Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:58, 15 June 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideology and beliefs

Why hasn't anyone been adding anything about Nikolic's ideology? Surely one cannot ignore statements openly advocating a Greater Serbia like this . I will add it myself if no one else does. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article in its current state looks like page of war criminal and it contains only short facts and large chunk of USA/Shqiptar/Cro/other anti Serb propaganda

• Whole 'Accusations of war crimes by Nataša Kandić' part should be deleted, or, even better, associated with some other views under eg. 'Minor NGO reactions' or something alike. This part should have smaller percentage within article (this should be achieved by expanding article, not by deletion IMO)

• Also ideology and beliefs should be added.

Petkowsky (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is all well sourced. Removing content per "I don't like this" is out of question here. Misplaced Pages is not a playground for someone's propaganda. Your claim that this is a anti Serbian propaganda by Americans, Croats and (as you call Albanians) "Shqiptars" says enough about your political bias. We are not going to remove things because they are unflattering. Keep the clean version of his biography for his official website, but here we like to show all of the information even if it is not the one his fans and supporters like to see.--Avala (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your reasons.

• 1st, deletion of sourced parts isn't way to go, I can agree about that
• This article is still POW in my opinion, but instead of reapplying tags Ill try to find some sources (as soon as I catch some time) representing other views, mainly Nikolic's role in Great Serbia project and his anti EU/USA statements. Then we will have balanced article without deleting anything.

Regards, Petkowsky (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in sex

In the second sentence it changes the gender of Tomislav I assume this is simply an overlooked mistake and I have changed it. Jin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.123.75 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2012

War Crimes Accusations/Allegations/Controversies section vandalized

An anonymous IP (178.253.204.2, Orion Telekom-Belgrade, Serbia) removed this entire section w/o comment. There have been many versions of this section and I'm a bit worried about trying to restore it to the latest/greatest. Asking admins to try their hand at getting this 'fixed,' please. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many controversies

In the “Accusations of war crimes” section, refs 32 and 33 are press releases from the “Humanitarian Law Center” published in another NGO (Greek Helsinki Monitor) website. As such, there are primary sources which should not be used in articles, specially WP:BLP articles (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY). If reliable secondary sources can′t be found, then this section should be removed (also see WP:BLPCRIME).

Section “University degree” contains media speculations. These media reports attribute their findings to anonymous sources (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). Also, these reports were later partially refuted. See this article. So, this section should also be removed.--В и к и T 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, per wiki guidelines. --WhiteWriter 21:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial

Why are you censoring the reactions that leaders had to his comments? If it is under the "controversy" section someone had to have found it controversial. Furthermore do not rename the section as that title is backed by numerous reliable sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources then go and rename Srebrenica massacre article. Furthermore, section headings should be neutral and descriptive. "Srebrenica genocide denial" is not neutral heading.

The reactions are too long for the biographical article about Tomislav Nikolić. They should be as short as possible (WP:COATRACK).

Before my edits yesterday, about 40-50% of this article was controversies. If you want, we can go to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. They are not so tolerant as I am.--В и к и T 15:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense I am not discussing the title of another article. Stay on topic. There's no need for your weasel words and the previous title backed by reliable sources is perfectly adequate.

Too long? You get to arbitrarily pick and choose what you personally deem unnecessary? The criticism from the leaders, aside from perhaps the NGO, should all be included as they are all backed by reliable sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The current section title is fine, previous title was POV. I have restored some of the reactions. Please read and follow WP:BLP policy. It's one of the most important wikipedia policies.--В и к и T 15:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous title was absolutely fine, it was backed by multiple reliable sources (including the Guardian, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, and AFP), and was in line with WP:BLP. The current one is nothing but weasel words. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Producer, why you make always propaganda against Serbia?Why? You gibe us the feeling that you only search in the internet after bad articles about Serbia to put on Misplaced Pages but well articles never. Why? You think this will help to find a solution which is god for all people, which support the freedom? Which have to do with the reality? Why you do this? You think all users here are blind?--Nado158 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Make another ad hominem attack like that and you will be reported. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please. The name of the article on Misplaced Pages about that war crime is Srebrenica massacre, not "Srebrenica genocide". The term "genocide" is a legal characterization, and Misplaced Pages is not a court. The term massacre does not imply anything about legal nature of that massacre, and as such is more neutral and accurate.--В и к и T 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The name of that article is again irrelevant and to say that using the term "genocide" is limited to legal courts is absurd. The context and what the reliable sources use is what that concerns us. The entire controversy revolves specifically around the genocide aspect of it and his denial of that. Both a massacre and a genocide constitute a war crime and to claim that one is less of a "legal nature" is nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Either respond on the talkpage or do not revert. I won't go into this edit warring charade. The whole controversy revolves around the genocide aspect, Nikolic's denial of it, and numerous reliable sources use the terms in the section title. The arguments that another article dictates what's used here and that stating "genoicide" is confined to courts are absolute rubbish. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are constantly repeating your arguments. I will try one more time:

• Designation "genocide" for Srebrenica massacre is not settled fact, as noted in Opposition to the description "genocide" section of that article (not genocide denial)
• Section title "Srebrenica genocide denial" is vague, and can imply that he even denies that war crime happened in Srebrenica (when in fact, he only opposes designation "genocide" for that war crime).
• Of course it's relevant that article on that war crime on Misplaced Pages is Srebrenica massacre and not Srebrenica genocide. It means that the name massacre is more widespread and more used.
• "Numerous" reliable sources don't have to follow WP:NPOV policy, Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, must.--В и к и T 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your are constantly shifting your position and the arguments you use hold no weight:

• Again stay on topic. We are discussing this section in this article. It is indeed a "settled fact" as evidenced by two international courts and numerous scholars. There are also deniers of the holocaust and Armenian genocide, I don't think you'd argue that it proves that they aren't "settled facts" because of that.
• How you can claim "Srebrenica genocide denial" is vague when you are proposing that "Comments about Srebrenica massacre" be used is beyond me.
• Preciseness is what we are concerned with. It's been shown that the whole controversy is about genocide and his denial of it. The fact that Nikolic's statements were "genocide denial" is widely spread.
• It's apparent that some editors don't follow NPOV. You blanked the majority of the section removing any criticism and only upon it being brought up here did you return it.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is not comparable to Srebrenica massacre. I think we've reached the point where we must ask a for a third opinion, because we obviously can't agree on this. Please, refrain from using ad hominem comments like “It's apparent that some editors don't follow NPOV”. The very fact that the 50% of current article is composed from controversies says a lot about NPOV profile of the most frequent contributors.--В и к и T 10:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point, to my knowledge the Armenian genocide was not determined to be genocide by two international courts. Also, a long controversy section may just *gasp* be proof that this is a controversial individual rather than acts of bad faith of numerous users as you claim. It's been two days since you said that you'd get a third opinion and you have yet to do so. I'm growing tired of this stonewalling. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stonewalling? Really?? You have a good sense for humor but please stay on topic. Also, I did not say "I will get third opinion", a said "we must ask a for a third opinion". If you are in a hurry, you could already get it. I will leave neutrally worded note at Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Cheers.--В и к и T 10:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the controversy exists and should be noted as WP:NOTCENSORED. Readers should decide if the controversy is important or not, you cannot make this decision for them and remove information. This applies to each and every article on Misplaced Pages.--Avala (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Tomislav Nikolić and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: In light of Collect's opinion, below, about the need for cleanup of the Controversies section, I fear that any opinion on this particular subsection title is largely moot. Moreover, one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." and this opinion is one of that kind. For what it is worth, and entirely subject to Collect's recommendation, the current title, "Comments about Srebrenica massacre", is far superior to the "Srebrenica genocide denial" title because it is more accurate since the content of the section is not limited to the alleged denial.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content removal is grounds for a block

As stated in the title of this section, blanking a well sourced section because you dislike the content can get you blocked and rather easily so. Warnings on biographies of living persons are made regarding made up claims that cannot be verified in main stream sources. All of the sources used in this article are verifiable main stream sources. What you can do is find if Nikolic for an example refuted some statement, or similar.

For an example in war crimes accusation section there is information that says that he won in court that his participation could not be proven. That is OK. Removing that whole section is not OK. --Avala (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on BLP noticeboard

Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tomislav Nikolić--В и к и T 08:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is suspect. SYNTH is evident. The "controversies" section is blatantly POV. Please clean this mess up. Collect (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Even a cursory use of Google translate shows a very high likelihood that editorial commentary is being passed off as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice, and in some cases, made more "editorial" than the source appears to have been. Collect (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Serbia articles
• Mid-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles