Talk:Dara of Jasenovac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Context

between Serbs and their neighbors fact was removed.

• Information from the source "obviously designed as a incendiary in the current conflicts between Serbs and their neighbors" is full context information. Removing last part of this information in fact makes the information incomprehensible and out of context. I think that this information should be presented in full context. Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source clearly states - Serbia, not the entire nation. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't register that, but and Serbia fact is important for the context of this information. Without this information, we don't really know about what the source is actually talking. Mikola22 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Gossip

I have removed this information as it's trivial, gossip-like and without any sort of confirmation via proper channels. The source of this info. is a local blogger/activist. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Editors need to stop with the constant edit-warring on this article and formulate a consensus on how to summarize the critical reception section in the lead.

Right now, one of the two negative reviews mentions "Anti-Croat" and "Anti-Catholic" elements, the other doesn't. But what both negative reviews have in common is they criticize the movie for its sensationalism and political undertones in the long-standing feud between Serbs/Serbia and Croats/Croatia. This would be something to highlight instead.

Also, the other version of the lead which says that reviews point out "its role in Serbian government's nationalist propaganda" feels off-base too as Weissberg alludes to it in a historical context (the other doesn't mention that aspect), but his focus is on the directors and the problems with the film. This isn't mentioned in the section either. --Griboski (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times "If only it didn’t smack of scoring points in a longstanding regional feud. When there’s a scene in which the visiting Nazi bristles at the display of one-on-one sadism toward Serbian prisoners from his crisply uniformed Croatian hosts (which include incestuous brother and sister officers), you know you’re in agenda territory."[2]

I think this critique can also be classified as "Anti-Croat". If we need "Anti-Croat" fact mentioned in the source then we don’t actually have that, but we have an "agenda" fact. Mikola22 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Political agenda and point-scoring isn't the same as Anti-Croat. But regardless, it would be nice if editors explained their rationale on here and came to an agreement instead of engaging in an endless revert cycle. --Griboski (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I say - let's have patience about the lead version and bear WP:NPOV in mind as well as the community consensus. It's early days. The movie is going to tour festivals and cinemas for several months from now on and we are going to have more material available in the near future.. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Information from Weissberg's piece

Peacemaker67 removed this piece of information because it was a "ridiculous piece of editorialising" and "totally unsupported by the review text".

Here's what Weissberg says in his article:

"Let’s start with facts: the Croatian fascist government during World War II, the Ustaše, were murderous thugs abetted by powerful members of the Catholic Church. Notorious for their wanton sadism, the Ustaše targeted Serbs as well as Jews and Roma, modeling themselves on their Nazi allies.. Equally incontestable, the Jasenovac complex was notorious among death camps for the blood-curdling cruelty of its commanders and their underlings.. None of this is in dispute, and only someone devoid of ethics would argue that there were “good people” on both sides."

The text removed was "Weissberg does not dispute the brutality of the Ustasha regime and cruelty in Jasenovac".

Could have been worded slightly better perhaps but I have no idea how someone could come to the conclusion that it is editorializing and unsupported by the review text, since it's basically relaying exactly what he's saying. Given that he was accused by the film studio of revitalizing or trivializing genocide, this might be important to include. --Griboski (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Griboski, the claim was supported by the text and should be included in the article. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Griboski said, it should be mentioned in the article since it was said in the reference. Vacant0 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole section is very poorly constructed, arranged chronologically rather than thematically, and points of criticism should be rebutted directly when they are mentioned, not separated into paras each about an individual review. If the studio's claim is credible (clearly it is not, because if you have read his review, anyone can tell he is not doing that), then it should be included immediately after the claim to refute it. Where is was, it had no effect, and even implied something that was incorrect. Not all commentary or reviews are created equal, yet this article currently treats them as if they are. For example, what possible bias does he have? (none I can see), but the film studio has massive bias yet is given almost equal weight with experienced film critics from Variety and the Los Angeles Times. The way the criticism is being handled in this article is terrible and lends equal weight to the views of the film's makers, who have a massive conflict of interest and bias, with independent reviewers with no axe to grind. I am considering asking that it be fully protected so that it can be sorted out, as it is a POV mess. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not involved in this article and I have little intention to do so, nor have I seen the film (very few people have really). That said, I support Peacemaker's argument. It's a fact that this film was made with heavy involvement of the current Serbian government to whom Jasenovac is a central piece of nationalist narrative used to justify the events of the 1990s. It's a fact that following negative reception IMDb was review-bombed by Serbians who showed up en masse to give the film high ratings, without actually seeing the film (it was only screened at Gračanica, Kosovo, another symbolic place for Serbian nationalists), leading to IMDB suspending voting for the film. It's a fact that some Serbian officials slammed the criticism (such as defence minister Aleksandar Vulin and culture minister Maja Gojković and head of the Serbian Film Centre, Jelena Trivan) and it's also a fact that not everyone in Serbia agrees with the official party line, such as the film critic Ivan Velisavljević.

For reference, here's an article in the Croatian left-leaning daily Novi List (Feb 3, 2021) which reports on the Variety review and gives an overview of the reactions to bad reviews in foreign media in Serbia itself, and the whole IMDb affair stemming from it (quoting Weissberg, Vulin, Gojković, and Velisavljević), and here's a short news item (Feb 3, 2021) at SEEBiz.eu about IMDb suspending user ratings for the film (which quotes Trivan). It may be useful to mention that these are both sources in the Croatian media which have largely ignored the film upon its release.

On Rotten Tomatoes Tomatoes it holds a score of 58%, and it seems critics are divided on their take of the film depending on how familiar they are with the post-1990s context of the Balkans and the film's propagandistic purpose. So yeah - not all reviews are created equal and hold the same weight, and so far Rotten lists only two reviews by what it calls Top Critics - one by Robert Abele in the LA Times titled "Holocaust drama ‘Dara of Jasenovac’ regrettably aims for settling scores" (Feb 4) and the one by Jay Weissberg for Variety titled "A Holocaust Movie With Questionable Intentions " (Jan 25, 2021).

Here's a paragraph from the Novi List article. The first part quotes directly Serbian film critic Velisavljevic in the Serbian media, and the second part is Novi List using reported speech to summarize his argument (finding the original published in Serbia shouldn't be too difficult online but for now I'm quoting how Novi List carried it in Croatia). The translation is mine.

Ceo kontekst oko filma Dara iz Jasenovca je trgovački – on je od početka jedna kombinacija. Ako prođe – odlično, temom genocida i ulogom žrtve menjamo sliku o Srbiji. A ko ne uspe, opet odlično – u pitanju je svetska zavera protiv Srba. Najbolje je ekipi trgovaca koja je ovu kombinaciju sa državom dogovorila – nije bitno kakav je proizvod, pare će da stižu“ – podijelio je u srpskom Danasu svoje mišljenje s javnošću Velisavljević upozoravajući na zamku u kojoj se nađe svatko tko se usudi objektivno procijeniti umjetnički doseg nekog domaćeg filma s tematikom srpskih stradanja jer ga se odmah doživljava kao izdajnika i plaćenika u slučaju negativne kritike.

"The whole context surrounding the film 'Dara of Jasenovac' is based on trades and trade-offs - from the get go, it served as kind of a calculated risk. If the film gets a pass [in the West] - that's great, because by exploring the topic of genocide and [putting Serbs in] the role of victims we are changing the image of Serbia. And if it doesn't, well, that's great as well, because we can say that this [bad reception] is proof of a worldwide conspiracy against the Serbs. Those who benefited the most from this whole thing is the group of merchants who had agreed to make this thing with the [Serbian] government, because regardless of the final product, the money will pour in," Velisavljević said for the Serbian newspaper Danas. He also warned about the trap presented to anyone who dares to use objective criteria to assess artistic achievement of a local film which deals with suffering of the Serbs, because giving it a negative review means they are immediately seen as a traitor and a mercenary.

— Tihomir Ivka, "Ne smiruju se kontroverze oko filma “Dara iz Jasenovca”: Sad je izbio i mali međunarodni skandal" [Controversies surrounding the film Dara of Jasenovac show no signs of abating: It now caused a small international scandal] in Novi List (February 3, 2021)

Timbouctou (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor Peacemaker67 has exposed all the issues so I support his intention to put the article in order. Also in a month we will probably have more positive and maybe negative comments or reviews and then we will be more specific in the introductory part as far as general opinion about the film is concerned. Mikola22 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@PM That still doesn't explain your claims of editorializing and unsourced in the edit summary. Anyway, we can't put this information after the studio's claim in order to refute it since it was written before the reaction by the studio. Weissberg has only responded so far to the Serbian Minister of Internal Affairs. It makes more sense to have this information when introducing Weissberg's review.

I agree though that the section needs work. Part of the problem is that it's rare for a review to get such a strong reaction and from several prominent public figures. As I suggested in the section above, a solution might be to only include the director and executive producer's response. Another is to note those who reacted (beyond the crew) but not include their opinion or commentary.

Another problem is the section currently has the aforementioned response in The Forward by Weissberg to Serbian Minister of Internal Affairs Aleksandar Vulin's accusations, yet the paragraph doesn't previously mention Vulin at all. This would all be easier if editors discussed changes to the article on the talk page before cramming new information into the section. --Griboski (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the Serbian government's involvement in the project raised here, I'm sure there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had about that, as well as for the film itself. However, it's also true that the film's topic is worthy and one that hasn't been presented to Western audiences. There is denial in Croatia about Jasenovac and the Genocide of Serbs during WWII and yet, I don't see any of these critics holding their feet to the fire to that but everything is instead blamed on Serbian nationalism. I've never heard of a Holocaust film being called nationalist propaganda because it portrayed Germans in a negative light and was therefore mean. Mind you, these same publications tend to gleefully praise Bosnian War films which stereotypically portray Serbs as villains and killers. The hypocrisy is glaring. It is then easy to see why anyone would raise an eyebrow at these sort of critiques. --Griboski (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There is very little denial of Jasenovac in mainstream Croatia, and the view is represented by marginal groups and individuals. We have a pretty detailed article on Jasenovac – istina which says in its opening sentence that its is a revisionist film. That film was not financed by the government and everyone involved in it are known far-right activists with little to no political traction. It wasn't sent to the Academy Awards, it was not screened at any festivals, and it features glaring falsehoods debunked by Croatian media.

On the other hand, in 2019 the film The Diary of Diana B. which talks about a woman who saved some 10,000 mostly Serb children from camps in Croatia during WWII won the main prize at Croatia's film industry awards, the Pula Film Festival and was even broadcast by state television HRT.

What happened in Jasenovac is not really a secret to anyone and Weissberg spends several paragraphs talking about that. I suggest you read his review when you get the time. The question here is not what happened at Jasenovac, the question is where's the line separating a Holocaust film from propaganda. There is zero doubt that this film was designed and made for the purpose of changing what is perceived in Serbia to be the modern-day narrative about Serbia and Serbs, and by doing that offer an alternative story about 75 years of history that came after it.

Were there no contemporary context to “Dara of Jasenovac,” it would be just another unmodulated Holocaust drama using violence in the same way as any number of serial killer movies. But background is inescapable, and in this case, Serbian nationalists’ use of Jasenovac as a rallying cry for Serb victimhood through the centuries turns the film into propaganda. Scholar Jovan Byford has cogently detailed how linking Serbian suffering to the Shoah has long been a ploy to garner international sympathy and legitimize territorial expansion together with racist policies, and that’s exactly what “Dara” plays into. In addition, situating the Ilić family’s home in Mirkovci is tossing red meat to the anti-Croatian brigades given that the town remains a bitter site of contention after the genocidal breakup of Yugoslavia. A Holocaust movie designed to stoke animosity against Germans today would be roundly condemned; to not recognize the same problems here is willful blindness.

— Jay Weissberg, ‘Dara of Jasenovac’ Review: A Holocaust Movie With Questionable Intentions in Variety (January 25, 2021)

Timbouctou (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Timbouctou, I've obviously read Weissberg's review since I edited the article and copied a portion of it here. I apologize if this is veering off-topic but I'm not sure that there's "very little" Holocaust/WWII genocide revisionism or denial in Croatia. This report suggests it's "widespread". The same HRT you mentioned above has invited speakers like Igor Vukić, a Jasenovac and genocide denier on its shows as seen here. Granted this is mostly relegated to the far-right, as in most countries, but there's been a sharp rise in recent years which has coincided with the presidency of Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović who has been accused of tolerating and expressing sympathies to the far-right as well as using dog whistles to appeal to that side. My point isn't that Croatia is worse in terms of this kind of stuff, as it goes on in Serbia as well in terms of denying 1990s war crimes, but that it is there.

Weissberg's review is stranger when you consider that he admits the realities of the Ustashe and Jasenovac and then goes on a rant that barely talks about any of the actual content in the film but instead muses about hidden meanings, intent and how it's terrible because depicting Croats as villains and the Catholic clergy's involvement in these atrocities is wrong. In all these types of films, especially ones that deal with the Holocaust, you'll find the director tugging at people's emotions for sympathy. But the constant relegation of everything to Milosevic and the 1990s is a tired trope. Even more disgusting is this idea that always showing any Serb suffering is inherently linked to Serbian nationalism, as if the extent of the suffering of these people is fabricated or unworthy to be examined on its own in the context of that time. Not to mention there isn't a shred of positivity, either about the acting or the visuals, as expressed in other even negative reviews. It was written with a clear axe to grind. --Griboski (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That there isn't a shred of positivity in his review isn't actually true, Weissberg says "technically “Dara” is standard well-made fare".

Whether his review is written with an axe to grind or not is best assessed in comparison with other reviews. For example, Cynthia Vinney's review, as currently presented in the article, seems to reiterate some of Weissberg's points. Therefore, we'll be either forced to conclude she has an axe to grind too, and there is consequently a ring of axe-grinding critics united in a conspiracy against the film, or that something else may just be a better explanation. At any rate, I see no point in speculating about that, it's for the readers to decide (actually, that's both the readers of these reviews and of this article). GregorB (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick update - the director seems to have announced a lawsuit against the LA Times, citing genocide denial in the film's review. He says the "Americans" (by which he probably means the distributors) will file the lawsuit. Timbouctou (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this lawsuit will materialize, if for no other reason than the fact that genocide denial is not illegal in the US, and it's not conceivably a tort either, so I see no legal basis for it. The announcement itself, though, gives Weissberg's review additional relevance, as lawsuits against critics are quite rare. GregorB (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another update, from today, Antonijević reacts to the Academy not shortlisting his film. Basically says this was to be expected "in the West" and also responds to reporters' question about government financing (RSD 144 million, roughly $1.5 million). Also seems to backtrack on the lawsuit thing. Timbouctou (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

This section contains one review by a presumably neutral third party (a reviewer at Variety), and three responses from people who either associated with the film or whose position is highly likely to be biased. It is therefore unbalanced and needs changes to be more neutral. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's tricky because it's unusual for a film director to respond to a review but his response would most certainly be due. It's worth noting that executive producer Michael Berenbaum also responded to it. Weissberg's review obviously provoked a strong reaction from several people. I think this unbalanced issue would be solved by just leaving Antonijević and/or Rosenbaum's response there, the ones who were actually part of the film's crew and leaving out the others. --Griboski (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a constructive idea. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Supposed POV Pushing

Sadko, you can not be the arbiter of what is or isn’t disputed. The version you reverted to is being disputed as well. According to this revert diff, I along with multiple other editors including an admin who initially inserted said info are accused of “persistent pov pushing” ironically same can go for those disruptively removing said content. Apparently “6” are against the well sourced content. About as many don’t have an issue with the content, myself included. Two different critics making the same deductions cannot be just coincidence. Perhaps an RfC would be best for this situation then, @Sadko: as per your latest removal. I think it would be the best way to conclude the disagreement here? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead should have a summary of the "Critical reception" section. Yet I fail to see what is the basis for this sentence in the lead: "Positive reviews praised the film for dealing with a lesser-known episode of the World War II, that gets little to no coverage from international public". That is cited by no one.

There is one overall positive review in that section, of Ray Lobo, and two overall negative reviews, of Linda Marric and Robert Abele, that talk positively about the performance of actors. So the previous wording ("Positive reviews praised the cast's performance and film production.") is more in line with the "Critical reception" section. The current one isn't in line with anything and looks more like editorializing. Tezwoo (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am merely stating my opinion; I did create the article after all, but I do not own it. Being disputed is not an opinion, it is a fact based on recent editing history. Admins are also editors, it has no extra importance when it comes to disputes, unless it's not going per Wiki rules, and guidelines, like 3RR, emailing editors asking to leave a comment in threads and so on. The fact is, max. 2 critics are claiming "anti-Catholic" moments. It's not enough, and there is a lot of controversy going on about those reviews (with the director himself answering!), and I do not want to be the judge of anybody's opinion and I am trying to be neutral, and neutral wording should be imperative for all of us. Several other editors have disputed that version, myself included, as it's not based on the majority of critics nor is it the mainstream opinion. That is the main issue here. We should agree on that and then deal with other issues. Once again, please read WP:ONUS. If you want to start an RfC consult with other editors first about the choices of such RfC, that would be healthy for the debate and eventual outcome, I'm sure that middle solution can be found. My (general) opinion is that we should wait until Spring and not make a big fuss about everything, considering that there is no consensus for any big moves, and it's still early days. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You stated one version is disputed while ignoring the version you instated is also disputed. I think you know what I meant. I mention admin as they are a neutral party. I get that you have your take and I have mine and others have theirs. I see no issue with giving more time for evaluations of the film. But if we are to include specific positive notes by one or two people and same should be for negative ones. And evolve over time from there. That was my approach. Not pov pushing but going for the middle as I thought it was. ” unless it's not going per Wiki rules, and guidelines, like 3RR, emailing editors asking to leave a comment in threads and so on.” Funny you should bring that up. I hope that is not happening on this page then. That seems oddly specific. Hope you are not accusing me of such behavior. I have noticed comments in close succession occur on these talk pages however. And there have been coincidently editors not typically involved in English Balkn Wiki topic area popping up. Even a new account just for this article. Hmmm... Honestly I can see a RfC going nowhere fast. There have been numerous close 3RR violations as well (both of us included) but we moved on from that I think. OyMosby (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead summarizing the critical reception section was added prematurely in my view with this edit, back when there was only the one negative review from Variety. This triggered a wave of edit-warring. Above I started a section regarding this, but the editors edit-warring over it decided to continuously revert each other instead of discussing it there and coming to a consensus.

The film hasn't yet been even released in Serbia. There's going to be more reviews on it. It's an evolving section. Instead of cherry-picking select issues from reviews, I think the focus should be on the overarching theme of all the reviews, i.e. what all the negative and positive ones have in common. In the case of the negative ones for example, there's a lot of criticism about the sensationalism/graphic depictions and the underlying political jabs in the Serbia-Croatia feud. From what I've seen in other film articles, summaries of the critical reception section tend to be that way and concise. --Griboski (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

I disagree with wording introduced by OyMosby. It is WP:TE the way I see it and it is not adding any new value to the content and it is also not presenting that historian's words truthfully. Вукан Ц (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My edit doesn’t insinuate it is Yoemans views. He wrote the entire article and made these statements solidifying that a number of other reviewers hold these ideas about the film. It’s not a pov push and all these passive aggressive things you accused me of. Yoemans stated that anti-Catholic elements could be relevent observations such as his example of Nuns and a Croatian Bishop with complicated history with the Ustashe put on the wall in a school next to Pavelićs portait s if they are together when he says the two did not get along. His section was not in “context” or order of mentions to begin with so I don’t see this sudden new golden rule. Also another editor stripped out the negative aspects he mention and included one big quote of him praising the “moving” production and calling this new edit version “NPOv”. This is getting ridiculous and I will get admins uninvolved to get involved and straighten this out. The edit warring is wasting time and destabilizing the article for readers. OyMosby (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that we are reading the same material. The statement about other reviews is made as an introduction to his article and opinion and should be observed as information for uninformed readers and not as his viewpoint, which your edits made it look like. The placement of sentence about other reviews is evidently weird and makes no sense when a person reads the text, and the reason for that is - it should not be placed there nor worded like that. It is his general observation/recap and after that he takes on to give additional commentary and more of his own thoughts and criticism, which seems to be quite neutral. My wording was not perfect neither, I see that now, but it was an honest attempt to rectify the prior version, which lacked WP:NPOV in my book. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My intention was not to portray Yoemans as making or agree to the statements but acknowledging that there are reviews who see things this way and this balances with his discussion of the anti-Croat claims being wrong but anti-Catholic topic having some merit as he gives an example in his article. I didn’t include as it would bloat the section with a lot of criticism which would have made things worse if concerns are what is balanced. I figured this was NPOV. I put quotes now to make it more clear that he is making these statements as context not his own views , hopefully now it is better formatted. All in all my concern was balance to begin with. I think it is fine now. Perhaps we misunderstood the other’s prerogatives here. As we now these are sensitive topics. Last thing I want is to lie or misrepresent Dr Yoemans’ views. As for who goes in the criticism section, should we separate: historians, movie critics, etc? I am still confused about the Serbian filmmaker that was removed. I’m not sure where is the line drawn than in who is notable enough for movie reviews?OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of the text you added just repeats what is already obviously reflected in the negative reviews. That reviewers have dismissed the film as Serbian nationalist propaganda, anti-Croat, anti-Catholic, etc. is noted in the section by the reviews from Weissberg, Marric, Abele and Vinney. He also doesn't say that "anti Catholic biase could be argued". He says that out of all the criticisms leveled at the film, that one is a "more reasonable" one. But his article largely serves to dispel those negative critiques. His thesis is that it's not a film with a nationalist agenda but a "serious attempt to portray fascist oppression". The current wording is sloppy and doesn't reflect the central idea of the article. The way it was added was more or less an accurate portrayal without going into needless verbiage. --Griboski (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Being it is a new paragraph by a new reviewer, and it is backround info he had in his article related to his analysis the context made sense to include it. Nowhere in the wiki article does it mention “American and British reviewers having negative views of the film”. Nowhere did I argue his overarching thesis. It says he disagrees with the anti-Croat claims. Hwoever me puting “can be argued” vs “more reasonable” are essentialy the same but I can’t copy him word for word so chose a similar wording. So I thought. Also the original inclusion of the historians analysis failed to mention that while he completely disagrees with the anti Croat claims, he is not the same when it comes to anti-Catholic themes. Could I have worded it better? I guess guven more than ine wditors taking umbrage. Seemed fair to me. I don’t think it is unbalanced as it shows his criticism and praises. My inclusion of the reviewers was to show that Yoemans acknowledged a number of reviewers felt the movie was anti this and that. Something that has been disregarded on here because first is it was only one person, then “only” two and now it seems a number of more have. Hence the significance of him acknowledging this. It was not WP TE or WP POVPUSH, it’s wha’s there. And it was missing in the article. Also all the other reviews are quite large passages so didn’t think his section was over-bloated. Again this was w appeared to me. OyMosby (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Griboski: I strongly oppose the removal of his analysis of anti-Catholic themes and saying they can be argued to an extent. Which is what he is saying. Also the backround he guves in his article. Please return that RS content as it is relevant and not overkill as it is not mentioned already in the article. Two sources covers this but here we have a person saying reviews on a wider scale than just “one or two” stated this. It doesn’t mean he agrees obviously as per his initial statement. It’s key context. I would ask that you kindly revert your edit, hopefully you see what I mean now or the reasoning. OyMosby (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

American and British reviewers having negative views of the film is reflected in the section. We have just about every major review there. On him addressing the Anti-Catholic claims, perhaps you could suggest how and what to add here. --Griboski (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Aside from us disagreeing the handling of that matter and that one or two reviews doesn’t help summarize this as well as Yoemans’ remark that generally reviews, more than the two discussing potential antiCroat/Catholic themes.... I was accused of being selective. It was selective to begin with. There is still the issue of not including his conclusion that there is merit or that there is room for argument of anti-Catholic themes. He even gives an example in his article. Why remove an obvious important piece of information? It doesn’t do justice to his written piece. All I can say for today. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Forward

@Buidhe: added an article published The Forward. I agree with Peacemaker67[3]. If a source is reliable, then the opinions of the authors and filmmakers it has published should be discussed in the article. Many editors from sr wiki have removed the opinion of Serbian filmmaker Stefan Ivančić. According to them his opinion is "not notable" or "not relevant". Both of these qualifications are determined by reliable sources, not by wikipedia's anonymous editors. The Forward article discusses the opinions of many notable authors including Jovan Byford - which I added. I think that the comment of Ivančić is notable and relevant because the editorial team of the reliable source which published their opinion determined it to be so. It should be discussed in the article like every other notable opinion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Forward is a reliable source but I would personally want this and future critical receptions to be discussed on the talk page before getting added to the article so that we can avoid future edit wars. To me and some others, Ivančić isn't notable but his response should be discussed anyways so that we can reach NPOV on the edit. I would prefer this to be discussed first before getting added back into the article. Other editors that reverted edits should participate in this discussion too. Vacant0 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. If the material is from a reliable source, there is no reason for discussion here first. The reflexive edit-warring that has been going on with the reviews needs to stop before someone gets blocked for disruptive editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The section is bloated because editors are cramming information in without considering its weight. Just because something is found in a RS, it doesn't mean everything from it has to be included. According to the article, Jovan Byford hasn't even seen the movie. "Byford, who was born in Serbia.. is cited in Weissberg’s review. Seeing his name, a producer on the film reached out to him for his comment. He demurred, having, like most who have weighed in, not seen the film himself." So while Byford describes the general usage of the memory of Jasenovac by Serbia in a historical/political context, it's undue to include his commentary on what might be in the film out of personal speculation. There's also a few reviews from random websites which I'm not sure how due they are.--Griboski (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Forward also has an interview by Ivančić, a filmmaker. His passage was taken out repeatedly as well as the intro section discussion about anti Croat/Catholic undertones of the film mentioned by more than one critic. @Peacemaker67: in fact had included that and it keeps being removed. OyMosby (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ivančić is not notable. No feature films directed, no published books, no academic works to be found. Hardworking students on film academies used to have 5 short movies, which is his filmography. Stating that he should be lumped in because, oh well, the journalists wanted him for a short statement is quite a strange notion and it's nowhere to be found in Wiki guidelines. Not to mention that it's his POV, on a movie which he did not watch. How is this even debatable?

I suggest that you all read WP:ONUS. @Peacemeker67, did you notice the obvious 3RR by 1 editor which took place in the past 24h? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko did know that 3RR is not a violation but going over the 3 revert limit? Granted even 3RR was poor taste of me and I lost track. For that I apologize to all as I tend to have a bad habit of losing track of edits. Might be why the admin did not see the “obvious”. Perhaps we should stick to arguing not finger-pointing. As for the argument of Ivančić relevance, I’ll leave it to the floor. He seemed relevant enough to be included in The Forward hence why I figured he was notable and didn’t see it as undebatable. Griboski had even moved my inclusion of his say to another part of the section which seems like someone other than myself deems them relevant. OyMosby (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day Sadko, I don't follow every edit on this page, I am busy in RL atm, and given I am involved, I am not going to block anyone here. If anyone thinks an editor has breached 3RR, they should report them at WP:AN/3RR for action by an uninvolved admin. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:@Peacemaker67: I think that inclusion of Ivančić has been discussed but some editors still regularly try to remove this particular opinion from the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Byford

Byford believes that “Dara of Jasenovac” is probably in the same vein as these efforts. (..) “The way that it’s framed in the media, it fits entirely into this view of the priority being to showcase suffering to the international audience,” Byford said. “People in Serbia know what happened, they don’t need to see the film, but it is those in the West who finally need to see the film and correct their views of the Serbs and realize that Serbs are not the bad guys of history. That they are the victims rather than the perpetrators.” (.. )For Byford, the glove, often used in displays on the camp, is indicative of a certain trope delivered directly after its use in the film. (..) “The idea of the Nazis being horrified by the Ustaše is also a complete cliché,” Byford said when I mentioned the moment. “In some sense it feeds into this whole idea of Jasenovac being worse than Auschwitz, and therefore the Serbs have actually suffered a lot more than Jews, because their suffering is not just the numbers, it’s about the brutality of the means by which they were killed.” Byford is discussing directly specific scenes from the film - his opinion is not WP:UNDUE because he hasn't seen the film. Criticism of the political narratives of a film doesn't require empirical data. I can recognize and criticize the ideas of The Birth of a Nation because I know the plot and its key scenes, I don't have to watch it in order to form a correct opinion. The editorial team of The Forward determined Jovan Byford as a reliable commentator. I think that the edit should be brought back to the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That is shallow theory which is based on no reliable sources nor is it mainstream with all experts on media/FTV. It might function for Aesthetics or the like. The comparison with The Birth of a Nation is quite dumb, because that is a major movie, a classic, which has been the subject of hundreds if not thousands of books and articles, while Dara has not even been screened in the Balkans. Also, that is not how film critics and reviewers operate. Educate yourself on the matter, pretty please. Please do not bludgeon the debate with basic theory, there are more appropriate online forums for that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@MS: You're giving his commentary the same weight as to those who have actually seen the film and are in a position to review it, which is what the critical reception is usually reserved for. The reason they reached out to him is because Weissberg mentioned him in his review and he gave a response, based on some elements he was told were in the movie. If it's to be brought back, it should be noted that he hadn't seen the film as to not give a false impression. --Griboski (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If a film repeats the political tropes of the environment which produced it, they can be recognized and criticized without seeing the film. Byford is not reviewing cinematography, he's discussing the politics of the film based on his general knowledge about the film and particular scenes. He's not putting forward a film review - critical reception is a wider concept. The Forward - a reliable source - determined his opinion to be notable and relevant. Now, the article should discuss his opinion and @Griboski: we can discuss how to do that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jovan Byford, author of Picturing Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, criticized the instrumentalization of the atrocities in the Jasenovac camp by the state of Serbia in the context of its geopolitical antagonism with the state of Croatia. The film according to Byford often invokes clichés which argue that even the Nazis were horrified by the brutality of the Ustaše in order to highlight that Jasenovac was "worse than Auschwitz, and therefore the Serbs have actually suffered a lot more than Jews". How would you change that?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Just more and more of POV presented as if it was factually correct/true and not a matter of dispute, as seen from this very article and TP. There is very little (if anything) to discuss about this. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

How is calling it POV a counter argument though? There are other editors, including Peacemaker, Timbactou and others who had their input. It’s not some open and shut case. OyMosby (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a fact that the Nazis were horrified by the brutality of the Ustaše, evidenced by reports. You can find sources which speak of that, as well as those who believe Jasenovac was worse due to its cruelty and harsher execution methods (example: 1 2) So while a cliché, Byford doesn't dispute that but says that the film tries to highlight this in order to make it seem like Serbs suffered more than Jews. All the while not having seen the film and therefore not knowing how the Jewish prisoners are portrayed in the film. Therein lies the problem with including his assessment. It's neither substantial or particularly useful.

I could see the first sentence being more useful but then you already have Weissberg and Abele's review which allude to the Serbia-Croatia political feud. So all in all, I don't find his commentary to be warranted at all. But like I said, whatever the case, prior to his opinion about the film, it should be added that he hasn't seen it. --Griboski (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)