Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. The information gathering period is over. Please see the main RfC page for more info.
Welcome!

On this page you may find submitted information bearing on allegations of questionable content of Croatian Wikipedia articles, or the process of editing them. This page's fork maintained at Croatian Wikipedia contains much of the same information, and may still be open for new submissions.

Please visit the conduct page or its fork if you are looking for information related to conduct of particular users toward others on Croatian Wikipedia.

The process of gathering information and commenting on it are closed, along with the discussion of the process on the talk page.

Dobro došli!

Na ovoj stranici nalaze se podaci vezane uz moguće upitne sadržaje članaka hrvatske Wikipedije, te uz postupak njihova uređivanja. Ogranak ove stranice koji održava hrvatska Wikipedija također sadrži mnoge od ovih podataka, i moguće je da još prima nove podneske.

Molimo posjetite stranicu o postupanju ili njezin ogranak ako tražite podatke vezane uz postupanje pojedinih suradnika prema ostalima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji.

Postupak prikupljanja podataka i komentiranja su završeni, kao i rasprava o postupku na stranici za razgovor.

Contents

Instructions - Upute[edit]

General instructions - Opće upute
Languages

These pages are bilingual, in English and Croatian. If you can, please enter your submissions and comments in English, so they are comprehensible to the wider Wikimedia community. However, if you are not sufficiently fluent in English, feel free to use Croatian or any Wikipedia language closely related to Croatian. Please use Latin script exclusively.

Identity

You are free to contribute anonymously. Please sign and date your contributions with your user name or IP address by using four tildes: ~~~~.

Sorted submissions

Every submission consists of

  1. a label indicating what is being documented (content, reversion, edit limitation, talk page comment);
  2. at least one piece of explicit supporting information (a link to a page version, a version diff, or a article patrol log);
  3. a brief description;
  4. user or IP address signature and date, as above.

Please feel free to use one of the outlines or existing submissions as a guide, simplifying it or elaborating it to fit your needs.

Please sort your submissions by article title, and add them to the appropriate subsections under "Sorted submissions". If a subsection with the appropriate article title does not exist, please feel free to create it.

Comments

Comments follow each submission in the "Sorted submissions" section.

The purpose of the comments is to gather a full range of opinions on the information submitted. It is a survey, not a vote. An example of a similar survey on English Wikipedia can be found here.

Feel free to comment on any submission, or to respond directly to an existing comment by indenting your reply just below it. Please keep in mind that brief, on-topic comments are the most informative.

Unsorted submissions

If you do not have explicit information about your submission, but have its description or a link to a media report you believe is relevant, please add it to the "Unsorted submissions" section. This section serves as a record of reports that could potentially lead to identifying specific instances of questionable content.

Request

The only page edits we will delete are outright vandalism. However, your contributions will be the most constructive if you hold to the basic guidelines of Wikipedia: assume good faith, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Many thanks!

Jezici

Ove stranice su dvojezične, na engleskom i hrvatskom. Ako možete, molimo Vas unosite podneske i komentare na engleskome, kako bi ih razumijela šira zajedica Wikimedije. Međutim, ako ne vladate engleskim jezikom u dovoljnoj mjeri, slobodno se koristite hrvatskim ili bilo kojim Wikipedijinim jezikom blisko srodnim hrvatskome. Molimo Vas koristite isključivo latinično pismo.

Identitet

Slobodno doprinosite ovoj stranici anonimno. Molimo potpišite Vaše doprinose suradničkim imenom ili IP adresom, te datumom, pomoću četiri tilde: ~~~~.

Razvrstani podnesci

Svaki podnesak treba sadržavati

  1. oznaku koja opisuje što se dokumentira (sadržaj, vraćanje inačice, ograničenje uređivanja, komentar na stranici za razgovor);
  2. barem jedan konkretan popratni podatak (poveznica na inačicu stranice, na razliku između inačica, ili na evidenciju provjeravanja članaka);
  3. kratak opis;
  4. potpis suradnika ili IP adrese, s datumom, vidi gore.

Slobodno iskoristite skice ili postojeće podneske kao smjernice, te ih pojednostavite ili razradite po potrebi.

Molimo razvrstajte podneske po naslovima članaka, te ih dodajte u odgovarajuće pododjeljke pod "Razvrstani podnesci". Ako pododjeljak s odgovarajućim naslovom članka ne postoji, slobodno ga započnite.

Komentari

Komentari slijede svaki podnesak u odjeljku "Razvrstani podnesci".

Svrha komentara je sakupljanje punog raspona mišljenja o podnesenim podacima. Ona je anketa, a ne glasovanje. Primjer slične ankete na engleskoj Wikipediji možete naći ovdje.

Slobodno komentirajte svaki podnesak, ili izravno odgovorite na postojeći komentar tako da umetnete odgovor odmah ispod njega. Molimo imajte na umu da su sažeti komentari koji se drže teme najinformativniji.

Nerazvrstani podnesci

Ako nemate konkretne podatke o Vašem podnesku, ali imate njegov opis ili poveznicu na napis u medijima koji smatrate bitnim, molim Vas dodajte ga u odjeljak "Nerazvrstani podnesci". Taj odjeljak služi kao spremište napisa koji bi mogli pomoći u identificiranju konkretnih primjera upitnih sadržaja.

Molba

S ovih stranica brisat ćemo samo očigledan vandalizam. Međutim, Vaši doprinosi biti će najkonstruktivniji ako se držite osnovnih smjernica Wikipedije: pretpostavite dobru namjeru, Wikipedija nije govornica, Wikipedija nije bojište. Hvala lijepa!

Information about content - Podaci o sadržaju
The purpose of information about content is to assist in evaluating the allegations that the articles on Croatian Wikipedia have been edited in a systematically biased manner in the period leading up to the recent media coverage. Such information may include:
  • Evidence of potentially biased article content;
  • Evidence that allegedly biased content was repeatedly checked and approved;
  • Evidence that attempts to improve such content were prevented: reverted without proper discussion, valid arguments for the edit discounted, or edit access limited;
  • Potentially one-sided statements on talk pages that could have contributed to the bias of article content.

If article content was influenced by potentially unfair or abusive conduct, please also submit it to the conduct page.

Whenever possible, please support your claims about article content with appropriate verifiable sources.

Svrha podataka o sadržaju jest da služe pri ocjeni navoda da su članci hrvatske Wikipedije uređivani na sistematski pristran način do nedavnih napisa u medijima. Takvi podaci npr. uključuju
  • Evidenciju potencijalno pristranih sadržaja članaka;
  • Evidenciju da je navodno pristran sadržaj više puta provjeren i odobren;
  • Evidenciju da su pokušaji da se takav sadržaj popravi spriječeni: vraćeni bez prikladne rasprave, valjani argumenti za uređivanje odbijeni, odnosno pristup uređivanju članka ograničen;
  • Potencijalne jednostrane izjave na stranicama za razgovor koje su doprinijele pristranosti sadržaja članka.

Ako su na sadržaj članka utjecali mogući nepravedni ili napadački postupci, molimo to navedite također i na stranici o postupanju.

Kad god možete, molimo popratite navode o sadržaju članaka prikladnim provjerljivim izvorima.

Submission outlines - Skice podnesaka[edit]

Please feel free to simplify or elaborate these outlines to fit your needs. Slobodno pojednostavite ili razradite ove skice prema potrebi.
Content - Sadržaj
Info: Article title - Naziv članka; POV part - Dio koji je pristran; Period online - Razdoblje od-do
Patrol log - Evidencija provjeravanja; Who entered the text - Tko je unio tekst
Description: (more information about the content, such as why it is POV, and whether anyone tried to change it - dodatni podaci o sadržaju, npr. zašto je pristran i je li ga netko pokušao promijeniti)
Edit reversion - Poništavanje uređivanja
Info: Article title - Naziv članka; Who edited - Tko je unio promjenu; Who reverted the edit - Tko je poništio promjenu; Date - Datum
Diff showing the reversion - Razlika između inačica koja pokazuje poništavanje; Reason for reversion - Razlog vraćanja inačice
Description: (more information about the reversion, such as why it is POV, what happened in the discussion, and what followed afterward - dodatni podaci o poništavanju uređivanja, npr. zašto je pristrano, što se dogodilo u raspravi, te što je uslijedilo)
Edit limitation - Ograničenje uređivanja
Info: Article title - Naziv članka; Sysop name - Ime admina; Date - Datum
Diff showing edit limitation - Razlika između inačica koja pokazuje ograničenje uređivanja; Reason for limitation - razlog ograničenja
Description: (more information about the edit limitation, such as why it is POV, and what followed afterward - dodatni podaci o ograničenju uređivanja, npr. zašto je pristrano i što je uslijedilo)
Talk page comment - Komentar na stranici za raspravu
Info: Article title - Naziv članka; User name - Ime suradnika; Date - Datum
Comment record (diff or link) - Komentar (razlika između inačica ili poveznica)
Description: (more information about the comment, such as why it is POV, and what followed afterward - dodatni podaci o komentaru, npr. zašto je pristran i što je uslijedilo)

Sorted submissions - Razvrstani podnesci[edit]

This section contains claims of questionable content or editing, supported by explicit information, and classified by article title. Ovaj odjeljak sadrži navode o upitnom sadržaju ili uređivanju, potkrijepljene konkretnim podacima, te razvrstane po nazivu članka.

Istospolni brak (Same-sex marriage)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Istospolni brak, article title changed to "Brak i istospolnost" ("Marriage and homosexuality") on 2013-05-29
diff by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales
Description: changed the title of the article into "Marriage and homosexuality", as in that gay marriage only has an appearance of marriage, which made Croatian Wikipedia the only Wikipedia out of some 40 different languages with that aritifical title that disputes its existence. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Istospolni brak, naziv članka je promijenjen u "Brak i istospolnost" 29. svibnja 2013.
izmjenu napravio Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales
Opis: naziv članka je promijenjen u "Brak i istospolnost", kao da gay brak ima samo privid braka, što je hrvatsku Wikipediju učinilo jedinom Wikipedijom od 40-ak različitih jezičnih verzija koja osporava njegovo postojanje.

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Partially support First of all, the title is odd: AFAIK, in the Croatian language there is no such word as "istospolnost", and it is unclear what is it supposed to mean (as already noted in the talk page[1]). Literally translated to English, this could mean "same-sexness", or "the quality of being of the same sex". Go figure. Still, according to SpeedyGonsales, "[...] even a strange name like that is, in the absence of a better one, preferable to the current biased condition".[2] This was before the article was moved, so - if I understand correctly - SG thought that "Same-sex marriage" is a biased title. In the same edit, SG says that's because by law, same-sex marriages in Croatia do not exist, which is more or less the reason why the article shouldn't be named like that (?!?!). Pardon my French, but this is blatantly biased homophobic BS. Giving partial support because the move was made after a talk page discussion (no opinion on whether the move accurately reflects its outcome or not, though). GregorB (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Reason for changing title was: "the term does not exist in the Family Law"; of course that is not problem for articles like "creationism" that exists in hr.wiki and it doesnt exist in croatian laws and education.--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disagree Not only "istospolnost" exists in Croatian language, but there is a croatian word for homosexual: "istospolnik".[1] Istospolnost is homosexuality. If you understand what is homosexuality, than you understand what is istospolnost. --Zekoslavac (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    Can you tell me in witch dictionary you can find word "istospolnost" i "istospolac". I can only find "homoseksualac"[3] Istospolnost exist only in Slovenian.[4] --DobarSkroz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    Surely you don't believe YouTube is to be treated as a lexicographic source. The point is something else entirely, though: is there a valid reason for the article not to be named Istospolni brak ("Same-sex marriage")? It isn't. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    Youtube link goes on speech of HDZ politician who had homophobic statements in the last local elections [5]. So it seems that "istospolnik" except as newspeak word can be seen as hate speech to? --DobarSkroz (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mihailo (mitropolit) (Miraš Dedeić)[edit]

Content
Info: Mihailo (mitropolit) (birth was Miraš Dedeić , the second head, rebuilt the Montenegrin Orthodox Church)
Description: User Markus cg formerly known as Markus cg1 insert false and incorrect information.
This article celebrates his head sect called the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari / Comments:

  • Comment Comment Kolega2357, could you please give more information + sources why this is questionable, and if possible provide a version diff? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can say that I don't know anything about the subject, and this info isn't enough to form an opinion one way or another. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral I've read the text, but could not identify clearly what's exactly problematic about it. I am not an expert on Mihailo mitropolit, so a little more clarification should have been given here.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment
Croatian:

Zamijenio je prvog poglavara obnovljene Crnogorske pravoslavne Crkve, vikarnog episkopa Antonija Abramovića koji je preminuo 1996.

English:

He replaced the first head of the rebuild Montenegrin Orthodox Church, vicar Bishop Antonije Abramović, who died in 1996.

Vicar Bishop can not be head of the Church and it has not had authority for at least 5 years in his diocese.
Croatian:

Bio je potom pravoslavni paroh Carigradske patrijaršije u Rimu gdje je kasnije i proizveden u arhimandrita.

English:

He was then priest of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Rome, where he later produced the Archimandrite.

Arhimandrit ne može da bude jer on pre svog raščinjenja nije bio monaško lice.
Archimandrite can not be because he did not defrock him before his face was a monk.
Miraš Dedeić 1990s praised Milosević politics, and then was Great Serbian later became Great Montenegrin. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Mile Budak (Mile Budak)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Mile Budak, entire section "Političar", text survived with minor changes from article creation in 2004 to 2013-09-20
patrol log, originally entered by Suradnik:Mir Harven;
Description: Right-wing POV op-ed apology for a co-author of NDH racial laws[6][7] and an outspoken advocate of Serb genocide.[8] The section was removed only after the first report about it appeared on an older version of this page, and after the section screenshot appeared on a Facebook page.
Multiple attempts to remove or tag as POV reversed. For example this, a relatively modest attempt to make the section more neutral, with an attempt to discuss it at the talk page after it was reversed twice without explanation, was met by freezing the article and a heavy-handed response by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales. Quotes: "removing content [which was unsourced in the first place] without explaining why is vandalism," "edit comments are not a venue for user communication." The argument boils down to claiming that whatever is already in place and cannot be proven false -- which is true by default for arbitrary statements of opinion that largely comprise this section -- remains there forever. Miranche (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Mile Budak, cijeli odlomak "Političar", tekst je preživio samo sa manjim izmjenama od stvaranja članka 2004. do 20. rujna 2013.
patrol log, kojeg je izvorno postavio Suradnik:Mir Harven;
Opis: desničarsko osobno mišljenje i apologetski natpisi jednog od autora rasnih zakona u NDH[9][10] i otvorenog zagovaratelja srpskog genocida.[11] Odlomak je uklonjen tek nakon pojavljivanja prvog izvještaja na starijoj inačici ove stranice, te nakon što se screenshot odlomka pojavio na jednoj Facebook stranici.
Razni pokušaji da se taj odlomak ukloni ili označi kao POV su poništeni. Primjerice ovdje, relativno skroman pokušaj da se odlomak učini neutralnijim, sa pokušajem rasprave na stranici za razgovor nakon što je izmjena poništena dva piuta bez objašnjenja, što je dovelo do zamrzavanja članka i krutog odgovora Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa. Citat: "uklanjanje sadržaja [koji nije ni imao izvore] bez objašnjenja je vandalizam," "komentari u izmjenama nisu put za komunikaciju suradnika." Argument se svodi na to da se tvrdi da što god je pisalo na početku ne može biti potvrđeno kao netočno -- što je istina po defaultu za nasumične izjave mišljenja koje uvelike tvore ovaj odlomak -- te ostaje u članku zauvijek. Miranche (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Misapplication of policy - IP edit was definitely not vandalism, and the revert effectively protected the outrageously biased and non-encyclopedic section. Note IP user merely attempted to repair the section (which was IMO virtually impossible to repair), while the latest edit kills it entirely.[12] Yet, the first one was supposedly "vandalism", but the last one stays? I'd like to hear an explanation for that. Also note article was semi-protected for extended periods due to "frequent vandalizing", although in some cases in wasn't vandalizing at all, and whether it was "frequent" or not is also debatable. In effect, this semi-protection made POV problems and other irregularities harder to fix.GregorB (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree Comment from a non-Croation-speaking Wikipedian -- It looks like Budak also had serious issues with Jews. [13][14] Yet, the Croatian Wikipedia article on Budak contained the following [per Google Translate]:If you look at these arguments is quite easy to see that Budak opponents demonize his degree of guilt with weak arguments.[15]. Additionally, the contrast with the English Wikipedia article on Budak[16] is remarkable. English Wikipedia states that Budak asked Hitler for help on March 31, 1941 (before the April 6 Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia), while the Croatian one did not mention this, and instead implied that the racial laws were [per Google Translate] "imposed by Nazi Bigwigs [with Budakovo opposition]." William Jockusch (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Article argues that the racial laws were imposed to Budak with his opposition. He is declared irrelevant and unimportant, and they believe that only participation in the government of the NDH is not a criterion for judgment. Quote from Budak speech: "The basis of the Ustasha movement is religion. For minorities such as Serbs, Jews and Gypsies we have three million bullets.'ll Kill part of the Serbs. One of the rest will be deported, and the second part of the force to accept the Roman Catholic faith. This will be a way to resolve Croatia of Serbs and in the next 10 years it will be 100% Catholic. " Mile Budak a rally in Gospic. Published in the "Narodne novine" (Official newspaper) 7th srpnja 1941st--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Potemkinova sela (Potemkin village)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Potemkinova sela, edit on 2013-06-10, reverted 2013-09-09
Description: Suradnik:Rakovicazauvijek wrote following text: Today, the phrase is often used [to describe] appearances that attempt to make false impression on existence of something that doesn't exist at all. In recent Croatian history, an example from 2010s was when Croatian medias, especially television, made reports from imposed [gay] parades and protest rallies of militant activists who allegedly fight for gay rights. [News media] portray them so it appears that they occupy whole TV screen, while in reality media avoid taking shots from bird perspective, 'cause that perspective would show that people (including homosexuals) boycotted parades, politicians and media who wholeheartedly promoted those parades, and that those parades were attend by 10-20 professional activists led by politicians of unpopular regime and with great police protection.
His edits were marked as patrolled by sysop Kubura. The passage were removed from the article when this ongoing controversy begun by an anonymous user. If this is not batshit crazy, I don't know what is. -- Bojan  Talk  15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Potemkinova sela, izmjena 10. lipnja 2013., poništena 9. rujna 2013.
Opis: Suradnik:Rakovicazauvijek je napisao sljedeće u članku: Danas se ta fraza često koristi za one pojave kojima se pokušava stvariti lažni utisak o postojanju nečega što uopće ne postoji. U novijoj hrvatskoj povijesti to je bilo 2010-ih kad su hrvatski mediji, posebno televizijski, izvješćivali s nametnutih parada i prosvjednih skupova militantnih aktivista koji se tobože zalažu za prava homoseksualaca. Slikom prikazuju kao da ih je pun ekran, a u stvarnosti izbjegavaju prikazati slikom to s visine, jer takva bi slika pokazala da je narod (uključujući i homoseksualne osobe) bojkotirao paradu, političare i medije koji su zdušno promicali te parade, i da se u paradama i prosvjedima i radi o 10-20 profesionalnih aktivista predvođenih političarima nenarodnog režima.
Njegovu izmjenu je provjerio i potvrdio administrator Kubura. Odlomak je uklonjen nakon izbijanja kontroverzi koju je započeo anonimni suradnik. Ako ovo nije ludost, ne znam što je. -- Bojan  Talk  15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree This is one of the most blatant en:WP:COATRACK violations I have ever seen, and a display of extremely bad judgment by Kubura, which raises serious questions about him being fit to be an administrator. GregorB (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree Homophobic stupidity --DobarSkroz (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree I laughed my socks off when I read this. You cannot even read an ordinary article without finding some off-topic anti-LGBT content in it anymore.--Seiya (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree A simple, less controversial, example would be far more appropriate.William Jockusch (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rodne studije (Gender studies)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Rodne studije, article titled "Rodna ideologija" ("Gender ideology") from creation to 2013-09-20
title change diff, originally entered by anonymous
Description: en:Gender studies - "translated" into "Gender ideology" on Croatian Wikipedia.
Informacije: Rodne studije, naziv članka je preimenovan u "Rodna ideologija"
promjena naziva članka, kojeg je izvorno stvorio anonimni suradnik
Opis: Rodne studije su "prevedene" kao "rodna ideologija" na hrvatskoj Wikipediji.
Komentar na stranici raspravu - Talk page comment
Info: Rodna ideologija ("Gender ideology"), comment by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales on 2013-06-04
Description: He locked and refused that the article can be renamed in accordance with its official name. His comment: "That's an ideology, how good or bad, that's still not known today, but that it is aggressive, i.e. destructive towards the social categories of today - that is a fact." [17]. This means that out of 20 different language Wikipedias, the Croatian one is the only one with that artificial title that disputes its existence. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Rodna ideologija komentar Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa 4. lipnja 2013.
Opis: Zaključao je članak i odbio se nazove u skladu sa svojim službenim imenom. Njegov komentar: "To je ideologija, koliko je dobra ili loša danas još nije poznato, ali da agresivno odnosno destruktivno nastupa prema danas prevladavajućim društvenim kategorijama - to je činjenica." [18]. To znači da od 20 jezičnih verzija Wikipedije, hrvatska je jedina sa takvim umjetnim nazivom koji osporava njegovo pravo ime. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

Split Pride (Split Pride)[edit]

Edit reversion - Poništavanje uređivanja
Info: Split Pride, edited by Suradnik:109.245.73.35, reverted by Suradnik:Zeljko on 2013-08-12
diff; no reason given, editor's comments deleted
Description: Deleted references about prominent religious figures calling for and justifying violence against LGBT persons; references to reputable sources in the diff. Blatant POV exclusion of encyclopedic content harmful to the en:Catholic Church Miranche (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Neutral Neutral While it is wrong to delete these references, it is too weak of an argument to support calling the whole article controversial just because of that. Numerous religious figures called for death and lynch of prominant celebrities throughout history, but is it really relevant to not mention these wackos in every article? --Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    The two sources described in the comments specifically referred to the 2011 event, and they didn't just call for death & lynch of prominent celebrities. Rebić's statement, especially, put actual violence against Split Pride marchers on the same level as the Pride event itself. In other words, he claimed people "rooted in Christian culture" were as hurt by a non-violent event, which they didn't have to pay any attention to, as the Pride participants were by the stones thrown at them. This kind of relativization of violence is an integral part of reactions to LGBT events, bearing on organization, security, and public impact of such events, and hence are IMO notable in encyclopedic coverage of them. Conversely, withholding this info is POV.
    The current version of the article has the link to the Rebić statement & notes it was "controversial". Not great, but much better than not saying anything. Miranche (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Those references have many missinterpretations inside, and also text on Wikipedia written by user is missinterpretation of events that took place in Split. While I don't mind if someone writes about religious figures calling for violence, first of all they didn't call for violence. They didn't justify violence. They simply pointed out that this violence has its cause, its reason, and organizers of Split Pride knew it would happen. Split Pride was organized just one day before catholic holiday, and it was on the same route as catholic procession? No to mention it was first gay pride in Split. The one in Zagreb wasn't as provocative as before because people of Zagreb learned to ignore them. Perhaps we should write some lines and provide references about that too? Than we can be all called fascist (over and over again) --Zekoslavac (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    The direct cause of the violence were individuals who threw rocks. Claiming the cause of the violence is anything but the personal decision of those throwing the rocks -- so, shifting the blame from the people throwing rocks to those at whom the rocks are thrown -- constitutes justifying the violence. Thank you for providing extra insight into the thought process involved in doing so. Miranche (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral The edit was partly biased (ekstremni stupanj nasilja prema LGBT osobama koje je promovirala Crkva u Hrvata), and partly read too much into the sources (Ante Mateljan did not really call for lynching). However, Rebić's statement is rather damning and could legitimately be included, but reverting editors simply discarded the entire addition. This is chiefly a failure in communication. GregorB (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    Agree that the edit was biased, but there was a way to reword it to include the info in the article. My point was that the sources provided notable information significant to understanding the context surrounding the 2011 event, and that removing those sources rather than incorporating them was a POV action; see also my reply to Seiya above. Miranche (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

U ime obitelji (In the Name of the Family)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: U ime obitelji ("In the Name of the Family", an anti-LGBT organization that wants to restrict marriage only to a man and a woman)
edit by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales on 2013-05-29
Description: he changed a sentence that says "Croatia would join numerous other countries..." into "Croatia would join countries of the Western civilization (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia...) ...that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman by constitution" --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: U ime obitelji, anti-LGBT organizacija koja želi ograničiti brak samo na ženu i muškarca
izmjena Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa 29. svibnja 2013.
Opis: promijenio je rečenicu koja je išla "Hrvatska bi se pridružila brojnim drugim državama ..." u "Hrvatska bi se pridružila državama zapadne civilizacije (Poljska, Mađarska, Bugarska, Latvija, Litva...) ...koje su ustavnom odredbom pravno definirale brak kao zajednicu žene i muškarca " --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Seiyo, izjava " U ime obitelji, anti-LGBT organizacija koja želi ograničiti brak samo na ženu i muškarca" napadački je argument. To je tvoj osobni stav. Odakle ti uopće pomisao da je to organizacija usmjerena protiv pripadnika LGBTIQ zajednice? Kubura (razgovor) 23:48, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Citat: "...danas je na zagrebačkoj Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti organiziralo 40-minutnu akciju "Tomorrow belongs to me (1933)" kao odgovor na anti-LGBT inicijativu "U ime obitelji", koja ima za cilj promjenu Ustava. Ona bi elitizirala određenu demografsku skupinu ljudi, dok bi zanijekala prava ostalih.".--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Index.hr je tu inicijativu nazvao "anti-LGBT", a jedan televizijski voditelj u središnjem Dnevniku jedne TV-kuće rekao "da se potpisnici zahtjeva za raspisivanjem referenduma zalažu za 'homofobnu izmjenu Ustava'."...teško uvrijedio preko pola milijuna građana predbacujući im homofobnost, tražimo ispriku .... To o "anti-LGBT" i "homofobnosti", to je POV autora tih tekstova.
U pismu toj TV-kući (od 27. svibnja 2013.), Građanska inicijativa 'U ime obitelji' navela je "Sve ovo ima poseban značaj u kontekstu onoga čemu je javnost u posljednja dva tjedna mogla svjedočiti. Fizičkim napadima na naše volontere te pozivima na nasilje objavljivanim na društvenim mrežama[19] (uz pripisivanje istih 'homofobnih“' ciljeva građanskoj inicijativi), sada se uvredama na račun građana u svojoj središnjoj informativnoj emisiji otvoreno pridružila i (ime TV-kuće).
Obrazac ponašanja već viđen.
Inicijativu U ime obitelji su potpisali predstavnici praktično SVIH vjerskih zajednica [20], a inicijativa nije ograničena samo na vjernike. Potpisnici su naglasili "svatko ima pravo na svoju spolnu orijentaciju" te time uopće nije usmjerena protiv zajednice LGBTIQ.[21]
Eto, toliko. Kubura (razgovor) 07:26, 16. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Speedy need to learn cardinal directions. Same sex marriage map Europe [22]--DobarSkroz (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Same sex marriage map world[23]

that wants to restrict marriage

they want to restrict naming marriage as it is in current law--Anto (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree "Countries of the Western civilization" is en:WP:PEACOCK and POV. ("Numerous" is also peacocky, POV and makes no sense as "four or so countries out of 200" can't be described as "numerous".) "Western civilization" is also disingenuous, because AFAIK all countries that have legalized same-sex marriage also belong to the Western civilization. This is a minor, but telling irregularity: judging by the examples we've seen, whenever SG acts contrary to established policies, it is an action compatible with a (far) right wing outlook. GregorB (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadržaj i izmjene - Content & reversion
Info: Suradnik:Chvrka added biased, untrue, unreferenced (pseudo)critique, and prevented removing bias (Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales also did the latter).
Description: Suradnik:Chvrka added "... Initiative is therefor homophobic, according to LGBT activists, according to the common usage of that label in Croatia - for putting down those whose attitudes are not in accordance with some of the LGBT activist requests, because they think that these requests are damaging for other parts of society." (in Croatian: "Inicijativa je zato homofobna, prema mišljenju LGBT aktivista i prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čiji stavovi nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista jer drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva."). (diff). There have been several attempts to remove this bias, but they were quickly undone, first by admin Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales after only 17 minutes (diff), secondly by editor who introduced that bias Suradnik:Chvrka (diff), and later by another person.
After the controversy became public, I requested on the talk page for the bias to be removed, because it is unsubstantiated, untrue, and not in accordance to NPOV. Suradnik:Vodomar responded with straw man argument, and Suradnik:Chvrka instead of removing bias, camouflaged it into a reference (diff)! Again I complained on the talk page, and nobody reacted, so I corrected the issue and for now nobody has undone it. --Marekich (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Suradnik:Chvrka je dodao pristrane, netočne i nereferencirane (pseudo)kritične informacije, te spriječio uklanjanje pristranosti (Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales je također činio isto).
Description: Suradnik:Chvrka je dodao "Inicijativa je zato homofobna, prema mišljenju LGBT aktivista i prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čiji stavovi nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista jer drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva."). (diff). Bilo je pokušaja uklanjanja ove pristranosti, ali su ubrzo poništene, prvo od administratora Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa nakon samo 17 minuta (razlika), a potom od suradnika koji je prvi dodao tu nepristranost, Suradnik:Chvrka (razlikr), a potom i od drugih osoba.
Nakon izbijanja kontroverze, zahtijevao sam na stranici za razgovor da se pristranost ukloni, jer je ničim podržana, neistinita i u neskladu sa pravilima o neutralnoj točki gledišta. Suradnik:Vodomar je odgovorio slamnatim argumentom, a Suradnik:Chvrka, umjesto da ukloni nepristranost, ju je pak sakrio u izvor (razlika)! Opet sam prigovorio na stranici na razgovor, a nitko nije reagirao, pa sam promijenio sadržaj i za sada ga nitko nije poništio. --Marekich (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

Zvonko Bušić (Zvonko Bušić)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Zvonko Bušić (was the Croatian political activist and fighter against Greater Serbian hegemony)
https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87&diff=3266738&oldid=3081988
Description: User Heraklit has insert the falsification of these biased information. On Croatian Wikipedia is shown the terrorists as a national hero. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Zvonko Bušić (hrvatski politički aktivist i borac protiv velikosrpske hegemonije)
https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87&diff=3266738&oldid=3081988
Opis: User Heraklit je ubacio falsifikate u ovoj pristranoj informaciji. Na hrvatskoj Wikipediji terorist je prikazan kao nacionalni heroj. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Too much POV. The whole article is practically an anthem to him.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's hard to call airplane hijacker - political activist. So is pretty hard to call this text just biased.--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strongly oppose Even judge in USA concluded that Zvonko Bušić was NOT a terrorist. This accusation is serious lack of knowledge about Zvonko Bušić (possibly result of reading too many left-wing articles written by ex-communist journalists and activists). Not only he is considered a hero among majority of people in Croatia, but on his funeral there was so many people, polititians from major political parties in Croatia, many famous persons, many soldiers, and check the location of his grave: croatian soldiers all around him! Also, when he released passangers who wanted to get out of that plane, he had support of the rest. People even photographed together with him - and they were hostages! They were asking him how can they help! Also those that were released spread fliers about situation in Croatia and Yugoslavia! And so on, and so on... So your opinion simply doesn't stadn a chance against reality. To me it is unbelievable that someone can write something like that despite all the evidence, witnesses, verdict, statements, documentaries etc. Full suport to administrators. --Zekoslavac (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Someone planting bombs and kidnapping airplanes is a terrorist. He was also unbalanced, and has recently committed suicide by swallowing a hand grenade. On his funeral you could see all of the prominent extreme-right supporters. hrwiki's article is biased starting from the first sentence in the lede (borac protiv velikosrpske hegemonije. "fighter against the Greater Serbian hegemony"). Yugoslavia was a socialist country, there was no "Greater Serbian hegemony" - that's one of the mythologems fabricated by Croatian nationalists, and with which this article abounds from the beginning to the end. Many of the citations are invalid, being self-published obscure web pages (Hrvati AMAC, imotskiportal etc.) - but that's not unsurprising because those are the only places you could find support for such statements. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Quote from an article after the suicide of Zvonko Busic's about "Greater Serbia hegemony":
"At the time of this, for one patriot for other terrorists (why the media so ultimately separate those two things?) warned on a difficult position of Croatia in Yugoslavia, and it was in 1976. Socialist Republic of Croatia had 80,000 unemployed (today is 340,000), the largest croatian national company INA was preparing to give two republican and one federal prime minister (Peter Fleković, Milović Ante, Ante Markovic), the head of state was Tito (Croat), Yugoslavia's last three prime ministers were Croats (Branko Mikulic, Milka Planinc, Markovic) , Croatian shipbuilding industry was the third in the world, "Rade Koncar" (Croatian electrical, transport and energy company) had 25,000 workers... "
Citat iz jednog članka nakon samoubojstva Zvonka Bušića o "velikosrpskoj hegemoniji":
"U vrijeme kada je ovaj, za jedne domoljub a za druge terorist (zašto mediji tako ultimativno razdvajaju te dvije stvari?) upozoravao na težak položaj Hrvatske u Jugoslaviji, a bilo je to 1976., Socijalistička Republika Hrvatska imala je 80.000 nezaposlenih (danas ih je 340.000), najveća nacionalna kompanija Ina spremala se dati dva republička i jednog saveznog premijera (Petar Fleković, Ante Milović, Ante Marković), šef države bio je Tito, zadnja tri premijera Jugoslavije bili su Hrvati (Branko Mikulić, Milka Planinc, Marković), hrvatska brodogradnja bila je treća u svijetu, “Rade Končar” imao je 25.000 radnika..."--DobarSkroz (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support They should also add he served milk and cookies to little children in the airplane :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strongly oppose Kolega2357, Ivane, Edgare i ostali, smeta vam što je napisano tako? Neka, neka. Sve što je protiv velike srbije (primjećujete da je napisano malim slovom jer ni ne zaslužuje drugačije) vama smeta i isčitava se iz toga vaš stav. Nek pati koga smeta! 78.2.112.170 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012. (Special war against Croatia 1995. - 2012.)*[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012. (Special war against Croatia (1995 - 2012)); entire article is POV and WP:SYNTH rant about nonexistent topic; excellent example of craziness and paranoia of the Croatian Wikipedia editors.
Created by Rakovicazauvijek on 2012-12-06, and patrolled by hr wiki sysop Kubura (Patrol log).
Description: This article is about non-existent topic. There are no reliable sources about Special war against Croatia, simply because there is no Special war against Croatia. The fact that several hr wiki administrators (Kubura, MaGa, Fraxinus) patrolled this article (Patrol log) and didn't see any problem with it, speaks enough about the state of that project.--Wikit 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Contents included these claims: "The ICTY trial on Croatian War that followed was a trial of Croats for breaking up Yugoslavia." I had no idea that Gotovina, Ademi and Markač broke up Yugoslavia? And since they were found not guilty, does that mean that Croats did not break up Yugoslavia? This is crazy.
Other sentences were: "Historical, intelligence, police, judicial and expert analysis will give an explanation if some people in the Croatian state leadership and state institutions, some influential Croatian media, some Croatian intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals acted or did not act in a way that it went in favor of the special war for these reasons: high treason, mercenary obedience to foreign bosses who gave them power, betrayal of Croatia for money (by selling Croatian interests for personal gain), opposition to sovereign Croatia as such, cowardice, opportunism, condescension, sycophancy, incompetence, resentment policy, politics, doing nothing, confusion, ignorance, lack of preparation or greed." No sources, no references, nothing. Not a single name was given. It throws such harsh words at an invisible enemy and the irony is that the paragraph speaks in the future tense, that the police and judiciary have yet to determine if someone did this - at all.
Informacije: Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012.; cijeli članak je nečije osobno mišljenje i sinteza, jadikovka o nepostojećem sadržaju; izvrstan primjer ludosti i paranoje urednika hrvatske Wikipedije.
Članak je stvorio Rakovicazauvijek 6. prosinca 2012., a provjerio i potvrdio ga je administrator Kubura (Evidencija pregledavanja promjena).
Opis: Članak o nepostojećem sadržaju. Nema pouzdanih izvora o "Specijalnom ratu protiv Hrvatske", jednostavno stoga jer nije bilo nikakvog "specijalnog rata protiv Hrvatske". Činjenica da je nekoliko administratora na hr wiki (Kubura, MaGa, Fraxinus) ovo provjerilo i potvrdilo (Evidencija pregledavanja promjena) te nije našlo nikakvih problema s tim, dovoljno govori o stanju tog projekta.--Wikit 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sadržaj je uključivao sljedeće tvrdnje: "Haaško suđenje Domovinskom ratu koje je uslijedilo bilo je suđenje Hrvatima zbog razbijanja Jugoslavije." Nisam imao pojma da su Gotovina, Ademi i Markač razbili Jugoslaviju? A pošto je utvrđeno da nisu krivi, da li to znači da Hrvati nisu razbili Jugoslaviju? Ovo je suludo.
Druge rečenice bile su: "Povijesne, obavještajne, policijske, sudske i stručne analize dati će objašnjenje jesu li neke osobe u hrvatskom državnom vrhu i državnim institucijama, nekim utjecajnim hrvatskim medijima, neki hrvatski intelektualci i pseudointelektualci djelovali ili nedjelovali na način da je to išlo u korist tom specijalnom ratu iz razloga: veleizdaje, plaćeničke poslušnosti inozemnim nalogodavcima koji su im dali moć, izdajom Hrvatske za novac (prodajom hrvatskih interesa za osobnu korist), protivljenju suverenoj Hrvatskoj kao takvoj, kukavičluka, oportunizma, snishodljivosti, poltronstva, nesposobnosti, politike nezamjeranja, politike nečinjenja ničega, smušenosti, neznanja, nepripremljenosti, lakomosti, površnosti ..." Nema izvora, ničega. Nijedno ime nije navedeno. Baca takve opasne riječi na nevidljivog neprijatelja a ironija je da taj odlomak govori o budućnosti, da će policijske i sudske analize tek utvrditi da li je netko ovo učinio - uopće.

Komenatari - Comments:

  • Support Agree - What special war? Who is leading it? When did it start? When did it end? How long is this war going on? 10 years? 100 years? 300 years? I haven't got a clue about it, nor my neighbor. When ever someone talks about "invisible wars" like this, you know it is a FRINGE THEORY.--Seiya (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Mostly Agree - On English Wikipedia, we have en:War on Women. So there is precedent for having "war" articles that do not refer to an actual war. And the link to "special war" does make it clear that a "special war" is not an actual war. But this Croatian example is worse than the English example -- for example, the section entitled "Domovinski rat" ("Patriotic War" per Google Translate -- refers to the actual 1991-5 war) does not give a single reference for its assertion that some not-very-clearly-specified conglomeration of English, Dutch, French, Italian, German, and U.S. interests prosecuted this "special war".
  • Support Agree "Special war[fare] against Croatia", defined as a totality of hostile psychological/propaganda, economic and intelligence activity by foreign governments against Croatia, is exclusively a fringe conspiracy theory topic espoused by the Croatian far right. It's more or less just another local variant of the en:Stab-in-the-back myth. I couldn't resist translating the opening paragraph in the "Domovinski rat" section.
The roots of this special war[fare] are in the diplomatic, economic and military conduct of the English, French and Dutch diplomacy, media, intellectual, pseudo-intellectual and other interest groups that were disinclined towards Croatia. They were characterized during the Croatian War of Independence by the obstruction of Croatian efforts towards complete liberation of its territory and its international recognition, by conscious and unconscious lack of recognition of the heroic resistance by a small, unarmed, perennially defamed and vilified Croatian nation against the predominant and protected Greater Serbian attacker.
Now there's a smell of neutrality in the air... I could go on, there are plenty of such gems inside, but what's the use? More or less the entire article is a piece of garbage, as far as its encyclopedic value is considered. GregorB (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree This is pure nonsense copied from the blog--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.
The answer will be on the hr:Razgovor:Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012. (talkpage) of that article. Data and examples will be added. Scientists' help is also announced. Kubura (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The anwser should be here. The War in Croatia ended in 1995, and there are zero reliable sources (a term a sysop should be familiar with) that mention any "special war" after 1995. Any special warfare that happened against Croatia happened during the 1991-1995 war, not later. You mention Davor Domazet Lošo as one of your sources. Well, if you believe everything he says, then you should already now start an article about the new Yugoslavia that will be pronounced on Vidovdan 2014.--Seiya (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Special war for special people with special needs in special institutions. In short, xenophobic POV blogs are not any evidence. In this article on wikipedia it might be able to write objectively only as an example of xenophobia and conspiracy theories. Talk page on Wikipedia where you do the censorship is not discussion page, rather your pamphlet --DobarSkroz (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Kubura, I'm glad to see hr.wiki addressing this info, although I don't think contributors to this page need to be reminded what's a talk page. Seiya, IMO there's no trouble to discuss any extra sources presented at hr.wiki, whether there, here, or both places. People blocked on hr.wiki of course don't have any choice but to discuss it here. Miranche (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree That has to be the worse wiki article I've read in my life. "special war"? WTF? Mir Harven was also mentioning the RfC as a form of "special war". The whole article is one giant conspiracy theory violating every single wiki policy designed to filter this junk. I find User:Rakovicazauvijek on hrwiki suspicious - they only write these kind of extremist articles, and all of them appear to be patrolled by User:Kubura. Which leads me to conclusion that this is User:Kubura's sockpuppet which he uses to promote theories so radical, that even he himself wouldn't dare to sign them, not even under a nickname. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support What exactly is this? xD This looks like a bad attempt at a fairytale... utter nonsense with nationalistic bias that should be deleted as per the pure non-existence of such a phenomenon, except in the heads of paranoid groupations. Citing Domazet as a relevant source for this this article would be equal to citing Hitler or Goebbels while denying the Holocaust --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I just have to point out that I tagged this article for a successful deletion, but it was a tough fight because Kubura and Nesmir did not want to accept its nonexistence. I posed four simple questions to them: if this special war exists, can you name its budget, the name and surname of the people involved, the locations from which it is waged or any code names for the operations? Helpless to anwser any of these, they just confirmed that this is a fantasy.
The idea that the UK, France and the Netherlands are investing millions of $ each year to "slow down" Croatia (?), while the little country Croatia is somehow stronger than all of them together, is so laughable that even the Croatian press made mock articles about this[24]. Kubura lamented on the village pump, mentioning incomprehensible nationalistic stuff that has nothing to do with the article -- "And who is laughing at the article about the special war against Croatia? Maybe those from the column of rememberence in Vukovar...", etc. -- and posing the question why that article is a conspiracy theory while the article Rendlesham Forest incident is not [25]. I hate to break it up to him, but it's not a good sign when a UFO has more witnesses than his alleged "special war".--Seiya (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Seiya, I saw that, great work. Is there a link to the deletion discussion? Miranche (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's the deleted article's talk page, still up, with parts of the deletion discussion. Miranche (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Slamnati (Straw man)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Created by Vrkach on 2013-05-11, and patrolled by hr wiki sysop Kubura (Patrol log).
Description: Even article on this logical fallacy is used to defend right wing politician Ruža Tomašić from what incumbent Prime Minister of Croatia Zoran Milanović understood as hate speech. -- Bojan  Talk  17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Članak stvorio Vrkach 11. svibnja 2013., a provjerio ga Kubura (Evidencija pregleda).
Opis: Čak i članak o logičnoj grešci se koristi kako bi se obranio desničarski političar, Ruža Tomašić, od trenutnog premijera Hrvatske Zorana Milanovića koji ju je prozvao zbog govora mržnje. -- Bojan  Talk  17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree I can only repeat what I've said under "Potemkinova sela" above. GregorB (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree Example is taken out of context. It's not mentioned that she started her speech with defending Zdravko Mamic who called Minister Jovanovic: "Croatohater, unworthy of the ministeral position because he was a Serb, and to have blood cells that hate all Croat"--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose NO kidding!! Ruža Tomašić has mentioned no Serbs! It was the Milanović who did it. Bunch of nonsense.--Anto (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You should vote about whether there is bias in the article or not, and not whether the (unnecessary) given example is logically correct or incorrect. The purpose of the article should be to explain logical fallacy, and not to promote current right-wing politician by highlighting one instance where Tomašić was wrongly interpreted by left-wing (or actually left-center) Milanović. You should revise your vote. --Marekich (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
She did not mention Serbs, but this was reviewing on Mamic hate speech and she sad "you must be able to say that chetnik is chetnik"--DobarSkroz (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić (Ivo Andrić)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Created by Mir Harven on 2005-05-13.
Description: Mir Harven wrote unsourced essay that says that Andrić, a Nobel Prize winner, is in inferior writer than politicaly controversial (that means a fascist) Mile Budak. CW was criticized by Jutarnji List. User Wikiwind put few citation needed templates in article and explained why he did it. Kubura's answer was:
  • speak Croatian - Kubura has habit to demand from users from Serbia and Bosnia (while not from Montenegro) to they write on standard Croatian and he several time put {{translate to Croatian}} on talk pages. Irony is that Kubura himself was not writing on standard Croatian. Instead, he used obsolete dialect from Dalmatian Littoral and we had situation that Croats from Zagreb or Slavonia better understand Serbs and Bosniaks than Kubura's Croatian
  • giving political speech that Andrić didn't deserve Noble Prize for literature because Pope John Paule II hasn't got Nobel Prize for Peace.
  • saying nothing on lack of reliable sources-- Bojan  Talk  11:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

Indoktrinacija (Indoctrination)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Created by Croq on 2009-11-18.
Description: Croq wrote an article with one sole purpose, as well as all of his articles he write his personal view on the history of Croatian in Yugoslavia. This time he used Indoctrination to equate the fascist youth with communist youth. Organizations that he mentioned, though fall into this topic, can hardly be put in the same basket. Youth actions that served to renew the country in ruins after the war are not the same thing as raising xenophobic killers. But Croq forgot that throughout human history a permanent example was religious indoctrination. On Croatian Wiki is forbidden to speak in a negative way about religion and especially the Catholic Church. Examples of deleting catechism [26], [27], [28], and w:Franciscan youth [29].--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Neutral Neutral POV because it protects religion, but not enough to warrant calling the whole article problematic.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There was major edit and update after it was shown on fb page--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! I translated introduction from English Wikipedia after the article was exposed on fb page. Seiya you should check any other older version (this is the most recent before my edit) and judge by them, not by my updated version. --Marekich (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Jugokomunistička propaganda (Yugocommunist propaganda)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Created by Croq
This is a sick historical revisionism, quote mining and utter rubbish from author who is not familiar with WW2. Here is an easy refutable example:
Collaboration between German Nazis and Yugoslav Communists was prolonged during the war in the form of agreement on mutual non aggression. Tito's communists do not attack fascists, and fascists do not attack antifascists.
If this is true, then this properly sourced article and many featured and good articles on WW2 in Yugoslavia are not true. And German soldiers and diplomats who survived and wrote memoirs such as w:Hermann Neubacher, w:Lothar Rendulic or w:Otto Kumm were indoctrinated by communists... -- Bojan  Talk  17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Članak stvorio Croq
Ovo je bolesni povijesni revizionizam, miniranje citata i smeće autora koji nije upoznat sa Drugim svjetskim ratom. Evo jednostavnog primjera:
Suradnja njemačkih nacista s jugoslavenskim komunistima je nastavljena i za vrijeme rata u vidu dogovora o međusobnom nenapadanju. Titovi komunistički antifašisti do tada ne napadaju fašiste, a fašisti da ne napadaju antifašiste.
Ako je ovo istina, onda ovaj članak sa ispravnim izvorima i mnogi drugi izabrani i dobri članci na temu Drugog svjetskog rata i Jugoslavije nisu točni. A njemačke vojnike i veleposlanike koji su preživjeli rat i pisali memoare (w:Hermann Neubacher, w:Lothar Rendulic ili w:Otto Kumm) su indoktrinirali komunisti... -- Bojan  Talk  17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree The article is a big pile of various violations, most prominently en:WP:POV and en:WP:SYNTH. The content is not salvageable. Note the article was fully protected due to an edit war, and left protected for almost two years, from Oct 2010 to Sep 2012.[30] GregorB (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree A comedy of an article.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree User Croq wrote a series of "Yugocommunist" articles like this, but this is one the worst. In each one he is repeating the same fringe theories--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Pile of nonsense. I still remember the vicious personal attacks on me when I tried to correct/delete this excuse for an article. Utter nonsense with nationalistic bias --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lov na Gotovinu (Hunt for Gotovina)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Lov na Gotovinu; an extremely biased article with en:WP:COATRACK and en:WP:BLP violations; created in May 2013
Patrol log - has been patrolled by Roberta F. and Kubura [31].
Description: An incredibly biased article ostensibly on a TV documentary (of questionable notability) about the hunt for Ante Gotovina, but actually an attack on supposed Gotovina's enemies. Particularly problematic are paragraphs in which living people are accused of various crimes, "collaboration", and "high treason". Dnevno.hr, a far right portal, is used as one of the sources. GregorB (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Informacije: Lov na Gotovinu; iznimno pristran članak sa en:WP:COATRACK i kršenjima en:WP:BLP, stvoren u svibnju 2013.
Evidencija pregleda - pregledali su ga Roberta F. i Kubura [32].
Opis: Nevjerojatno pristran članak tobože o TV dokumentarcu (upitnog značaja) o lovu na Antu Gotovinu, ali u stvari napad na navodne Gotovinine neprijatelje. osobito problematični su odlomci u kojima su živi ljudi optuženi za razne zločine, "kolaboraciju" i "izdaju". Dnevno.hr, portal krajnje desnice, se koristi kao jedan od izvora. GregorB (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree A comedy of an article, times ten. Sentences include: "[The documentary] handles the biggest Croatian political disgrace in history" and "The day after Gotovina's arrest, when the ICTY's chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte had an inflammatory provocative outburst in Belgrade (opening of a champaign) and victoriously announced how he was arrested" and can already go down in history of Croatian Wikipedia's (unintentional) satire. But the most comical sentence for me is this one: "It was a shameful hunt for a man, a witch hunt that belongs to the darkest pagan rituals of an era before Christ." This one should win an award for the comedy of the year. I should unsubscribe to National Lampoon and subscribe to Croatian Wikipedia, they are funnier than Željko Pervan.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lovely :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • GregorB ipse dixit. Ili je možda "koga srbi, taj se češe"?
GregoreB, Seiyo, ako smatrate da ste u pravu, ovo što ste napisali gore napišite pod svojim pravim imenom i prezimenom u novinama i internetskim medijima.
GregoreB, ono o tome da je dnevno.hr "portal krajnje desnice", to je napad ad hominem. Kubura (razgovor) 23:35, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Može se on ili bilo tko drugi češati, ali je ovaj članak i dalje katastrofa. Kubura, potpuno nerelevantno odgovaraš jer samo izbjegavaš primjedbe upućene sadržaju (ono sa "poganskim vremenima" stvarno je komedija) i govoriš ili o politici ili o osobinama osoba koje prijavljuju nepravilnosti. Apsolutno je nebitno da li je ovo prijavio Djed Mraz, Željko Pervan ili predsjednik Brazila, bitno je da je nepravilnost tu i da je stajala jako dugo na hr wiki u tekstu.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Look at the history of edits of the author, User:Nilski krokodil - all of them are historical revisionism and far-right POV. And all of them are very soon patrolled by User:Kubura, User:Roberta F. and other nationalist sysops. The pattern is clear - this is one of their sockpuppets which they use to silently push their extremist agenda. The article is less about the documentary itself, and is more of a commentary on the recent political issues from a far-right perspective. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointer - indeed, Nilski krokodil is also responsible for "Detuđmanizacija" (see subsection below), an outrageous article patrolled by... you guessed it, Kubura. It is remarkable how few surprises are there. Obviously the core editors work together as a compartmentalized tag team. GregorB (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Koncentracijski logor Jadovno (Jadovno concentration camp)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Changes amounting to holocaust denial accepted by the admin. A difficult to explain decision to fully protect the article.
Description: A sentence in the article read "It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 people were killed in the camp, mostly Serbs, Roma, Jews and Croats.". The sentence is referenced to Slobodna Dalmacija, a major Croatian daily, which quotes the 2010 speech by Croatian President Ivo Josipović. On 26 June an IP user changes the sentence as follows: "The number of victims is unknown, while some deal with scientifically unfounded figures, between 30,000 and 40,000 people, mostly Serbs, Roma, Jews and Croats, which is physically impossible." The SD reference is retained, but none of the changes are supported by it. On July 7, SpeedyGonsales patrols the change and accepts it,[33] although it is clearly denialist and falsifies the source. On 20 February 2012, Vodomar fully protects the article without an explanation or a plausible reason. On 21 September 2013 Vodomar erased and fully protected his user page and talk page, so he's apparently not available for comment. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree Weak support, because it was (partially) corrected in the meantime.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any meaningful changes, the problematic sentence is still there (and the article is still fully protected). GregorB (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
They deleted the "physically impossible" sentence, but you are right, the first part of the problematic sentence is still there.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct, "... which is physically impossible" has been removed, the rest stays and can't be corrected by non-admins. GregorB (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree User:Vodomar has returned to vote against the desyop of his comrades User:SypeedyGonsales, user:Kubura and User:Zeljko, so obviously his sudden "disappearance" was a diversion. What is explained above is the typical modus operandi of the revisionist right-wing clique admin clique on hrwiki - a sockpuppet or IP adds some crap to the article, it is very soon patrolled, all of the subsequent changes by other users are reverted as "edit warring" and the article is soon protected once the wider community notices the POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sekularni fundamentalizam (Secular fundamentalism)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Secular fundamentalism - a non-existing term approved by Croq [34].
Description: Somebody obviously does not understand the difference between atheism and secularism. Secularism simply demands seperating state from the religion/church. How somebody could call that "fundamentalism" is beyond me. Out of six sources, only one mentions something relevant to the topic, but it refers to "Atheist Fundamentalism". Croatian Wikipedia is the only one with an article called like this.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Informacija: Sekularni fundamentalizam - nepostojeći termin kojeg je odobrio Croq [35].
Opis: Netko očito ne razumije razlike između ateizma i sekularizma. Sekularizam jednostavno zahtijeva odvajanje države od religije/crkve. Kako netko to može zvati "fundamentalizmom" je meni nepojmljivo. Od šest izvora, samo jedan spominje nešto relevantno za temu, ali se odnosi na "ateistički fundamentalizam". Hrvatska Wikipedia je jedina sa člankom takvog naziva.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Agree Another article based on blog written by unprofessional commentator on extreme right wing portal dnevno.hr. Originally it was used for personal conflict and aversion to Pavle Močilac becaouse he was commenting hr.wiki controversy in media. His name is deleted after article in fb Page [36] --DobarSkroz (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree WP:SYNTH, single POV article on non-notable topic based mostly on junk sources. I like it how the lede claims that secular fundamentalism advocates support personal liberties and religion being a private matter of the individual (as it should be!), and further in the article it is claimed that they do not support laws securing the freedom of religion. I wonder whether the author has read the finished article once he was done with c/p. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Obrana zračne luke na Krku (Defense of the Krk airport)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Another science-fiction article that mentions a battle for the Krk airport during the Croatian war that never happened. Created by sysop Kubura.
Description: A SYNTH of various battles far away from Krk (Plitvice, Šolta, Sljeme...), but nothing about the actual fight or defence of the Krk airport itself. Belligerents in the infobox even include the Yugoslav People's Army, even though it never attacked the Krk island?! Kubura created the exact same article on English Wikipedia, but was deleted under the right explanation: "...a non-notable (non-)event: the "defense" of this location during the Yugoslav wars apparently, according to the article, never happened. The place was merely occupied by military in order to prevent a hostile offensive, which – as far as I understand the article – never materialized. No actual fighting is reported". --Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support AgreeSame stupidity as "Special war against Croatia 1995. - 2012."--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.
The answer will be on the hr:Razgovor:Obrana zračne luke na Krku (talkpage) of that article. Data and examples will be added. Scientists' help is also announced. Kubura (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kubura, I'm glad to see hr.wiki addressing this info, although I don't think contributors to this page need to be reminded what's a talk page. Personally I welcome discussion of any extra sources presented at hr.wiki, whether there, here, or both places. People blocked on hr.wiki of course don't have any other choice but to discuss it here. Miranche (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A DobromSkroz je glupost ono o specijalnom ratu protiv Hrvatske, a cijeli broj Vijenca govori o tome, Domazet-Lošo govori o tome, evo još [37]. Kubura (razgovor) 23:31, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Za "Specijalni rat" odgovaraj u navodu o "Specijalnom ratu", ne u "Obrani zračne luke na Krku". Do sad si osporio samo tri primjera, ali ovaj nije među njima.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support WP:SYNH, made-up article. User:Kubura has not touched it and in his comment above he was obviously simply buying time and distracting the discussion. But the real question is why has User:Kubura created the article in the first place, on non-notable event that didn't even happen!? The answer is simple: to increase the number of articles that portray Croatians as victims in the 1990s wars. According to the nationalist mindset - the more of our own have suffered, the less we are guilty for our own crimes. Yes, this is how their brain circuits work! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Novak Đoković (Novak Đoković)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Otac mu je Crnogorac, a majka Hrvatica iz Vinkovaca. (His father was a Montenegrin and mother Croat from Vinkovci.)
Description: Part of article with biased sources. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Oppose Oppose Interview from slobodnadalmacija.hr is not a biased source (although IMHO this info does not deserve such a prominent place in the article). 95.178.183.13 20:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree This is not true and unnecessary.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree Per Soundwaweserb. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose How can his interview, and his statement can be biased source?--DobarSkroz (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Father really originates from Montenegro, and mother from Croatia. --Zekoslavac (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Kolega and Soundwaveserb have, on several occasions (on sh.wiki), shown signs of nationalism within their replicas and this is just an example of such hegemonic interpretations. Đoković is undoubtedly Serb and a Serb tennis player, but that does not change the fact that his parents have different heritage. This request is nonsense, parallel with some of the articles on hr.wiki --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Antifašizam (Antifascism)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: One line described Antifascism as a "mental, spritual disorder".
Description: On 27 August 2013, an anonymous user wrote one line in the article that stated that today's Antifascism is actually "fight for Communism and Marxism, fight against Capitalism, Titoism with Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents, a developing genocide of profit knowledge, culturcide, genetical, spiritual, moral and creative disorder, limiting all human rights" [38]. hr:User:DobarSkroz deleted that particular line [39], but hr:User:Croq reverted the edit, a dozen times [40] [41] [42]. DobarSkroz then went on to complain about that with these words on the talk page: "This is a wonderful Wikipedia when it considers a fact that antifascism is this: fight for communism, fight against capitalism, Titoism with Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents...If this is not garbage from some extreme right-wing, I don't know what is?"[43]. SpeedyGonsales replied to him with, quote: "Proleterians of all countries unite! Smile.svg", end quote, and Zeljko blocked DobarSkroz [44]. And the irony is - that line about antifascism being "culturcide, moral and spiritual disorder, etc." was deleted a month later, anyway,[45] and none appologized to DobarSkroz.--Seiya (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Informacija: Jedan odlomak je opisivao antifašizam kao "duhovni, moralni poremećaj".
Description: 27. kolovoza 2013., anonimni suradnik je napisao u članku sljedeći odlomak, koji je tvrdio da današnji antifašizam "ustvari predstavlja nekoliko pojmova zajedno: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima, razvojni genocid profitnog znanja, kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, ograničavanje svih osnovnih ljudskig sloboda" [46]. hr:User:DobarSkroz je izbrisao taj odlomak [47], ali je hr:User:Croq to poništio, tucet puta [48] [49] [50]. DobarSkroz se potom žalio zbog toga na stranici za razgovor ovim riječima: "Divna je Wikipedia koja može smatrati činjenicom da je antifašizam: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima... Ako ovo nije smeće iz znaosa nekog extremenog desničara onda ne znam što je?!"[51]. SpeedyGonsales odgovorio mu je sa, citiram: "Proleteri svih zemalja ujedinite se! Smile.svg", kraj citata, a Zeljko je blokirao suradnika DobarSkroz [52]. A ironija je - taj odlomak da je antifašizam "kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, itd." je ionako izbrisan mjesec dana kasnije, [53] a nitko se nije ispričao suradniku DobarSkroz.--Seiya (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Uređivanje koje Seiya osporava zapravo govori o izvornom antifašizmu kao nečem pozitivnom!
[54] Referencirano je na izvor.
Uređivanje govori o zastranjivanju s pozitivnih tradicija jednog pokreta.
Zlonamjerni prigovaratelj prešutio je ovaj dio teksta koji ide iza onog citiranog teksta, a bitno mijenja sadržaj. Pročitajte potcrtani dio:
"Današnja hrvatska strana riječ "antifašizam", u bivšem jugokomunističkom i sadašnjem ponovnom značenju hrvatskih novih ideoloških neokomunističkih jednoumnika, ustvari predstavlja nekoliko pojmova zajedno: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima, razvojni genocid profitnog znanja, kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, ograničavanje svih osnovnih ljudskig sloboda.Sve potpuno suprotno od prave riječi antifašizam s kojom se komunisti manipulacijski ukrašuju i sakrivaju."
Zar ćemo raspravljati putem ovakvih podvala? Kubura (razgovor) 23:43, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Trebalo je bolje formulirati, objasniti a ne blokirati suradnika. Čak i uz ovo djelomično pojašnjenje, ta je rečenica teško pristrana ("Duhovni poremećaj"?!) i nije trebala biti u takvom obliku. Ali ponavljam, Kubura, za sve što misliš da je pogrešno obrisano sa hr wiki, slobodno možeš osobno vratiti u prvotno stanje.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anti-fascism is a "mental disorder" only if you're a crypto-fascist yourself - something that the abovementioned sysops have abundantly demonstrated already. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support The article was extremely biased. Look at what SpeedyGonsales did: instead of helping to remove bias, he mocked those who did with snide remarks, then protected Croq by ignoring his sockpuppets. Yet he has the nerve to say he is blameless. GregorB (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Vjekoslav Luburić (Vjekoslav Luburić)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Extremely POV article, which bears this label for three years. A romantic epic, almost entirely copied from a biased biography of one of the most ferocious war criminals in Croatian history. The article created by Wüstenfuchs on 13.07.2009. [55]
Description: Likely one of the most biased biographies on hr.wiki. Luburić's early years have been portrayed as a youthful rebellion of a man with a rising national awareness, without any mention of crime. Luburić established death camps in NDH, while hr.wiki mentions this only casually, without a single detail or figure on the genocide perpetrated there. Some of the most brutal crimes against the civil population which he oversaw as the commanding officer are not mentioned: Gudovac, Veljun, Glina. Neither does it mention that he personally brutally liquidated prisoners for violating "camp discipline". The article also does not mention the sadistic torture of imprisoned antifascists in Sarajevo, reported on en.wiki. In 1945 Vjekoslav Luburić ordered the liquidation of all inmates, and the camp and the town Jasenovac to be demolished and burned, in order to cover up all traces of the crime. The end of the war in this article is described as "The catastrophe of May", not because of mass killing of camp prisoners and the attempted cover up, but because Partisans liberated Croatia and Luburić had to flee. The period in which he established the Ustasha guerrilla and terrorist organization is referred to in this article as his "fight for Croatia", while Ustashas are "nationalist guerrillas". There is a whole host of other examples of dilution of crimes and of glorification of criminals. Here are some of the worst quotations:
  • "Although in the field this young officer has a reputation of being tough and hardheaded, he does not have anything of the pathological murderer as some like to point out."
  • "Dozens of Serbian Orthodox orphans will be saved and placed into institutions at the expense of "Ustaška obrana""
  • "he shows an unquestionably modern side incompatible with the primitive and crude picture that some want to affix to the General"
  • "the treacherous assassination that brought death to General Luburić, a man in his own way devoted to the fight for Croatia, and who died as a soldier from enemy blows."
  • The level of consideration toward the Holocaust and genocide of some of the more prominent users on hr.wiki is revealed in this comment by User:MirHarven, after being portrayed in the media as pro-fascist: "the text on Luburić - about which Yugoslav nationalists are going hysterical - is actually a funny story about some Croatian Robin Hood, written as a novel about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday." [56]
--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (please fix the translation Ksivonci (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)) (fixed Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
Informacija: Ekstremno POV članak koji drži tu oznaku već tri godine. Romantična epopeja skoro cijela prepisana iz jedne pristrane biografije o jednom od najstrašnijih zločinaca u hrvatskoj povijesti. Članak je stvorio Wüstenfuchs 13.07.2009. [57]
Opis: Vjerojatno jedna od najpristranijih biografija na hr.wiki. Luburićeve rane godine opisane su kao buntovništvo mladića u kojem raste nacionalna svijest, bez spomena kriminala. Luburić je osnovao logore smrti u NDH a hr.wiki to samo spominje bez iti jednog detalja ili brojke o genocidu koji je tamo počinjen. Neki o najbrutalnijih zločina nad civilnim stanovništvnom u kojima je bio zapovijednik uopće nisu spomenuta: Gudovac, Veljun, Glina. Ne spominje se ni da je osobno brutalno ubijao zatvorenike zbog kršenja "logorske discipline". Također se ne spominje ni njegovo sadističko mučenje zatvorenih antifašista u Sarajevu o kome postoje svjedočenja na en.wiki. 1945. Vjekoslav Luburić je naredio da se likvidiraju svi zatočenici, a logor i mjesto Jasenovac do temelja sruši i spali, kako bi se prikrili svi tragovi zločina. Kraj rata je u ovom članku opisan kao "Svibanjska katastrofa", no ne zbog ovih pokolja logoraša i zametanja tragova zločina već zbog toga što su Partizani oslobodili Hrvatsku a Luburić morao pobjeći. Razdoblje u kojem je osnivao ustašku gerilu i terorističku organizaciju za ovaj članak je "borba za Hrvatsku", a ustaše su "nacionalistički gerilci". Postoji još hrpa primjera razvodnjavanja zločina i veličanja zločinaca. Par najgorih citata slijedi:
  • "Premda na terenu ima reputaciju da je čvrst i svojeglav, taj mladi časnik nema ništa od patološkog ubojice kako neki vole isticati."
  • "Desetine pravoslavne siročadi bit će spašeno i smješteno u institucije koje u svom trošku održava "Ustaška obrana""
  • "pokazuje jednu nedvojbeno modernu stranu koje je nespojiva s primitivnom i sirovom slikom koju neke žele zalijepiti generalu"
  • "podmuklom atentatu koji je donio smrt generalu Luburiću, čovjeku koji se na svoj način posvetio borbi za Hrvatsku i koji je umro kao vojnik od udaraca neprijatelja."
  • Razina osjećaja prema holokaustu i genocidu nekih istaknutijih suradnika na hr.wiki odražava se u komentaru korisnika Mir Harvena nakon što je prokazan u medijima kao ustašofilski: "tekst o Luburiću-oko kojeg histeriziraju orjunaši- zapravo smiješna priča o nekakvom hrvatskom Robinu Hoodu, pisana kao roman o Wyattu Earpu i Docu Hollidayju." [58]
--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (slight reword Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Death camp commander's biography written like a hagiography. The tone of the article is how he did nothing wrong, how anything wrong he could've done was due to unfortunate circumstances that surrounded him, how tragic was his death (ordered by dirty Yugoslav commies), how he was a big patriot and how he suffered under "Serbian hegemony". The only thing that he's encyclopedically notable for (as a founder/commander of Jasenovac and other camps) is given two sentences.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hitler had a great relationship with his dog, if I remember my history. Let's base the article on that and not the fact that he killed millions. Goebbels killed his children out of pity (he had not wanted them to live in a world without Nazism) - let us interpret that as an act of mercy, an act of a caring father towards his children and proclaim him the Father of the Century. This article is so full of nonsense that one can hardly describe it with mannered language --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Strongly support A whitewash. The word "crime" or its derivatives appears four times in this article, once about Luburić and three times about his assassination by the Yugoslav secret service. His assassination (death toll: one) takes up two major sections at the end of the article, while his role in the Holocaust (Jasenovac death toll: 77,000-99,000[2]) is directly referred to in a total of three sentences. The one piece of specific information about his role in the Holocaust is the name of the major concentration camp he founded & ran (Jasenovac), with zero details on what happened inside. The single impersonal mention that "tens of thousands of people were killed" in the camps (which camps? by whom?) does not count as a detail. Changes to the article since the media broke the stories have been minor, the only notable one that the section title "May catastrophe" now reads "The end of World War II". A single attempt to remove some of the more biased sections on 2013-09-10 has been reverted 13 minutes later. A no brainer. Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • SpeedyGonseles deletes contributions in an article about Luburic.
Speedy reverts back: Dozens of Serbian Orthodox orphans will be saved and placed into institutions at the expense of "Ustaška obrana" [59] (Nema izvora) No source is not problem for this dilution of crime.
Speedy deletes this: "Mass murder, deportation, crimes against humanity that have occurred in these camps makes Luburić major perpetrator of war crimes and genocide in the Ustasha regime." [60] with comment: "need more concise formulation, without exaggeration of any kind"--DobarSkroz (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gvozd (Gvozd)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Heavily biased content introduced by Kubura on 2012-11-02[61]
Description: The text is: "[...] the decision of the SDSS majority (a Serb party) in the Gvozd municipal council was to change the town's name to Vrginmost. The Croats objected to this name change and still call the town Gvozd (Catholic Church, the largest Croatian party, currently in the opposition, Croatian nationally conscious right wing, local Croat majority, Croatian Facebook community, and Croatian media which are not foreign-owned)." The current content of this section is somewhat more "balanced", in a sense that it is composed of two POV segments. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Support Support Weak support. The lead claims that renaming of Vrginmost into Gvozd was "illegal" and gives two sources, no. 13 and 14 (Udruga Suncokret and Hrvatska Riječ). But none of them mention the word "illegal". (Also, Kubura for some reason constantly gives a wrong url format that links the publishers, not the titles of the source, which is the norm for references in Wikipedia).--Seiya (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, the "illegal renaming" bit was one of the two "POV segments" I was referring to, and is unrelated to Kubura's sentence quoted above - but it definitely does not help the article either (hence "balanced", with quotation marks). GregorB (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • GregoreB, prekini s argumentiranjem ad nauseam i ipse dixit. Evo opširna razgovora na Razgovor:Gvozd. Kubura (razgovor) 23:45, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support WP:SYNTH, junk sources (fringe far-right websites, facebook posts), POV pushing...that edit is wrong on so many levels. That a senior editor and a sysop does is very troubling. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pokolj u glinskoj crkvi (Glina massacres)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: A fringe denialist view about the WWII crime remains in the article despite multiple attempts of removing it.
Description: The problematic section was introduced in August 2008: "For decades the 'Glina affair' was beyond any doubt in the Yugoslav historiography. One did not doubt, and was not allowed to doubt in the veracity of any aspect of this dark 'historic mosaic'. However, a more serious critical analysis of historical data and new, hitherto unknown findings bring many existing claims and assessments into question."[62] There are many problems with this statement. It is very oblique: it is not clear what exactly is being said here. What claims are being questioned and how, we are not told, and it seems that the paragraph has no purpose other than to spread FUD. Glas Koncila is used as a reference - an article by Tomislav Vuković, a theologian by education and a non-fiction writer who works as a journalist in GK. As far as I know, no professional historian shares his views on the event. The above paragraph is also a C&P plagiarism, as can be seen by comparing it with the source.
The first attempt of removing the content is reverted after 14 minutes.[63] In December 2011 an IP editor expands the article considerably, in a non-revisionist fashion (albeit without sources), but this is reverted without any explanation.[64] Also in December 2011 an editor adds a paragraph and a bona fide literature section. This is reverted too, also without an explanation,[65] but reinserted later. In February 2012, an IP editor tries to add the number of victims, but this is also reverted without an explanation.[66] (The number of victims is missing from the article to this day.) In February 2013 an IP editor tries to rephrase the problematic section (while keeping the GK reference) as "The official weekly of the Croatian Catholic Church still questions the event." - reverted within minutes[67] (you guessed it - without an explanation) and protected.[68] The reverts come mostly from the usual suspects that feature prominently in our Conduct subpage. GregorB (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Kubura and Zeljko using their admin powers again to act as if they are on the payroll of Glas Koncila. Extreme example of a POV article that is even afraid to mention the number of victims, any number, at all. Very problematic.--Seiya (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support --DobarSkroz (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Glas Koncila is published by the Catholic Church in Croatia and is obviously not a reliable source. Of course, since that act of historical revisionism is not supported by any unbiased historian, they have to resort to fringe sources and sysop buttons abuse to push their POV. Very shameful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Detuđmanizacija ("De-tuđmanization")[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: A highly biased essay with serious en:WP:BLP violations.
Description: The article is absolutely beyond repair. I'm not going to bother translating it. Arguably the worst part are very bad WP:BLP violations:
Medijsku su pozornosti dobili notorni neprijatelji hrvatske države kao Savo Štrbac i njegovi hrvatski trabanti koji su još besramnije napadali hrvatske intelektualce, znanstvenike i uglednike koji su u tom razdoblju ostali hladnih glava. Poznato je kad je dan prije presude Gotovini i Markaču jedna novinarka u Jutarnjem listu bila sigurna da presuda mora biti potvrđena kako bi to bila konačna presuda Tuđmanovoj Hrvatskoj. Jedan je bezvrijedni, netalentirani i teatralni, a medijski razvikan hrvatski kazalištarac javno naricao nad oslobađajućom presudom generalima Gotovini i Markaču.
Translation: Media attention was given to notorious enemies of the Croatian state such as Savo Štrbac and his Croatian satellites that even more shamelessly attacked Croatian intellectuals, scientists and dignitaries, who kept their level-headedness. It is well-know that, when one day befor the Gotovina and Markač verdict, a female journalist in Jutarnji list was certain that the verdict had to be confirmed to make it the final verdict to Tuđman's Croatia. One worthless, untalented, and theatrical, yet over-hyped theatre artist publicly wailed over the not guilty verdict to generals Gotovina and Markač.
I rest my case. The article has been reviewed and accepted by Kubura.[69] This alone would be sufficient grounds for desysopping.
For an additional interesting (even funny) episode, see this and this. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support "Zbog talibanske radikalnosti kojom je sprovedeno iskorjenjivanje svega postignutog, kako lošeg, tako i dobrog, ta je vlast prozvana trećesiječanjskom diktaturom, a po širini, predstavljao je mali državni udar. Nove vlasti pokrenule su hajku na sve političke neistomišljenike a pod krinkom uklanjanja 'nemoralnih' i 'podobničkih' kadrova iz doba HDZ-ove vlasti. Dio spornih kadrova uklonjen je. Nažalost, čistka je krenula čak i prema profesionalnom birokratskom osoblju nižeg..." and so on and on... What a piece of s*** ;-)! Not a single sentence is neutral or salvagable! This article isn't encyclopedia, this article is HDZ-pedia. And not even a subtle one, at that.--Seiya (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Literal translation is "Media attention they get notorious enemies of the Croatian state as Savo Strbac and his Croatian accomplices who were even more outrageous attack Croatian intellectuals, scholars and dignitaries who were at that time remained cool head. It is known as the day before the verdict Gotovina and Markac one journalist in Jutarnji list was not sure that the judgment must be confirmed in order to be a final judgment of Tudjman's Croatia. One is worthless, talentless and theatrical and media carried its reputation Croatian theater publicly moaning over acquittal generals Gotovina and Markac.". CourtlyHades296 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I tried to challenge Kubura regarding this article, but I could not get very far. I explicitly cited the above paragraph, but he maintained that the article does not violate WP:BLP, and that the paragraph is fine since no names have been mentioned (?!).[70] Finally, he found an explanation: maybe the article is not biased at all - maybe it is me who is biased.[71] GregorB (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support The article used to be, basically, a litany of right-wing conspiracy fantasies. Note that, in the meantime, Korisnik:Vodomar erased most of the article and reduced it to a stub that's closer to factuality. Miranche (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Euroza ("Eurosis")[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Nonexisting word and term
Description: Rakovicazauvijek again, but approved by User:SpeedyGonsales[72]. Someone probably merged the words "EU" and "Neurosis" and invented this article (just a front to bash EU, and not a very subtle one). Might as well invent the word "Asiaosis", "Americosis", "Africosis" and hundreds of words that nobody uses. SpeedyGonsales at least categorized it under "Wikipedia:Humor"[73]. I agree. If that is what he intends to transform Cro Wiki into, he succeeded.--Seiya (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support A big WP:COATRACK violation that is nothing more than a platform for bashing pro-EU views by equating them with a mental disease, using a non-notable neologism as an excuse. Associating pro-EU people with "mania", "obsessive-compulsive disorder" and "fixation" (in the "See also" section) is crude POV, not "humor". GregorB (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • You do not have to love EU, but there is a huge difference between Euroskepticism and inventing nonexisting words like "Eurosis".--Seiya (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per GregorB above. To be frank, and excuse my language, this article is batshit insane. It's almost completely based on a single anti-EU editorial (which it acknowledges), and retells large portions of it, example below. Without any prejudice for or against the underlying Euroskeptic argument, this expression of it does not merit its own article on Wikipedia. Miranche (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[The editorial author] described the infatuation of Croatian politicians as a state similar to attacks of epilepsy such as "petit mal" (a medically known seizure called "absence"), "which is reflected in the stiffness of the face, bulging eyes, half-open mouth and, with a look of awe on his face spasmodically turned towards the West of Europe." Eurotics do not see or do not want to see neo-colonialist shackles for their own country to which its poorly negotiated entry into the economic integration with the much more powerful countries is leading.

Srbi u Hrvatskoj (Serbs of Croatia)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Multiple issues in the history sections, specifically on the "Austrian rule", "World War II", and Croatian War of Independence.
Description:
  • The section about Serbs in Croatia under Austrian rule contains an elaborate description of the 19th century spread of Serbian national identity among the Eastern Orthodox population of Croatia, which reads as a conspiracy theory of Serbian takeover of Croatian territory. The strongest claims are drawn primarily from a single source, an introduction to a reissue of a contemporary work that argued about this process. While this may be one legitimate interpretation of history (I am not informed enough to judge), the sole attention to it is certainly blatant POV, and the extent accorded to it disproportionate. If anything, it probably belongs to a separate article.
  • The section about World War II did not exist at all at start of the recent media attention. In has been introduced and expanded in the meantime, but it does not yet amount to a robust presentation of the Ustaša attempt to cleanse the country of its Serbian population. The description of Ustaša racial policies is confined to a part of the first paragraph and the total casualty numbers, which are drawn from two contradictory sources. Instead, more than half of the section is devoted to the Serb reaction against Croats and their role in the anti-fascist resistance, which are uncritically lumped into the term "rebellion" (pobuna), thereby taking the point of view of Ustaša government; as well as alleged later attempts by the Ustaše to mollify official policies. Notably, there is no mention of the term "genocide" (not even qualified by, say, "sources such as ... claim..."), and there is no discussion of the system of concentration camps run by the Ustaše, of which the largest (Jasenovac) is not mentioned in main article text at all.
  • The section on the Serb exodus during the Croatian War of Independence and atrocities against them immediately following is now much improved and contains an open discussion of the Croatian official responsibility for ethnic cleansing. The section does contain an unsourced claim that the expulsion was "organized and planned." However, the history of the article reveals evidence that, prior to current media attention, attempts to change this section had been systematically reverted.
Miranche (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support The article in general reads like an indictment. From it, one might get an impression that the Serbs of Croatia more or less never did anything but oppress the Croats. Examples of the opposite happening are distinctly muted. Kubura used Mladen Lorković's book as a source, which is highly inappropriate, then defended it in the talk page. SpeedyGonsales was unbiased and constructive as usual.[74] GregorB (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is again hr.wiki skipped? Why noone posted this on hr.wiki?
Here are the sources about the Serb evacuation 1995.
I can't find the Mile Paspalj's document).
Ovako, ima dokumenata Civilne zaštite pobunjenih Srba koji govore o već predviđenom evakuiranju stanovništva. Evo nekoliko izvora (i to srpskih) koji govore o planskom evakuiranju stanovništva/there are some documents of rebel Serbs' Civile Protection (Civilna Zaštita), that speak about an already prepared and predicted evacuation of population, but, as a first step, here are some sources (Serb sources!) that speak about planned evacuation of population of rebel areas:
This order is given from the rebel Serb top authority on the day of Operation Storm. 5. August 1995.
  • RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).
Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.
I'll type you the original text later.
These orders are given two days before the Operation Storm,
02. August 1995.
  • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
This is the document of Republic headquarters of Civil Protection of RSK. In this document it was ordered to all subordinated headquaters of RSK to immediately give all reports about preparations for the evacuation, sheltering and taking care of evacuated civilians (evakuacija, sklanjanje i zbrinjavanje) (the deadline for the report was 3. August 1995 in 19 h).
  • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
This was the next order from the Republican HQ of Civil Protection. It was referred to all Municipal Headquaters of Civil Protection. In that document was ordered to all subordinated HQ's to implement the preparation of evacuation of all material and all mobile cultural goods, archives, evidentions and materials that are highly confidential/top secret, money, lists of valuable stuff (?)("vrednosni popisi") and referring documentations.
  • Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu" , Beograd 2003. , p. 93.-94.
Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin (the capitol of self-proclaimed state)
  • Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu" , Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.
Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army).
  • Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95" , Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.
Note: Marko Vrcelj was a military officer of JNA (later named: Vojska Jugoslavije - Army of FR Yugoslavia). During the wartime 1991-95, he was on the various military functions in "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army).
There're also some videos available on YouTube.Vježba Srba za evakuaciju iz Krajine
Savo Štrbac's words [75] (from 1:29). He openly admitted the organization of evacuation.
All You had to do isto ask me. Why is local project avoided again? Why noone posted this question on hr.wiki? Kubura (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comprehensive comment, Kubura. I note that as of today, the relevant paragraph in the article which talks about RSK role in organizing the exodus still does not take advantage of the sources you mentioned, but instead contains multiple unqualified claims marked as unsourced. I'm copying your comment to the article talk page. Miranche (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Unsourced" are all from the site being cited at the end of the paragraph (if that was the problem, here is solved [76]). [77] Predgovor i zaključak iz knjige Adalberta Rebića “Sve moje izbjeglice” u izdanju zagrebačkog Novelti Milleniuma. (foreword and the conclusion from the book of Adalbert Rebić: Sve moje izbjeglice, published by Novelti Millenium, Zagreb). Adalbert Rebić je bio predstojnik Vladinog Ureda za prognanike i izbjeglice (chief of Croatian Government's Office for Refugees) a 1995. bio je ministar u Vladi zadužen za humanitarna pitanja (Minister for Humanitary Affairs). Kubura (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that's better, because it makes the POV problem with this paragraph more transparent. Citing a single source by a government official in charge of humanitarian affairs at the time 150,000-200,000 people fled their homes, who hence had a vested interest in portraying himself & the government as blameless and the refugees as leaving of their own free will, is the definition of POV. Miranche (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Holokaust u NDH (The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Article organization, section on Serb victims.
Description: The section about Jewish victims is extensive, and large parts of it are competently written. The section on the Roma, following it, is very terse, while the section on the Serbs -- the most numerous victims of official racial politics of wartime Croatia -- is (a) last, (b) short, and (c) extremely equivocal. On the positive side, unlike in most other hr.wiki articles on the period, the word "genocide" is used openly to refer to Ustaša policies against Serbs, supported by no less than five sources. On the other hand, two out of three paragraphs in some way relativize Ustaša culpability for the genocide attempt. Specifically, the last and the longest paragraph is devoted to the (probably factual, but unsupported by sources provided) propaganda efforts by the Yugoslav communist government to exaggerate the scope of genocide in NDH in general and against Serbs in particular, while diminishing the scope of the Holocaust under the quisling government in Serbia.
Clearly a discussion of political abuse of the Holocaust in NDH belongs in this article, but this paragraph does it in a very superficial POV manner. Moreover, its inclusion in the section ostensibly about the history of the anti-Serb genocide constitutes editorializing. In fact, regardless of truthfulness of the claims that Croat culpability in the genocide was eventually unfairly exaggerated, to include such claims in the section whose declared subject is the factual account of this culpability, and instead of such account, is extremely disrespectful to the victims of Ustaše terror and arguably comprises Holocaust denial.
Attempts to remove this paragraph in September 2013 have been reverted, and have resulted, long after they were over, in sysop Zeljko freezing the article for a month for editing by anyone except admins. Miranche (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • The author of that section is user Fausto (who denigrated hr.wiki on his blog [78]).
He is the author of almost whole article.[79]
The disputed section(s) (1st removal in Sep 2013 [80], another removal [81]) were written by user Fausto [82] on June 7 2006 and [83] on May 29 2006, when user Argo Navis (he is criticizing hr.wiki) (and Joy also) was the admin.
Dalibor Bosits was also editing that article in Aug 31 2008 [84], as well as Sombrero (=Argo Navis [85], according to his words, his second admin account at the same time) [86] on Oct 21 2007, but both of them have not changed those sections (Dalibor Bosits and Sombrero were the admins then, Zeljko and Kubura were not the admins at that time). Kubura (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Kubura, You can't insist that admins are not responsible for content of the articles (to defend yourself in another topics), and then point out that Joy was admin too at that time.
Regarding my changes, it's pretty lame what you are doing here. The fact that I petroled some minor change, at the time when I used to patrol 500 edits a day, doesn't mean I read every single of that 500 articles I patrolled. Patroller is patrolling changes, not entire articles! And if I added reference for one claim, it doesn't mean I had time or interest to check entire article.
It's not anyone's duty to fix articles, but admins duty is not to stop others from doing that! What we are looking here is proofs that admins actively discouraged other users from fixing articles. That happened in 2013, so let's see who was involved then. --Argo Navis (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jugokomunisti ("Yugo-communists") and all articles using related terms[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Pejorative term treated as a bona fide article title. Used unproblematically in encyclopedic text in about 100 articles.
Description: The terms "Jugokomunisti" (noun, "Yugo-communists"), "jugokomunistički" (adjective, "Yugo-communist"), and those derived from them have been, to my knowledge, introduced into the Croatian mainstream by state media in 1990s, during the Croatian War of Independence, as part of a turn toward wartime patriotic jingoism. They have since fallen far out of the mainstream and are, in present use, pejoratives used almost exclusively in a right-wing POV, typically in texts attributing real or imagined villainous behavior to Yugoslav Communists.
In Croatian Wikipedia, the term has its own, largely unsourced article, which largely overlaps with that on the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the Communist party). The search on all grammatical forms of "jugokomunisti" and "jugokomunistički" yields a total of over 130 instances in the main namespace, typically used as standard descriptors for Yugoslav Communists. The total number of affected articles is lower, as some use more than one form of the word.
The term itself is barely notable. If it merits an article it is for the same reason e.g. "pinko" does, and it needs to be treated comparably by documenting the historical origins and use of the term as a pejorative. All articles that use it in an unproblematic way to refer to Yugoslav Communists should be considered POV. While the claims these articles make about Yugoslav Communists may well be justified, they need to be documented by unbiased sources and reworded in an NPOV manner. Miranche (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • This article was written by a user Croq known for 10 sockspupets. Who is completely obsessed with repeating the lies from the same proven inaccurate sources in bunch of articles. He has written many similar articles about "Yugo-communists" with a very biased point of view similar with Ustasha emigration. He do not allow adding any positive facts in "his" articles, or to write that "Yugo-communists," is derogatory term for Croatian right-wing opponents. [[87]]I think that most of the Croq political articles / pamphlets should be reduced to the bare bones because they are full of hatred and inaccurate sources what is poined even on other sites hr.wiki as exaggerations.--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that you mentioned it, there's hr:Suradnik:Nilski krokodil, who is similar to Croq in both name and encylopedic approach...[88] GregorB (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
One more Croq-a-like account, reverting article Indoctrination in previus state were he is equaling the fascist youth with communist youth in a typical WP:COATRACK [[89]]--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Check recent discussions. Kubura is insisting on keeping this parody of article. Zeljko also joined the discussion, but only to insult opponents by calling them "yugocommunists", without giving any reasonable arguments. --Argo Navis (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Seiya (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support jugokomunizam is a pejorative term in Serbo-Croatian language and it is no mistake that that title was chosen in lieu of a neutral term such as Jugoslavenski komunizam ("Yugoslav Communism") or something like that. Article's content reeks of Croatian-centric victimhood, OR (part that Yugoslav Communists preferred regional terms such as Dalmatian instead of Croatian is too funny) and is entirely a POV piece. Yugoslav Communism was arguably the most successful instance of the Cold War-era Communisms (the biggest personal freedoms and prosperity), and of course nothing of that is even mentioned in the article. Only the obnoxious nationalist propaganda from the far-right perspective is presented in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Kategorija:Ratni zločini u Jugoslaviji u Drugom svjetskom ratu (Category:World War II crimes in Yugoslavia)[edit]

Screenshot of the category showing article counts, taken 23 September 2013
Neravnomjerna pokrivenost teme - Unbalanced topic coverage
Info: The composition of the category indicates systematic bias in favor of Ustaše.
Description: The composition of articles in this category is skewed. Most notably:
  • The subcategory with by far the largest number of articles is Kategorija:Partizanski zločini u Drugom svjetskom ratu i poraću (Crimes of Yugoslav Partisans duribng and after World War II). It includes a motley collection of articles -- biographies of perpetrators and victims, individual massacres and prison centers, and overview articles about particular categories of crimes and targeted populations. While some are certainly genuine, many of these are either not sourced at all, or supported only by very questionable sources.
  • Although the Croatian Wikipedia contains biographic articles on many Ustaša officers who made the category Category:The Holocaust in Yugoslavia as war criminals, they are not included in the category Kategorija:Ustaški zločini (Ustaše crimes) or an appropriate subcategory.
The relative size of the subcategory about Partisan crimes is in part an artifact of how the categories are organized. For example, English Wikipedia (unlike Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian ones) does not have a separate category about Partisan WW2 crimes, which are instead parts of more general categories Category:Massacres in Yugoslavia and Category:Yugoslav war crimes. However, both the scope and composition of the hr.wiki category reflect questionable decisions. First, while there are certainly points of continuity between Partisan war crimes during and immediately after WW2 with Communist repression in the years following the war, lumping the two arguably violates WP:OR and reflects right-wing revisionist POV that retroactively portrayed Nazi collaborators as righteous fighters against Communism. Second, many of the articles are very poorly supported, which does no favor to the alleged victims and suggests instead a tendency to stuff the category with incriminatory material. On the other hand, the relative lack of material in the category about Ustaša crimes reflect the opposite tendency to underplay the scale and severity of these crimes.
Overall, the imbalance in coverage of this category truly is striking, and indicates a convergence of several connected problematic dynamics on Croatian Wikipedia -- the political tendencies to demonize Yugoslav Communists and apologize for Croatian Nazi collaborators, and the low standards for evidentiary support for encyclopedic articles. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Oppose Oppose This is done by one or two users and the only way to counter it was to delete valid articles. Noone is to blame. --Argo Navis (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Argo, just to clarify. The point of this submission is to note a real imbalance in content rather a particular culprit, namely, that the current coverage of WW2 war crimes in hrwiki is badly imbalanced, and that when taken in aggregate this is a case of questionable content that needs to be remedied for hrwiki to be neutral. I'm not saying that the content itself is necessarily incorrect, but that the topic is artificially inflated, like an article would be if it cited mainly Croatian sources, reliable or not, and in much more length, on a topic where there are notable foreign sources that provide a significant additional perspective. The imbalance IMO lies primarily in the decisions on how to compose categories and what to include in them, and only secondarily (but still importantly so) in the decisions to write a lot of articles specifically about Partisan war crimes. Clearly, I'm not suggesting to delete these articles.
Specifically, here's what I think the problems are and what I personally believe needs to be done about it, which of course would need to be discussed at hrwiki.
  1. The decision to aggregate into the same category Yugoslav Partisan war crimes during and in weeks immediately following WW2 together with crimes committed later by the Yugoslav state is definitely POV, possibly OR. Crimes committed by Yugoslav Partisans during and immediately after major military operations are clearly WW2 war crimes, while crimes committed by the Yugoslav state in peace time, whether executed by the police, the army, or secret services, are state terror perpetrated by a communist regime. The two kinds of crimes are usually spoken of in the same breath by people trying to emphasize Croatian victimhood, but that's POV. I think the proper course of action is to separate these two kinds of crimes into different categories.
  2. The inclusion criteria in different war crimes categories are different. In particular, you can find Yugoslav army commanders in the Partisan crimes category, but you cannot find notable Ustaša commanders in the Ustaša war crimes category. These criteria obviously need to be consistent, so if Simo Dubajić is in the Partisan war crimes category, then certainly Andrija Artuković and others need to be in the Ustaša war crimes category. There also needs to be a standard of evidence, supported by reliable sources, for calling someone a criminal, as we know from the endless discussions about hrwiki articles on Arkan and Bušić.
  3. The sheer number of articles in the category as compared to other WW2 war crimes categories is badly out of balance. This requires more footwork:
    • First, the existing articles need to be evaluated for notability on a case-by-case basis. Are articles written by Croq, as many of these are, well sourced and NPOV worded? Needs to be checked. Is every priest killed by the Partisans notable, or should there be other criteria for notability, such as works published, public engagement, etc. If every Catholic priest killed by the Partisans is notable, then probably every Orthodox priest killed by the Ustaše should be too. etc. etc.
    • Second, once there's agreement on how a WW2 war crime category can be populated with NPOV notable articles in a consistent manner, there needs to be a concerted push to fill categories for war crimes of Axis forces and their collaborators with articles of similar detail and notability, to remedy the imbalance.
Hope that helps. Miranche (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Rasizam (Racism)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: A rambling, largely unsourced article, WP:COATRACK violation.
Description: The article contains some useful information, but is so disorganized that it's prohibitively difficult to glean a systematic view of the subject. It is also completely unsourced, with a single exception. The fourth paragraph prominently features an offhand insult against Croats by Karl Marx, properly sourced, as a prime example of racism. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • The article is almost in whole written by user Fausto (who denigrated hr.wiki on his blog [90]) on June 21 and Sep 11 2006 [91] [92]. The version that was first time patrolled was the one patrolled by user hr:user:Argo Navis (he is criticizing hr.wiki) on June 25 2007 [93] Kubura (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph about the hatred of Croats by Marxists was written by Croq [94]. Miranche (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nacionalni kompleks niže vrijednosti (National inferiority complex)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: A POV article, violating WP:OR.
Description: A lot of work went into writing this article, and there are redeemable parts. The topic of colonial and international governmentality -- of ways colonial rule or international power relations impact personal identity -- is FWIK a bona fide topic in social scientific study and may merit a separate encyclopedic article. However, this particular expression of it constitutes original research advancing a POV. The bulk of sources are editorials and public statements that assume there is such a thing as a national inferiority complex. They do not, however, amount to evidence for such a complex. Nor do they suffice to corroborate, even if the emotional and behavioral patterns they refer to are genuine, that it is appropriate to describe them as an inferiority complex on the scale of a nation -- hence OR. This last decision in turn presumes a standard set of desirable attitudes toward national identity, attributing a psychological ailment to those who do not subscribe to such attitudes -- hence POV. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support --Seiya (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support POV, OR, SYNTH - utter garbage of an article written by our diaspora fellow User:Vodomar (those kinds of theories are popular with diaspora I've heard..). Sources are fascists portal like dnevno.hr, cherry-picked statements from politicians and Croatian Catholic Church propaganda newspaper Glas Koncila. The article openly disparages supranational movements and organizations from Illyrism and Yugoslavism to EU, NATO and UN. And that in an age when we're finally dismantling obsolete constructs of nation-states... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment See also similar content in article hr:Samomržnja (w:Self hatred). Miranche (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Kroatofobija (Croatophobia)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Right-wing conspiracy theory about a topic of questionable notability.
Description: Largely unsourced. Several statements (by Marx, Bloch, and Serbian nationalists, among others) taken out of context and WP:SYNTHesized into an article. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • E.g., so do articles en:Francophobia, en:Germanophobia (redirect to Anti-German sentiment) and en:Anglophobia on en.wiki exist. And whole category en:Category:Anti-national_sentiment. E.g., the article Francophobia contains dictionary entry as reference and WP:SYNTH of various newsarticles. Why en.wiki can have such article and hr.wiki not? There's an dictionary entry about kroatofobija. Anti-Croat sentiment is not unknown fact in history. It is recorded in history books and media. Greaterserbianists have been growing this sentiment as a fuel for military attack on Croatia. Or put it this way: can You deny the existence of Croatophobia, especially since 1986 (when Slobodan Milošević came to power)? Kubura (talk)
    Thank you, Kubura. As my description above suggests, the problem is not that there shouldn't be an article about "Croatophobia" but that the sources provided in the article were not enough to establish whether the concept is notable, at the time I wrote the above description. I see there has been some work on the article in the meantime, so I cannot say if this is still the case. Regardless, the main point still stands: the original content was submitted, reviewed, and accepted, and it should not have been.
    The answer anyone can give to your question "can You deny the existence of Croatophobia, especially since 1986 (when Slobodan Milošević came to power)?" is a personal opinion based on individual experience, even if one has suffered greatly at the hands of people hating Croats. Whether or not you, I, or anyone else can bear witness to the existence of hatred or fear of Croats, is just not at stake here. Personal experience, however forceful and authentic, simply is not a reliable source for an encyclopedic article. Miranche (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion was supposed to take place on the talkpage of that article, that's why they exist.
I am not speaking about personal experiences. I hope that You've been able to read Serbian newspapers and magazines, or to see and hear radio and television companies during those times. All that is documented and researched by the scholars. If not under the term "Croatophobia", "anti-Croat rhetoric" is the term that was used, or any similar term that definitely describes Croatophobia. You can find info about that in many Croatian or Western editions (e.g. Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in Post-Communist Balkan States by Biljana Vankovska, Haken Wiberg "Milosevic got into power in the party in 1986, stole the thunder in 1987, added anti-Croat rhetoric to anti-Albanian and won the elections in 1990" , or For Milosevic, to Win Is to Lose, LA Times "Less has been said about how the good-and-evil caricatures of communist political discourse primed Serbs for equally shallow anti-Muslim and anti-Croat rhetoric."). Also there're periodical sociological researches that deal with unpopularities, despised nations, [95]... Was anti-Croat sentiment used in history for war purposes, pacification or silencing through denigration, assimilation through oppression or for the expelling of the unwanted ethnicity? Yes, it was.
"Several statements (by Marx, Bloch, and Serbian nationalists, among others) taken out of context and WP:SYNTHesized into an article." Taken out of context? I disagree. SYNTHesized into an article? En.wiki has the same thing in similar articles.
Taken out of context? Replace the word "Croat" with the word "Jew" in those statements. Try to write such article or put a plaque with such texts and You'll quickly see what -phobia title You'll get. (Die Tschechen sind "Hunde" und die Kroaten "Abschaum" (Karl Marx)., Gott beschütze uns vor der Pest dem Hunger und den Kroaten. (plaque in the church in Magdeburg, similar in Aachen))
"...the sources provided in the article were not enough to establish whether the concept is notable, at the time I wrote the above description..." Same case is with en.wiki.
"...the original content was submitted, reviewed, and accepted, and it should not have been". You do not know how the Wikipedia functions, obviously. Read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (hr:Wikipedija:Pet stupova Wikipedije). The pages never have "final edition". They are always upgraded. The missing content is being added through the time. What do You expect? That the author has the write the bible-size article in the very first edit and to cover the topic perfectly, and the reviewer to review it perfectly (in a fear of those Kibitzers who find the drop of hair in the yolk)? You expect from others to do that perfectly for free, to spend their free time sweating with fear of error (instead of having the joy of editing), while the "impeccable criticizing Kibitzers" do nothing for years (instead of editing the article or advicing on the talkpage; the criticizers avoid the risk of error by not writing at all, but they do find themselves suitable and courageous when criticizing others) or organize a trial on a particular wikipage? Don't expect too much from editors. This is not the highly specialized scientific magazine in which only ph.D.-s have chance to publish their work, and only if they pass through rigorous filter. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The editors are invited to be bold. If something is missing, add it. If You are not the expert in the matter, please, do not judge others. This page was never locked for editing, so everybody could edit this. [96]
Further, hr.wiki also has article about Serbophobia (hr:Srbofobija). Right-wing conspiracy theory? Questionable notability?
Also, why noone sees that there are articles about Croatophobia on sr.wiki sr:Кроатофобија and on sh.wiki sh:Kroatofobija. Double standards when speaking about "questionable notability", WP:SYNTH or whatever? Kubura (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the article en:Anti-German sentiment is a good example of how an article like this one should be written. It's well-sourced, and more importantly, it covers only cases where large numbers of people of one nation exhibited anti-national sentiment against another. In particular, it doesn't deal with isolated cases or prejudices of individuals.
OTOH, the fact that someone had to expend effort dig up two quotes against Croats prior to the 20th century, over 200 years apart, shows how stretched the claims of this article are. A reaction to a massacre from 1631, committed by soldiers at war, is not sentiment against the entire nation, so the treatment of the Magdeburg inscription in this article is, at best, way overblown, as this reverted edit tried to remedy. Marx's statement from 1849 is at best one man's prejudice, way short of widespread anti-Croat sentiment, and it very much simplifies his views, as this reverted edit tried to explain. You mention Jews? Please look up what Jews actually went through roughly in the same period (1631-1849) and perhaps it'll shed some perspective on (a) why it's preposterous to claim on the basis of information presented in this article that there was such a thing as "Croatophobia" during that time, and (b) why even remotely comparing systematic historical repression of Jews to two cherrypicked anti-Croat statements two centuries apart is an outright insult to the Jewish people.
The articles in sh & sr Wikipedias on Serbophobia & the sh article on Croatophobia are actually pretty bad, but they don't concern me here. I concede that the simple content of one article is not direct proof of systematic bias. But reverting attempts to improve the article is, and so is the proliferation of articles by the same user or group of users offering the same fantastic victimization narratives all over Croatian Wikipedia.
This is, in fact, an outright insult to Croats. It counterfeits Croatian historical experience to score cheap points on injustices that never happened or that were never as large as portrayed. This article would be much better if it gave a sober treatment of historical evidence of actual anti-Croat propaganda and repression during the two Yugoslavias in the 20th century, which existed -- not as much as promoters of Croatian victimization would want, but it did -- and corroborated this with reliable sources.
That kind of an article would merit inclusion in hr.wikipedia. I'm glad to see that what's there is slowly improving. Miranche (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Rashrvaćivanje (De-Croatization)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Right-wing conspiracy theory about a topic of questionable notability.
Description: Article about alleged attempts to destroy Croatian national identity, written with zero critical distance. The right-wing POV sources cited are not adequate to establish notability. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support --Seiya (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Completely fabricated article, violation of OR, SYNTH, NPOV.. Sources are conspiracy theorists like Domazet who wrote a book on intergalactic Masonic agenda (I kid you not). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - Not inexistent topic. E.g. Dekroatizacija Jadrana by Miće Gamulin, Provincijalizacija i dekroatizacija naše nacionalne baštine (povijest hrvatske književnosti prije Kombola) by Mirko Tomasović (academist). We cannot deny the processes and the policies throghout recent three centuries of Croatian history, reflected on ethnic territory, country's territory (Kossuth's ideas, Habsburg's policy towards restored Croatian lands and unification of dismembered Croatian lands), culture, language (e.g. Mussolini's laws), company ownership (firesale of profitable strategic state companies to foreigners) etc. Many other nations had/have similar problems. Kubura (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Istrijanstvo (Istrianism)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Right-wing POV pamphlet about Istrian regionalism.
Description: A detailed and somewhat rambling series of one-sided slurs on Istrian regionalism, unequivocally presented as a front that would detach Istria from Croatia and possibly attach it to Italy. Supported largely by POV sources, and by a selective reading of one or two news reports. Miranche (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support --Seiya (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Izjava Čakavskog sabora (Croatian cultural institution that deals with Chakavian dialect of Croatian language) protiv regionalnog izjašnjavanja dana nakon rasprave na sjednici od 30. siječnja 1971. o mogućnosti regionalnog izjašnjavanje prilikom popisa stanovništva. Here is the whole text " Upravni odbor Čakavskog sabora na svojoj sjednici od 30. siječnja 1971. raspravljao je od odluci prema kojoj se u predstojećem popisu stanovništva uz nacionalno ustanovljuje i mogućnost regionalnog opredjeljivanja pučanstva. Takvu alternativu upravni odbor Čakavskog sabora ocjenjuje kao apsurdnu i štetnu za sadašnji pozitivan razvoj međunacionalnih odnosa u Jugoslaviji, a i kao naučnu i nespojivu s lenjinističkom teorijom o nacionalnom pitanju. To načelo nema presedana u kulturnoj povijesti Evrope, a njegova primjena primjena može dati pogrešne statističke podatke o nacionalnom sastavu stanovništva u našoj zemlji, a može poslužiti i kao sredstvo za najrazličitije spekulacije za štetu pojedinih naroda i narodnosti u Jugoslaviji. Smatramo da popis stanovništva pod takvim okolnostima dopušta mogućnost da se u statistici krivo interpretira etnogenetička sinteza hrvatskog naroda. Ovakva načela stimuliraju pojavu zastarjelih autonomaško-separatističkih ideja koje se protive naprednim integracionim tokovima života, što ih potiče i usavršava na naš socijalistički razvitak. Upravni odbor Čakavskog sabora stoga smatra da kompetentni organi moraju hitno ukinuti mogućnost regionalnog izjašnjavanja ili odgoditi popis stanovništva dok se koncepcije popisa temeljito ne pripreme u skladu s novim idejnim tokovima našeg društva." Do You find that it was possible for right-wing to exist at all in 1971? Or even worse, for right-wingers to say publicly speak in 1971 in Croatia? Do You find institution like Čakavski sabor as "right-wing"? Also, You find the magazine Vijenac of Matica hrvatska (major and oldest Croatian cultural institution) as non-neutral? Do You find the local from Istria, member of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts Josip Bratulić as non-neutral? Here are his words from the text [97] " Danas ime Istrija i Istrijan služe za polarizaciju hrvatskoga političkog tijela. Hrvate se nagovara da budu Istrijani, a ne Hrvati. Talijani tu ponudu odbijaju, oni su najprije Talijani, a onda i Istrijani, " Or You find Yourself bigger scientific authority for Istria than the local Istrians? Or You dispute Vlado Gotovac's opinion? Do You find him as non-neutral person [98] [99]? "Opći je dojam da su dokumenti IDS-a autonomaški. U njima nema Hrvatske – jedino implicite kao labava federacija. Odlučno smo odbacili suradnju na takvoj osnovici. Osobito je žestok bio Gotovac. Ne samo da nećemo surađivati nego ćemo ih napasti. Ne bi smjeli biti politička stranka bez hrvatskog predznaka. " Kubura (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No Bratulić is not neutral. That is just his opinion. That's the problem with you (and your cabal friends) is that you have no idea what NPOV means. You just pick one particular POV and present it as an absolute and sacred truth. And that POV is always some extremist far-right viewpoint. The balanced article on Istrijanstvo would've used neutral language, without crap such as "movement fabricated to reduce the number of Croats", which is currently article's very first sentence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
[100] Zajednica hrvatskih udruga u Istri (ZHUI) je pred Ustavnim sudom Republike Hrvatske i Ministarstvom pravosuđa, uprave i lokalne samouprave Republike Hrvatske u listopadu i prosincu 2002. pokrenula postupka za ocjenu ustavnosti i zakonitosti. "u Balama su tobožnji pobornici dvojezičnosti postavili jednojezična talijanska imena ulica i trgova, čime se pravo manjinske etničke zajednice tog mjesta na slobodnu uporabu svoga jezika ostvaruje na način suprotan članku 12. Ustava RH, koji propisuje da je u RH u službenoj uporabi hrvatski jezik...Kada je riječ o tzv. neprevodivosti toponima, čini se da u Balama vrijede dvostruka mjerila, da su neprevodiva i nedodirljiva samo romanska mjesna imena, a hrvatska se smiju, štoviše moraju, ili prevoditi na talijanski ili uklanjati...O novim nazivima ulica, trgova i dijelova naselja postavljenim u Istri posljednjih godina malo se u javnosti zna. . Tim su nazivljem oživljena vremena vladavine ...hrvatskih renegata i talijanskih građanskih intelektualaca, među kojima i onih koji su razarali suživot istarskih prostora, bili iredentisti, tvorci i promicatelji talijanske imperijalne politike, koji su istarske Hrvate proglašavali »uljezima u tuđu zemlju, narodom bez povijesti i kulture, slavenskom gomilom koju treba talijanizirati kako bi se civilizirala«. Svoje ulice i trgove u Istri tako imaju B. Benussi, A. amareso, M. Campitelli, G. R. Carli, C. Combi, Costantini, Camillo de Franceschi, Carlo de Franceschi, P. Kandler, L. Rizzi, P. Stancovich. Osim istjerivanja ili prevođenja hrvatskih imena, premještanja takvih imena iz središta na rubne prostore istarskih naselja i imenovanja manje važnih ulica imenima hrvatskih predznaka, osobit oblik zaobilaženja hrvatske sastavnice novog nazivlja jest raspolovljavanje ulica i njihovih imena na način da se jednoj polovine ulice nadjene ime neke istaknute talijanske ličnosti, a drugoj ime bez ikakva značenja u kulturi većinskoga naroda.".
Especially is this important: [101] " Iako se glavni akteri promjena u nazivljima rado izjavljuju antifašistima, njihov odnos prema istarskoj antifašističkoj prošlosti nerijetko poriče takvo njihovo deklarativno uvjerenje. ...iz nazivlja izbačena Ulica 9. rujna, koja je u svom imenu čuvala sjećanje na povijesni dan kada su se Istrani antifašisti 1943. masovno digli na ustanak i oslobodili čitavu Istru i Bale. Kada nisu uklanjana, novim su nazivljem i imena važnih ličnosti i povijesnih događaja antifašističke i nacionalne oslobodilačke borbe Istrana nerijetko premještana iz središta mjesta na njihovu periferiju, od najvažnijih dijelova naselja na uličice sa po nekoliko kućnih brojeva. Osim Nazorova u tom je gradiću potpuno uklonjeno i ime ulice Vladimira Gortana, Istranina koji je simbol antifašističke i oslobodilačke nacionalne borbe istarskih Hrvata i Slovenaca. ...Novim valom tobožnje dezideologizacije nazivlja nisu bolje prošli ni drugi antifašisti...U Umagu je, nakon višegodišnjeg otpora Školskog odbora i Nastavničkog vijeća tamošnje Osnovne škole, administrativno, dekretom lokalnih vlasti, iz naziva škole uklonjeno ime istaknuta antifašista, publicista i književnika Viktora Cara Emina. U Rovinju je talijanska Osnovna škola heroja antifašističke borbe Matea Benussija Cija preimenovana i nazvana imenom osvjedočena talijanskog iredentističkog povjesničara Bernarda Benussija, koji je bio protivnik suživota na istarskim prostorima." Contrary to the blatant calumny, hr.wiki has unmasked those who eliminate and/or belittle antifascist traditions(this example obviously shows that). Hr.wiki promotes true antifascist traditions. Ivan Štambuk, if You really think that Čakavski sabor, Bratulić or Vlado Gotovac are far-right, please, declare that publicly (Ivan Štambuk is generally known for etiquetting his opponents as "extreme nationalist", "far-right", "nazi", "fascist".). Hold a class on national TV about that, or in the historical institution. Inform our uneducated nation. We are looking forward to Your scientific contributions. You find Yourself as bigger scientific authority in history and linguistics than whole Croatian scientific community. (Croatian Scientific Bibliography. Search page [102] - no entry for Ivan Štambuk. Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. [103] - no entry for Ivan Štambuk). Kubura (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As expected, the only arguments that User:Kubura can summon are ad hominems and useless citations that prove nothing. Let me repeat the core argument once again so that it can sink in: What some far-right sympathizers from publicly disgraced institutions like HAZU and HKV think is their own POV. It's not "Truth". Wikipedia functions on NPOV principle which means every wording has to be neutral, and opinions on imaginary topics like nationality should be cited as opinions and not as facts of reality, because they don't exist other than opinions and personal imagination. Croatian Wikipedia is the only reference work in the world that defines Istrijanstvo as a "movement fabricated to reduce the number of Croats". None of the Istrians feel that way, and most would be insulted with that definition (and many have been when the media brought this article to public attention). You Kubura are so brainwashed by nationalism that you're completely unable to accept unorthodox POVs as existing, let alone balancing them inside articles. They way you discuss - invoking opinions by cherry-picked "authorities" as some kind of definite answer to every issue - is a result of that inability. It's tragic that person such as you sets the tone for discussions, writes and locks articles, and bans dissenters from hrWiki. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support This article was specifically mentioned by some historians in the media as the evidence for far-right propaganda on Croatian Wikipedia. And, as we can see in User:Kubura's comment above, not only did they author it and see nothing wrong which such blatant POV-pushing, but they genuinely think that that kind of writing represents neutral point of view. Croatian Wikipedia cannot be a neutral project as long as Kubura and his ilk write and spread this kind of "neutrality". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Istospolna seksualnost ("Same-sex sexuality", interwiki to Men who have sex with men)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Heavily biased. Large parts written by one user (Suradnik:Moravek); patrolled by many, including the user him/herself.
Description: Large sections of the article are a homophobic pamphlet. The second paragraph sets the tone for the article, immediately giving detail of a scientific study that supposedly concluded homosexuality was not genetic, without giving any further context. Below, the section on medical opinions on homosexuality repeatedly employs crude WP:SYNTH arguments to imply that homosexuality is an aberration, a psychiatric illness, and/or a risk factor for suicide and sexually transmitted diseases. Identity of sexual minorities is repeatedly mentioned in scare quotes. Example: 20th century has brought ... the development of groups that build their identity as "sexual" or "gender" minorities. Or: "Sexual minorities", as they like to call themselves ... And so on.
Additionally, the article does not correspond to its interwiki link, which covers one specific form of homosexuality. It is more general, and so it is unclear by what criterion it should contain different information from the article on homosexuality. Miranche (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's an interesting quote: Pogrdni nazivi nanose uvredu i bol, diskriminirajući su, te se ne bi trebali koristiti, a naročito ne u javnom govoru, govoru u medijima, osim ako se radi o izravnim citatima koji se odnose na osobne predrasude osobe koju se citira: "peder", "pederko", "pederčina", "pešo", "guzičar", "lezba", "lezbača", "homo", "homi", "kraljica (teatra)", "ona-on", "on-ona", "dajguz", "đukica", "tranzić", "tranzi", "topli brat".
There's more, of course: U Hollywoodu, homoseksualizam se danas prodaje bolje nego bilo što drugo.
And so on, needs to be looked into. GregorB (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • This really deserves translation.
Pejorative names are insulting and inflict pain, are discriminatory, and should not be used, especially not in a public speech, a speech in the media, except in the case of direct quotations relating to the personal prejudice of person you are quoting:...(a list of insulting names in Croatian)...
In Hollywood, homosexuality is now selling better than anything else. (This one really takes the cake!) 31.45.225.68 14:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with that interesting quote ("Pejorative names ....")? It educates readers which terms should not be used since they are discriminatory, insulting etc. Why do You complain on the text that explicitly educates which words might be offensive to LGBT community?
About the second quote ("In Hollywood..."). Take a short Google search. Do You complain on this Starbucks: Going 'gay' is profitable! (Sermonaudio, May 14 2012) or this It's profitable to be a little bit gay (LA Times, August 27, 2003) or this How 25 Years of Gay Activism in Hollywood Has Paid Off (CNS news, Oct 8 2008)? That texts speaks about current market conjuncture in the film industry. In certain decades, westerns were the best selling, historical spectacles, natural disasters. Now the movies, sitcoms and other series with LGBT heroes are the top box-office earners. What is so wrong about that? Are You mocking to LGBT?
Page was edited by several users since Aug 2006. Some users had few remarks in the talkspace on the June 15 2009 (Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf), referring to ICD, but they did no significant edits in the article at all (Zeljko and Kubura were not the admins then, Argo Navis was the admin at that time, Dalibor Bosits also was the admin; Argo Navis and Dalibor Bosits had no remarks on the content, nor did any significant edits in the content) and with no complaint on the complete article content. User Marko Jurčić, Croatian LGBT activist no.1, was editing hr.wiki at that time. He has never complained on the article (not a single word on the talkpage), nor did any edits there, through all these years.
The article in its form was reviewed and edited by former admin Argo Navis when he was the admin (revert like this one [104], from Oct 20, 2006).
Speaking about interwiki: physician explained why is particular term used.[105] The other users respected the expert's opinion.
If one author (a physician) is the author (the text is referenced with medical literature), the second author (also a physician or related to medicine [106], to oftalmology) does not dispute the quality of the content, when major LGBT activist does not complain on the articlecontent, who are we, the others, to dispute their judgment? Are You a physician to challenge the other physicians, especially in their area of specialization? Kubura (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Neither are written as a medical opinions or for educational purposes. The underyling tone is disparaging and disapproving. The list of vulgar terms for "gay" will invoke laughter and "is this a joke?" emotion, and the other sentence makes it sound like Hollywood is a part of some conspiracy to promote homosexuality - a view commonly held by "conservatives". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I can attest that despite claims to the contrary, user Moravek, the main contributor to this article and one whose expertise Kubura invokes (an expert in addiction, not in sexuality), has clashed about the closely related article Homosexuality with Marko Jurčić, the LGBT activist; see this discussion. The presumably expert justification by Moravek why "same-sex sexuality" is a better name than "homosexuality" for this article is completely unsourced, so it may well just be his personal opinion. Paraphrasing Moravek: on the one hand, "homosexuality" denotes an identity, and the corresponding article is written in an "activist tone"; on the other hand, "same-sex sexuality" is a technical term, and the article covers its medical and sociological aspects, citing plenty of Croatian language sources. This is an astounding claim, because:
  1. the expression "same-sex sexuality" does not appear in any of the titles of the (numerous) Croatian language sources in this article;
  2. all three major Croatian official encyclopedic sources (HE, HL, Proleksis) treat all aspects of homosexuality under "homoseksualnost", and
  3. not a single one of these sources has an entry on "istospolna seksualnost".
Therefore:
  • Moravek's claim that "same-sex sexuality" is a better technical Croatian language name for homosexuality is unattested, and goes against main Croatian language encyclopedic sources. The fact that it hasn't been challenged on the talk page does not make it right; I'll translate this comment into a challenge to it at my earliest convenience. Moravek's argument as it stands is WP:OR, and resembles politically motivated tactics of taking control of an agenda by shifting the language.
  • The supposed distinction between "identity" and "medical and sociological aspects" is not sufficient grounds for two separate articles. The claim is, in fact, partly unintelligible: identity is a sociological aspect.
  • The article did not correspond to the topic on its interwiki link, and I just erased it from interwiki.
Miranche (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBTIQ (Gay community)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Section Suvremene kritike LGBTIQ aktivizma (modern criticism of LGBTIQ activism)
Description: Last paragraph:
"Among psychiatrists and psychotherapists some that consider only heterosexual impulses as normal, and are willing to provide therapy (mainly aimed at reducing sexual desire, for young people and a complete reversal) to th non-heterosexual individuals who freely requested such psychotherapy services. Internationally most notable professional association that promotes this approach to LGBT topics is NARTH ("National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality"), professional association of psychotherapists in the United States publishing its own journal on treating unwanted same-sex preferences, and publishes technical guidance to the psychotherapist. [3]"
Nowhere in the article is not mentioned that such practices were condemned by the American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association, as harmful for the patients, since many of the patients committed suicide as consequences of such therapies, and all of them suffered severe lasting consequences in their life. Even NARTH itself retracted its claims, not to mention that there are initiatives to juridically prevent such practices on individuals who are not considered adults.
(Ksivonci (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Komentari - Comments:

Homoseksualnost (Homosexuality)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Section Evolucija i današnje ponašanje (evolution and present behavior)
Description: "Evolution is a passive process of adaptation of the organism to the environment, with the aim of survival / maintenance of the species. Since the evolution is a slow process, many qualities that once we needed remained to us today. So e.g., men have better orientation in the space, because once they were hunting, and for it was necessary spatial orientation. For the same reason women are better at visual search, because they gathered the fruits (berries, etc. ) for what was needed this ability. Preference for sweet taste is also a consequence of evolution as sweet often meant healthy and safe, while bitter - toxic.
Homosexuality is explained as a possible byproduct homosociality (same-sex friendships) . In order to maintain good relationships among the groups of people having a common task like going to hunt and purpose achieved, homosexuality has been developed, in order to strengthen the friendship and better emotional connection. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of helping in trouble, and thus contributed to the preservation of the species."
Is this Monty Python show script, perhaps?
Ksivonci (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • The section being disputed was written by an LGBT activist, Croatian LGBT activist No.1 Marko Jurčić. He wrote that on Aug 26 2006 [107] Are You mocking to homosexuals? Are You anti-LGBT? Kubura (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Dumbed-down description but not at all inaccurate AFAIK. Should be sourced though given the general controversy of the topic of homosexuality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Razlikovni rječnik hrvatskog jezika i srpskog jezika (Distinguishing dictionary of Croatian and Serbian language)[edit]

Sadržaj (članak u Wječniku) - Content (Wictionary article)
Info: A ridiculous "dictionary"
Description: This is supposed to be a dictionary, but it's just ridiculous. Some words are non existent, simply made up (!), and most of them work both ways. By the way, according to this "dictionary" half of Croatia is not speaking Croatian, me (from Dalmatia) included. I don't want this to be the discussion about languages (Croatian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian) because this is not a linguistic forum, I just think that this kind of text should not be here. (It is kinda difficult to explain this in English, if someone can help, please do.) 212.91.110.164 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support I can not say was this page created by a batshit crazy users with purpose to highlight distinction in speech of ordinary Serbs and Croats or it is a pure parody. So called dictionary has so many erroneous entries like župa = popadija. Župa is catholic term for parish user by both Serbs and Croats, and its Orthodox equivalent is parohija. Popadija is wife of Orthodox priest. Second, this "dictionary" emphasize that Serbs only use ekavian dialect (zabilješka - zabeleška, sijeno - seno, vrijeme - vreme). Third, here in Serbia we regularly use words such as: vrt, zatvor, siromaštvo. Bottom line: this Wiktionary page has so many obvious serious errors and having in mind that a grammar Nazi who edited the page hasn't noticed anything strange led to conclusion that they use Wiktionary for propaganda, too. -- Bojan  Talk  09:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support About a third of terms listed as Serbian are normal Croatian words that can be looked up in any comprehensive Croatian dictionary. Furthermore, authors of the article (User:Kubura &co.) are apparently not familiar with the fact that Serbian is standardized in both Ijekvian and Ekavian forms, so all of those Ijekavian-Ekavian pairs such as vijesti - vesti are useless. It should be noted however that language purism in Croatia is associated with nationalists and far-right radicals, who like to make up imaginary "differences" and promote terms that they perceive as ethnically more "pure". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The authors of this entry (since Sep 2005) are mostly unregistered authors [108] (all 309 edits). Kubura is a minor editor in that "dictionary"-entry (only 3 minor edits there, out of 309 total edits), so do not blame Kubura. If something is erroneous, all You had to do is to correct the entries in this "subdictionary". Ivan Štambuk is not banned nor blocked there [109], so why has not he changed that? Ivan Štambuk has been editing on that project since Apr 2007 [110], so why has he been waiting for seven years to complain on something he could solve himself? I dislike the comments like "ridiculous" (as IP 212.91.110.164 wrote above) and "batshit crazy users" (as BokicaK wrote above). The curses are not the way of argumentation. That is not the kind of discussion for an encyclopedic project. Kubura (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    Because you Kubura block everyone that does not subscribe to your right-wing fascism. Now, that particular page hasn't been brought to my attention until it was listed here, so there is no reason not to comment it. You have abudant history of imagining "differences" between Croatian and Serbian as well using imaginary words in your wiki correspondence in order to harass non-Croatian editors, so your involvement in the compilation of that particular list fits into your overall abuse patterns. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Vesna Teršelič (Vesna Teršelič)[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Unencyclopaedic article
Description: This is an article about known peace activist from Croatia. In my opinion, not in the form for encyclopedia, and biased.
Za osobu koja nastupa kao javni intelektualac, javnosti je učinila dostupnim neobično malo osobnih podatka: zna se tek da je rođena 1962. godine. Javnost nije upoznala niti sa svojom narodnošću, niti sa poviješću svojega odrastanja i radnog iskustva, čak niti sa obrazovanjem kojega ima.
For a person who acts as a public intellectual, she made available to the public an unusually little personal information: we know only that she was born in 1962. She didn't inform the public about her ethnicity, nor with the history of her upbringing and work experience, even with the education she has.
So, an encyclopaedia does not discuss what data is or is not available; it is supposed to just present what data there is as a fact. Plus, the article does not present all the facts, because there is no mention of an award she got for peace activism. The article was patrolled by Kubura, and today again by MaGa [111]. 83.131.84.172 10:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support The article is biased and argumentative in its entirety, clearly written from the right wing point of view. Kubura and MaGa did patrol it, but these were minor changes only. Note: tweaked the translation slightly, "nationality" -> "ethnicity". GregorB (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support Biased and encyclopedic. On enwiki such demeaning statements on living persons would be removed in an instant - on hrwiki they are patrolled by even more biased sysops. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose "there is no mention of an award she got for peace activism". All You had to do is to add the missing part. Do not blame others for something You were not willing to do it Yourself. [112]. The article was not locked, there was no reverts. Created on Aug 12 2013. Until now (5 months passed) noone added missing data (birthplace, birthdate, origins, school education, where and which schools, how did she started her activism, when did she began to show the interest for it...). Rather strange for awarded person, why such mistery? Croatian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vesna Pusić proudly speaks about her origins, her biography is not a secret [113], unlike Teršelič's [114]. If You see any bloopers, no project is immune to them, including en.wiki.Kubura (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you weren't so block-happy with dissenting editors someone would've removed that crap? Why have you patrolled it anyway? Would you allow such demeaning statements in the biographical articles of some right-wing politicians? No, it would be an attack on "Croatdom", and instant red-card + block --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće (Croatian Cultural Council) and all articles using it as a source[edit]

Sadržaj - Content
Info: Article about a right-wing association & web portal, largely written from its own POV. Multiple articles cite POV content from this portal as a reliable source.
Description: An article about a right-wing association and web portal, presented largely as apolitical, from the point of view of the association itself. Originally written by a user probably directly related to the association -- the name of the user, Suradnik:Hakave, mirrors the Croatian spelling of the association acronym, HKV, as well as to one of its web domain names, http://hakave.org . The only sources provided link back to the association itself.
Additionally, this portal is cited as a supposedly reliable source in over 100 articles. Some of these uses have been noted above as egregious POV violations, such as the claim, since corrected, that Anti-fascism is a genetic disorder, drawn from an editorial that's somewhere between OR and FRINGE.
The places where this portal is cited need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The information about the association & its members is likely to be accurate. Numerical data such as the amounts of Croatian veteran pensions, while likely accurate, should be supported by primary sources rather than secondary mentions in POV HKV editorials. Editorial claims should be considered POV by default and prefaced with "conservative journalist/intellectual so-and-so argues that...", or something similar. Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting editorial information from a clearly political project as fact. Miranche (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support - extremist right-wing think tank that is particularly liked by the cabal. On the last parliamentary elections in Croatia in 2011 their extremist party coalition Hrast (led by Željka Markić that recently organized an anti-gay referendum in Croatia) hasn't managed to win a single seat in the parliament. Just to give you a context of how extreme they are, and how unrepresentative their columnist opinions' are of the general population in Croatia. Regarding the article - its content is basically political programme of HKV. It needs independent sources, NPOVification and a big list of controversies (e.g. when they filed a complaint against the former Ministry of Culture that funded a book written by Snježana Kordić that dispels many nationalist myths..how dared they to spend taxpayers' money on something like that!). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsorted submissions - Nerazvrstani podnesci[edit]

This section contains information on reports of questionable content or editing, such as media stories, for which explicit details have yet to be found. Ovaj odjeljak sadrži podatke o izvješćima o upitnom sadržaju ili uređivanju, kao što su napisi u medijima, za koje konkretne detalje tek treba pronaći.

Discussion on Jimbo's talk page, 13-22 September 2013[edit]

Many specific allegations of questionable content were voiced in this discussion. Miranche (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Just as an example of arbitrariness of assertions and bias of the page (Section Zloporaba pojma translated):

Abuse of term Term homophobia today is abused for political, profiteering and other purposes as a mean of labeling and elimination of opponent. So, in Croatia, Karolina Vidović Krišto was labeled homophobe of the year (2013.) despite the fact that until then she never discussed about homosexuals; "remains the question why she was proclaimed homophobe of the year if she never spoke about homosexuals, though did about pedophilia, homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia?", ask critics.

National Assembly representative Marijana Petir got 'title' "homophobe" 2011. year, after by her merit out of voting procedure was withdrawn the proposal of Waters Act was which would enable their privatization, yet not 2008. when she voted against the Antidiscrimination Act. 82.193.210.227 14:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Data from Facebook posts[edit]

Content-related data extracted from posts on the Facebook group "Razotkrivanje sramotne hr.wikipedije" (Exposing the shameful hr.wikipedia).

To do: Date & document article content info independently of the POV context of the group. The posts whose claims have been evaluated & documented in the #Sorted submissions - Razvrstani podnesci section are marked with template Yes check.svg Done. Those found irrelevant are striken through.

Photo Stream[edit]

Started by Miranche (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Entered through 2013-09-22. Miranche (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up, entered through September 2013. Miranche (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Entered through October 2013. Miranche (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Entered through November 2013. Miranche (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Entered through today. Miranche (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Added links to screenshots, cleaned up a bit. Miranche (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
5-14 September 2013[edit]
  • 2013-09-05. Excerpt from article hr:Ustaše, section titled "Evaluation" and saying that current views of Ustaše are still one-sided black-and-white demonizing clichés, promoted by "imperial democracies like Britain & France" in order to, as patrons of Yugoslavia, "exculpate themselves from their complicity in crimes of Yugoslav states." Excerpt in the screenshot appears like pure editorializing with no source.
    • [115] H-Alter article linked in this post.
  • 2013-09-05. POV excerpts from articles hr:Vjekoslav Francetić (veliki rodoljub, osobno neobično hrabar i pošten), hr:Ante Pavelić (pjesnici pišu pjesme posvećene njemu, status Srba u NDH se poboljšao posebice u urbanim dijelovima), hr:Maks Luburić (spašava pravoslavnu siročad), hr:Sabirni logor Jasenovac (481 = jedini empirijski potvrđen broj žrtava, partizani su fotografirali vlastite žrtve)
  • 2013-09-05. First paragraph of this section from hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj (Serbs in Croatia), claiming that Serbs in Croatia are descendants of Balkan w:Vlachs (descendants of Celts & Romans) who moved while fleeing Turks. POV because Slavic Serb ancestry of Croatian Serbs is are denied. Two sources claimed.
    Information still in place as of today. Miranche (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 2013-09-06. Excerpt from the 20th century section from hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj, which did not contain the Ustaša WW2 genocide against Serbs.
  • 2013-09-06. Excerpt from Rational Wiki Wiki Wiki, largely sourced editorial on why Croatian Wikipedia resembles en:Conservapedia
    • Removed User:Seiya's strikethrough -- there are footnotes that seem relevant & I'm not sure if they have been looked into. If so, please excuse my intervention, but it'd still be helpful if you could share a few words on what these are & where else they're covered. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 2013-09-07. Analysis of the Croatian Wikipedia coverage of the hr:Danica (logor) Danica concentration camp, with examples of excluded information compiled at sh wiki, povijest.net genocid.info.
  • 2013-09-07. The Serb parentage of hr:Josip Runjanin, who composed the Croatian anthem, is allegedly denied.
  • 2013-09-07. Excerpt from this comment, a claim by an admin that Ustaše were not created as a criminal movement, but that their crimes cannot be justified.
  • 2013-09-09. Excerpt from hr:Potemkinova sela (Potemkin's village), claiming that Pride parades in Croatia are staged by activists & politicians of the "non-national regime". Yes check.svg Done.
  • 2013-09-09. Excerpt from hr:Antifašizam (Anti-fascism), claiming it to be equal to a whole litany of crimes, some real but most quite ahistorical ("Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents), ascribed to Yugoslav communism. One source claimed. Yes check.svg Done
  • 2013-09-09. Another excerpt from hr:Antifašizam (Anti-fascism), claiming that "antifascist-Chetnik" celebrations are organized in Croatia at taxpayers' expense. One source claimed. Yes check.svg Done
  • 2013-09-10. Large excerpt from hr:Kroatofobija (Croatophobia). Numerous issues, no sources in the excerpt. Yes check.svg Done
  • [116] 2013-09-10, media coverage in E-novine.
  • 2013-09-10. Count of mentions of "zločin" (Crime) and derived words in the articles on hr:Adolf Hitler (2), hr:Josip Broz Tito (5), hr:Ante Pavelić (0).
  • 2013-09-13. Excerpt from hr:Hrvati u Egiptu (Croats in Egypt), claim that en:Jawhar al-Siqilli was Croatian. One source claimed.
    • The source on Jawhar al-Siqilli is self-published, and although some RS support could be found,[117] Proleksis is silent on the issue.[118] This is minor, but the article suffers from a significant en:WP:COATRACK problem. Yet another malus for Kubura. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 2013-09-13. Problematic text about hr:Slavko Linić that seems to have been copied wholesale (albeit allegedly with permission) from here and is nothing but a smear. It is highly embarrassing that the text remained online for over 2 years, from 2006 to 2008, and that several administrators who are at the center of the current controversy edited it as though it was a genuine piece. However, the article was rightfully stubbed 5 years ago, noone tried to bring it back, and remains a stub to this day. Miranche (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 2013-09-14. Excerpt from hr:Ubojstva Srba u Sisku 1991.-1992. (Murders of Serbs in Sisak 1990-1991). The total number of identified victims (611) is not mentioned, only those explicitly named by the source (107). Unrelated information discrediting the source is included in the article, but an attempt to include more info (albeit also weasel worded) allegedly resulted in blocking the editor.
16-29 September 2013[edit]
October 2013[edit]
  • 2013-10-02. hr:Hrvatski jezik (w:Croatian language). Heavily one-sided overview of the official status of the Croatian language during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Still in place as of Feb 2014.
    This article has numerous issues and is repeatedly vandalized by partisans of any political stripe. It's a featured article, which means it probably reflects current consensus on hr.wiki. Miranche (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 2013-10-03. hr:Iranska teorija o podrijetlu Hrvata (Iranian theory about the origin of Croats), section on contemporary politics. Unsourced narrative that the theory that Croats are Slavs was a "myth", and that Yugoslav authorities oppressed & killed researchers supporting an unconfirmed (in its weak formulation, fringe in its strong claims) alternative theory of Croatian origin, here presented as fact. Still in place as of Feb 2014.
  • 2013-10-05. hr:Jugokomunistička propaganda ("Yugo-communist propaganda"), section on 1941. Unsourced / POV sourced claim that Yugoslav Communists maintained non-aggression agreements with the Nazis during WW2. Still in place as of Feb 2014.
  • 2013-10-05. hr:Franjo Tuđman, section on economic changes in Croatia. Blatantly POV section about media during Tuđman's presidency, claiming that no journalist opposed to his regime physically suffered, and that after he was gone the "left-liberal" media mounted a campaign of "de-Croatization". Still in place as of Feb 2014.
  • 2013-10-06. hr:Eugen Dido Kvaternik, an Ustaše military and intelligence officer. His crimes are mentioned only in a couple of sentences, one of which contains the formulation "Serbs, Jews, and Roma and other public enemies" (emphasis in the original). No detail about the crimes is given. Still the same in Feb 2014.
  • 2013-10-06. hr:Dinko Šakić, an Ustaše officer and a death camp commander. Almost no details given on his crimes, but his 1995 interview that he'd do it again is noted. Still the same in Feb 2014.
  • 2013-10-20. Link to right-wing portal HKV article about the Croatian Wikipedia controversy: "A [Communist] Partisan Attack on Croatian Wikipedia".
  • 2013-10-22. hr:Ubojstva u Pakračkoj Poljani (Murders in Pakračka Poljana, massacres of Serbs in 1991-1992). Most content commented out by an admin so as to "not hurt people who have been freed by the court". Edit war ensued, the article got limited to editing by admins for a month, and as of Feb 2014 it is still a stub.
November 2013[edit]
December 2013[edit]
  • 2013-12-03. hr:LGBTIQ, section on contemporary criticism of LGBTIQ activism, repeatedly refers to the US association for "therapy" of homosexuality NARTH and its members as "expert", even though (per en.wiki) "No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."
  • 2013-12-05. hr:Istospolna seksualnost ("Same-sex sexuality"), a conservative alternative to "homoseksualnost", slanted toward sources portraying homosexuality as an illness, largely authored by an addiction specialist. Yes check.svg Done
  • 2013-12-11. hr:Klerofašizam (en:Clerical fascism), a short article giving undue attention to one politician's opinion that it's a contradiction in terms.
  • 2013-12-31. hr:Jutarnji list, a POV article about the daily newspaper which heavily criticized Croatian Wikipedia during the controversy. The Facebook posts claims that there's not a single negative piece of info in articles about other Croatian dailies. Analysis by a Jutarnji columnist, an hr.wikipedian, who doesn't want to edit the article because of conflict of interest.
January-February 2014[edit]

The "NDH four"[edit]

A while ago, while reviewing the en:Ante Pavelić article, I noticed something about the key articles about the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (namely, Independent State of Croatia, Ante Pavelić, Ustaše, and Jasenovac concentration camp): in the en wiki, all four mentioned the word "genocide", while in the hr wiki, none did. The Facebook page compared the number of appearances of the word "crime" (and its derivatives) between Hitler, Tito and Pavelić, and also found an interesting pattern. So I'm going to count both of these words in the above mentioned four articles.

crime/genocide en wiki hr wiki
Independent state of Croatia 2/3 8/0
Ustaše 6/2 1/0
Ante Pavelić 3/6 0/0
Jasenovac concentration camp 9/4 4/0
Total 20/15 13/0

Notes:

  • Only instances directly claiming crimes or genocide in relation to the subject were counted. E.g. "genocide" is mentioned once in the hr:Nezavisna Država Hrvatska in the context of "genocidal burden".
  • When comparing the figures, respective article sizes should be taken into consideration too.

Nothing too drastic when "crime" is counted (even if Ante Pavelić is a nice example of constrained writing), but the count of "genocide" speaks for itself. GregorB (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


good, so Ustaše were bad guys and there are described properly on en.wiki (unlike hr.wiki) :roll:

let's see what does en wiki say abou other topics:

crime/genocide mentioning en wiki
Adolf Hitler 0/2
Benito Mussolini 0/0
Auschwitz concentration camp 8/1

What does this say ?? Pavelić was criminal and genocide perpetrator but Hitler and Mussolini were not?? That jasenovac was bigger camp than Auschwitz ??Who wrote those articles ?? Their fans??

or simply en.wiki was loaded with bunch of big words ( rad "crap")--Anto (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks are valid in some aspects. Note, however, that I actually made just two points: 1) Ante Pavelić article is an outlier (and Mussolini is not a good counterexample, as I'm not aware of him being associated with a genocide), and 2) there seems to be a whitewash regarding the use of "genocide" on hr wiki. The real question here is whether there were bona fide attempts to introduce the word into any of the four hr wiki articles. This should be checked. My hunch is good luck to whomever tries to add the word "genocide" to these four, no amount of sources will suffice. GregorB (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Mussolini is not a good counterexample.... What??? Mussolini was at least Pavelić's sponsor. Not to mention war crimes :;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_crimes

2) Is there an attempt to whitewash history the of Auschwitz and Hitler??? What are we suppoed to do fill the entire article with word "criminal" and "genocide"

Btw, my comment was deleted on facebook page of malcontentants.--Anto (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear enough so I'll explain further. There is no need to litter the article with these words, nor there is a need to include it a proportional number of times or - in an individual article - to include them at all. However, there are four articles here, with zero "genocide" hits. Not five, not two, not one - zero. I don't think this is a coincidence. GregorB (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with people who think that there IS need to fill entire article with them. And all articles related to Croatia/Croatis. As you can seen in article Tourism_in_Croatia Although they have no complains on German ww2 topics.--Anto (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust coverage[edit]

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

Analysis of sources for casualty numbers quoted in the article "Masovni zločini komunističkih režima", from the Facebook advocacy group, posted on 2013-11-09. Miranche (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Išao sam malo proučiti broju koju često koriste ustašofili kako bi Tita prikazali kao zločinca. Pa tako i Croq u ovom članku

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masovni_zločini_komunističkih_režima

Izvor ovih brojki je profesor Havajskog Sveučilišta R.J.Rummel.
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_J._Rummel
Tu se može vidjeti njegovo istraživanje democida u Jugoslaviji.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM#*
A posebno bitno je proučiti tablicu u kojoj stoji izvor za svaku broju koju je koristio.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB9.1.GIF

Problem ovog istraživanja je što uzima u obzir sve iznesene brojke pa i one koje pseudoznanstvenici s naših prostora najviše vole - pretjerane. Kao izvor brojki koje krive Tita za ubijanje oko 500.000 (u tablici red 66) kolaboracionista 1945. navodi se knjiga "Operation Slaughterhouse" Prcela&Guldescu
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ivan_Prcela
Ta knjiga je čisti ustaški pamflet koji promovira NDH i prikazuje ustašku vojsku kao moćnu koja je još mogla pobijediti partizane a koju je prevarilo par britanski časnika da spuste oružje. Zatim navodi brojke od 600.000 hrvatskih žrtava koje se mogu usporediti s 1,7 milj. žrtava u Jasenovcu. Taj podatak čak i hr.wiki smatra pretjeranim
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Križni_put_(1945)#Procjene_ukupnog_broja_.C5.BErtava
Al očito Croq ne misli tako kad je taj podatak omotan u hawajski celofan prezentirao u još jednom svom anti-antifašističkom ispadu.

Dalje se na Titovu kontu navodi brojka od 150.000 ubijenih u Blajburgu, Mariboru i ostalim slučajevima povezanim s predajom (red 83). Trenutna istraživanja govore o brojkama od oko 50.000 žrtava (Žerjavić)

Sljedeća procjena s Havaja govori o 600.000 ubijenih Hrvata 1945. i 1946. (red 96) i opet se uglavnom referencira na krajnje upitan rad Ivana Prcele o kojem su kritičke tekstove pisali i hrvatski iseljenici (Mate Meštrović)

Isto havajsko istraživanje donosi procjenu o 600.000 ubijenih Srba u NDH (237. red u tablici) što je skoro duplo više od ozbiljni procjena. A kao primjer loših izvora koji su tu korišteni mogu dati telegram Draže Mihajlovića (red 207)
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srbi_u_NDH:_Broj_žrtava#Srbi_u_NDH

Zanima me koliko će dugo ovaj podatak toliko mil hrvatskim ustašofilima ostati na hr.wiki nakon ovog "Razotkrivanja" ili će uduplati i broj srpskih žrtava NDH?

Media coverage[edit]

A comprehensive list of links to media coverage about the Croatian Wikpedia as of October 2013. Compiled by the Facebook group, caveat lector. Miranche (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jutarnji list online
T-portal
e-novine
Wikipedia
Zvono.eu - Miroslav Ambruš Kiš
tačno.net
RadioGornjiGrad.org
Pollitika.com
IDS presica
Novi List
Slobodna Dalmacija
Index.hr
GlasIstre.hr
HINA
Portal Čuda Prirode
Dalmacija News - Neovisni hrvatski portal
RTL
metro portal
Z-net
Independent News Serbia
RTV SLO
Radio 101
Wikipedia Courier
SEEbiz
SLON.RU
The Daily Dot
Gay Star News
News Bar - satire

Moved to the talk page[edit]

Komentari s ogranka - Comments from the forked page[edit]

Nekoliko komentara na ogranku ne pristaje u oblik ove stranice. Započeo poseban odlomak na stranici za razgovor. Miranche (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (archived 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Several comments on the forked page do not fit this page format. Created a separate section on the talk page. Miranche (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (archived 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

This is local wiki issue[edit]

Moved to talk page archive. Miranche (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]