Talk:Macedonia Timeless

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues[edit]

First of all please assume good faith in the tagging. I understand the effort that was done to create it however as it stands now it is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Some examples:

  • In the lead "it's purpose is to show the Culture and the Tradition of the Republic of Macedonia". There is a difference between a stated purpose and a real purpose. The second needs a secondary source from an outside source while the first could do with the primary source (e.g. the orgs website). And what's with the capitalised [C]ulture and [T]radition ?
  • There are thousands of tourist promotional videos produced each year by all the countries of the world. Why is this any special? If there is some special notability establishment it needs to be highlighted. I understand it was commented by the New York Times but a mention does not make it automatically important as a subject.
  • Is there a need to cover all the production process in such detail for each video? That way it reads like a promotional documentary. You know like those Making of , for holywood movies.
  • The article is severely one sided. It also includes weird POV and irrelevant statements like:
  • The watchers rate the video as excellent. The honor to watch it first had the prime minister of Macedonia...
  • As national heroes in the video are shown Alexander The Great and ...
  • On the promotion attended many famous people (weasel words)
etc.
  • And most importantly the article mixes reality with fiction. It is implied all around the text that several of the imagery correspond to reality where there are not. That is most evident by the related link to history of Macedonia suggesting a connection in the type portrayed in the film itself. The appropriate history article would be history of the Republic of Macedonia but is irrelevant anyway. Shadowmorph ^"^ 10:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the last. More examples: "Macedonians in the Ancient Period" and "The Modern Macedonians enjoying on a boat in the Ohrid Lake". That implies a connection in reality that is not true.
An example description that makes distinction of fact and fiction would be: "The video portrays a representation of life in ancient Macedonia to imply a continuity of the history of the Republic of Macedonia" and "people enjoying on a boat in the Ohrid Lake". Where is it state those are "modern" Macedonians? Why include the word modern?
In another shot where is the source that says what is mentioned in the article, that Alexander the Great is portrayed in the shot?
More clear example: "In the video are entwine the Ancient, Medieval and the Modern period of Macedonia." Are those real periods? What does Macedonia mean in that sentence? If it is means the Republic of Macedonia then there is no ancient period. There is confusion everywhere.Shadowmorph ^"^ 10:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all that is written in the article I provided references... second the official thinking of the Republic of Macedonia is that the today's ethnic Macedonians are mix from the Ancient Mac. and the Slavs... with which the Macedonian have both Ancient Macedonian genes (in majority) and Slav genes in (minority) that thinks the Genevian institute IGENEA too... saying that 30 % of the population of the Republic of Macedonia has Ancient Macedonian genes... so for that I put Alexander the Great too, but what can I do?? the video is made by that way ... IN THE VIDEO ARE SHOWN ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND PRINCE MARKO ... WHAT CAN I DO??? Macedonia gives them the status ETHNIC MACEDONIANS...what can I do if you don't like it... maybe you want to write TITO and LAZAR KOLISEVSKI??? or KIRO GLIGOROV!!?!?!!! and yeah Macedonia has official status that Ancient Period is present in Macedonian history ... I don't care if they are thousands tourist videos I like this video about my country and for that i put it on wikipedia!!!

1111tomica (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment in short:
  • The remark that this article is ad is not true since the article does not describe one particular ad, but a project. It is serious project in Macedonia and supported with refs.
  • The importance: it is important since appeared in many newspapers and TVs and again the article is referenced.
  • The details may be reduced
  • About the history: we are not here to judge what are the Macedonias, the article represents what the project says. I think it is not a big deal since the project supports it, and we represent the project as it is. Details should be avoided too. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Notability (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)): Look, yes there are references but it is only about trivial and minor things. I don't see any references that provide information about why these videos are notable for an English speaking encyclopedia. I am not saying that they aren't, not necessarily. I'm just saying that the references for that part are not highlighted. There would have to be some reliable, third-party, published sources that not only mentions the videos but discusses it or notes its significance. I bet you can find many references about the latest coca cola commercial. That doesn't mean it should have its own article in an encyclopedia. There has to be some relative importance. Even more so for a local film.
  2. POV: The article is writen from the point of view of the production company. A good article should be written from an outsider's point of view. E.g. the lead should be "the organisations stated purpose is to ...". BalkanFever's edit in the lead was in the right direction but still it makes an assumption. We can't write our own opinion of what the real purpose is. The primary source (project's website) can only tell us the stated purpose. What the company defines as its purpose. See Amnesty International article lead for an example. For another thing the controversy is not in that it contained some technical glitches. Those are called production errors, not controversy. The real controversy is that it depicts some Greece-related symbolism (including the star of Vergina). For that part it was criticized as a sign that the government in Skopje was violating the interim agreement regarding the use of symbols by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in relation to Greece. Those are the significant controversies. Also you can't have a controversy section that says "there is no controversy".
  3. Advertisment: It is not the problem that this is an article about a promotional project. The problem is that the article is written like an advertisement for that project. It includes too detailed trivia and contains many statements praising the project written like it is the author praising it. If the project was praised by specific people, they have to be attributed. Writing that the prime minister had the "honour" to see that video is just promotional wording. It would also be better if there wasn't one section for each video but sections like: "Funding and initiative", "Produced Videos" covering all three videos, "Controversy" covering the whole project.
  4. Fiction: When describing what a work of fiction depicts you have to use specific language and a specific so that it is adequately shown that fiction is what is discussed. "Macedonians in the ancient period" is not good. "The video depicts people in ancient clothing enjoying in a background resembling ancient Greece" shows better that you are describing a fictionary work and not taking it for granted. Also if you say that "a boy representing Alexander the Great" is shown that needs a primary source (e.g. the director of the video) saying that is the case. If you say that "it was interpreted as a scene showing young Alexander" you will also need to say by whom. For what is worth, the boy does not look like Alexander, not the clothing, nor his horse or his helmet is shown... Is there a source that is the case? If not, we can't just write our own interpretation. Please read WP:FICTION
Hope this helps. Regards Shadowmorph ^"^ 05:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on restructuring everything section by section. It may take a few days to complete. I know you hate deadlines ;) BalkanFever 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, its summertime - at least in this hemisphere it is ;) But please consider whether this project is notable enough for a stand-alone article[1]. A thing I forgot, there may be too many copyrighted stills for fair use. Oh, and the fiction tag was indeed relevant you see. I think you should keep my lead edit with the quote. Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look the main part in the article is not good. As first the whole project is not made by Senki film, actually just the first and temples video is made by Senki film. The second and the others are not. So please Balkan Fever rewrite the first part . I think that it should stay like it was in the previous version. 1111tomica (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tourist ad campaign. Wikipedia isn't the yellow pages. Not notable. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.86.95 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal[edit]

Tomica it may be better but still...

The article barely touches the real controversies of the videos. I am not fluent in the language of the sources to be able to help in the editing. However I happen to know that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the videos in regard to making a connection of the country to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and its symbols. Greece protested about that campaign that was officially sponsored by the government so therefore could be violating the interim agreement between those two countries about the incorrect usage of Greek symbols. (That is the same agreement in which the international designation of 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' was agreed upon)

And what is the notability of the subject matter of this article I ask again? Is not just an ad among so many other ads produced? A good book, a full featured film or a TV series might be notable. An mere ad must be exceptional for that. I am not saying it isn't but it needs to be pointed out with at least a couple more international reliable sources talking about it.

It is not helpful in that matter that the ad is foreign (as in produced in a non-native English speaking country).

Check out this featured article about an advertisment: noitulovE and also Surfer (advert) and Anticipation (advert) and notice that they are aclaimed videos. Especially the first has a legacy. (unrelated comment: you gotta love Guiness)

I am sorry but this article still needs a lot of work. Try to find some secondary sources that are discussing those videos in an established outlet, preferably an international one (not talking about CNN that only aired the videos, I am talking about actual commentary about them).

I reintroduced the POV and Importance tags. Please take a moment to understand my reasoning above before removing them again. Shadowmorph ^"^ 11:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Made some editing. Let me help with the sourcing, here's a commentary: [2] Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another third party source:[3]. The usefulness of these sources are that they can be used to cite some statements about the criticism and reception of the videos but also some of the other info that are only referenced from possibly biased sources. Third party sources are more neutral naturally. Right now all the sources are from .mk sites, sources outside the country both better establish the notability and also enhance the writing from a neutral view point. Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above also links to domestic criticism and international criticism (controversy with Greece). Shadowmorph ^"^ 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... Please add the sources 1111tomica (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you just feed back the picture with Karolina... I really love that picture!!! Please 1111tomica (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like her so much, you can put it back, I won't stop you :-) But you should know it is not proper use. I recommend some editors of this article who know something about it, to look into the thing about the videos being in Creative Commons license. Maybe there is something better to be done with the licensing of the still photos. Tomica, if you haven't, check out my reply in my talk page too. Shadowmorph ^"^ 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Macedonia Timeless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_Timeless&oldid=1224987740"