Talk:Tribes of Europa

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Draft:Tribes of Europa into Tribes of Europa (TV series). I think that the content in the Draft:Tribes of Europa article can easily be explained in the context of Tribes of Europa (TV series), and the Tribes of Europa (TV series) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Draft:Tribes of Europa will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Chucheraya20 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, please be aware that you have just engaged in edit warring with me on this page, which is not recommended. Your stylistic choice puzzles me as it doesn't appear to conform with MOS (to my cursory knowledge of it), nor proper grammatical usage (the ampersand is generally avoided). Can you please explain why you felt the need to reassert your edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revirvlkodlaku (talk • contribs)
 * Such an edit pertains to the ampersand section of the MOS, citing that an ampersand may be used if there is little space, such as in a table, as is the case here. In line with this, and the main reason behind my actions, the edit itself was intended to cut down the amount of space being wasted by the use of line breaks, as is consistent with almost all other episode tables that I've come across. —NTD (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Tribes of Europa usage of World War II uprising and genocide memorial
Hi, I just noticed your intervention into my original edit related to German sci-fi television series Tribes of Europa usage of the Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija. While I would like to thank you for your interest in the topic and commitment to NPOV description my strong impression is that most probably unintentionally you have removed some of the central issues in the controversy related to the wider practice of devastation of antifascist monuments in Croatia, decontextualization of the memory to the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia & Yugoslav Partisan uprising (the fact that nothing of that is visible in the show despite of their usage of that location) and for-profit appropriation of such a location. Also, currently inserted last sentence notes only some potentially positive interventions in the memorial, but does not at all mention the fact that some negative show-related interventions remained in place after they left. To avoid any non-productive edit disagreements and my request for further feedback from the community I wanted to assume only your best intentions. I therefore ask you to take another look at your edit and to reinsert some aspects which I consider absolutely central to the whole controversy (you may learn more in the English language article used as a reference). I also believe that there was nothing really non-NPOV in calling the whole discussion a controversy since it was that exactly. Best regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing, it may also be justified to name the people who criticized the show as the current version with the word SOME, gives me almost some undertone that there will always be someone who will complain. One of the main critics was Bojana Videkanić from the University of Waterloo (here is her English version text) and it was also criticized in major Croatian newspaper such as Jutarnji list, Večernji list and Serb magazine Novosti (Croatia) among others.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @MirkoS18, thanks for bringing this to my attention instead of reverting, and thank you also for acknowledging my good intentions. I sympathize with your motive, but my concern is that the controversial aspects of the usage of this memorial are quite subjective, and certainly, their meaning and symbolism is purely subjective, especially with respect to World War II, genocide, etc. Due to the subjective nature of the objections to the use—or perhaps misuse, as you would have it—of this memorial for filming a production that in no way honours the purpose of this memorial, and given the fact that the article, as everything else on Wikipedia, is intended to be presented in an encyclopedic manner, I don't think this type of opinion-based analysis is appropriate. I suppose you could present the opinions as being strictly those of the reference authors, but I'm not sure how representative those would be of any actual controversy and how much relevance this therefore bears on the topic of the article. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that I think this is a storm in a teacup, whereas you seem to be suggesting it's much more than that, and ultimately, that's a subject that should be thoroughly discussed on the talk page. Let me know your thoughts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am suggesting exactly that based on the fact that it was addressed in the leading mainstream media in the country were the shooting took place, sometimes with very strong titles (for example in Večernji list reference, which is particularly interesting to me considering that the newspaper in question is generally considered to be conservative). In the interest of NPOV we should definitely present it as the opinions of those of the reference authors (not as washed down "some (marginal) people complaining (for the complaint sake)" and who knows why.), we should then present it honestly. If there was the answer it should be presented as well, as much as I can see they focused on the fact that they got permission. I certainly can understand how subjective it can be. I for example certainly have some sort of physical reaction of repulsion, but that would certainly not make for a good encyclopaedic content. On the other hand, it would hardly be a storm in a teacup, this sounding almost orientalist and given only because the location is not close enough (imagine some comparable closer places). But subjective part will remain subjective and we should not advocate for the opposing sides. People will look into this article not only to learn about the content of the series but also to learn about the social reaction to it. This controversy is one of the major reactions which should be addressed in a better way than it is right now. Until recently our readers would not learn anything about it from the corresponding Wikipedia page. You felt my initial contribution required intervention as it went to far in one direction. I think that you went to far in the opposite direction so I would really appreciate if you can try to do some more balanced re-evaluation which will ensure strong NPOV but will not try to minimize the reaction and present it without any specific details.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if we can't reach some easy agreement directly here there is of course no trouble in asking someone else to share their insight by moving it to the talk page and inviting people from the relevant projects.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @MirkoS18, fair enough, I acknowledge that if, as you say, the issue received significant media attention (the references you originally provided don't suggest this), then it would justify a more balanced account. Since you are the one who took the initiative to introduce this aspect to the article, perhaps you could try to refine the perspective presented so that it is more balanced.
 * I will add that I already suggested we discuss this on the article talk page rather than on my user page, and I wouldn't be opposed to shifting this conversation there to get additional opinions on the topic. Cheers. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@MirkoS18; @Revirvlkodlaku: initiating the transfer of discussion from the latter user's talk page. I personally agree with both users' concerns and think the intervention created more questions than it answered, except for the last bit, which tells us about positive measures that were undertaken. Which members of the public? Which journalists and bloggers? Why were they dismayed? Which problematic symbolism and why is it problematic? –Vipz (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vipz, thank you very much for moving the discussion here. While before our readers would find nothing on this controversy in the article, now they will in the best case read a hint that there was something without learning what. I do appreciate that we should be careful how we may implicate someone with such an uncomfortable controversy. I don't necessarily think that there was any bad intention on the side of the show producers, probably it was carelessness, yet they must have known that they are using some site with very traumatic past and deep symbolism. My understanding is that one of the primary criticism towards producers was the total absence of that background in the show (in addition to appropriation and profit making from such a site). My understanding is that the show presents it as some unspecific location in Germany while their futuristic narrative could have easily incorporated the actual past of the location. Of course, probably much more attention in this segment should be put on the authorities that permitted the filming at the site in the first place (wasn't there at some point even that Australian fashion company filming in Jasenovac? Unrelated but related). Deletion of the local context is therefore what should be mentioned. And what local context should be mentioned? Well, exactly that part that someone may prefer to avoid: 1) WWII in Yugoslavia, 2) Yugoslav Partisan resistance, 3) Persecution of Serbs of Croatia by quislings and 4) intentional neglected of anti-fascist heritage in recent decades. Uncomfortable for sure, but if we can talk about it we can deal with this past. The production team got itself into this mess, but it is fair to address it precisely enough since they don't deserve more consideration than the people that they unintentionally disrespected.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see any obligation on the part of the production company to contextualize the filming site, as that is all it is to them. I also don't see it as a slight to Croatian people or to the memory of those who lost their lives in the past and whom it memorializes. I understand the arguments made, but on some level, it's just another backdrop and another object. Its meaning is symbolic and as such, any interpretation of its use/misuse is subjective. It also strikes me as hypocritical that anyone who cares about the memorial and its preservation should be upset about a TV show that even casually highlights it, when what they should be upset about is its dereliction and defacement. This is why I think the issue should only receive minimal mention in this article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand your opinion but it is exactly that, your personal opinion to which you are most certainly entitled despite the fact that I would personally disagree almost in full. If your personal opinion is notable reaction to some other initially quoted notable reactions (let's imagine you may publish some reply text in some notable publication) we should mention it as well. The criticism was most certainly notable and relevant and should be presented fairly. Anyone is entitled to make their own conclusions about this criticism but we are not really entitled to use our personal evaluation of it being "hypocritical" and therefore unworthy of explicit mention. Part about what people who care about monument should do is very patronising but may have been just a bit blunt while part about whom they should criticise, well I personally may agree but they have done it from what I can see. Subjective criticism can be notable and deserve to be presented approximately.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it's just my opinion, but yours is no more than that either, and the way you had originally written the paragraph was heavily biased towards your opinion on this topic, so I tried to remove some of the subjective content. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. To avoid any implication that opinion is expressed on behalf of Wikipedia I have reinserted notable and relevant material ascribing it specifically to people who shared those opinions in the first place.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Revirvlkodlaku: After reverting my last edit you asked me to discuss this edit to avoid any edit conflict which luckily so far haven't happened. Why do you believe that no context of that type should be mentioned at all? I don't think that the link alone is enough and seems to me like you want to protect the show from any association with the location they consciously selected.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @MirkoS18 please avoid making insinuations, like suggesting that I might have a conflict of interest. If you do that, this conversation, which so far has been productive, will quickly lose all mature, impartial value.
 * I am completely neutral when it comes to both the topics of the show and the memorial. My interest is making sure the article is written well and stays on topic. The content whose removal you objected is not directly relevant to the topic of this article, that's why I don't think it belongs here. I think it is completely sufficient to add a link to the memorial, so that readers who wish to learn more about its significance can do so there, where it is relevant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing implicit in my comment, I expressed my impression very explicitly and it didn't include any conflict of interest concern. I don't understand why you are fixated at removing the relevant context which was described in a half of the first sentence (I don't understand what was excessive about it, and it is rather clear what is lost when that part is missing). Also, if we are to share feedback on this discussion, I don't really appreciate what I perceive as more than one patronising preventive 'warning' on stuff that I should avoid to do to stay mature, as if I have done any of it. I can take care of this part myself plus you thanked me for the manner in which I initiated the exchange and you just wrote that the conversation is productive so far (I don't know if I share the same impression in full considering that you let yourself do reverts while simultaneously asking me not to do the same as if I ever intended to). That much on personal issues of marginal importance. Now, about the real content. I would really appreciate your explanation of the decision to revert my contribution in which you proposed further discussion of it. Please share your objective argument. Maybe someone else as well may explain how I am wrong in impression that it is very much beneficial to include a short half sentence on the context (not detailed account which readers will indeed find in the main article if it is well written one). Is there any particular guidance I am unaware of? I apologize if my text 'sound' a bit confrontational now, I am indeed a bit annoyed about this particular experience.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @MirkoS18 your last sentence is really helpful, thank you for adding it. I can understand your frustration. I really think we need to keep this on topic, however, and avoid pointing fingers. There's nothing wrong with reverting, since the protocol on Wikipedia is Bold–Revert–Discuss. The problem is that you restored the same information that I removed, which means that after I reverted, you reverted back instead of discussing, and that's why I asked you not to do that.
 * I've also already explained my reasons for thinking that the extra detail you wish to include about the monument isn't relevant to this topic. I'm not sure how I can say it differently. The monument doesn't need to be described any more than it already is, in my opinion. It's a war monument, and some people are unhappy about it not being properly contextualized in the show. Why is further description required in an article that's not about the monument? That's why there's a link, for people who wish to understand the monument better. Anyway, if we can't get past this point, it might be a good idea to request a third opinion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now we only have the name of the monument and the information that it is a World War II monument. This seems to me like a very broad categorization which is not specific enough at all. It looks very logical to me to finish the first sentence by explaining that it is a World War II monument TO WHAT/WHOM. That would certainly make it easier to follow subsequent material (I don't think it would disrupt a reader) related only to reactions to the show which is obviously the core part of the chapter. I don't know if I am wrong about something since you seem to be very convinced that it should not be done in this way. I guess I may be stuck in my own understanding but it seems very reasonable position to me, yet it may just be hard for me to properly take everything into consideration. I would certainly appreciate further feedback from someone else. To be fair, the current version is certainly better than the first intervention you have done which in my view almost completely removed relevant information leaving everything somewhere in the mid air. Thanks for proposing precise ascription of opinions to specific people who expressed them.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @MirkoS18 thanks for approaching this topic with humility. I guess what I'm not clear about is why the monument needs to be described. It seems to me that no matter what a monument is dedicated to, there's going to be some historical sensitivity to its use/misuse, and some members of the public will object to that, and that's why I don't think it's necessary to describe it on this page.
 * I get that this is a pet topic for you, but that's where I think we may be dealing with a hint of bias: your goal is to provide increased prominence to topics relating to Croatia, that's why this is important to you. To most readers, however, it's much less of an important subject, at least as relates to this particular page. I hope you understand what I mean. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)