![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
::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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
UrbanVillager, you removed two times some films from the filmography section.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This section is in direct violation of WP:TALK, on the following points:
-- UrbanVillager ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
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, 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)
Let's fix some problems, then!
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)
Bob, in regards to your points, I'll go one by one:
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. [3] Opbeith ( talk) 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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 [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 ( talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [6] [7] " 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)
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)
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)
---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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
PRODUCER, you can say that Malagurski provides every interviewee with a platform to present their views. That's why they get interviewed. If you're implying that Malagurski was the organizer of the event at UBC where Trifkovic was scheduled to speak, I'm going to have to see some hard evidence (reliable reference) that is not original research (i.e. "He was on the airport on CTV!") or from some blog that can make stuff up and get away with it. Besides, according to this link, UBC approved the right of Trifkovic to speak at the University, so go to the University of British Columbia article and advocate that they add a sentence in the article where it says they support Srdja Trifkovic's platform for genocide denial and Islamophobic views. See how the other editors with react to that kind of nonsense. It doesn't matter what I think of Burgic, what matters that he 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. You talk about E-novine, who's founders' article on Wikipedia has two references - both of them are his blog on B92. Also, it's funny to call a news source reliable when they copy/paste blog entries with obvious mistakes - it says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, not CTV. Same thing, eh. It also says "The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without citing the website that claims so. Never found any reliable references to back that up. Face it, we're talking about blogs that are presenting themselves as news sources, with absolutely no merit on Wikipedia. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick comment that Politika has been surpassed as the leading news outlet in the Balkans, so that argument is obsolete, let alone biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.20.16.89 ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
These relevant discussions elsewhere haven't been signposted adequately for interested parties:
Opbeith ( talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There's something sublimely perverse and at the same time reassuring when the subject of a Conflict of Interest warning takes it upon themselves to remove the warning without discussion. True to form, UrbanVillager! Opbeith ( talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubtful. This entire article reads of bias and is completely one-sided. It should be deleted, if nothing else. Just look at the quotes chosen to be "previewed." "His documentary is describes as being objective." wow. Way to not push your own agenda. -- 221.92.163.122 ( talk) 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Alas, I would disagree with this edit: [10] The policy says:
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. "EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group...
Which looks like a perfect description of the problems we have on articles connected to Malagurski. If it were just supporting a modest personal claim like "Malagurski likes pastry and windsurfing", I wouldn't mind; but the source is being used to show how great he is and how much he's achieved ... and there's been a long-running problem with promotional editing around here ... better get rid of it. bobrayner ( talk) 14:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Should we probably mention that he used to contribute to Wikipedia...? -- Prevalis ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why such determination to remove this? It's sourced; it's relevant; what's the problem? bobrayner ( talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I know this guy Boris Malaguski. He wrote promotional articles on Wikipedia about himself. [11] [12] [13] [14] Even worse, he stubbornly sockpuppeting and deleting content from other users that he does not like.
He was blocked on Serbian Wikipedia many times. And after many years and many problems, he was banned forever. Now, he is hiding behind false names and wrote articles about himself on English Wikipedia. As you can see (if you know Serbian), he had many problems with the community because of the lies and the forgeries.
So please everybody, be very careful with this guy. Just look at the history of this article and you will see that "someone" repeatedly deleting negative content. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Boris Malagurski is a proven cheater and a liar. This is the evidence:
I believe he is currently hiding behind fake account User:UrbanVillager and pushing POV about himself. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mladifilozof: I think you need to refrain from personal attacks (calling another user a "cheater and liar"). It poisons the environment on Wikipedia and sets bad precedents for any future discussion. Thanks, 23 editor ( talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a number of minor edits, most of which relate only to tidying phrasing & updating 'Belgrade' section. The only edit which might be controversial is removing one reference to ' official selection at a number of festivals ' in WoC section. The source for this appears to be quoting BM himself making this claim, I've therefore re-phrased in a manner which I think is also more 'read-able'. Any objections anyone? Pincrete ( talk) 20:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just read through 2 -3 year old discussions about:
1). Whether it should be mentioned that BM was one of 14 winners in the student class at a film festival or whether it should be left as 'winner', I find the defence of the present wording fairly pathetic. I know of no instance on Wikipedia, or in the 'real world' in which PRECISELY what was won would not be stated. The omission is misleading and it is irrelevant whether that it intentional or not. I propose re-inserting, brief details of what was won.
2). In a similar vein, the only contexts in which entries to film festivals are referred to as 'Official', are those in which there are both Official (eg nominated by country) and also Unofficial (eg nominated by the filmmaker). Therefore the use of 'Official entry' to a festival is at best meaningless and creates a false impression. I propose removal of that description, unless it can be shown that the festival itself uses the term 'Official entry'.
New subject The article states In April 2012, Malagurski delivered a presentation at Google in Silicon Valley that dealt with raising funds for film projects, the source for this presentation having taken place is Politika (some 7,000+ miles from Silicon Valley). If a better source cannot be found, I propose removal, since if the event went unreported by Google itself or any other source in the USA, I suggest it is - at best - so un-noteworthy as to not deserve space on this page. Pincrete ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
We've gone over this to death, but some people won't give up on their agenda. Concerning 1), "one of 14 winners" is original research, the film won the prize and this is the only piece of information that can be verified by secondary sources. And regarding 2), you seem to know very little about film festivals. Considering "Bob Rayner" agrees with you, I can see you're both here with an agenda. "Official selection" means it was officially selected by the festival. And the Google info is verified by the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans, it really doesn't matter how many miles the newspaper is from Silicon Valley. This is perhaps the silliest argument I've ever heard in my life. :) -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 00:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll repeat again, we're talking about Boris Malagurski's film, not other films. "One of etc." is something for an article about the festival. As for the festivals, are you actually suggesting that someone outside of the festival can make official selections for the festival? Do you speak English? Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 14:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
To repeat the relevant questions:
As per above discussion, I've removed the 'Google' reference, also used the language actually used by each festival in screenings (usually NOT 'official selection') , I've also added some details of the Silver Palm and linked to the award page. Pincrete ( talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to draw everyone's attention to another attack on this article, again by a known anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editor " Bob Rayner", who decided to declare one of the festivals on which Boris Malagurski's film was screened - "fake" [16]. The festival indeed existed in 2009, whether it exists today is uncertain and quite irrelevant regarding Boris Malagurski, but here's a TV report from the official state televison of Republika Srpska (the entity in which the festival was organized) Radio Television Republika Srpska: 07.05.2009. Međunarodni filmski festival "BRIDGE FEST 2009.", Istočno Sarajevo. Once again, without any knowledge on the topic, exclusively motivated with his or her discontent towards everything that has to do with Boris Malagurski, Bobrayner, who is usually accompanied by Pincrete, is acting completely out of touch with the Wikipedia spirit. By pushing his POV, he is damaging the articles that cover Malagurski's work, and doesn't have as a goal to best inform the public about Malagurski and his work, but merely to present Malagurski from his or her personal point-of-view which is, from what we've been able to see, very negative and misinformed. Any user who tries to act in the spirit of Wikipedia in regards to Malagurski-related articles, from what I've seen, is immediately accused of "being Malagurski", "being Malagurski's friend" or "being on Malagurski's payroll". This is really absurd, and considering the fact that the material written in the article is heavily sourced, more sourced than the average Wikipedia article, I have yet to understand why some people are editing on Wikipedia if their absolute goal is to present the world through their own point of view instead of working together on creating and fostering an unbiased encyclopedia that is based on reliably sourced facts, not opinions. Please respect Wikipedia rules and we'll all get along much better. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm putting this into a new section as it seems distinct from the other issues above … Apologies for 'hogging' the page.
There seem to be quite a number of references which are technically faulty in that they do not support the point made eg: The film is supported by the Global Research Institute (New Documentary Film by Boris Malagurski January 7, 2010) [17] ... this ref is a general 'promo' about WoC, but does not say that GRI are supporting WoC … though there are ample sources elsewhere that they are. I've noticed other similar errors and will post them here if a fix is not obvious. Pincrete ( talk) 21:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) … … Update, I was wrong the reference DOES mention GRC funding … Thankyou UrbanVillager for pointing me. to where. Pincrete ( talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There are also many dead or unproductive reference links. Pincrete ( talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Update, many - but not all - refs have now been updated by either UV or myself. Pincrete ( talk) 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Several problems with 'Media and lectures' section, mainly para 2 … … first problem is that unfortunately many of the ref links are dead … … second problem is that many of these events appear to be 'student organised' events (and sometimes the sources appear to be students themselves … with copyvio implications in some cases) … … thirdly, several sources refer only to 'panel discussions', prior to showing of a BM film … … lastly (an observation rather than a problem), the speaking events seem mainly about 'plight of Kosovo Serbs/future status of Kosovo/how to keep Kosovo'.
Firstly NONE of these events could possibly be described as 'lectures', so as a temp fix I have changed this to 'speeches' … Secondly is speaking to a student society really a notable event? … Thirdly, to save arguing about each event seperately, is there a form of words that makes it clearer that these were largely or wholly extra-curricular events … Fourthly, given the primary purposes of many of these events, if kept does this para not belong in 'activism' since it is neither media nor a lecture?
Since the section would then contain very little about 'media' and nothing at all about either 'lectures' or 'speeches', I suggest new homes for any remaining paras. Pincrete ( talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections from anyone, I presume it is OK to try to 'fix' this section, as per my suggestions above, removing refs to privately owned videos. Pincrete ( talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is there only critics against Boris Malagurski and why can't I edit this article? I would like to contribute and make article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In weight of chains article, Critical response part, both critics have negative opinion of film. A few days ago, there was a positive opinion from a magazine, why is that gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Boris Malagurski persists in removing the (sourced) fact [18] 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 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)
note, the user Cinéma C, was later banned as a sockpuppet :- [19], as (I believe), were several of the participants in the various RFDs listed at the top of this page. Note added by Pincrete ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, I moved detail about WoC2, to the 'sequel' section of WoC film page. The recent redirect decision was to redirect to that page/section. I gave my edit reason:- [20].
The BM page should surely be for biographical/background info, with details on the relevant film pages? Unless somebody gives me a good reason why that was the wrong thing for me to do, I will re-do that edit. Pincrete ( talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Two issues, first on 'External links', section 'Print media interviews', here:- [21], do we need to repeat interviews which are already linked to in the refs? It seems like overkill. … … Second, throughout the page there are links to (what appear to be) copyrighted videos including several in 'media and lectures' and one on GRC, as well as external links to Youtube. I'm not sure I fully understand WHEN it is legit to link to copyrighted videos, but am drawing the attention of others. I mention this, and several other issues, immediately above, or here: [22]. Pincrete ( talk) 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the controversy with Vesna Kostic's accusations against Malagurski, I feel this section is too one-sided and should include response from Malagurski. I found a Facebook discussion on the matter where Malagurski reacted to Vesna Kostic. Now, I checked Wikipedia regulations on using Facebook as a source and found that:
So, drawing from the source in question, I am adding the following:
The alternative to this addition is to remove Vesta Kostic's accusations as it is one-sided to have only one side of the story, completely ignoring the other side. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The logic behind saying one BM site links to his own Facebook page fulfils the 'official website' criteria sounds pretty dubious to me (much more authority if it were Happy TV's website or a 'proper paper' for example). however as long as wording is clear that this is BM's CLAIM, I'm not going to object. Pincrete ( talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Revolucija (TV show) for deletion, proposing that any notable material be re-merged with this article. Watchers of this page might want to join that discussion. Pincrete ( talk) 17:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm puzzled where the sources are for the Filmography section in regards to which films Malagurski produced, or didn't produce, edited, or didn't edit, etc. The "Yes"s and "No"s are coming from which sources exactly? If there aren't any reliable sources, I suggest the removal of those columns, or if someone is willing to go through the credits of all those films, and find out the facts regarding those details, we can fill them out. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit: [24], it is definitely sourced that 'Presumption of Justice' had a co-director, the others I know nothing about, but the edit reason 'credits suggest etc.' is not a source either. Pincrete ( talk) 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up an 'auto-archive' on this page (90 day?), as much of the discussion seems reduntant. Pincrete ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Pincrete for moving the "Kostic Allegations" section to the Revolucija (TV show) article, I have done the same with the "Message Board Controversy" and moved it to The Presumption of Justice article, and removed both from this article. Neither of the two controversies were game-changers in regards to Malagurski's career and, thus, I agree that they should be moved to the topic areas regarding which those issues are controversial. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The controversy regarding threats has to do with the threats & the trial, not the message board. It's irrelevant where the threats were posted and all the references point to the threats and trial as the controversial parts, not the part about the message board. The message board is not controversial in that nobody disputes that the threats took place at the message board, but the controversial part are the threats themselves, and also the trial to an extent. So, unless we see a reliable source calling the controversy "Message board controversy", the section should be renamed. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
::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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
UrbanVillager, you removed two times some films from the filmography section.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This section is in direct violation of WP:TALK, on the following points:
-- UrbanVillager ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
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, 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)
Let's fix some problems, then!
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)
Bob, in regards to your points, I'll go one by one:
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. [3] Opbeith ( talk) 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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 [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 ( talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [6] [7] " 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)
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)
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)
---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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
PRODUCER, you can say that Malagurski provides every interviewee with a platform to present their views. That's why they get interviewed. If you're implying that Malagurski was the organizer of the event at UBC where Trifkovic was scheduled to speak, I'm going to have to see some hard evidence (reliable reference) that is not original research (i.e. "He was on the airport on CTV!") or from some blog that can make stuff up and get away with it. Besides, according to this link, UBC approved the right of Trifkovic to speak at the University, so go to the University of British Columbia article and advocate that they add a sentence in the article where it says they support Srdja Trifkovic's platform for genocide denial and Islamophobic views. See how the other editors with react to that kind of nonsense. It doesn't matter what I think of Burgic, what matters that he 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. You talk about E-novine, who's founders' article on Wikipedia has two references - both of them are his blog on B92. Also, it's funny to call a news source reliable when they copy/paste blog entries with obvious mistakes - it says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, not CTV. Same thing, eh. It also says "The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without citing the website that claims so. Never found any reliable references to back that up. Face it, we're talking about blogs that are presenting themselves as news sources, with absolutely no merit on Wikipedia. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick comment that Politika has been surpassed as the leading news outlet in the Balkans, so that argument is obsolete, let alone biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.20.16.89 ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
These relevant discussions elsewhere haven't been signposted adequately for interested parties:
Opbeith ( talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There's something sublimely perverse and at the same time reassuring when the subject of a Conflict of Interest warning takes it upon themselves to remove the warning without discussion. True to form, UrbanVillager! Opbeith ( talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubtful. This entire article reads of bias and is completely one-sided. It should be deleted, if nothing else. Just look at the quotes chosen to be "previewed." "His documentary is describes as being objective." wow. Way to not push your own agenda. -- 221.92.163.122 ( talk) 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Alas, I would disagree with this edit: [10] The policy says:
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. "EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group...
Which looks like a perfect description of the problems we have on articles connected to Malagurski. If it were just supporting a modest personal claim like "Malagurski likes pastry and windsurfing", I wouldn't mind; but the source is being used to show how great he is and how much he's achieved ... and there's been a long-running problem with promotional editing around here ... better get rid of it. bobrayner ( talk) 14:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Should we probably mention that he used to contribute to Wikipedia...? -- Prevalis ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why such determination to remove this? It's sourced; it's relevant; what's the problem? bobrayner ( talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I know this guy Boris Malaguski. He wrote promotional articles on Wikipedia about himself. [11] [12] [13] [14] Even worse, he stubbornly sockpuppeting and deleting content from other users that he does not like.
He was blocked on Serbian Wikipedia many times. And after many years and many problems, he was banned forever. Now, he is hiding behind false names and wrote articles about himself on English Wikipedia. As you can see (if you know Serbian), he had many problems with the community because of the lies and the forgeries.
So please everybody, be very careful with this guy. Just look at the history of this article and you will see that "someone" repeatedly deleting negative content. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Boris Malagurski is a proven cheater and a liar. This is the evidence:
I believe he is currently hiding behind fake account User:UrbanVillager and pushing POV about himself. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mladifilozof: I think you need to refrain from personal attacks (calling another user a "cheater and liar"). It poisons the environment on Wikipedia and sets bad precedents for any future discussion. Thanks, 23 editor ( talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a number of minor edits, most of which relate only to tidying phrasing & updating 'Belgrade' section. The only edit which might be controversial is removing one reference to ' official selection at a number of festivals ' in WoC section. The source for this appears to be quoting BM himself making this claim, I've therefore re-phrased in a manner which I think is also more 'read-able'. Any objections anyone? Pincrete ( talk) 20:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just read through 2 -3 year old discussions about:
1). Whether it should be mentioned that BM was one of 14 winners in the student class at a film festival or whether it should be left as 'winner', I find the defence of the present wording fairly pathetic. I know of no instance on Wikipedia, or in the 'real world' in which PRECISELY what was won would not be stated. The omission is misleading and it is irrelevant whether that it intentional or not. I propose re-inserting, brief details of what was won.
2). In a similar vein, the only contexts in which entries to film festivals are referred to as 'Official', are those in which there are both Official (eg nominated by country) and also Unofficial (eg nominated by the filmmaker). Therefore the use of 'Official entry' to a festival is at best meaningless and creates a false impression. I propose removal of that description, unless it can be shown that the festival itself uses the term 'Official entry'.
New subject The article states In April 2012, Malagurski delivered a presentation at Google in Silicon Valley that dealt with raising funds for film projects, the source for this presentation having taken place is Politika (some 7,000+ miles from Silicon Valley). If a better source cannot be found, I propose removal, since if the event went unreported by Google itself or any other source in the USA, I suggest it is - at best - so un-noteworthy as to not deserve space on this page. Pincrete ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
We've gone over this to death, but some people won't give up on their agenda. Concerning 1), "one of 14 winners" is original research, the film won the prize and this is the only piece of information that can be verified by secondary sources. And regarding 2), you seem to know very little about film festivals. Considering "Bob Rayner" agrees with you, I can see you're both here with an agenda. "Official selection" means it was officially selected by the festival. And the Google info is verified by the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans, it really doesn't matter how many miles the newspaper is from Silicon Valley. This is perhaps the silliest argument I've ever heard in my life. :) -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 00:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll repeat again, we're talking about Boris Malagurski's film, not other films. "One of etc." is something for an article about the festival. As for the festivals, are you actually suggesting that someone outside of the festival can make official selections for the festival? Do you speak English? Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 14:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
To repeat the relevant questions:
As per above discussion, I've removed the 'Google' reference, also used the language actually used by each festival in screenings (usually NOT 'official selection') , I've also added some details of the Silver Palm and linked to the award page. Pincrete ( talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to draw everyone's attention to another attack on this article, again by a known anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editor " Bob Rayner", who decided to declare one of the festivals on which Boris Malagurski's film was screened - "fake" [16]. The festival indeed existed in 2009, whether it exists today is uncertain and quite irrelevant regarding Boris Malagurski, but here's a TV report from the official state televison of Republika Srpska (the entity in which the festival was organized) Radio Television Republika Srpska: 07.05.2009. Međunarodni filmski festival "BRIDGE FEST 2009.", Istočno Sarajevo. Once again, without any knowledge on the topic, exclusively motivated with his or her discontent towards everything that has to do with Boris Malagurski, Bobrayner, who is usually accompanied by Pincrete, is acting completely out of touch with the Wikipedia spirit. By pushing his POV, he is damaging the articles that cover Malagurski's work, and doesn't have as a goal to best inform the public about Malagurski and his work, but merely to present Malagurski from his or her personal point-of-view which is, from what we've been able to see, very negative and misinformed. Any user who tries to act in the spirit of Wikipedia in regards to Malagurski-related articles, from what I've seen, is immediately accused of "being Malagurski", "being Malagurski's friend" or "being on Malagurski's payroll". This is really absurd, and considering the fact that the material written in the article is heavily sourced, more sourced than the average Wikipedia article, I have yet to understand why some people are editing on Wikipedia if their absolute goal is to present the world through their own point of view instead of working together on creating and fostering an unbiased encyclopedia that is based on reliably sourced facts, not opinions. Please respect Wikipedia rules and we'll all get along much better. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm putting this into a new section as it seems distinct from the other issues above … Apologies for 'hogging' the page.
There seem to be quite a number of references which are technically faulty in that they do not support the point made eg: The film is supported by the Global Research Institute (New Documentary Film by Boris Malagurski January 7, 2010) [17] ... this ref is a general 'promo' about WoC, but does not say that GRI are supporting WoC … though there are ample sources elsewhere that they are. I've noticed other similar errors and will post them here if a fix is not obvious. Pincrete ( talk) 21:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) … … Update, I was wrong the reference DOES mention GRC funding … Thankyou UrbanVillager for pointing me. to where. Pincrete ( talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There are also many dead or unproductive reference links. Pincrete ( talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Update, many - but not all - refs have now been updated by either UV or myself. Pincrete ( talk) 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Several problems with 'Media and lectures' section, mainly para 2 … … first problem is that unfortunately many of the ref links are dead … … second problem is that many of these events appear to be 'student organised' events (and sometimes the sources appear to be students themselves … with copyvio implications in some cases) … … thirdly, several sources refer only to 'panel discussions', prior to showing of a BM film … … lastly (an observation rather than a problem), the speaking events seem mainly about 'plight of Kosovo Serbs/future status of Kosovo/how to keep Kosovo'.
Firstly NONE of these events could possibly be described as 'lectures', so as a temp fix I have changed this to 'speeches' … Secondly is speaking to a student society really a notable event? … Thirdly, to save arguing about each event seperately, is there a form of words that makes it clearer that these were largely or wholly extra-curricular events … Fourthly, given the primary purposes of many of these events, if kept does this para not belong in 'activism' since it is neither media nor a lecture?
Since the section would then contain very little about 'media' and nothing at all about either 'lectures' or 'speeches', I suggest new homes for any remaining paras. Pincrete ( talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections from anyone, I presume it is OK to try to 'fix' this section, as per my suggestions above, removing refs to privately owned videos. Pincrete ( talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is there only critics against Boris Malagurski and why can't I edit this article? I would like to contribute and make article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In weight of chains article, Critical response part, both critics have negative opinion of film. A few days ago, there was a positive opinion from a magazine, why is that gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWilson78 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Boris Malagurski persists in removing the (sourced) fact [18] 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 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)
note, the user Cinéma C, was later banned as a sockpuppet :- [19], as (I believe), were several of the participants in the various RFDs listed at the top of this page. Note added by Pincrete ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, I moved detail about WoC2, to the 'sequel' section of WoC film page. The recent redirect decision was to redirect to that page/section. I gave my edit reason:- [20].
The BM page should surely be for biographical/background info, with details on the relevant film pages? Unless somebody gives me a good reason why that was the wrong thing for me to do, I will re-do that edit. Pincrete ( talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Two issues, first on 'External links', section 'Print media interviews', here:- [21], do we need to repeat interviews which are already linked to in the refs? It seems like overkill. … … Second, throughout the page there are links to (what appear to be) copyrighted videos including several in 'media and lectures' and one on GRC, as well as external links to Youtube. I'm not sure I fully understand WHEN it is legit to link to copyrighted videos, but am drawing the attention of others. I mention this, and several other issues, immediately above, or here: [22]. Pincrete ( talk) 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the controversy with Vesna Kostic's accusations against Malagurski, I feel this section is too one-sided and should include response from Malagurski. I found a Facebook discussion on the matter where Malagurski reacted to Vesna Kostic. Now, I checked Wikipedia regulations on using Facebook as a source and found that:
So, drawing from the source in question, I am adding the following:
The alternative to this addition is to remove Vesta Kostic's accusations as it is one-sided to have only one side of the story, completely ignoring the other side. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The logic behind saying one BM site links to his own Facebook page fulfils the 'official website' criteria sounds pretty dubious to me (much more authority if it were Happy TV's website or a 'proper paper' for example). however as long as wording is clear that this is BM's CLAIM, I'm not going to object. Pincrete ( talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Revolucija (TV show) for deletion, proposing that any notable material be re-merged with this article. Watchers of this page might want to join that discussion. Pincrete ( talk) 17:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm puzzled where the sources are for the Filmography section in regards to which films Malagurski produced, or didn't produce, edited, or didn't edit, etc. The "Yes"s and "No"s are coming from which sources exactly? If there aren't any reliable sources, I suggest the removal of those columns, or if someone is willing to go through the credits of all those films, and find out the facts regarding those details, we can fill them out. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit: [24], it is definitely sourced that 'Presumption of Justice' had a co-director, the others I know nothing about, but the edit reason 'credits suggest etc.' is not a source either. Pincrete ( talk) 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up an 'auto-archive' on this page (90 day?), as much of the discussion seems reduntant. Pincrete ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Pincrete for moving the "Kostic Allegations" section to the Revolucija (TV show) article, I have done the same with the "Message Board Controversy" and moved it to The Presumption of Justice article, and removed both from this article. Neither of the two controversies were game-changers in regards to Malagurski's career and, thus, I agree that they should be moved to the topic areas regarding which those issues are controversial. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The controversy regarding threats has to do with the threats & the trial, not the message board. It's irrelevant where the threats were posted and all the references point to the threats and trial as the controversial parts, not the part about the message board. The message board is not controversial in that nobody disputes that the threats took place at the message board, but the controversial part are the threats themselves, and also the trial to an extent. So, unless we see a reliable source calling the controversy "Message board controversy", the section should be renamed. -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)