Talk:Tomislav Nikolić/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ideology and beliefs

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why hasn't anyone been adding anything about Nikolic's ideology? Surely one cannot ignore statements openly advocating a Greater Serbia like this [1]. I will add it myself if no one else does. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Also ideology and beliefs should be added.

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

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

Ok, I understand your reasons.

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

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

Change in sex

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

War Crimes Accusations/Allegations/Controversies section vandalized

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Too many controversies

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

As nobody disagreed with this yet, i have removed it. A lot of that material is also a COATRACK... If anyone have some problem with it, should say here... --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Tomislav Nikolić/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

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

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

I'm assuming Collect was commenting on the "university degree" and "accusations of war crimes" sections. The Srebrenica section is perfectly sourced with numerous reliable sources. Your comment that the other section title is better "because it is more accurate since the content of the section is not limited to the alleged denial" is faulty. The entire controversy is his genocide denial and that has been specifically pointed out in the Guardian, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, and AFP sources. The future attendance of the annual commemoration bit that is throwing you off should be removed since that is not what has caused the controversy here and condemnation from multiple leaders. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to a talkback template left on my talk page. The 3O request was only "Disagreement about section title", not over whether the content of the subsection is or is not appropriate, and I express no opinion in regard to the content question. Perhaps the attendance discussion should be or should not be in the article, but with it included, as is presently the case my opinion is as set out above and I do not care to speculate over what the right answer might be if it were not. Sometimes when editors are arguing whether the right answer (or, as here, the reason for the right answer) is A or B, the actual correct answer is C, and this is one of those cases. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.b. of my standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I decline to extend my opinion further. If you desire dispute resolution over some other issue, you may relist at 3O, file at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or make a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content removal is grounds for a block

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Discussion on BLP noticeboard

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Request for third opinion

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

User:PRODUCER requested a WP:3O earlier today. I declined the request and removed it from the noticeboard because the user has already requested and received a third opinion on the same issue. It appears the new request was made because he disagrees with the first. That is inconsistent with the purpose of WP:3O, which is also inappropriate because there are already more than two editors involved in the discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that I made a mistake in suggesting that the content issue about Nikolic's attendance at the commemoration be taken to DR. The problem is not that my prior 3O covered that issue, but that as far as I can tell there has been no discussion here between the parties about the inclusion of the attendance issue. Discussion is a prerequisite to listing at any content dispute resolution forum and there has been no discussion. The current 3O request should, therefore, indeed be declined but not because I've already opined. I apologize for the erroneous recommendation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Both the section's title and content were discussed with the latter to a smaller degree. No one claimed his nonattendance supported one section title over the other until you did. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to move on. If PRODUCER still doesn't accept the current section title, the best thing is to start RFC.--В и к и T 22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm here from the 3O board. I've declined the latest request for a 3O, for reasons similar to TM's. Obviously, he's already given one for the section title aspect, and I believe he's right about the lack of discussion for the section content issue. By my estimation, you've said less than a hundred words apiece about the content of the article, and most of that appears to have been relegated to "yes it is", "no it's not", and unhelpful accusations. That's hardly a meaningful conversation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

He's the president of Serbia, I think he deserves a bio picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesgilbert (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to get official portrait. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of this article by User:23 editor

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article is being vandalised by User:23 editor, who is apparently unhappy abut a balanced view and promotes one-sided slanted POV, vandalising the article repeatedly.

Can someone do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:QueerStudiesRS has repeatedly added highly biased content with non-neutral and inflamatory language calling Dačić a "homophobe", citing his/her(?) assertations with... Youtube, the Serbian GSA, Balkan Insight, etc. All these are considered unreliable sources by the Wiki community. Futhermore, your statement that "This is about NIKOLIC's reaction to the Parade, not Parade itself" doesn't make sense because your own edits contain the highly-charged, non-encyclopedic tone concerning Dačić's comments. QueerStudiesRS, don't make me take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where other editors will no doubt agree with me. I suggest you revert yourself before I take this course of action. 23 editor (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:23 editor seems accustomed, like here, only to issuing silly threats and conceited patriarchal condescension, which s/he uses to dismiss as reliable -- on the topic of extremely virulent homophobia, and indeed by a prime minister of a country (to wit: at a par with Zimbabwe, only an EU candidate country) nonetheless -- statements made by the Gay Straight Alliance (one of the co-organisers of the Pride Parade), seemingly with the intent of making it appear as if the GSA could possibly be unreliable on the very issue of that very Pride Parade or on the issue of the prime minister's unacceptable discourse about LGBTs and the parade.

I do not understand how could possibly someone... anyone -- not with a brain but with a head -- claim that the GSA, the co-organiser of the event cancelled by the homophobe prime minister (who calls gays "abnormal" and his own fellow party memmber who supports LGBT people "a person with a darkened mind because of exposure to pro-LGBT radiation in Brussels"), are an unreliable source on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted a couple of edits by User:QueerStudiesRS. I'm sorry to say but, as much as I may agree with him about the homophobic nature of the comments made, the edits were clearly POV pushing. I think that words speak for themselves, and with the version as it is now, the readers of the article can make their own opinions about the nature of the comments. Wikipedia needs to be written in a Neutral Point Of View. Legion fi (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tomislav Nikolić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070515050933/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/E6FC6B3F-7BAE-4024-B811-6F8A75D73295.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E6FC6B3F-7BAE-4024-B811-6F8A75D73295.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tomislav Nikolić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tomislav Nikolić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=08&nav_id=53304
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtsmondo.com/news/vesti/text.php?vest=108927
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927035707/http://www.mtsmondo.com/news/vesti/text.php?vest=109274 to http://www.mtsmondo.com/news/vesti/text.php?vest=109274
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tanjug.rs/videodet.aspx?galID=105042&videoID=606461
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107215824/http://doznajemo.com/2012/05/24/tomislav-nikolic-ne-stidim-se-sto-sam-bio-cetnik to http://doznajemo.com/2012/05/24/tomislav-nikolic-ne-stidim-se-sto-sam-bio-cetnik
Corrected formatting/usage for http://mojahercegovina.com/tomislav-nikolic-pocasni-gradanin-trebinja/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tomislav Nikolić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tomislav Nikolić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)