Talk:The Weight of Chains 2

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Canadian / Documentary This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. Yugoslavia Low‑importance The Weight of Chains 2 is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been revised as part of

Quick question -- there is no official poster of this film on any of Malagurski's websites, but he did post some posters for the film premieres on his official Facebook page. What would be the procedure to obtain permission to use these posters on Wikipedia? Any advice is appreciated. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an article yet!Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is. Please stop calling your friend to remove it. Circumstances have changed, the film has been released since the Wikipedia vote, it already had its world tour, including at the Swedish Film Institute and National Museum of Culture in Mexico City, so it's not really the same as "the film is in production and will be released eventually" - the film exists, it's notable (with interviews with Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Carla Del Ponte), so I suggest you open another vote on whether this article should be deleted/redirected if you don't agree - blanking out pages is considered vandalism. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed no opinion as to whether there SHOULD BE an article! Merely pointed out that there ISN"T ONE. When there is a reasonable body of RS material assembled, others can make an assesment as to whether it meets notability and other criteria. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I wasn't aware of the new material UrbanVillager had inserted. I still don't have an opinion on whether it has established notability, nor on procedure for 'un-deleting' the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC) … … Having taken a quick look at the proposed article, many of these showings seem fairly un-notable (eg a student's association). The content of the film appears entirely sourced to (rather old) interviews with BM himself. Is it really notable to include the name of every town that the film has ONCE been shown in! Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC) … … ps what is the source or logic for THIS film's claim to be 'Canadian'? Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (24 Sata) appears to be an advert for the film.Pincrete (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be so kind as to answer my question regarding the poster? I asked a specific question in this talk page segment and would like to request that Pincrete stops spamming it. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologised for misunderstanding that you had re-instated the page, is that what you mean by 'spamming'? … … A more substantive question about the poster, is the use of an (unreadably small), Facebook copy of the poster as a source for funding info … … I'm sure guide pages give info as to how to obtain permission for pictures. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you won't help me make the article better, you just prefer to dispute everything. OK, got it. Still waiting for help regarding the poster, maybe someone else can guide me in the right direction. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have only once loaded a pic to WP, so am unable to offer help.Pincrete (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Weight of Chains 2 was closed as a redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2. Open a deletion review if you really think it should be overturned. UrbanVillager's endless Malagurskispam is tiresome, but our policies are clear. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was never deleted, but redirected. Also, the text in the article that was moved to The Weight of Chains article has now been greatly expanded with very reliable sources. How to open a deletion review if the article was never deleted and the new article contains majority information that didn't exist in the previous version? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not have been deleted, but all its CONTENT was, for copyvio reasons. The only 'great expansion' of info I am aware of is a premiere at a festival in Jo'burg and a short sentence on funding. It's totally silly to be even discussing the notability of a blank page. Should the amount of info expand to the point that it is NOT properly covered by the the 'sequel' section of the main article, THEN a meaningful discussion can take place. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC) … … ps see section above re new content[reply]

What are you talking about? This article contains more information than the average Wikipedia film article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It still doesn't seem to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malagurski's not notable to you in general. And yet, you spend so much time on articles related to him and his work. How ironic. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re:- This article contains more information than the average Wikipedia film article, yes but a great deal of that info is irrelevant (the name of all 8 cities in 5 countries that the film has been screened, usually once, sometimes at free mid-day showings), and the only source for content is BM himself (or ads). Despite all these 'notable' screenings, no RS reviews have yet been written. Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, no film is notable if not made by a famous Hollywood film director, with tons of festival screenings, oscars, reviews and the like. Sure, "The Weight of Chains 2" is not nearly notable as, for example, "Titanic", but notability exists - screenings at a festival, film institute, university and museum are certainly notable, as well as cinematic screenings. If you, however, have doubts that those screenings really took place, I'd like to see some reliable evidence before we continue the discussion, because the sources we have now indicate that they did take place. Notability of the film is evident if you consider who was interviewed as well. But maybe even Hollywood film directors on screen aren't notable enough for you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my logic at all, but even with 'Titanic', would we mention EVERY city in which the film has been shown? Notable festivals perhaps. Since (with the exception of 'Monterey'), I have not questioned the screenings, there isn't any point in replying to that. Naming every country where the film has been shown is generous, more generous than most film articles.

Notability, either of the film itself or of screenings of it is established largely by independent, RS info about the film. This does include articles about and reviews of the film, not simply who is in it or how important the subject matter (nor my or your opinion).

You aren't addressing the central questions however, firstly why EVERY screening of the film needs to be mentioned … secondly how an (unreadably small) Facebook pic can be RS for funding, btw, I haven't removed this info, simply 'credited' it to the poster and placed it after the RS info.Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the 'humanitarian organisations', who contributed to the funding? I ask as I am not able to read the info on the Facebook poster. Is there not some better source for this info and a more exact description ?(I was unable to see any funding info on the film's website, which seemed the obvious place for clarification). Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can establish, several of the Interviewes are NOT in the cited sources, for this reason I have added the film's website as a ref. There are also several names in the sources who are not on the list or the website (Lewis MacKenzie, Diana Johnstone). Is there some reason to believe they are NOT in the film? Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be consistent about this, if a name is on the film's website, it's in the film. If that site is not RS, then we must rely on earlier sources, that DON"T include some of these names, and also include others. Since MacKenzie isn't on the WoC website, I presume he was ultimately not included. There are also quite a few other names on the WoC website, temporarily I added only those with WP pages.Pincrete (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis now is almost entirely reliant on a single source, namely [1], the author of the article at'parlamentnilisty.cz', appears to be 'Radim Panenka'. A search of his name throws up no journalistic writing, only 'user posted' sites. What is 'parlamentnilisty.cz'? It has all the hallmarks of NOT being a RS in WP terms. Comments?Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the synopsis or plot sections of documentary films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Roger & Me, Born into Brothels, Inside Job, March of the Penguins and others, you'll notice that they have no sources whatsoever (well, that's not true, the last two have one source - for a certain sentence). The reason for this is because the film is the source. Now, if there's any part in the synopsis of this film that you'd like to dispute, i.e. you believe that I wrote that something is in the film, but you have reason to believe it's not - do tell. I even added a source for everything written, a standard higher than most other documentary film articles, and yet, you continue to sabotage every constructive edit I make. Stop trolling Wikipedia, thanks. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using an invalid source is worse than using no source, it's creating a 'fake reliability'. So are you tacitly admitting that 'parlamentnilisty.cz' is not a RS and is probably 'user posted'? You are right of course, a source is only required for contentious content in a synopsis, but until such time as this is remedied, the tag goes back.Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in several articles on Wikipedia ([2]), has its own article on Czech Wikipedia with around 15 sources ([3]), and I'd really like to ask you for the 100th time to stop wasting the time of people who want to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. Stop trolling Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 uses of 'parlamentnilisty.cz' on EngWP is hardly enough to establish reliability. CzechWP is irrelevant. So you are saying that you believe this 'parlamentnilisty.cz' article is RS are you?Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) … … ps CzechWP appears to confirm that 'parlamentnilisty.cz' is a mixture of a monthly printed and online 'user posted' material, which is this article?Pincrete (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that if it's printed - it can't be online as well? Interesting. The sources attesting to the relevancy of Parlamentní listy in the Czech Wikipeida article are good enough for me - plus the article really does talk about the film in an accurate way. I've seen it - have you? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I said it has BOTH monthly printed AND online user-posted output. I expressed no opinion as to whether some material is/was/could be in both. I did ask WHICH THIS ARTICLE IS and, before going further, asked you whether YOU consider THIS ARTICLE to be RS, in view of quite a lot of indicators (inc CzechWP) that this is simply 'user posted'. Is it such a difficult question? Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanVillager, I am asking once again, is this 'parlamentnilisty' article 'RS' in your opinion? If not could you remove it and any text dependent on it?Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parlamentni Listy looks reliable to me. Plus the article came out after the Prague screening of "The Weight of Chains 2", so it makes sense for them to have an article about the film, I don't understand what your issue is. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the article explicitly describes BM as a Serbian who lived for a while in Canada?Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with "The Weight of Chains 2"? Here's a source describing Malagurski as just Canadian. So? Does that make him any less Serbian-Canadian? What's your personal issue with the fact that Malagurski declares himself as Serbian-Canadian (and even just Canadian on two occasions on his official websites - [4] [5])? If you want a section with sources that call him Serbian, sources that call him Canadian, sources that call him Serbian-Canadian, sources that call him Serbian who lived in Canada, sources that call him Canadian who was born in Serbia,...etc. you really don't get Wikipedia, as this is an issue no where outside of your head. The overwhelming majority of sources, also, describe Malagurski as Serbian-Canadian, and there are no sources that dispute that he is either Serbian or Canadian or Serbian-Canadian. Stop trolling, for the 1 millionth time. --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courteous as ever.Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here with the use of 'Parlamentní listy', firstly it does not appear to be RS, but 'user-posted' and therefore valueless. Secondly, some of the text (eg 'creating a welfare state and making protesting a way of life', final para), does not appear to be IN 'Parlamentní listy' at all. Since this is a synopsis, why do we have refs for non-contentious claims anyway?Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]