Talk:Boris Malagurski

Deliberately misleading

Boris Malagurski persists in removing the (sourced) fact[1] that he was one of 14 winners of the Rosarito Silver Palm Award, Mexico, in the category "Student Films". "Winner, Silver Palm Award, 2009" is directly misleading, it deliberately portrays him as the winner when he was in fact only one of 76 winners of that (not particularly notable) award and only in the category student films along with more than a dozen other film students. All his other awards are less notable than this one. Urban XII (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The intent is not to mislead, but to keep up with the format on the previous awards listed. Also, stop calling me that name, if you're accusing me of being that person, do a checkuser. I'm tired of this... --Cinéma C 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The continued attempts to remove the fact that he won in the category "Student Films" is nothing but simple vandalism, and really a good example of how this article deliberately and misleadingly presents a non-notable person as extremely important. If anyone ever doubted why this vanity should be deleted, you have given them plenty of reasons with your revert-warring to make readers believe this award is so much more important than it really is. Urban XII (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. Nobody is trying to present this person as extremely important. This is an article about a filmmaker who has made a few films, has had interviews in several media outlets, was written about in newspapers, reported about on television and the article itself is well referenced, with reliable secondary sources that support all claims in the article, and no original research. That is how it should stay. --Cinéma C 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Section

I don't understand why you are trying to delete this part: Boris is also a Serbian propagandist, dedicated to justify war crimes committed by the Serb forces during Yugoslav wars. Rochass (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs)

That is a personal view, not a fact.

Take Alex Jones, for example, who has been accused of being a propagandist by many, you can't find that word anywhere in the introduction. That's because statements of accusation have to be supported by reliable references, second-hand sources. The same goes for the comment regarding war crimes. You can't just watch his film and, if you don't like it, write how he's this and that on Wikipedia - this is not a forum. --Cinéma C 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

::You are wrong. There are hundreds of examples in Wikipedia with similar statements about some persons. And deletion of those sentences is considered vandalism. Anyway I included relevant tag - citation needed, and if there's no relevant source to support the claim in a near future (few months) then be my guest and delete the sentence. Rochass (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Historičar (talk · contribs)

That's not how it works, my friend. Find a source first. --Cinéma C 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Boris Malagurski photo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Boris Malagurski photo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vreme je

Resolved

UrbanVillager, you removed two times some films from the filmography section.

1. The first time you used the following argument "Those were student films)" and when I reverted you explaining that student films should be included in the filmography because he received awards for them (i.e. for Vreme je) and that removal of student films is not good explanation because The Canada project is also a "student film" you reverted my edit.
2. The second time you did not use "student film argument" but another two arguments: 1) These films are not on IMDb. and 2) Canada Project was on National Television.

Regardless of the presence of those films on IMDb or National Television, BM received awards for Vreme je, or Canada project and those films should not be deleted because awards those films received give them notability and therefore they should be included in the list. Even the other films of BM which are not on IMDb should be included in the list because he was their author. Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section for filmographies does not say that filmography should exclude films which are not listed on IMDb or not published on National Television.

If I am wrong, please provide arguments within reasonable period of time. Otherwise I will return deleted films in the list within filmography section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of notability. Sure, he made them, but do we list his home movies too? "Ozbiljna gimnazija", from what I was able to find, was only shown in his highschool. I guess "Vreme je" is OK, so that can be added, but I don't see that "Kits" or "Communist Spy" won any awards. One other film which could be added is "Slamarke" (2007), which was shown on Serbian TV, but the film is less than 3 minutes long, so I'm not sure how notable that is. If you ask me, I think only adding "Vreme je" is OK, and maybe Slamarke. The rest are just, from what I understood, student projects which weren't screened publicly outside of BM's school. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin, Malagurski's "movie" is more like a video stuff one records and plays with. There is no nobilty. This man is a genocide denier and Serbian propagandists. He is far from being neutral. Yet he was banned from Wikipedia and he is back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.176.36 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski article full of lies

The criticism of Boris Malagurski's video clip (it's too badly done to be called a "movie" or "documentary") can be read in English now, http://baginst.com/The%20Weight%20of%20War%20Crimes%20ZIJAD.pdf . Boris Malagurski was banned from Wikipedia, yet he is back again and is editing his own article. Admins, why don't you ban user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cin%C3%A9ma_C <-- he is Boris Malagurski and he is using a different IP # to make himself "famous" on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.176.36 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you listed here was written by some irrelevant blogger (Here's his blog) and it does not constitute as facts or the opinion of "critics". Wikipedia only recognizes relevant sources, and they have been listed as references. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked for it and quickly found that the same blog post was reposted at E-novine, which does not appear to be any more more unreliable than e.g. Press, just with an opposite slant. As is, the article is pretty much a hagiography of Malagurski, which is a WP:BLP violation just as well - an article stating the contrary is a step in the right direction to restoring some balance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy, E-novine is nothing more than a sophisticated blog site. Press is a print newspaper that is widely read in Serbia. I agree that every article should have a balance, but there needs to be a more serious reference, not just a site that re-posts blog entries. --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

E-novine seems to be an outlet used by reasonably respectable journalists and is well known internationally, which elevates it well beyond the status of an unreliable blog, and it's certainly no different than a Serbian tabloid that is well known to be 'feuding' with similar newspapers in Croatia. Your outright revert of my good-faith edits is unacceptable and I've warned you on your talk page about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If your definition of "respectable" and "well known internationally" is used for describing a website that re-posts personal blog entries, then we won't reach a consensus on this issue. You listed Press as being on the same level - which is not true. Press is a print newspaper, not an online blog re-posting site. In fact, after Blic, Press is the most read paid newspaper in Serbia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My definition is primarily based on data from a simple search such as http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=e-novine where one can see e-novine mentioned by a variety of random, neutral sources - it has general notability. General readership of Press does not necessarily impress (heh). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your definition doesn't change the fact that e-novine, in this specific case, merely re-posted a blog post, as I indicated in my previous comments. Blog posts are not references. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about novinar.de, attack site whose purpose is to promote extreme nationalism and religious sects. E-novine are much more reliable source than this garbage.--В и к и T 06:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken, as it seems that anybody can write for novinar.de. I removed the novinar.de references. However, E-Novine can't be reliable either, as it too merely copies blog posts and presents them as "news". --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you about E-novine. One more question: Why is this article marked as high on importance scale for WikiProject Serbia. Boris is young, perspective and handsome film director, but definitely not so important. It should be changed to mid.--В и к и T 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to change it to mid. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is like an hagiographic, a resumé-advertising bio of a pretentious Serb-Canadian kid than a text of some REAL importance. Come on people, have you EVER seen or heard about this Boris M. outside Wikipedia, Russia Today... and ITS OWN WEBSITE? Poor guy, he wants to get more prestige than Angelina Jolie...--201.81.237.228 (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should have remained deleted, as it did after a number of votes for deletion.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Malagurski is quite well known in Serbia and Bosnia. His films get shown on TV there all the time. Just the other night "The Weight of Chains" was on BN Television (Covers all of Bosnia and Serbia, and on Satellite throughout the world). And he's in the media a couple of times per month. Just check out how many hits "Boris Malagurski" has on Google. Countless articles about him, meaning that there are secondary sources about this person (Wikipedia asks for only 2 when it comes to notability, this person surpassed that a long, long time ago), so please don't base your opinion on personal bias, but rather stick to the rules of Wikipedia and consider that just because you haven't heard of this person, doesn't mean he's not notable. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

“Actually, Malagurski is quite well known in Serbia and Bosnia. His films get shown on TV there all the time.”

Obviously, since his movies are in the traditions of “Serb victimization” and negationism of the Serbian war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars with the intention of creating the “Greater Serbia” of Slobodan Milosevic… I doubt Malagurski and his movies are known in parts of Bosnia not dominated by Republika Srpska… or even Canada, where the guy has been living for years!

Other thing to note is that the simple quantity of Google citations don’t make someone or something relevant. I bet many porn actors has much more Google results than B. Malagurski, but they are not considered relevant enough to deserve an article here in Wikipedia. Even PLAYBOY PLAYMATES only have their own articles in very special cases here!--201.81.224.11 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What a wonderful forum Wikipedia is for the discussion of the great achievements of this prodigy of a director! How shameful to compare his achievements with those of porn actors and Playboy Playmates. Thanks to you, Urban Villager, for the hours of innocent amusement and entertainment you've given us (eg "Fair enough, feel free to change it to mid (importance)" - what a hoot!). May the unworthy ask when the next masterpiece is due? Opbeith (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And I just took a look at UrbanVillager's Google link above multiply confirming Boris's notability. I was particularly struck by:

"BORIS MALAGURSKI & "THE WEIGHT OF CHAINS" REVIEW

srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/.../boris-malagurski-weight-of-chains.html - Cached

9 Oct 2011 ... PHOTO 1/2: Boris Malagurski, unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film

director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a ..."

Now there's notability money can't buy!Opbeith (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, as per WP:TALK, I'd like to inform you to avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought you would have realised that the capital letters in my quote were taken from the original. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This section is in direct violation of WP:TALK, on the following points:

• Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article (template, etc.) you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss. A related article Edit, actual or potential, should be traceable to that Talk-page heading.
• Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
  • Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as the section title is concerned, it's fairly clear that the anonymous poster was driven by frustration over the control of the article exercised by Malagurski's support group. You've got the article wrapped up, you've somehow got the Wikipedia administrators on board, you need to allow a vent for visitors unaware of this peculiarity of Wikipedia to vent their frustration. Are you not gracious enough to concede them that? If you're criticising my own section heading reference to Quality/notability issues below, yes, that may be experienced by other editors here as an attack on them but only if they take criticism of their tendentious interpretation of Wikipedia principles personally. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're justifying the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not going to discuss this matter with you any further. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources.

Well, official selection is the term for film festivals. That is not the title, but the factographic name of the participation movies. And, for the fest, same as here --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't actually call it an official selection. It's just a list without context. What, are thirteen films from Serbia alone given some prestigious honour of "official selection" at the International Festival of New Latin American Cinema? We should stick to what sources actually say. bobrayner (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to say that, it is obvious that is official selection. official selection is an expression for the chosen film in the film festivals. It looks like you are just trying to minimize this event. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteWriter, Official Selection is the term that film festivals use, and there really is widespread consensus regarding the matter, not only on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And stop with the removal of sourced content, if you have some problem with Bridgefest, gain consensus first, and stop with the removal. I will ask for admin help, unless you dont start using talk page up until agreement. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As always, Boris's networking skills are formidable. Sadly for Boris, though, Wikipedia has institutional memory of his devious and manipulative behaviour here before he was banned and that will inevitably and legitimately inform the comments of sceptical editors confronted by the latest content embellishments added by his coterie of friends and supporters. It's impossible not to forget that Boris is an associate of and apologist for those who perpetrated or assisted the perpetrators of some of the worst crimes against humanity committed in the last half-century and that his undeniable talents are repeatedly deployed for promotional and propagandist purposes on their behalf. Opbeith (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your essay and personal opinion monologue is unrelated to question we have here. This is not a talk page where we should discuss what we think about this person, but page where we should fix some problems. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's fix some problems, then!

• How about we start with the awards won by Malagurski's films - including the grand awards from mysterious, untraceable "film fests" which are based in the same city that he lives in...? For instance you have to go back in time a couple of years with the Internet Wayback machine in order to learn more about Bridge Fest: [2] - there's no evidence that it's a real film fest rather than one person's vanity project. There's even less evidence of the BC Days filmfest; all we know is that it's... in a suburb of Vancouver, a few minutes drive from where Bridge Productions was based.
• Why does the article pretend that he's some great auteur, when even airbrushed resume on the website his mommy set up for him has job titles like "intern" and "telemarketing"...?
• Why has criticism of this person's films - actual criticism by independent people - been removed? The few independent sources on this person have been bulldozed. And our content on his films is used for blatant coatrack by those who share his view of history.
• Malagurki's own promotional fluff said he was a film student at the university of British Columbia a few years ago, and it was obviously important to him, but there's no sign of that on the article now. Doesn't he even have a degree in film-making? What happened?

Can we fix those problems? It's just one big pile of self-promotion. Why do editors support it? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything can be fixed. One by one. What do you propose? All awards from article are "traceable", what have you pointed exactly? And regarding biography, i dont understand your bad faith toward this person. Telemarketer. That was in 2005, so he was 17 years old. If you ask me, it is great that 17 years old person do anything more then school, so this is only plus, and not minus. Then BC fest have its own website http://www.bcsff.com/. Nothing wrong there, ordinary festival. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

'That filmfest has a different name and their site does not mention Malagurski. (Still, I'm glad that the kids of Pinewood Elementary got the recognition they deserve). I do not understand why you repeatedly bring sources which obviously say nothing about the subject of the article. Seriously; an IMDB page which doesn't mention Malagurski or any of his films is not a sufficient source for claiming he won some great award; nor is the website of a filmfest with a different name which also says nothing about Malagurski. This blatant disregard for WP:V is bizarre - why do you keep on doing it? bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if I remove deceptive content, UrbanVillager automatically reverts it as "vandalism", which is just as bad. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the blatant self-promotion in this article does require admin intervention.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, many Albanian users of Wikipedia seem to often warrant a higher power to intervene when they can't win with rational argumentation. In this case, you didn't even try to use some arguments. While I see a parallel with the international and public relations efforts of Albanian interest groups in the Balkans and the Western world, Wikipedia is a place where we reach a consensus based on facts and references. This is your first comment on this talk page and already you're seeking admin intervention. Unacceptable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ZjarriRrethues, unacceptable. Those of us who have seen the outcome of admin investigation of the activities of Boris's merry clique of admirers [3] know that Wikipedia's verdict is that nothing must disturb the enjoyment of their privilege to celebrate the work of the greatest exponent of modern Serbian-Canadian cinema ever actually to have been banned from Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, may I ask, is castigating an entire nation of people your idea of 'rational argument'? If you set out deliberately to destroy any respect for either your powers of reason or your impartiality, I don't think you could have done better than your reply to ZjarriRrethues.Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, regarding your "banned from Wikipedia" story, I'm starting to think that the banned user account Bormalagurski might not have even had anything to do with the Boris Malagurski that this article is about, I really don't see where a prominent filmmaker would ever had found the time to make films and edit on Wikipedia at the same time, not to mention that it's impossible to prove that people are who they present themselves to be on Wikipedia. Who can stop me, Opbeith, from assuming that you're, maybe, Haris Silajdžić? Certainly, I could easily find many ideological parallels. But all jokes aside, I did a search on Facebook, and I found a completely different Boris Malagurski that exists, so who knows. It's easy to speculate, but hard to prove anything. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in regards to your points, I'll go one by one:

• I used the Internet Wayback Machine for bridge-fest.com, and found Kosovo: Can You Imagine? in the screening schedule (May 7, 2009, 3 PM). The festival is listed on Withoutabox, a part of IMDb (a division of Amazon.com) right here. As for the BC Days Film Festival, there doesn't have to be a website for a festival as proof that it exists, many festivals don't have websites or take them down after some time. What we do have are references that the film won an award there.
• He's not a great film author because he worked as an intern or telemarketer. Many famous people worked different jobs before they made big films, I fail to see why that's important at all here. He's a good filmmaker because of his filmmaking work, not which jobs he maybe does in his spare time. Don't mix things up.
• Criticism is welcome on Wikipedia if its substantiated with important references. I can't write a blog post and then edit an article with my opinion. Not to mention simply adding my opinion of the guy or his films. The stuff that's in the article is supported by secondary sources and media articles that are founded on facts.
• I don't know anything about his diploma, you're going to have to ask him if you're curious. After all, Wikipedia is not a place where you post your resume (even though you decided that it was important to list that he allegedly worked as an intern and telemarketer). --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Boris's latest is "Fracturing Serbia: Is Vojvodina the Next Powder Keg?" http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/09/fracturing-serbia-vojvodina-next-powder-keg (some of the comments are interesting too).

Over at "The Weight of Chains" article I've discussed a review in Slobodna Vojvodina by Milos Podbarčanin - http://www.slobodnavojvodina.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1320:vojvodina-sa-teinom-lanaca&catid=36:drustvo&Itemid=56.

Podbarčanin's comments (and comments at the GRTV page) are quite informative for those of us interested in whether Boris is up to more than self-promotion. Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Opbeith, since you found the need to discuss this issue on two talk pages, I'll just paste what I wrote on Talk:The Weight of Chains. Aside from the fact that Slobodna Vojvodina photoshopped a "BIA" badge, probably trying to prove that Malagurski works for BIA - Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge, and aside from the fact that the author's name, Miloš Podbarčanin, is actually fake, as the last name Podbarčanin doesn't really exist (try typing it in Google and only Miloš will pop up with a few of "his" articles on Slobodna Vojvodina), the website is basically an opinionated blog with absolutely no merit on Wikipedia. It's interesting that another "person" who writes "articles" for the website is Lazar Rotkvarac, probably also a fake name, as the Vojvodinian city of Novi Sad has two parts of the town called Rotkvarija and Podbara. Opbeith, I'd suggest you stop looking blogs that make wild accusations about Malagurski based on absolutely no facts (in fact, I believe Malagurski could sue the website for slander, as they accuse him of working for BIA with absolutely no evidence), and try finding actual media sources like Dnevnik ("Slobodna Vojvodina" redirects there, since it's the original name of that newspaper), Jutarnji list, Dnevni avaz, Koha Ditore, Politika, Blic, RTS, HRT, FTV, BN, etc. Good luck! --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As per there, please keep us informed of what happens if he does decide to sue. Opbeith (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Maybe you could add a link to his legal counsel? Opbeith (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, as per WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM, Do not ask for another's personal details, and this is not a Discussion forum: Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How have I taken discussion into the article? You seem to have the article stitched up, thanks to the fact that Malagurski does not seem to have attracted the interest of any major media outlet not associated with the political viewpoint his work expresses. That's why doubts have to be expressed in the Talk Page of articles like this and The Weight of Chains in an attempt to balance the "undue weight" attached to Malagurski's importance and achievements. I'm rather entertained by your reference to "a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate", given the way that various Wikipedia articles have been subverted by the BMSG to promote forthcoming and abortive projects of his. Opbeith (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, you're talking about Malagurski's "legal counsel" on an encyclopedia talk page. I encourage you to focus on how to improve the article with reliable references. I'm not going to repeat myself again. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was hardly being serious, as I'm sure you're aware, I was reflecting on your propensity to conduct yourself as if you were Malagurski's representative here on earth (and Wikipedia's on the side). Opbeith (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality/notability issues

More on the subject of the significance of this work. What is the actual significance of the awards showere don The Weight of Chains? The Silver Palm awarded to The Weight of Chains at the 2009 Mexico International Film Festival was one of fourteen awarded in the Student Films category, after thirteen others in the category had already been awarded their Golden Palms.[4] Opbeith (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was already the topic of discussion in the first section on this talk page. Please don't create new sections for topics that were already discussed. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That was 2009 and this is now. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this Talk Page since, but the issue hasn't gone away and it doesn't seem unreasonable when raising it again to start at the easiest place on the page to get to for a current discussion. The discussion got nowhere in terms of resolving the issue of the director's significance. Cinéma C, who preceded you as assiduous researcher of matters Malagurski here, simply insisted on the right to revert and followed the same approach that you do of disclaiming any attempt to assert Malagurski's "extreme importance" while ensuring that the slightest public reference suggesting Boris's work might actually be notable remained.

On that previous occasion the subject of discussion was the fact that Boris's Silver Palm was not a unique award, it was in the specific category of Student Films and shared with thirteen others. Your reversion of the unreferenced mention of 76 student films prompted me to look at the Film Festival, where I discovered that the Festival is quite generous in its Palm Awards.

In the Student Films category for inexperienced film-makers there are three levels of aware, Gold, Silver and Bronze. There were thirteen awards in the Gold class - so The Weight of Chains was considered to be somewhere between the fourteenth and the twenty-seventh best student film shown in the festival. That award has been used as a foundation stone for Malagurski's own self-promotion and the development of this article in its wake.

I don't say that the award is meaningless. I simply point to the way in which it has been used to build Malagurski up into the Paris Hilton of Serbian film-making, famous for being mentioned, quoted by minimally critical "enthusiasts". In that sense I don't have any particular objection to the existence of the article, my objection is simply to the fundamentally deceitful nature of its content. At least Paris Hilton doesn't use her notoriety to promote a criminal political agenda. As long as administrators at Wikipedia continue allowing you to give Malagurski's propagandising the undue exposure its originator learned how to achieve in his early days at WP, you're going to have to live with pressure from ordinary editors for balancing mention of the reality Malagurski is so expert in distorting. Opbeith (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Opbeith, let me make myself clear again. The topic you're discussing has its section above, please discuss it there and don't create multiple sections for the discussion of identical topics, it confuses editors and is not common practice on Wikipedia. The same goes for your opening of identical sections/discussions to multiple talk pages, as in the case of Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains, please stop doing that. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that when a particular issue returns to the agenda after three years and with a substantial amount of intervening discussion it's hardly unreasonable or unprecedented to open a new section for contemporary discussion. Where Malagurski's work is concerned the issues don't go away, but there's no reason why they should be raised only in the way that you see fit. You seem to apply your knowledge of Wikipedia rules rather selectively, for example in relation to synopsis of Malagurski's work. Opbeith (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should call in an objective third party to provide us with an authoritative interpretation of these procedural rules, and perhaps also of the substantive issues raised in connection with this and other Malagurski-related articles. I'd prefer to abide by a legitimate ruling in place of admonitions from a partisan. Opbeith (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've provided links to the Wikipedia guidelines, I'm sure you don't need an "objective third party" to repeat what's said on WP:TALK:

"Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic."

There's nothing more I have to say on this, as the guidelines of Wikipedia are clear on the matter. It's good that we have a section on this talk page where this is explained, so as to remove the possibility of repeating this procedural violation in the future. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, though I doubt going back to a remote three years earlier section not involving any currently contributing parties is less likely to cause confusion, at least in the sense I suspect was intended by that guideline. Perhaps it might be useful anyway to have an objective third party casting their eyes over the issues raised in relation to this and other related articles? You wouldn't have any problems with that, would you? Opbeith (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that you mentioned an objective third party, because I was contacted by one just a while ago on my talk page, and User:Psychonaut alerted me about your troubling contribution history, that your "condemnation of others distoring, manipulating, and misrepresenting facts is entirely disingenuous", that you've "shown [yourself] to have no compunctions whatsoever in introducing into articles [your] own factual distortions and misrepresentations when they serve to advance [your] point of view." He also said that "[your] criticisms of [my] edits are grounded in neither Wikipedia policy nor reason itself, nor [are you] willing or able to identify specific problems with the article text, even when pressed with direct requests to do so." I also noticed that User:WhiteWriter commented on your talk page saying: "You are so deep in your pov that any further conversation from my side would be completely pointless". I realize now, Opbeith, that when I was trying to reason with you, I was actually engaging in a pointless discussion with an internet troll. As per Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I'm not going to feed the troll anymore. Stop wasting my time and the time of other serious Wikipedia editors. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As I commented in response to your almost identical post at "The Weight of Chains", I look forward to hearing the opinions of more of your friends. Opbeith (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris has been linked to Serbian extremists and chetniks and the article should reflect as such and not just as self-promotion

y</ref> </ref> Boris Malagurski has been linked to right wing Serbian extremists, as he appeared on CTV News in open support of Srdja Trifkovic, who was denied entry into Canada due his controversial stance on Islam, Judaism and the denial of genocide in the Balkans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote on the anon's talk page: Please stop edit warring on the Boris Malagurski article. First off, you can't use Wikipedia articles as a reference. As for the second reference, I watched the YouTube video, it's highly irrelevant for the article on the filmmaker, especially considering that Malagurski didn't express any support for Trifkovic's stance on, as you call it, "Islam, Judaism and the denial of genocide in the Balkans", and you could link Malagurski to any individual that he interviewed and say "Malagurski is linked to his interviewee who did this and that". For example, Malagurski interviewed Marko Franciskovic, who many people consider a Croatian right wing extremist, but that doesn't mean Malagurski supports his views. In the CTV video, he expressed his support for free speech, so it's highly irrelevant whether it was Trifkovic who was denied entry or someone else. POV pushing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that you keep adding this sentence in the "Life and work" section, as if this 15 second appearance on local news has any relevance to his life and work. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to UrbanVillager

I highly disagree because you continue to avoid putting anything on this page that may seem remotely damaging to Malagurski's career, including his links to the Serbian right wing. Yes, one can clearly link him to anyone in his interviews, but this is not an interview. The CTV news report clearly states "supports professor." Do you think that a person just happens to support some random guy for one single occasion? There are also several negative criticisms on his life and work online, especially for his Weight of Chains, so why isn't this article more well-rounded in tackling all angles of how he is perceived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC) --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As well, this is not POV. I am neither Serbian nor Croatian nor Bosnian. I am a 3rd party professor with 0 ties to the Balkans, but who happens to lecture on the subject in an attempt to round arguments and give transparency, as well as angles of perspective from all sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also read your refutes to arguments above this one. Your standard response of "Wikipedia guidelines" is not an excuse for harbouring a biased article, and refusing entry to different perspectives on this article.--221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks.

221.92.163.122, first of all, you don't need a subsection to reply to me. Second of all, Boris Malagurski can be linked to Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian, Canadian, American right and left wing orientated individuals, as he interviewed all of them for his films. Focusing on one of them is POV pushing and trying to present Malagurski as sharing the views of some of his interviewees just because he supports the free speech of all of them - if he didn't want to hear what all of them think, I'm sure you'd agree that he wouldn't interview them. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines on original research, and if you find a relevant non-blog non-forum reference that Malagurski does support Trifkovic's views, then we can talk. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm still getting used to this. Second of all, you are completely missing the point. I'll reiterate it for you: the CTV was a news report with Boris Malagurski in it, not an interview that Boris Malagurski was hosting for one of his films. So your argument of linking him to everyone he's ever interviewed now becomes null. Thanks. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, you went from writing that Trifkovic was Malagurski's "sponsored guest", to Malagurski supporting Trifkovic's views on Islam, Judaism and genocide, to CTV simply writing "supports professor". Yes, Malagurski apparently supports having the chance to listen to professor Trifkovic, as his exact words are: "It's a shame that free speech in Canada is basically not allowed in this instance even though that Srdja is coming here not to deliver any hate speech or anything bad, he's talking about the future, and yet he's not being allowed to speak in this country and in this town." So, any rational person will see that Malagurski wanted to hear Trifkovic speak, and is not saying "I am hosting Srdja, I support his views on Islam, Judaism and genocide, I support him fully". Once again, I'll suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research and stick to Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, you went from saying "Boris can be linked to anyone he's ever interviewed in his films" to "Boris can be linked to Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian, Canadian, American right and left wing orientated individuals, as he interviewed all of them for his films" to finally being forced to acknowledge the actual news report and to decipher the difference between being interviewed and holding an interview. Once again, I'll suggest that you stop editing this page with your biased views. Thanks --221.92.163.122 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand behind everything I said. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And I stand behind all the points that I've made, including my accusation that you have a tendency to be biased with respect to this article. I've also noticed several users accuse you of being Boris Malagurski. Good luck with that. Deepest and most sincerest regards, this random computer: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you to assume good faith and comment on content, not on the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you brought that reference up as it took you quite a while to acknowledge the CTV content which you're neglecting to include in the article. So that's a good reference for you, as well. I wasn't accusing, I was merely observing. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

221.92.163.122 at 15:12, 2 November 2012: "I stand behind all the points that I've made, including my accusation that you have a tendency to be biased..."

221.92.163.122 at 15:30, 2 November 2012: "I wasn't accusing..."

Please stop accusing me of being biased or trying to present the discussion as if a consensus has been made (and later changing your comments). I'll repeat, comment on content, not on the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks and if you find a relevant non-blog non-forum reference that Malagurski does support Trifkovic's views (the 15 second appearance on CTV local news doesn't show this and is highly irrelevant to the article, given that the story wasn't even about Malagurski), then we can talk. Anything other than that is original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're missing the point: I am accusing you of being biased, not accusing you of being Boris. There's a difference. Please acquaint yourself with it. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) As well, here's another article linking Boris to extremists and refuting his film, "The Weight of Chains" by a published author, which, by the way, was translated into English by a journalist: Suzana Vukic. You fail to mention any criticism against Boris of any form. But let me guess, this isn't a good enough reference for UrbanVillager, correct? http://zijadburgic.com/2011/08/23/354/

Accusing someone of having a POV and being biased for it is perfectly within the realm and confines of wikipedia law. I'm not attacking you, personally, so please stop viewing it as such. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with this talk page, and this talk page, where what you're talking about has already been discussed, as well as with Wikipedia guidelines. To help you start, zijadburgic.com is a self-published blog, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. One's tendencies to defend one's own POV tends to overshadow neutrality and cloud rational judgement. See UrbanVillager's reluctance to acknowledge a legitimate news report for reference. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a legitimate news report. It's just not saying what you're claiming it does. Do read this entire talk page, and this one as well, and things might get a bit more clear. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. It's irrefutable proof of Boris' ties to right wing extremists, specifically, Serbian ones. You're simply saying that he doesn't acknowledge that fact and therefore it makes it false, and yet he is shown, at the airport, waiting for Srdja, and not in UBC's lecture hall. Regards: --221.92.163.122 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris's guest Srdja Trifkovic and the Canadian border authorities at Vancouver airport

UrbanVillager deleted the edit by 221.92.163.122: "Boris Malagurski has been linked to right wing Serbian extremists, as he appeared on CTV News in open support of Srdja Trifkovic, who was denied entry into Canada due to allegations of war crimes." with the explanation that "Trifkovic wasn't accused of any war crimes, please stop adding this highly irrelevant note."

Yet Srdja Trifkovic himself, writing in Chronicles Magazine, complained that the Canadian Border Officials had refused him access under the provisions of the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act because of his association with the Bosnian Serb leadership:

"On Thursday, February 24, I was denied entry to Canada. After six hours’ detention and sporadic interrogation at Vancouver airport I was escorted to the next flight to Seattle. It turns out I am “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.”

It appears that my contacts with the Bosnian Serb leaders in the early nineties make me “inadmissible” today. As it happens I was never one of their officials, “senior” or otherwise, but the story has been told often enough (most recently in one of my witness testimonies at The Hague War Crimes Tribunal)."http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/02/25/banned-from-canadistan/

The witness testimony mentioned was given by Trifkovic for the defence of Ljubisa Beara before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Beara was convicted of genocide and other crimes at Srebrenica. Among his other work for the Bosnian Serb leadership Trifkovic told the Tribunal how he travelled to Pale on 12 July 1995 to advise them on the media presentation of issues relating to the fall of Srebrenica. He had meetings with Karadzic and Koljevic during the period while the executions - war crimes - were taking place and on the evening of 14 July helped Karadzic's advisor Jovan Zametica prepare a press release for the Serb news agency SRNA on how the Bosnian Serb leadership would be treating civilians in their care. www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/trans/en/080904ED.htm

Certainly Trifkovic has not been charged or convicted but his own words report him being accused of terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In spite of that Boris Malagurski continues to provide Trifkovic with a platform for expressing unchallenged views distorting and contesting the established truth about genocide at Srebrenica.

Prof. 221.92.163.122, don't be deterred by UrbanVillager's bluster. This is an open scandal at Wikipedia. Wikipedia administrators turn their eyes away from the fact that Wikipedia is being exploited by apologists for terrible crimes who use this space to promote and inflate the reputation of someone working to subvert the truth about responsibility for those crimes. Opbeith (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Srđa Trifković talk page. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's about your inadequately explained edit at this article. Opbeith (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I already explained everything, with references to precise Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop trolling this talk page. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you seem to be running this page without allowing anyone else's alternative input. That, in itself, is against Wikipedia rules. Please stop. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Second anon, since you've just joined in the discussion and immediately decided to roll back the edit without any consideration for the arguments given on this talk page regarding the matter and Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and WP:CONS, I reverted your addition of a sentence that is highly irrelevant to the article, especially in the section where it was inputted. I'm not going to repeat myself and the guidelines are clear on the matter. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

On a more general note, there seem to be a couple of editors on this talk page and the talk pages of Malagurski's films, mostly unestablished editors without an account on Wikipedia, who are clogging the talk page by copy/pasting entries from blogs and forums and demanding that they should be taken into consideration. I can open up a blog right now, write an entry and paste it here, demanding that it's included in the article. No, that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Furthermore, my input is based on verifiable references and Wikipedia guidelines, and I have good faith in regards to all constructive edits to this article and other articles that are of my interest. I have added a lot of well-sourced content to the article, but those who've written text on the talk page ten times longer than the article itself need to undersand that talk pages are not a place to voice opinions on a topic, but to move on improving the article with strong references. These editors have not replied to my constructive comments below. It seems they'd rather have this article deleted from Wikipedia or would rather desparately search for irrelevant details that aren't even substantiated with relevant sources, than to make it a good, well-referenced article. Some are using a 15 second appearance by Malagurski on CTV where he expressed his support for the right of Trifkovic, who may or may not be this or that (which is unacceptable to discuss here, it belongs on the Trifkovic talk page), to speak in Canada and the right of free speech, to accuse Malagurski of hosting Trifkovic and supporting his views. Ridiculous. Irrelevant. Malagurski's comments are not memorable or relevant to his life and work, and the news report doesn't say who Malagurski is (it only says "Supports professor", which can mean that he supports professor on wanting to speak in Canada, and likely does mean that, since that's what Malagurski talks about), why he's there, what's his function in this whole thing, etc. Everything else is original research and I feel myself starting to sound like a parrot. So, if you find a relevant article saying that Malagurski hosted Trifkovic, supports his views or work, and that this is crucial to Malagurski's life and work, then we can talk. I'm trying to be nice and understanding, but I won't back down from respecting Wikipedia guidelines. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You make good points UrbanVillager, and although I agree with some of what you have voiced, the fact of the matter remains that you are actively denying entry to credible sources and reports with a different angle on Malagurski and his work, and the Wiki community will not stand being violated as such. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nyttend, who is an administrator on Wikipedia, we now know that the sencence in question can't use a YouTube video as a reference, especially one that is in violation of WP:COPYLINK. I believe this ends our discussion. Please remove the sentence is question. Thanks, -UrbanVillager (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks to User:Mark Arsten for removing the sentence, per WP:YOUTUBE, and protecting the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---That's fine, but the issue that this page has a tendency to be biased still needs to be addressed by the administrators as several valid points have been made prior to this one and there is a clear line of avoiding all view-points. Thanks to User:Mark Arsten, User:Nyttend and others for considering and giving this page its due process by taking into consideration this very important issue as has been brought forth by several other credible editors prior to this one. Regards. --114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

58 verifiable and reliable references, that's what this article has. Those who are accusing the article of being biased are citing unpublished personal opinions, self-published blog entries and YouTube videos as references. Wikipedia is not an internet forum. Let's focus on making the article better, I hope that someone will reply to my comments in the section below. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---

58 references that have a tendency to lean towards being pro Boris. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that you're negating other references that do not shine a positive light on him. Since you seem to edit this page extensively and claim to follow Boris extensively, as well, I am surprised that you, yourself, have not included a "controversy" section to better round the Wikipedia article since you have been given several credible sources prior to this point.--114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The "other references" you're referring to, so far, have been unpublished personal opinions, self-published blog entries and YouTube videos. The moment there are credible, verifiable and reliable sources that "do not shine a positive light on him", I'll fully support the creation of a "Controversy" section. In fact, I already suggested this a while back, but there really are no reliable references on the negative sides of Malagurski and his work (which do exist, I'm sure, but they need to be backed up with strong references). Disgruntled Wikipedia editors, bloggers and YouTubbers do not constitute a controversy. Once again, let's work on making the article better and I'm still hoping someone will reply to my constructive comments in the section below. Regards, -UrbanVillager (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There were several credible sources that I saw that portray him in anegative light, and I call all editors who have access to them to post them. Here's an example: The CTV news report is broadcast from Boris Malagurski's official YouTube channel. It doesn't get anymore official than that as the person in question is the person officially broadcasting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.172.134.168 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

New films

I noticed that there are no articles on Wikipedia for Malagurski's new films "The Presumption of Justice", "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2". The first of the three has been completed and screened in cinemas across Serbia, while the other two are still in production (or pre-production, I'm not sure). I'm curious what the Wikipedia policy on articles about films that have yet to be completed is. Also, can there be an article on a film that isn't listed on IMDb? If someone knows the answers to these questions, I'd appreciate an information about this.

There are several sources about the fact that "The Presumption of Justice" has been completed and screened in cinemas, like print media, television broadcasts, clips from the film on YouTube, etc. There's also a trailer for "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2", while both films received a feature article in the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans - Politika. The other two films were also mentioned in several other relevant print media articles, and Malagurski talked about them on several TV shows. There are clips from both "Belgrade" and "The Weight of Chains 2" available on YouTube.

If these are acceptable criteria for creating the articles on Wikipedia for these three films, I'd be more than glad to write them and work on them, as this topic interests me greatly and I closely follow Malagurski's work. Thank you in advance, --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to have a template with all of his films at the bottom of this article and at the bottom of all the articles of his films, as is the case with many directors and their films on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but sense that all is not quite as it seems behind this novel openness and willingness to cooperate, UrbanVillager. You have shown yourself in the past to be very familiar with the Wikipedia rulebook and equally familiar with film-related issues. You've already created Malagurski film articles at Wikipedia. Did you really not check out the criteria for creating Wikipedia articles about films? Have you not investigated citing IMDb previously? It took me a matter of minutes to find Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb. Opbeith (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In "searching in page" to find my place here again I notice that in the section Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Vreme je you already demonstrate your familiarity with Wikipedia filmography guidelines. I went away from the article to check out pre-production films and it took me barely a moment to find Wikipedia:Notability_(films). I suggest you read through that, make up your own mind on the questions you raised and then other interested parties can discuss with you. Most people have a general idea how far they can push their luck but I guess what you've achieved so far entitles you to assume that Weight of Chains 2 is as acceptable a candidate for promoting here as any of the others. Opbeith (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Here you go. I've provided the subject headline so that when you finally come across sources that can be legally cited by Wikipedia, you can post them in here. This should begin the first steps of a section that you've wanted to create for a while now so as to better round this Wikipedia article and provide all viewpoints. I've provided some starting points for those truly interested in the matter at hand, and at expanding the matter that be.

Here are sources that, according to Wikipedia, may or may not be directly referenced due to them being mirrored sources, professor, college, doctorate or masters' views that are inadmissible due to technicalities, copyrighted material, material that's not directly linked to an official website but has been copied and pasted from the original source, is found on a mirror of an official channel...etc.

1. CTV news report of Boris supporting Srdja Trifkovic, an accused war crimes and genocide denier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXXXXXXX (apologies 221etc, Boris Malagurski's upload is actually a copyright violation so we're not supposed to link to it Opbeith (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

2. Zijad Burgic, a critical analyst, published author and Bosnian activist who claims that Boris Malagurski is a genocide denier, fascist chetnik sympathizer, and a Serbian apologist who attempts to mask Serbian war crimes during the Yugoslav wars. His published criticism on Boris' the weight of chains has been cited by countless news sources throughout the Ex-Yu. http://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/tag/boris-malagurski/ ; http://www.e-novine.com/kultura/kultura-tema/49715-Lai-utnja-video-trake.html ; http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.jp/2011/10/boris-malagurski-weight-of-chains.html ;

3. Here is a legitimate source run by several credible Canadians that have put together an organization for journalistic freedoms: An excellent critical analysis of The Weight of Chains, by this organization, can be found here: http://politicsrespun.org/2012/02/undermining-solidarity-in-the-balkans-reviewing-boris-malagurskis-the-weight-of-chains/ An excerpt: "This manipulation of the first narrative of neoliberal penetration and corrupt elites in order to legitimate the second narrative of Serbian victimization in the 1990s is what makes this film a questionable enterprise. Those forwarding such a narrative claim that they are only seeking to ‘correct’ the ‘distorted’ view that ‘the West’ has created of ‘Serbs.’ However, such a claim deliberately marginalizes the actual experience of millions of Albanians, Bosnians, Croatians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Slovenes, self-identified Yugoslavs, people of mixed ethnic-backgrounds, women, workers, Roma and countless of Yugoslavia’s smaller minority communities who happen to share such a ‘Western’ understanding of Yugoslavia’s dissolution. Any attempt to point this out to those crafting this narrative is greeted with calls of being a ‘cruise missile leftist,’ ‘an apologist for imperialism,’ ‘a fifth column,’ Islamophobic denunciations and worse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Source in violation of WP:YOUTUBE, 2. blog, 3. blog. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort, 221.92.163.122. Just because BM has not acquired the significance to appear in the radar display of major reliable sources outside former Yugoslavia doesn't mean that reliable sources within former Yugoslavia can't be cited, as long as the content of the sources can be checked. There are editors on both sides of the divide of opinion here who have sufficient command of B/C/S to verify any quotes. So if you have any relevant Burgic sources in B/C/S they can be mentioned here for us to check out whether the content merits inclusion (and of course sources other than Burgic). It might make it easier if you identified yourself by a Username - you can find out more at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Also even if you decide to stick with the ISP identity it's useful to sign your comments - you just put four tildes ~~~~ after your contribution, as I'm doing now, and that will bring up your userename and the time and date of the edit. Opbeith (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

Sounds like a plan. I just may. As well, no need to point that out UrbanVillager, as its already stated that these are inadmissible, however, the credibility of the original sources, these people and, yes, that YouTube video still remains credible, with the full support of a large portion of society behind the above said; just because it cannot be sourced here due to technicalities does not make them any less credible or reliable. So let this section serve as place of expansion and alternative perspective. --221.92.163.122 (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not ok. You cannot use that as source, as that is obvious violation of wiki rules. WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RS, please... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Then cite the CTV news report without the Youtube link. E-novine is reliable for what is being used. Don't expect Roger Ebert. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Producer, why are you adding the sponsors? Besides the fact that there are no secondary sources talking about this, you should know that the financing of a film is the duty of the production company, and where the production company gets funding is irrelevant. The official producer of the film is Malagurski Cinema, and that's all that matters when it comes to funding. If you find evidence of a co-production between Malagurski Cinema and the organizations you're listing, then it's a different story, of course. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this the correct talkpage? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, it would help discussion if you and UrbanVillager would actually read the WP guidelines you cite as if you were authorities. Check again if you like - WP:YOUTUBE: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.". CTV News is a reliable source. The YouTube video is credible as 221etc says. The problem is that it can't be linked to because of copyright violation by guess who? - Boris Malagurski! the person responsible for uploading the CTV clip to YouTube. We're not allowed to replicate Boris's violation, but nevertheless as long as there's no link to the YouTube copy a reference can be made to the original CTV News item, as PRODUCER suggests. Opbeith (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nyttend and User:Mark Arsten, both administrators, have confirmed that the YouTube link in question can't be used as a reference. Zijad Burgić is a self-published blogger and self-published poem writer, there are absolutely no reliable websites attesting to his significance, he writes for no established institutions, and is completely irrelevant. Kilibarda as well. You can build them statues, but they're still nobodies. Malagurski had reliable sources write and talk about him, you can't deny that. News corporations, journals, broadcasters, print media, etc. E-novine is an online blog presenting itself as a news source. One glance at their website shows how biased they are - and they were sued for that many times. What we have here is a case where some Wikipedia editors, who see Malagurski as pure evil, Milosevic No. 2, or Hitler reborn, are upset that there are no reliable sources presenting Malagurski the way they see him. So they cling to E-novine, this Burgic nobody who films himself reading his self-published book on the graves of Srebrenica, and Kilibarda, a student blogger. People, please get real. When we see HRT or Jutarnji list or Dnevni avaz or something of that level writing a critical article or presenting a critical news story, I'll be the first to add it to the article. I have no interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski, I think its healthy for the article, but what's not healthy is having insignificant bloggers giving the critical note that this article (and every article) needs. So, I know Malagurski's work has bad sides, I agree with those who say so, but lets wait until there are reliable sources which talk about that, shall we? And as for CTV, the amount of words spent on this issue shows how desperate some editors are to present Malagurski in a negative light at any cost. The guy wanted to hear Srdja Trifkovic speak, supported free speech (not Srdja Trifkovic's views), and suddenly editors start adding this above all talk of Malagurski's films, that have dozens of reliable sources. I'm sure some would enjoy the beginning of the article to start with "Boris Malagurski (born ...) is a supporter of Srdja Trifkovic's genocide denial", but that won't ever appear on Wikipedia, as this is an encyclopedia, not E-novine. So, lets focus on the important things and put our personal opinions aside - let's work on making the article better. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you say that Malagurski "supports free speech". He provides Trifkovic with a platform for genocide denial and Islamophobic views on several occasions without challenging those views either himself or offering a platform for views seriously challenging Trifkovic. This alleged "support for free speech" is noticeably partial, partisan and informative. I don't think anyone here has said anything that comes close to representing Malagurski as "pure evil", that is just another of your "straw man" arguments. If I may put words into other people's mouths, the view most of us have in fact expressed is that this is an insignificant young man less than scrupulously promoting denial of significant proven wrong-doing and deceit, aided by friends and contacts. Although his own carefully-managed self-promotion, assisted by your and his other supporters' work here and elsewhere, may be gradually enhancing his public notoriety, coherent objective arguments have been advanced criticising his achievements. Your preoccupying concern to exclude legitimate criticism rather than find an appropriate way of accommodating it in order to achieve a genuinely rounded portrayal of the article's subject tells us much of what we need to know about what is going on here. What we aren't able to confirm for certain yet is where exactly all this is coming from. Opbeith (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea... yes... everyone wants "the truth out there with the noblest intentions." The CTV report can be cited without the Youtube link and there is no disputing that. Burgic can be used to his cite his opinion, no more and no less. E-novine is a reliable enough secondary source for that and your personal qualms about the website are absolutely irrelevant. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)