Talk:The Weight of Chains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Critical response additions[edit]

I've made one addition to 'Critical response' section (Miller - Socialist Standard), this review had the agreement of UrbanVillager and Somedifferentstuff, though not agreement on actual text. I intend to add Brightest Young Things, which previously had the agreement of UrbanVillager (though not which text). It's possible that I have included too much, but found it difficult to decide both what 'typified' the review and what were the distinctive points made by each reviewer. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, reviews were not arranged by ethnicity, they were positive first negative second and it is perfectly normal to summarise, eg:- 'positive in UK, negative in USA'. I think such a summary relevant and justified. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dividing sources into "Serbian" and "non-Serbian" is arranging sources according to ethnicity. In this case, it's also repetition. Saying that a source is Serbian and then noting "Serbian historian..." is repetition. I think it's best to note what the reviewers said, not classify them according to their "Serbian" or "non-Serbian" nature. It's irrelevant which country they come from, as well as which ethnicity they have. Kilibarda, for example, is a Serbian/Montenegrin last name, and it's not up to the article to discuss reviewers' ethnicities or countries of origin, but rather to note what they wrote. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
They were not arranged according to ethnicity, they were arranged + first - second, at Ricky's suggestion. If a - review comes from Serbia, it also will go with the other negs, and the converse. 'Serbian' to describe Markovic was copy-pasted from you. It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews, which bad and was not phrased prejudicially. The alternative is to put 'proper reviews' first and articles and comments later. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You wrote "It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews...". Countries don't give reviews. I think your attempt to tie in reviewers with their countries and present them as how people in a certain country see a film is POV. Once again, reviews are reviews, let's let them speak for themselves. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If this film were Bambi and if it received significantly different reviews IN (not from) certain countries than it did in others, that would be noteworthy. Even more so since the film proposes very controversial versions of recent historical events.
You aren't even consistent UrbanVillager, the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What you're saying would make sense if there were a bunch of reviews from one country that had a certain slant. This could justify that the film is perceived a certain way in a country in general. But taking two reviews from Serbia, one from Canada, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom and saying that the film has "significantly different reviews IN certain countries" is simply stereotyping. However, I do agree when you say that "the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.". Glad you finally realize these are two completely different things. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, possibly you should check out the meanings of stereotype and irony. Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, as Bobrayner and yourself are forcing an edit war, I'd like to note that I will take no part in it. As can be seen from the above discussion, there is no consensus for classifying reviews by ethnicity or country of origin, let alone "Serbian" and "other". So, please remove this and let's try to get along. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In your edit description for the revert, you noted "Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments". 1) Saying that a source is Serbian is classifying it by country and ethnicity (it can be "Serbian" as "from Serbia" or "Serbian" as "of ethnic Serbs"), while 2) there needs to be consensus for the addition of this original research. Once again, if you can find me a source that explains why it is important to note the ethnicity or country of origin of certain reviewers, we can discuss the matter further. If not, please remove this as there is no consensus for the addition of what you're adding. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone objects to the good first/negative second set-up, then reviews would need to be organised according to their authority. I don't think that a 'passing remark' by a media tutor at a film showing (written up by a student, with no context at all) would carry much authority, nor a passing comment in a magazine, these are not RS film reviews at all. At present there is an attempt to present the arguments in favour of the film (which are almost wholly from WITHIN the country called 'Serbia') , FIRST. I believe this arrangement is wholly/generously fair. Are those who criticise this arrangement saying that the film has been widely praised OUTSIDE that country. Perhaps they need to find some reviews that corroborate that PoV, rather than attempting to rewrite the evidence or criticise its presentation. Pincrete (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I reported Pincrete for edit-warring. He added the national remarcs, they were opposed, and he is the one (with the help of bobrainer) who is edit-warring to keep his edit in place. That goes against WP:BRD and the discussion here was not over neither he got consensus for the edit (far from that), so his edir-warring is purely disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Without having read the above, it seems to me that, to say that Serbians are the only ones who liked it, is synthesis -- and possibly original research if not properly cited. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, if it is normal to summarize in that way, could you provide examples? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Jsharpminor, I will answer more fully when I have time/should you wish, but briefly ALL 'proper film reviews' of this film are VERY negative and are ALL from UK/N.American sources. If present wording is 'synth' or OR, then let it be changed, but what is being objected to exactly? Noting the nationality is both necessary (most people won't know who/what Pecat is), and appropriate (since this film deals with FYR and Serbian/US/UK/EEC political matters). BTW the article did NOT say 'only Serbs liked the film', and I was careful to find positive remarks made by ALL reviewers, in addition to their negative responses. The positive responses are NOT full film reviews, one is a brief paragraph in a magazine, the other is a passing comment by a college tutor, written up by a student. They were included out of a sense of fairness to another editor. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC) … … ps Schindler's list devotes an entire section to Jewish response to the film [1], and this is clearly 'ethnicity' rather than nationality. Almost all WP film articles have an intro of the the film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews kind, this intro is almost always referenced ONLY by the content of the reviews which follow and in that sense is an editor's summary of response, and therefore technically 'synth'. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
FkpCascais, the wording to which you object has been in place for 99% of the time since approx. October. If it is inappropriate, let us change it, but please don't misrepresent my actions HERE or at the edit-warring board. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I wasn't on Wikipedia since yesterday so only now I managed to respond.
My opinion seems to be that the classification of critics to Serbian/non Serbian is OR and too early, and it seems to me it is more made in order to discredit Malagurski than being a real objective analysis of the critics - "Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't". I am not sure we have enough critics in order to make such a wide claim. It is definitely safe not to add such synthesis. FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not a wide claim, nor indeed any kind of claim, (and my wording was not as crude as you have represented it) the three film reviews (from UK, USA and a 'Canadian' academic) are fairly devastatingly negative. The two Serbian responses are relatively positive, but are not reviews (one is written up by a student, perhaps that response should NOT be included at all, but was included at the wish of another editor).
The only question is how to represent these facts without prejudice or synth. You are surely not saying that we should not state the nationalities of the magazine/University that the responses came from (since Pecat magazine would be unknown to most readers)? I believe that there are also negative Serbian responses/comments, but have not had the time to track them down/verify their RS status, there are also other 'Balkan' responses, which are largely negative.
If we were to follow the custom of other film pages and start with a The film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews, sentence, it would have to say the reviews were VERY negative. … … ps no apology needed, we all have other things to do in late Dec., and we may be on different time zones. Pincrete (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Nationality/location clarification[edit]

Let us be clear, neither the ethnicity nor nationality of ANY individual reviewer has EVER been mentioned by me in the 'reviews' section. Sufficient information to establish the who/what/where of the magazine/website/University HAS been included with every review/response (except currently Pecat magazine, which is not identified at all). I have on several occasions removed references to individual nationality, where that was not RS or was unnecessary. Also the reviews are not organised according to ethnicity/nationality, they are + first - second. Therefore I find some of the language/accusations flying around over the last few days perplexing (I don't think that anyone would consider it an 'ethnic slur' if an article noted that a film with a UK connection was better received in the UK than elsewhere and the reviews THEMSELVES would be sufficient source for the assertion, could someone explain why this film is different?).

Also the article NEVER said "Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't" or "Serbians are the only ones who liked it", which is how the article is mis-quoted above by User:FkpCascais and Jsharpminor.

However broad consensus seems to be that the previous 'lead in' was 'synth'. Therefore could we agree on some other lead-in and how to organise/describe reviews/responses accurately and imformatively. User:FkpCascais, there may be other responses/comments, however there are now unlikely to be further film reviews, since the film was released more than 4 years ago. Therefore I suspect that what is currently here has to be worked with. I am mentioning Jsharpminor, and Bbb23 as they have expressed opinions over the last few days. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, apologies if the above is defensive. In case it is not clear, I ACCEPT your argument that the 'sample size' is too small to draw conclusions. I still reject other arguments and accusations, however they are no longer relevant. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical response proposal[edit]

Since the article will be unlocked shortly, I propose the following alterations to the 'critical response' section, (italicised text is my comment).

1). Intro sentence on section, add: … 'The film has not been widely reviewed, however positive responses include:'

2). Add divider sentence before 'Kilibarda' review: … 'However more negative responses have included:'

3). The text and order of reviews should remain unaltered (ie positive first/more negative second, and with no 'general summary' except the preceding comments) EXCEPT, The Pecat review needs to be identified to establish the who/what/where, therefore it should be altered thus: … 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat magazine wrote that' … becomes … 'Vladislav Panov of Serbia's Pečat magazine wrote that'. If anyone has a better brief description of what/where 'Pečat' is, I would be happy to use that instead. Pečat doesn't have a WP article to link to.

Jsharpminor, Bbb23 and User:FkpCascais, I am mentioning you as you have expressed opinions over the last week. Without some kind of linking 'editorial' text, I feel we have an apparently randomly organised set of, (relatively marginal), responses. Maintaining +first/-second avoids problematic arguments about the relative 'authority' of the reviews used, and I hope the proposed 'linking text', explains our organisation of those responses without being contentious. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view your proposal Pincrete seems quite fine. You found a perfect neutral formula I think. FkpCascais (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Pečat, I found this short description at novinarnica.net which is sort of website which collects all publications in Serbia. It says the following about Pečat:
Original in Serbian:
"Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, i stekao epitet jedinog slobodnog štampanog medija koji bez cenzure analizira teme iz društveno-političke i kulturne stvarnosti naše zemlje."
My translation:
"Pečat is a weekly political magazine published every Friday. After four years t became the most readed magazine of this type in Serbia, and it made name as the only free published media which, without censorship, analizes social and political issues and the cultural reality of our country (Serbia)".
Its a bit free translation of mine almost verbatim. FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
FkpCascais, many thanks, to keep the description brief, I intend to insert: 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat, a weekly political magazine in Serbia, wrote that' etc. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have re-instated the linking sentences between broadly+ and broadly- reviews. I draw attention to the discussion above. The alternative to some 'linking structure' seems to be either to get into the problematic area of which reviews should go first, second etc., or an alternating + - structure. With no linking text at all, what we appear to have is a randomly arranged (relatively marginal), set of responses.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
UrbanVillagerre: your recent reverts, I draw your attention to the discussion above. If any rewrite of the 'linking text' is called for, or some other basis for organising reviews proposed, can we discuss it here? However, simply removing it isn't very constructive. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Pincrete, why do you want to classify reviews in any way? What is your motive for doing so? Do you have a source to claim that a review is completely negative or completely positive? Or more negative than positive? How would you measure that? What is your goal here? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My motive is that it provides some structure/coherence to the organisation (as explained above). Since the wording says MORE - (not wholly negative), I won't respond to that question. The other advantage to a linking text, is that it avoids any problematic discussions about relative positions of proper reviews/comments or the relative authority of the sources. This arrangement did have User:FkpCascais's endorsement. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Other possibilities include listing alphabetically by name or by publication date. Whichever way is preferred, some linking text is needed to give coherence to the structure. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Update, I have ordered reviews by publication date, putting a brief explanatory sentence at the start of the section. Is this acceptable as a temp fix? At the same time I removed the sequel section and put a linking sentence in the lede. I don't regard publication date as a very logical basis for ordering reviews, but acceptable as a 'temp fix', if we are unable to agree some more logical basis and some linking text, I suggest we post a RfC to resolve the matter. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pečat translation[edit]

There is another question relating to the Pečat review, at present we have: 'Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in collecting the cream for foreigners as well'. … original here: [2]. Relevant text: 'Boris je hrabro detektovao i glavne domaće (G 17 Plus) izvršioce u sakupljanju tog kajmaka za strance, zbog čega je verovatno njegov film u prvo vreme bio „nezgodan za prikazivanje“ srpskoj publici.'
There are two translation questions … Q1. should the preposition be 'FOR foreigners' (ie 'on behalf of foreigners') or 'OF foreigners' (ie 'from them')? Q2 we have 'collecting the cream', is this correct or would it be more correct to use 'skimming off the cream' (an expression that suggests something dishonest about the process). I have been offered both versions and am not competent to make the assessment, as prepositions and expressions are both notoriously difficult to translate and dependent on usage. I will leave 'as is', until/unless there is some clarification. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
What the sentence wants to emphasize is that Boris found that the G17 Plus were making the dirty work domestically for the foreigners. I am still trying to find the best expression. FkpCascais (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the omission of G17+ from the translation, but didn't realise there was a WP article. We should probably re-insert the mention of G17+ as there is such a link. 'Domestic culprits' implies dishonourable/didhonest behaviour, but therafter I'm not sure how 'accusatory' the tone should be. Pincrete (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
He is directly accusing G17+ of working in the interest of the foreigners, so I guess the tone can be quite direct. Please feel free Pincrete to use the most adequate expression you think would be proper, you can certainly do it better than me because English is not my native language. The sentence in Serbian is not easy to translate verbatin, but we can always simplify it and go straight to the point which in this case would be that Boris Malagurski detected that G17 Plus were the main domestic allies(or culpits) of the foreigners and because of that reason his movie was initially undesirable to be released in Serbia (as at that time G17 Plus was in the ruling coalition). FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have slightly tweaked the translation, adding G17+, used 'skimming the cream' (which suggests something 'dodgy'), and changing 'for' to 'on behalf of' (which is more explicit), I'm sure it could be made better, but I'm reluctant to go too far. I didn't add the stuff about difficulty of being shown in Serbia as, whilst it might belong somewhere, it didn't seem to belong as part of a 'critical response'.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith removals[edit]

Urbanvillager, here you propose a compromise, on material which you then removed yesterday and today. The only recent change has been to re-order the final criticism since it is the oldest. The order is chronological, and the reason it is chronological is because you previously edit-warred when reviews were ordered + first - second and also when reviews were ordered 'Balkan' followed by 'outsiders'.

Your reasons for rejecting reviews are ridiculous. Why is one writer publishing in an established publication, 'biased', but a student publishing in an online blog is 'neutral'. The arguments are absurd and do nothing except reveal your own lack of neutrality.

The removals on compromises which you yourself previously proposed are extremely bad faith. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an order of positive, negative, positive, negative, positive, negative, etc. reviews. I think that's the most fair. It can start with either positive or negative. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely what was rejected 2 or 3 years ago, any childish notion that + or - should alternate equally. 'Fairness' is decided by the character of the reviews given and listed in some neutral coherent fashion that reflects the range of reviews and their weight. This is called Wikipedia, not 'We have to be equally-nice-ipedia'. Funnily, you reject all criticism on the BM page, arguing that that page is for his views only, not criticism of those views. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I seriously question Petkovic's qualifications for discussing Malagurski and his work, when he places Malagurski in a group that Malagurski didn't belong to. Just because Petkovic is a film critic doesn't give him the right to provide false information and get away with it. This is why I believe his review should be removed altogether. It's not about criticism, there are other critical reviews of Malagurski's film that are in the article, rightfully so, but rather a matter of Petkovic's credibility to comment on something he clearly didn't even research. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Member of which group? This isn't a valid criteria anyway, I'm sure every film critic makes minor factual errors from time to time, that doesn't invalidate their opinion. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)