breathing room with full protection against further removal of the TM's, at least until this issue of COI and OWN is resolved one way or the other. Although I have my doubts that editors want to get involved with obscure yet highly controversial topics, especially in treacherous waters, which Balkan scope usually is, I will try to alert as many editors as possible using RfC instructions.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to discuss the matter until you remove the disputed templates, for which a discussion has already taken place and no consensus has been reached, a fact you're simply ignoring by re-adding the templates. I refuse to remove them myself because I want this edit war that you've caused to stop. If you sincerely want to contribute to the article, remove the templates and try making the article better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just voted on Reliable sources/Noticeboard that Facebook cannot be used as source ie RS for Wikipedia. In this article some information has Facebook source. In addition, local portals and private media are used as data sources which in my opinion are not quality RS. This is a good way to point this issue because above all, the quality of the article must be our priority. Mikola22 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @EdJohnston: How is it possible that the RfC is allowed while the content which is the key matter of dispute is kept? I have never seen anything like this. It's mining the RfC in the first place. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No matter when protection is done, inevitably the m:WRONGVERSION will be protected. Another option would have been to block the two people who reverted the tags after the RfC was opened, one from each side. Let's reach a result, and the dispute should be concluded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Sadko and am starting to feel a slight bias towards adding the templates from User:EdJohnstons end. We're supposed to discuss the addition of the templates while the article has been protected to keep them there -- that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The templates should be removed because there is no consensus for adding them. Furthermore, User:Santasa99's very first edit on this article is the addition of these templates, without any attempt to remedy what he claims are the issues with this article. The article contains information about Malagurski and his work and is largely NPOV - stating mere facts without assessing them from any point of view. The article contains criticism of Malagurski as well, but if the issue at hand is that the article needs more criticism, but since we can't find reliable sources, let's slap on these templates -- the issue rests with some users' own bias, not the alleged flawed neutrality of the article itself. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked about RS, actually, I have dedicated an entire post to it and included links to original texts, and then repeated it after a while, but you are obviously either not reading what has been written here in the last few weeks or deliberately omitting that posts on RS. Anyway, here's it for the third time:
Regarding the Faktograf article, it seems that Malagurski was refused to refute the claims in the article, which opens the question of whether Faktograf is a media outlet, as media outlets in Croatia abide by strict laws according to which they are obligated to publish rebuttals. I'm not an expert who can assess the claims in either Faktograf's claims or Malagurski's answers, but if one source is included in the article, it warrants that the other is included as well.
As for the Lupiga sources, the headlines are clearly biased and emotionally charged, calling Malagurski a "conspiracy theorist" and his films "propaganda", while Lupiga itself seems to be an obscure web portal acclaimed only in circles of other obscure web portals, as I couldn't find any reliable sources that the portal in question is reliable itself. Neither articles were signed by anyone, but the author is simply listed as "Lupiga.com". Is this what Wikipedia wants as sources? I don't think so. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
≫ Inserted post ≫ - UrbanVillager should think twice before start complaining about WP:Reliable sources, and here's few reasons why:
Your edits include references based on sources such as Sputnik, Russia Today.com and its franchise Serbia Today.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), with mind-boggling usage of PressTV, on whose references article heavily relies:
First of all "SerbiaToday.com" doesn't exist, and I don't see any evidence claiming that Večernje Novosti, Alo or PressOnline are "media agents of Russian influence". The first link you added simply contains a list of popular media outlets in Serbia, the most popular being Blic.rs - owned by Ringier, a media group in Switzerland, founded in 1833 in Zofingen and based in Zürich.
Second of all, Politika is the oldest daily newspaper still in circulation in the Balkans, founded in 1904. None of the links you have added presents any evidence that Politika is unreliable or a part of an alleged web of "media agents of Russian influence".
RTS.rs is the official website of Serbian national television, a member of the European Broadcasting Union, you also didn't present any evidence that it is unreliable or a part of an alleged web of "media agents of Russian influence". RTS is mainly financed through monthly subscription fees and advertising revenue.
The "mind-boggling usage of PressTV" is actually 4 links, three of which are related to Malagurski's appearances on Press TV in just one sentence, while the second link is one of two references supporting the claim that other media outlets call Malagurski the "Serbian Michael Moore". So, references for 2 sentences in an article that contains 103 sentences is mind-boggling and enough to say that the article heavily relies on Press TV links? Please.
The Fake_news#Serbia link you added doesn't mention any of the sources you previously mentioned, and only mentions Informer. This article has only one reference from Informer, in the "Other projects" section about a movie Malagurski is allegedly planning on making, where the only two sources are the film's website and Informer - I think the section should be removed. As for the List_of_fact-checking_websites#Croatia, the only source for Faktograf being a fact-checking website is -- Faktograf.
Wikipedia is not a place for anti-Russian or any other kinds of crusades. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view (WP:NOTOPINION). Adding opinionated posts from unsigned authors on obscure web portals doesn't help in this regard. If your only goal is to attack the reputation of Boris Malagurski, and it surely seems this is the case, I suggest you read what Wikipedia is not. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Serbia Today" exist in article as ref.35, website name is really "Serbia Today" as "Russia today" only in Serbian, which translates as "Srbija danas". I will let those who are really interested in reading the book (Challenges in Strategic Communication and Fighting Propaganda in Eastern Europe), or just that page 66, or maybe chapter from page 53, to contemplate over and decide for themselves what the author actually claims, with a remark that that certainly is not what you just described in your last post. Meanwhile, questioning Faktograf is silly, whether it is refed one way or the other is irrelevant, and not just because using Sputnik, PressTV and RT and variety of Serbian tabloids at the same time, it's silly because the website is well-known and a part of collaborative project and a broader Western Balkans network of fact-checking, propaganda and fake-news debunking organizations, including those in Serbia. Now, if we start with reliability analysis of every Serbian outlet individually, and all from concerns aroused by reports like this one, by International Research & Exchanges Board, and another 7 (seven) similar reports in that wiki-link on Serbian media reliability, we would probably also use this network of Balkans' fakt-checking org's as a solid base for data-mining and information gathering.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After watching the article for a good week and mulling about the RFC for two days, I was on verge of saying screw it I don't know anything about this guy, but the fact-checking links are too overwhelming to be ignored. Issues in the article can be solved, and dubious sources fleshed out. It's not the first time we see tagged article. Mhare (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons listed in my comments above - the tags were added without discussion, without reaching a consensus and they seem to be motivated by something other than making the article better and more informative. As I already said, the article is fairly NPOV, criticism does exist, but as for the Faktograf and Lupiga articles, here are my issues with them. An article is more NPOV when it contains as much pure information as possible without anyone's point of view, not by adding a bunch of biased opinions from unreliable sources such as web portals that anyone can start nowadays. In that sense, the tags should be removed and all those who have been contributing to this article in good faith should work together on improving issues - not imposing tags and insisting on unreliable sources. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mikola22. Idealigic (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's not about collecting votes, it's about discussing to reach a consensus. I don't see you've made any edits to this article or have contributed to the discussion in any way prior to this vote. Could you elaborate more? --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is one of the strangest RfCs I have ever seen. It's nothing more than a way to "legally" push one's opinion which was followed with edit-war and reports. No proper arguments were given. There is no explanation about "systematic bias" and other nonsense. Three sources mentioned are extremely weak and obscure, which just get's repeated over and over. My personal impression is that this article was target because of political differences, which is pretty plain. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I support keeping the templates till the concerns are sorted out. This seems more as a policy thing than as a pure content dispute. Hence @EdJohnston: might be able to provide more information on the relevant policies of COI, and maybe admin action if necessary. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The arguments presented do not support either the existing or the proposed templates. I would only consider the Unreliable template, or better, add [better source needed] in a several places.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons above. Note to @EdJohnston:. There is a thing with the mentioned Faktofraf article becouse the Faktofraf portal was established and funded by National Endowment for Democracy (NED). And NED was heavily covered by the 2014 Malagurski's film. It quite unusual for Factograf to start and cover stories like the Malagurski's one in Zagreb, regarding to writing style and used words for description. Everything started with this article. Lupiga and others just collegialy followed Faktorgraf. --IndexAccount (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IndexAccount: How do you mean everything started from (faktograf.hr/2018)? Boris Malagurski, the author of the most disgusting lies, 24.07.2017. Source is from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Commemoration for victims of genocide in Srebrenica Boris Malagurski called Srebrenica Fest 2017.[1] Another Bosnian source (30.8.2017.) Sympathetic fascism and humorous lies of Boris Malagurski. [2] Some source in Serbian language, (Author: Stefan Gužvica is a historian, a doctoral student at the University of Regensburg)[3] The weight of B. Malagurski's lies - Part I: The Millennial Battle of Kosovo(March 16, 2017) [4] Mikola22 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys, you predominantly write here about whether the sources are reliable or not. What does that have to do with the RfC and proposed templates? It is Ok to add the conclusions of the fact-checking portal, as well as criticism of the Malagurski's work and public activity. Again, that's not the issue here.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I've stated before - I see no reasons to keep the disputed templates. It also looks like a new way of bludgeoning the process. Ранко Николић (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no reason nor valid arguments to keep the proposed templates. I don't understand why the article was protected on the modified version before the consensus was established. The discussion was started by the POV editor. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No concrete evidence has been presented that Urban Villager or IndexAccount are Malagurski or someone related to him, only speculation, insinuations and innuendo. I have no opinion on the WP:NPOV template. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for review[edit]

  1. "Malagurski u Frankfurtu: Filmski melem za srpske nacionaliste - 05.11.2022". DW.COM (in Serbian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  2. Augustinović, Marija (6 January 2023). "Film Malagurskog o RS za jedne 'iskrivljivanje istine', za druge 'priča o slobodi'". Radio Slobodna Evropa (in Serbo-Croatian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  3. "Controversial Director Boris Malagurski invites Sarajevo Mayor to Film about Republika Srpska". Sarajevo Times. 7 January 2023. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  4. Kurtic, Azem (13 October 2022). "Petition Targets Bosnian Serb History Film for 'Genocide Denial'". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  5. Peterhans, Anielle (24 October 2022). "Nationalistes serbes – «L'UDC! Le seul parti de ce pays qui nous comprend!»". Tribune de Genève (in French). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  6. "Fenerbahce Fans in whose Premises Malagurski's Film was shown: We apologize to Brothers Bosniaks". Sarajevo Times. 14 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  7. "Statement on the Broadcasting of the Documentary Republika Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom". Lemkin Institute. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  8. Hiltmann, Aleksandra (25 October 2022). "Analyse zu Propagandafilm – Warum serbischer Nationalismus gefährlich ist – auch in der Schweiz". Berner Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  9. "Un nationaliste serbe a-t-il besoin de la Suisse pour faire de la propagande?". SWI swissinfo.ch (in French). 14 October 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  10. "Time is running out for war crimes prosecution in Bosnia". JusticeInfo.net. 14 November 2022. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  11. Srdja Pavlović (4 November 2019). "OPINION: General's Road to Perdition". University of Alberta Faculty of Arts. Retrieved 13 January 2023.</ref>
  12. Zivanovic, Maja (18 September 2017). "Kosovo Slates Serbian Film Attacking its UNESCO Bid". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  13. Milekic, Sven (27 October 2016). "Croatia MP Becomes Region's Anti-Establishment Star". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  14. "Besramne laži Borisa Malagurskog". Faktograf.hr (in Croatian). 19 April 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  15. "#MALAGURSKIVIDIŠTANAMRADE: Srpski teoretičar zavjere zaratio s hrvatskim medijima zbog gostovanja u Zagrebu". Lupiga (in Croatian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  16. "TAJNI ZANATI PROPAGANDNE MAŠINERIJE: Evo tko je pisao vijesti". Lupiga (in Croatian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.
  17. Zijad Burgić. "TEŽINA ZLOČINA". Bosnjaci.Net (in Bosnian). Retrieved 13 January 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom[edit]

Unclear why this content, most of which seems noteworthy, was removed: The Canada-based Institute for the Research of Genocide launched an online petition to half the promotion of the film. The film was also condemned by Sarajevo Mayor Benjamina Karic and Alaskan standup comedian Chelsea Hart. As a result, six days of screenings were cancelled in 19 cities in Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium.[1][2] Has it gone to the film's own article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Film section only briefly discusses the films, because most of them have separate articles that go deeper into the topic and potential controversies, as does this one: Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom. If we start going into who said what here, the Film section will inflate very quickly, with content that is better suited for articles about the specific films. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Al Jazeera 2022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Anadolu Agency (18 October 2022). "Serbian-Canadian director accused of whitewashing Bosnia war in film". Daily Sabah. Retrieved 13 January 2023.

Croatian citizen[edit]

I personally know first hand that he applied for Croatian citizenship under the pretext that he is ethnic Croat. He's a current holder of Croatian passport;he signed the document in Croatian consulate in Subotica,claiming Croatian heritage,otherwise he wouldn't be getting it. 46.99.95.119 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Malagurski&oldid=1208730981"