User talk:Kirker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ustase lead section

My issue with the lead sentence of the Ustase article is about form, not content. If there are factual and POV problems, that is for you and other editors to hash out. However, Wikipedia cannot have lead sentences that are a total mess, such as:

The Ustaše - as per The New Oxford American Dictionary [1] - "(also Ustashas or Ustashi) ... the members of a Croatian extreme nationalist movement that engaged in terrorist activity before World War II and ruled Croatia with Nazi support after Yugoslavia was invaded and divided by Germans in 1941 > from Serbo-Croat Ustaše 'rebels' ". After the Axis powers withdrew from Yugoslavia, the Ustaše was subsequently defeated and expelled by the communist Yugoslav partisans in 1945.

That is not how lead sections (or anything for that matter) are supposed to be written. They are not proper sentences written in clear English.Spylab 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that there is users which now think that I am Croatian nationalist user but my rules of editing are simple. Delete Serbian myths about Croats and protect statement with sources which are easy confirmed with links. When I speak about Prebilovci Massacre now is possible to accept that people there is killed because in time of war end there have been only 172 person (from around 1000 in 1941) [1]. On other side I will not accept deleting of Einstein statement in NDH article because it is showing why Croats has been thinking bad of Serbs in 1941. Rjecina 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If it is not problem can you put both (Maček and Einstein) comments on right place in article. Like you can see my english is not best for great changes Rjecina 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No it is not possible to agree about that. When Einstein has attacked regime of king Alexander in League of Nations letter for killings defense of Yugoslav goverment has been that he is bad informed by Croatian rebels (Ustaša ??). Similar answers have been always given from any other dictator regime when they have been under pressure because of state crimes. We are having fact that Einstein has writen letter and Yugoslav goverment comments are without any question POV. --Rjecina 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Rjecina, sorry - I should have been more clear. I do understand the point you have made here. But if Einstein is to be cited, I think we should also say that when he wrote to the League he was already on record as a supporter of Pavelić. In other words his view of the whole situation was perhaps a little bit naive. I assume your main concern is for the article to say that the Kingdom had become a terrorising dictatorship in the period after Radić was murdered. I would not put it so strongly myself (neither did Maček, although he was put in prison), but you have a fair point and I will try to deal with it, as you asked. I will try to reach agreement with you about how to do it, before I make the changes. In the meantime (it will take me a few days) may I suggest that you leave the Maček stuff alone. It is not appropriate to delete views attributed to him with proper citation and replace them with views for which you have no source. I appreciate that you are having to cope with a language that is not your own, but if you just keep reverting stuff without clear explanation you will begin to lose credibility as an editor, even though I am sure you do everything in good faith. Kirker 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Hi Kirker, First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, I would appreciate if you don't prejudge people because of their national or ethnic origin, as you seem to do at Talk:Croatia. If you have concerns, feel free to express them at the article's talk page but don't assume malice on anyone. Regards, --Asteriontalk 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A user was posting a screed all over people's user and talk pages, and when I blocked him and consulted with a few others we decided to revert the last few. Sorry if this caused any offence. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I come from Prebilovci, therefor I wounder where you come from? And what more do you know about my village?

[edit] HELLO!

Hello! I come from Prebilovci and therefor I wounder where you come from? What more do ypu know about my village —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about events surrounding WWII, and are doing a very good job of walking the tightrope between the two different POVs on the page for Ante Pavelić‎ especially. So, well done, and keep up the good work. AniMate 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted deleted comments of banned user User:Velebit puppet . Comments and answers has been writen when this user has not been allowed to write. It is very ease to find puppets of banned users in articles which are speaking about coutries of ex Yugoslavia.User:Velebit is writing fantasy stuff good Serbs and evil Croats. User Afrika Paprika is writing similar stuff about good Croats and evil Serbs. In my thinking AP1929 is puppet of user Brkic (because of his Ustaše thinking) or Afrika Paprika. For now it is not possible to do anything. Users Stagalj/Standshown/Smerdyakoff has edited 4 months before first has been blocked --Rjecina (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It is confirmed Standshown=Smerdyakoff and Stagalj is not cleared (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff) . My reading english is ulmost perfect but even my croato-serbian writings are bad. I have never been interested in this but only that people understand me --Rjecina (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Rjecina is the son of Tito (rolls eyes), I hold way more substance then any of the users you think I am. AP1929 is my first wikipedia account, and will remain so.AP1929 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
All puppet write that they are first time on wikipedia--Rjecina (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent State of Croatia

I have edited this article. Because my english s not very good can you please edit my english language mistakes in part of article background (which is new). --Rjecina (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will try! Sometimes your English is VERY hard to follow, LOL. (I hope you are watching my page, as I didn't want to say this on your page.) One of these days I'd like to meet you for a chat, and then I am sure I would understand you better. If you are agreeable to that, you could send an email to r.vrbas@spamgourmet.com, which is not my direct address but but which should work for two or three messages maximum. Kirker (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think to rewrite articles destroyed by user:Velebit. My intention is to do that with small steps so that other editors can say what they think about changes.
In article Ante Pavelić I have created neutral version with which everybody has been OK but not AP1929. For now I do not want to start edit warring with AP1929, but I am sure that he will be blocked in near future.
If you want you can call RFC about Ante Pavelić article (Oops. I need to delete 1 RFC) so AP1929 problem will be solved.--Rjecina (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen only now that there is RFC but nobody want to write comments. All in all RFC question from begining of February is wrong.--Rjecina (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pavelić

Copied from Rjecina's talk page)

I don't know if it was you (Rjecina) who had put in those words once before, but maybe I should not have changed them without discussion. My problems with your version are:

1) A statement that Pavelić directly ordered everything would need be sourced. I changed it because AP1929 challenged it in one of the discussions. I hardly need add that I hope there is a source!

2) Genocide is a much more specifically defined term than terror, and the Ustaša policy certainly qualifies.

3) I don't know whether you are arguing for every word of your editing or whether you have just brought back someone else's words, so.... Are you really insisting on Gypsies? I changed it because for English speakers this term is sometimes derogatory. Kirker (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Word Genocide in articles Independent State of Croatia and Ante Pavelić is not internationally accepted. Sources outside ex Yugoslavia are speaking about persecution but not about genocide so this is serbian POV or original research because it is not confirmed by international sources. Because of this reasons every time when is writen genocide in this articles I will revert.--Rjecina (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule that says "international acceptance" should decide what goes in Wikipedia. The Armenian genocide has a whole article, although it has been recognised as genocide by fewer than 30 countries. You yourself have referred to an Ustaša campaign of terror, but there has been no international acceptance of that. Genocide is much more precisely defined than terror. Lemkin (who invented the word) and the UN have defined genocide in similar terms. Lemkin said it was "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups". The UN says it can be any of five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. One such act is "killing members of the group." Even some Pavelić apologists acknowledge that there was Ustaša behaviour that would qualify under either definition. They just question whether Pavelić ordered it. Kirker (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia definition of Genocide is: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group"
We are having many similar definitions but fact which we must accept is that Ustaše have not tried to do that because they have wanted to kill "only" 1/3 of Serbs in NDH. You must agree that destruction of 1/3 of ethnic, racial, religious or national group is not genocide, but because of other Ustaše plans this has been ethnic cleansing. All in all my definition that this is ethnic cleansing and your definition that this is genocide is original research which is forbidden on wikipedia. --Rjecina (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article quotes in the intro from the UN legal definition: "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." (I had already emphasised the "in part" bit.) Read on and you will see that the "internationally accepted" definitions cover much more than killing. The article also refers to the ICTY judgment against Krstić, in which Srebrenica was deemed to be genocide on the tenuous basis that 7-8,000 Muslim men were killed. (It's a strange genocide that leaves the women and children unscathed LOL). How many Muslims are there in BiH? (Actually the ICTY decided that the ethnic group in that case was not all of BiH's muslims, but only the 40,000 or so who were in the way of RS linking two parts of its territory. But 8,000 is still a lot less than a third of 40,000.) How can "terror" be a more legitimate description? Kirker (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To make long story short if you find international accepted sources that this has been genocide, then we will write that. I hope that you will agree that we need neutral sources with internet links because this is controversial topic ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK

No problem --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent State of Croatia

The User that added "minor state" to the text actually named himself after the Crna Legija of the Ustaška Vojnica. I strongly suggest all his edits be carefully monitored.
I was referring to the replacement of the NDH Minister of the Armed Forces, Slavko Kvaternik, on Hitler's order (September, 1942). The sources for this are present in the text of the article: Jozo Tomasevich: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration,Stanford University Press, 2001 page 440.
Weather the term may be considered derogatory or not in some contexts is besides the point, the term is: 1) FAR more frequently used to describe the NDH (according to Google), 2) more correct and accurate than "client state", which is a more general term. Furthermore, "client state" appears only to haver been included in the text to appease Croatian neo-nazi affiliates and/or sympathizers. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)