Talk:Boris Malagurski#rfctag

Salutations,

Quite a revealing, presentational series but what I found frustrating was the lack of subtitles(geared to languages other than "Serbian") for the viewers to understand what your interviewees are actually saying/stating....

This would have definitely contributed to the "message" being delivered...

A reply would be most welcome, especially, given that your a Canadian as I am as well ..

Sincerwly,

Andrew B. Fisher ABF111 (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest additions to the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Malagurski&diff=1287123019&oldid=1286962986], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Malagurski&diff=1287293802&oldid=1287292194]) can only be described as bad faith, as they do not follow the MOS:LEADBIO guidelines, trying to misrepresent the entirety of the article, with poor sources. The fact that Malagurski has been denied entry into a disputed province does not summarize with due weight the life and work of the person, for example. But it does deserve to be part of the article, so I moved it down.

Also, he worked for a much shorter time period for RT & Sputnik than he did for several Serbian TV channels or even channels in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Adding the Russian channels in the lead is obviously an effort to paint Malagurski a certain way, not neutrally describe him, provide context or present what he's best known for. Besides, the RT/Sputnik info was already in the article, in the "Television" subsection within the "Career" section, where there is adequate context.

Malagurski also never denied any genocide, he has publicly pointed this out several times ([https://old.oslobodjenje.ba/tag/postujem-haag-bio-sam-u-potocarima]), thus it's fairly malicious to add Category:Deniers of the Bosnian genocide to the bottom of the article. Just in general it would be wise to refrain from adding POV content into the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is nothing neutral about this notorious puff piece, that has suffered from COI editing, blatant promotion and whitewashing of historical revisionism for years. Malagurski is known for promoting historical revisionism relating to the wars in Yugoslavia, particularly the Srebrenica genocide. He is not really well known for anything else. --Tataral (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Historical revisionism? I would advise caution when it comes to personal opinions. From my perspective, your edits come close to slander. While I understand the point you're trying to make, if you intended to include criticism, it should have been presented much more subtly, keeping WP:NPOV in mind. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with User:Sadko.--UrbanVillager (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{TQ|Malagurski also never denied any genocide, he has publicly pointed this out several times}} The purpose of this article is not to record what BM has claimed about himself as UrbanVillager seems to think. but to record what others have written about his views and films. What they wrote about WoC1 was "The film presents the fall of Srebrenica "as a stage-managed ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia". Interviewee Srđa Trifković asserts that there are "trustworthy witnesses" who claim that Bill Clinton had indicated that "5,000 dead Muslims would be the price of NATO intervention" and that these witnesses believe that "Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by Izetbegović in order to provide this burnt offering to the White House". The film also presents the Srebrenica "civilian death toll as no larger than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding area". That certainly differs from the (largely universally accepted historical version) of what happened at Srebrenica, so it's pure semantics to say that BM never {{TQ|denied any genocide}}. David Irving claimed to have never denied the Holocaust, simply to have been sceptical about some details, like numbers and methods and how much was planned. Whether BM can be described as a 'denier', I leave up to the sources. When last I looked at this issue, an insufficiently small number of sources outside the Balkan echo-chamber had bothered to write anything about BM, so the answer is probably 'no'.

:::Similarly, the extent to which sources record which channels BM has worked for rather that 'length of service' at them is what is notable. A short relationship with a 'major' channel, like RT may create more coverage than a longer one with an unknown 'local' channel. However dealing with his TV career chronologically seems apt in this instance, since coverage is again 'thin on the ground'.Pincrete (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The fact of the matter is that Malagurski never dealt with the topic of Srebrenica to a significant degree, while mentioning that there are differing views on the issue is no different than you mentioning David Irving's views on the Holocaust. Regarding the civilian death toll quote, you omitted that he was quoting UN observer Phillip Corwin. Malagurski himself was quoted as respecting the UN court's decision on the matter. Now, one could argue that genocide denial can occur without a genocide being denied, but that's more of a philosophical topic.--UrbanVillager (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is pure semantics. Genocide denial is not limited to saying that genocide didn't happen, it includes whether the intention is to significantly downplay or justify or negate the event. That judgement - about intent or effect- is made by critics and others not by the speaker/writer/filmmaker themselves. What you are offering is a tired, long-discredited pseudo-clever-clever defence. That the only quotations BM offers in WoC are those which appear to downplay or question the (almost universally acknowledged fact) that about 8 or 9,000 unarmed civilians were killed in cold blood at Srebrenica, is a good deal more relevant than how much time is spent covering the topic. So I have no problem in recognising why some critics/groups say that BM is a 'denier'. Whether that coverage reaches the level for WP to add the category is another matter, possibly not, since there is so little written about him anyway.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Considering Malagurski's film mentioned Srebrenica as "the largest single act of mass-killing in the Yugoslav wars, and the worst in Europe since World War II", specifically saying that "there's no justification for such heinous crimes", I fail to see how someone could present this as downplaying or justifying the event. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{TQ|I fail to see how someone could present this as downplaying or justifying the event.}} Well luckily for both of us, neither of our opinions (nor BM's), has any bearing on conclusions that critics, and other WP:RS have made on this issue. So we can both stop selectively quoting from the film. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, if you ever edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Malagurski&diff=next&oldid=1289399905 outside the Boris-osphere], you would know that consensus is not required to add (or keep) tags. Tags are a way for an individual editor to raise concerns. Either consensus, or a reasonable 'dead period' with no discussion is required to remove them. Tataral added them and it is up to him to raise his concerns here, until which the tags should NOT be removed (especially by IPs and suspiciously new editors, as has happened recently). Although you created this article when the boy wonder was still a student, you don't WP:OWN it. Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Starting off and concluding by commenting me and my edits has nothing to do with the article and is not in line with WP:GOODFAITH, while using condescending and dismissive terminology regarding the subject matter isn't constructive either. Furhtermore, "when it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as {{tl|npov}}, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary", per WP:TAGGING and WP:HIT&RUNTAG. The "Autobiography" tag "should be used only when autobiographical content in a Wikipedia article has been reasonably well established, not when it is merely suspected", per the Template:Autobiography documentation, which also states that "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." On the other hand, Template:Overly detailed is used for trivial subjects, not suited for the topic of this article.--UrbanVillager (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:This article is very obviously an autobiography. It has an absolutely ridiculous amount of intricate detail and promotional content, has suffered from COI editing from new and suspicious editors only interested in promoting Malagurski for years, and is horribly unencyclopedic. The tags need to stay until we have done something drastic to clean up this mess that this article is. --Tataral (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree. I can't comment on anything specifically regarding the article as you've given zero examples of what you're talking about, but are merely stating your POV - making claims of COI and "suspicious editors" in bad faith. Please discuss, then edit, as there's no consensus for the tags you keep adding. --UrbanVillager (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Nobody edits the article for years, but then some mildly critical tags appear and almost instantly an IP and then a brand new editor removes them and you don't find that suspicious? It has happened almost any time any critical content appears here. Until the issues are resolved, the normal practice is for the tags to remain, your permission - as you are the only registered editor objecting - is not required. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not talking about permission, I'm talking about WP:CON. No concrete issues about specific parts of the article are being raised on the talk page and you keep being dismissive towards me - it's not about how many users are raising concerns, it's about what the concerns are (in any case, User:Shadow4ya also objected to Tataral's edits, as well as User:Sadko). The tags have not been justified in any way. "They're needed because I said so and it's obvious" (paraphrasing) is not a justification. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Yeah, Instead of tag-bombing, maybe focus on editing or rephrasing parts of the article? We could all help. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is up to Tataral to raise his concerns, my only involvement is to revert mysterious IPs/brand new editors arriving to remove the tags as soon as they appear. Pincrete (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)