Wikipedia

Talk:Boris Tadić/Archive 1

< Talk:Boris Tadić
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Aleksamil in topic Dispute
Archive 1

grandparents' death

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

His grandparents have been killed in the Ustaša Genocide - such an expression cannot be used in an Encyclopedia - you should be more specific about their death - were they mudered, executed or were they killed in a battle or during the bombing, etc. Jasra 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

not in a battle or bombing, they were killed in a massacre. one of so many - people were thrown into pits, burnt alive inside ortodox churches, or killed in places like jasenovac. his parents were from herzegovina, where some of the worst atrocities of ustashe happened. their only crime was being ortodox serbian. it is no surprise that his grandparents were killed - most of serbs from that area have someone in their families killed in the holocaust. the sentence says quite clearly - killed in genocide. that means not in battle/bombing, but deliberately executed for being serbian - quite widespread in ndh. Cicceroa 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Though I don't dispute any of your facts Cicceroa, the term 'genocide' is still one of controversy and its usage should be bannished from any encyclopaedia: I mean this about so-called Serb genocide of the 90s too. Because I am neutral over Balkan conflicts, I am often seen to defend Serb/Yugoslav actions in the 90s, at the same time, I have to be fair towards all parties. The nature of Genoicde is satirical entire of itself. The person who coined the term was a jew in the aftermath of World War II to describe the holocaust. Geno- taken from Greek and -cide from latin (to kill), everybody knows this now. In an actual genocide, you don't let a single person go, nor do you stop the atrocity when war has ended, your drive is to finish the job and your own life is not worth continuation should you fail. Only the global elite can try war criminals for genocide on the grounds that they "murdered members of a religious group" or "temporarily created inhumane conditions for an ethnic group" (so we should accuse Americans of genocide after they bomb a market in Baghdad because three of the victims supported the same football team; football=religion to fanatics; members of a religious group are killed; America=Genocide), or perhaps having more than one member of a nationality in the same prison in California and running the heating a mere 4 degrees too warm for half an hour in the afternoon=inhumane conditions for an ethnic group); it is a joke, the term 'genocide'. If the gen- was really subject to -cide, Mr.Tadic would not be here himself (unless his parents declared themselves Croatian in which case he still wouldn't be in the same place he is now.) Celtmist 1 Apr 2006
Ustasha crimes are considered a chapter of Holocaust, in fact the most henious, if not the most well known. The genocide was downplayed in Tito's time - quite the opposite happenes now, when massacre of several thousand prisoners in Srebrenica is proclaimed genocide. Certainly, claim that Ustasha genocide was genocide is far less contraversial, since Holocaust is the prime example of genocide. Maybe one should say that his grandparents were victims of Holocaust. However, Ustashe played an enthusiastic role in this, and their role should be underlined - they died in Holocaust, as victims of Ustasha's. Cicceroa 11:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the phrasing should be dispute, only the accuracy. It is a quality of encyclopedias to be concrete and precise about something. Saying that the Ustaše killed Tadić's grandparents is about as precise as saying that they were killed in WWII, and only a bit more precise than saying that they were killed in one of the world wars in the 20th century. Combined with the fact that this is mentioned in the lead section, one can't conclude anything other than lack of any knowledge about what it means to edit an encyclopedia on part of the person who wrote that. --Joy [shallot] 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I believe the use of the title professor is problematic. While in Serbia high school-level instructors are referred to as "professors," this is not the case in the United States, where it is reserved for those with a doctoral degree. Thus, unless Tadic holds a PhD degree in psychology--which I don't believe he does--the use of the term may be misleading to native speakers. This is further compounded by the use of the term gymnasium, which, in English, denotes a gymnastics hall--or gym, for short--whereas in Serbian, it refers to an ordinary high school, in the U.S. sense of the word. Therefore, I believe it may be better to put the word gymnasium in parentheses and replace professor with teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.168.104 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only does a person have to have a phd to call him/herself a professor, he also has to actually teach at a collage, or other institution of higher learning Krakas 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tadic can't be considered from Bosnia and Herzegovina because lived there couple of years of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.169.97 (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Article about Tadic

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I like this article in whole, especially the truth about his family members, and letting the world know what lies behind so called "croatian democracy". There were always a minority between croatian people (ustasas, hdz, etc.) that were spreading hostility and evil towards their south slavic brothers. Now they're dying out, and will probably dissappear totally soon, that's a fact. Still, there'are always some "leftovers" from the evil forces, who are even dare to write on the pages of this beautiful and neat encyclopedia. Anyway, their broken "gebbels" propaganda is finished, it's dead forever; On the contrary, a strong will of renewed south slav brotherhood is raising again between all south slavic peoples, and their new victory over the demons from the past is coming very soon..

Someone should put a picture of Tadic where he is posing in front of a serbian flag, like all the other presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.34.178 (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Putin

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Putin has not given support to Tadic. The page mis-cites a source where it says that Putin told Tadic happy birthday. (LAz17 (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).

..and congratulates on his future presidency. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not congratulate him on his future presidency. That article is in Serbian, so you can't read it I suppose? At any rate, here is the english translation of it, http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=01&dd=15&nav_id=46942 It is clear that Putin did not give support for Tadic in the elections. This is just a false insert into the article so that Tadic would get more votes for the current election and election run-off. (LAz17 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).


PaxEquilibrium is right. Stop removing the information. --Avala (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


He is not right. That serbian article says nothing future presidency, and the english translation further proves my point. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).

I have read the article and it does express Putin's support to Boris Tadic and wishes him all the best in the future in his job (his job is the President of Serbia). Now I don't think Putin ment "I wish you all the best until the election" when he said in the future. --Avala (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not say that. He said told Tadić all the best in his activities for “the good of our friends, Serbia.” It is no secret that Tadić's goals are not to bring Serbia closer to Russia but to the EU. Putin does not support him. He just said a couple friendly sentances, just like when Kostunica congratulates the Muslims or Jews for their holiday... it does not mean that he supports them, it's just a few friendly words. (LAz17 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).

Infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Would you just as readily call Gordon Brown Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in his infobox? No, Would you call the US National Security Advisor the Assistant to the President of the United States of America for National Security Affairs? That is why was use the most common and shortened form. Numbers aren't used for the majority of infoboxes now and it is extremely misleading to label Milutinović as his predecessor when there are FOUR people who served after him. Acting or not, his predecessor is Marković. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the numbers? It is a lot better when you know if he is the 1st, 2nd or 3rd president. If not better, it's easier to find your way around here. Baks (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the pages of officeholders? Especially HoS and HoGs. In any case, this was fought over with Avala a little and they independently agreed not to use them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Acting President and President of Serbia. --Baks (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's kind of thee point. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments2 people in discussion

This article has quite a lot of problems that need to be addressed.

  • Lead needs to be expanded to provided a concise and comprehensive summary of the article. At the moment, the lead is very short and does not cover the important details of Tadic's career such as his policies/ideologies/achievements but rather contains the exact date of his swearing in etc. There is no need to say that he is a member of his party. Clearly, since he is the leader of an organisation, he must be a member
  • Dates need to be formatted. Some years are wikilinked, some are lot. I see "January 15" and then "15 January" and also placed where there are commas before the year, but others where there are not
  • I think it would be good to state the years of his ministry in telecommunications and defense. For a layman, they might see "FR Yugoslavia" and think it meant "former Yugoslavia" before it broke up or something.
    • Fixed. Now it says Minister of Defence of Serbia and Montenegro In office 17 March 2003 – 16 April 2004 and Federal Minister of Telecommunications of Yugoslavia In office 4 November 2000 – 17 March 2003.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • " His father, Ljubomir Tadić, a philosopher of renown descent from Montenegro from the Pivans Herzegovinian clan who is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts." needs fixing - grammar
  • ARe his parents still philosophers and psychologists - or are they retired.
  • his grandparents should be moved to the start of the family bakground since they were killed in WW2. Also can it be explained why they were killed
  • A large problem of the article is a massive lack of sources and also that there are many one-line paragraphs
    • Fixed & fixed. Article now has a source for all the information. Personal life and info about parents is sourced from refs 6 and 7 (Biography & Živeli smo skromno) even though I didn't put a ref link at the end of the every sentence. --Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Until 2003, Boris Tadić worked at the Faculty of Drama at the University of Belgrade as a lecturer of political advertising." - he trained in psych, so this career move happen? The para before said that he worked as a whole pile of other things.
    • He didn't lecture drama but political advertising which for me is rather perfect thing for a politician (political) and a psychologist(advertising).--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "After the Yugoslav Wars, Tadić advocated reform and Westernisation in the Balkans." - needs to be put in context. Tadic has not been introduced as a politician yet. In what role did he do this advocacy? As a private citizen?
  • The Center for Modern SKills seems to cut randomly into the politics section. What does this have to do with the Democratic Party and its policy. Nothing much is included in his rise in the politiical ranks during the Milosevic era. What jobs did he have within the party? How can he go straight into a cabinet post after the downfall of Milosevic?
  • What policies did he implement in telecommunications and defense? None are given
  • The presidency says he defeated Nikolic in 2004. Who was the incumbent and why wasn't he running? Was Tadic from the same side as his predecessor. What happened in the campaign. What did Tadic propose and how was he different from Nikolic
    • There was no incumbent. The predecessor Milutinovic was a Milosevic pawn and was already long time arrested and after him there was a charade of acting presidents until 2004. His difference to Nikolic is thoroughly explained in 2008 election which has the same runners.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "repeatedly crashed his vehicle into presidential motorcade" - did he manage to crash, reverse a long way, accelerate in, crash again, etc, etc? sources
  • Did Tadic organise the Montenegro referendum or was it already scheduled before he came to power? Did he get criticised for not cancelling the referendum? Details needed. A breakup of a country is a big thing for its leader
    • Tadic as a President of Serbia had no influence on Montenegro. It was agreed and held in Montenegro. He could not cancel the referendum as he has no powers in Montenegro. Serbia and Montenegro was a state union of two equal republics. Serbia had no power over Montenegro or vice-vers. Boris Tadic is the leader of Serbia not the state union so it was a big thing for Svetozar Marovic not him.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing abou tKosovo negotiations in the first term section.
  • Many one-line paragraphs about many events, these need to be tied together to show how Tadic's rule evovled
  • "terrorists" is a POV word. It cannot be used in Wikipedia's voice. It should be stated that he is referring to KLA fighters or whoever they are
    • These people were sentenced to prison because of terrorism so it's not POV but a fact. They broke out of prison in order to resume their activities. --Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is domestic policy important in Serbia. Also, it says pro-Western but says nothing about NATO or EU explicitly. What is the Serbian attitude towards joining these orgs?
    • Domestic policy is mostly in the hands of the Government. President represents Serbia abroad while his position on domestic level is rather ceremonial.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The election campaign is undue weight compared to the first term of action policy work
    • It was a much more important campaign. His first term was in Serbia and Montenegro so he was just president on the level of the republic (Serbia) not the head of state (Serbia and Montenegro). In 2008 the elections were held for the new head of state.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Need to explain what the consitiutional change did to necessitate an early election
    • Well if the new constitution is adopted elections on all levels are called according to constitutional law. There isn't any other information on this that we can add.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • People's Office section needs to be in the first term
  • The Advisors section is unusual. Are advisors more important than ministers? Because the ministers are not mentioned.
    • Ministers are in the Government. President is not the head of Government, it's the Prime Minister. President has personal advisors.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't the ideology and policies of his advisors more important than what they did in the past? Since it is about Tadic and his policies
    • It's more important to have background info in order to know who are the people he chose to advise him. They are not that strong and important to have some special policies and ideologies of their own. --Avala (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Recurring themes

  • Lack of sources, one line paragraphs, the article does not combine its sentences into well structured thematic sections
  • Sources need to be filled in properly. Need to not use "Boris Tadic" everywhere and style conventions need to be used in a consistent manner

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Victory

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added this stunning victory in the parliamentary contest: Boris Tadic claimed victory in parliamentary elections, on May 12, 2008, despite a challenge from nationalist groups. His "For a European Serbia" alliance spearheaded by the DS was set to secure 39% of the vote. Specifically, his Coalition for European Serbia, held 38% of the vote, for 103 seats, while Tomislav Nikolic's Serbian Radical Party held 29%, or 77 seats, CeSID. Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica's Democratic Party of Serbia held 11.3%, or 30 seats.cnn.com, Serbia's pro-West president claims election victoryafp.google.com, Serbia's pro-European bloc claims shock poll win --Florentino floro (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Four or five years term?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sure that both his first and second terms were 5 years. His first term lasted only 3 years and a half, but he was elected to a 5 years term both in 2004 and 2008. The first term was shortened because a new constitution was elected, but the old constitution also said that president's term is 5 years. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the old constitution said 4 years regardless of the shortening due to a new constitution. You can see in older news articles that it was one of the introduced changes.--Avala (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
But, that is simply not correct. The old 1990 Constitution of Serbia also had 5 years term. See the text of the old constitution at [1], article 86. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

major problem with organization

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that it would be much more useful to put the persidents views together into topics, not into timelines when he said what. For example, we could have a whole section on bosnia and herzegovina, and whatnot. (LAz17 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)).

Reflist and columns

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would anyone mind if we switched {{Reflist}} to either use "2" or "colwidth=" as suggested here?--Rockfang (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think {{Reflist|colwidth= }} would be OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Putin stuff

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

I saw the AN/I thread so I thought I'd throw in a WP:3O concerning the matter.

I think that too much has been read into the Putin's letter. The source is a boring, routine agency news, saying that Putin congratulated 50th birthday to Tadić and sent him and Serbian people good wishes, looking forward for future cooperation blah blah. Connecting the news, and the fact that it happened in the eve of elections is a WP:SYNTH, plain and simple. I don't recall a fuss had been made about the letter. Get a couple of sources which reasonably interpreted the letter as an election support, and you might have the case. Written like this, it implies that Putin had offered a direct support to Tadić, which simply isn't there (and would be a fairly bad diplomatic gaffe uncharacteristic for Putin).

This is not an endorsement of Laz17's methods used to push the matter, of course. No such user (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. However I fail to note what in the article goes against what you wrote, the article says Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Tadić a week before the election, in which he wished Tadić a happy 50th birthday and all the very best in his activities for “the welfare of our friends, Serbia.” which is quite like what you said you would it to say. It doesn't say "Putin offered Tadić the direct support in the election" or "Vladimir Putin officially endorsed Tadić in the presidential election in Serbia" etc. but just exactly to the point what happened, what he wrote with no synthesis or any original summaries and conclusions. Obviously there is no wiggle room in personal interpretation what does wishing someone "all the best in his activities" one week before the election mean, however nowhere in the article will you find such a conclusion because that would be against the rules. We let the readers decide whether Putin wished Tadic "all the best in his activities" one week before the election just because it was his birthday (though not the year before nor the year before etc.) or in order to endorse him. But as for this article I don't see any issues with WP rules, the quote is direct, referenced and important, if not for the election itself then to show the relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia in general which is quite an important issue when it comes to Serbia and its leadership.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence is considered on its own, you'd be right. However, it promptly stands in the paragraph devoted to election. Placed there, it carries strong implications that the Putin's letter is related with support to Tadić; and no source made such connection. To go further, the source did not state that the letter came week before election -- it was a Wikipedia editor which "connected the dots", which is violation of WP:SYNTH. You say that "we let the readers decide" -- in theory true, but not if we have poisoned the well for them beforehand. There is "wiggle room in personal interpretation what does wishing someone ... one week before the election mean". I, for one, do not interpret the letter as anything more than a standard diplomatic birthday card.
Now, if we move it elsewhere, a question of relevance arises: every statesman receives a ton of such letters every year; I don't see anything in this one which makes it so special. No such user (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well the date is there, you can obviously change the "one week before the election" with "On January xx 2009" but it's not much different. "every statesman receives a ton of such letters every year" - maybe so but Tadic didn't get a card of that kind any year before from Putin. "I don't see anything in this one which makes it so special." - that is probably because you are not informed on relations between Serbia and Russia however it is quite important. Like I said before if not for the election itself then to show the relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia in general which is quite an important issue when it comes to Serbia and its leadership. As for the election part, now that we have unambiguous external sources that treat this as open support by everyone except the opposing candidate in the election we can elaborate on that too, endorsement by any world leader in the election of the small country is an important issue and as for Serbia it's double important because of its relations with Russia. However this is just my explanation for the talk page, everything that goes into the article must be from external sources.--Avala (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. But, what is worse is that the whole essence of the letter is about economic cooperation, mainly in the energy field. So, not only is the letter being misinterpreted for political purposes, its whole essence is missed. It's like saying that judaism is about being against tatoos, as it is a fact that tatoos are banned religion. Yet there this is a rather minor point compared to everything else that there is. This is what we are dealing with, where people decide to focus on one small point and extrapolate it beyond what it is about. It's focusing on the tree, misinterpreting the tree by calling it a bush, and missing the forest. (76.29.100.8 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).
"But, what is worse is that the whole essence of the letter is about economic cooperation, mainly in the energy field." - I'll repeat my call for the introduction of perjury on Wikipedia. How in the world did the letter concentrate on energy issues when the news piece mentions that in the very last sentence as Putin pointed out that the "special importance of the realization of joint projects in the energy field.". How is that the main essence of the letter? Usually the news agencies don't tend to put the most important, main and essential thing in the last sentence.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to log in so my IP is there. Wishing someone all the best is common courtesy. People do that all the time for opponents and candidates that they do and do not support. He did not say "welfare of our friends serbia", it was "well being of a friendly serbia". dobrobit prijateljske Srbije... dobrobit - wellbeing, prijatelj - friendly. On top of everything, we do not have any other source that cites this letter. We do not even know if the letter exists, or if B92 made it up. I do not see any other news outlets publishing this completely irrelevant piece of information. Quite frankly the letter seems like a rather stupid story not worthy of enclopedias. As we do not have the text of this alleged letter, we can see that there are four points... birthday, political relations (kosovo), economic relations, and as part of economic - gas. The bulk is about economic stuff. Now, we do not even know if this letter exists, as I said just now. There is no first hand source. B92 is a secondary source - the original source is Beta - where they got that I have no idea, and on top of that we can not find where they got this. Further, I can't find it on Beta's site - can you? B92 for the most part refilters all sorts of stuff that other news agencies post. (LAz17 (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).
What is the point of what you write? First of all it was so common then please provide those tons of letters he received from other heads of state? Second of all this has got nothing to do with the article, just because you don't like the letter, just because you think it's common, just because you think that this information was inserted to help him win the election, just because you think that this is a fallacy on wikipedia, that help nurture more support for this corrupt president, just because you think we lie on purpose doesn't mean that this information shouldn't be here. You can attack the accuracy of information not the information itself and you have proven not to be capable of doing the first thing either when you lied how the letter was about energy issues, the problem you are now evading to discuss. You keep on throwing conspiracy theories at us, now the letter was made up. Just great. Did you listen to Gaddafi yesterday? Maybe you should go to the swine flu article or JFK article and expand them accordingly before you come back here with more conspiracies. Maybe Tadic doesn't exist either, maybe Putin is actually Tadic, who knows what we'll read considering that these theories you write here get more and more ridiculous each time.--Avala (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Your writing there is pure provocation, reason enough that makes it a disgrace that you are the administrator of serbian wikipedia. Does not surprise me though, as you are pro-west clearly. Your further incompetence is presented with the creation of a lit of belgrade metro stations, when every idiot in belgrade knows that there is no metro in belgrade. Again, I repeat, there is no primary source on this letter, and we do not have it. In the US there is a thing called "freedom of information act" by which one can access the full text of anything. Look into if corrupt serbia has this, and when you get us the real text then we can talk about this. Until then, it is all speculation. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).
I don't see why do you go on and on with this incoherent insulting rant. I don't remember you from the Serbian Wikipedia but it could be that I insulted you over there somehow. Either way I wasn't the one who gave you numerous warnings here, who started all but one ANI on you and finally I wasn't the one who blocked you here so you might wanna rethink is really everybody else so mean or do you need to change your vocabulary and attitude. Insulting Serbia, Serbian President and me is not the path to take if you want the issue resolved as it first of all has got nothing to do with the subject and second of all it is rude to insult other people, countries and personalities.--Avala (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A happy-birthday letter to another head of state is hardly newsworthy at all, let alone some form of re-election endorsement. A "peaceful" Serbia is beneficial to all of Europe. The letter doesn't even merit a mention. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the letter and discussions here next time. If the letter caused many media to write about it, all politicians to react etc. then I am sorry but you are wrong, as it apparently did deserve to be mentioned.--Avala (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is to delete, and yes, not everyone must agree with it. I'll delete it tomorrow or sometime. It will be put in the re-election campaign topic, which is separate. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)).
We are still discussing this issue and how to solve the problem. If you are here only to satisfy your urge to delete this sentence then you are doing a wrong thing. Follow my example of seeking a resolution. You first said how this is unrelated to the campaign but now you want to add it to the re-election campaign article as if it was undoubtedly an integral part of the campaign. Sorry but that is contradictory so there is still a lot to discuss here it seems. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers to find out how you can't avoid the discussion by holding a poll because for consensus it is arguments that count, not votes.--Avala (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You do noth ave to tell me that this is not a vote. It clearly is not. Only a kreten/idiot would think that it is. At any rate, there seems to be little discussion of any sort going on anymore. You are the stubborn one who wants to keep this at all costs. It's not relevant. I'd delete it completely. My idea of putting into the reelection campaign article was for the purpose of appeasing your obnoxious ego. (LAz17 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)).
Personal insults will not get you anywhere. There is no discussion because you are not replying. Deleting anything from this article while avoiding the talk page will only bring you back to the beginning where there will be many reverts. I gave several proposals on how to edit the article to satisfy everyone but you ignore that and keep talking about deleting things "completely". Well I doubt it's me who is being stubborn. There is no consensus on what to do, so I suggest that we come to an agreement.--Avala (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I came to the talk page before you did. You are accusing me of things that you do. I have stated what I have stated, and so have others. You are the one who is stubborn. As you can see I am not deleting anything, so stop accusing me of doing that - I did that when you refused to listen to reason. Well now you have reason. Your replies to what people have stated are sad, stupid and pointless. I think it's time to call for more third opinions. When we get 10-1, then it would be safe to say that it may as well be a vote. The concensus so far is 3-1 to delete. Now look ,while it is not a real vote, it is nontheless a concensus. Other topics have been closed on such stuff - like the geography of republika srpska krajina. Samo da znas, dok srbi dobijaju otkaze, tadic daje stotine hiljade dinara pederima - sto to nestavis u clanak? (LAz17 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)).
More insults. Now I write stupid and sad things? Funny. Stop counting the discussion, there is no score here just arguments and you are the only one who wants an option that would satisfy exclusively one side, everyone else wants a compromise solution so start counting that way. And what are you talking about Tadić giving "hundreds of thousands of Dinars to 'fags' while Serbs are loosing their jobs" - could you explain it to the wider audience please?--Avala (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be constructive. Your statements thus far are clearly irrelevant. I am going to move forth with deleting this which is not encyclopedia worthy. Also, saying fag in english is very different from saying it in serbian. You use the word that is more racist, instead of using one like homosexuals, which is not nearly as politically charged as fag. The point of my statement however was clear, while thousands of serbs lose their jobs, tadic spends significant amounts of money to support these organizations that are overwhelmingly condemned throughout serbia. In the west they are not condemned, but in serbia they are. This is what is going on here. You are going against the people, both in serbia and in wikipedia. We by 80% overwhelmingly reject the gay parades, and along with that we reject this in the wikipedia article. Simple analogy, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)).
Yeah I am trying to be constructive, and to discuss how we should solve this problem while you keep standing at the same spot without intention to move to compromise a single inch. As for the other part, you were the one who said "tadic daje stotine hiljade dinara pederima" which is not the same as "tadic daje stotine hiljade dinara homoseksualcima" as you are now trying to suggest and either way it's libelous. I have no idea what are you talking about, what has the gay parade got to do with this letter from Putin and how can you make an analogy that because 80% of people are against the gay parade we should remove the information regarding Vladimir Putin from the article on Boris Tadic? Don't you have some kind of political forum where you can express your frustration with Tadić, and not on Wikipedia as WP:NOTFORUM.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, we have a concensus here that this should be deleted. Don't worry, nobody is against you. I had the exact same situation in the page geography of repubilka srpska krajina... it got totally deleted, despite me not agreeing. You do not have to agree. Your opinion no longer matters. Cheers/Ziveli. (LAz17 (talk) 17
20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)).
I am sorry but speaking about your opinion in plural form will not make more people who agree with you that this article should be cut in part about Putin because "hundreds of thousands of Dinars to 'fags' while Serbs are loosing their jobs" or because 80% of people oppose gay parade or because you think there is a conspiracy theory to get this information into Wikipedia so that Tadic would win elections. None of these are arguments and as I told you before consensus is not a poll but a series of arguments and while my and arguments of others are on topic you are talking about gay parades, "fags", conspiracy theories and other nonsense.--Avala (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of additional sources

I also dug out this:

Still too weak for my taste to be worth of inclusion. In any case, the letter should be marked as "ambiguous", "controversial" or like.

Actually, I think the whole paragraph is a bit patchy: to summarize, he received support from Hungarian and Roma parties, organizations of disabled people, Milorad Dodik, and (ambiguously) Vladimir Putin. Apples and oranges. Should be rewritten in more logical order (or at least get rid of the organizations of disabled people). No such user (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate why should we call the letter controversial? Can you back up the claim, because we can't call it a controversial letter in the article if there is no external source that says how Putin wrote specifically a "controversial" letter. And I don't see any point in removing disabled people, they have their organization and they thought that their cause will benefit if Tadic was the president so it implies on the position of Boris Tadic on problems of disabled people and as we don't have much else to use for this subject then we use this. We can't write directly about his position on this matter when we have no sources that talk about what Tadic says about the problems of disabled people (I am sure there are sources but we just have to find them) but it doesn't mean we can't add the information on their endorsement.--Avala (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm short on time, so just briefly: it wasn't the letter which was controversial (it was boring), but its timing. Apparently, analysts and parties disagree whether it should be treated as support, and it was fairly veiled anyway. As for disabled people, there's plenty of similar NGOs: syndicates, LGBT, hunting societies,... I don't see a reason for that to be singled out. It simply ruins the normal flow of information.
As for Putin's letter, I still think it was too unimportant to be mentioned in the main article about Tadić (along with disabled people). If I didn't search the internet about it, I wouldn't remember it at all. There's already the detailed article Boris Tadić reelection campaign, 2008, where such details would find a better place. No such user (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Still I don't think that this piece of information is completely irrelevant and the only ones to shun it angrily were the opposing politicians from the Serbian Radical Party. And just because you forgot it doesn't make it irrelevant, the proof enough is that it caused a significant stir and made all the politicians in Serbia comments on this apart from the obvious significance because it involved the President of Russia in a different way than usual. Anyway when you get more time please read the rest of my replies on this page, I wrote multiple comments in the last edit. Most importantly please give your insight on how you think we should rewrite that in order to keep everyone content, which I suppose would be to keep the information but introduce the opposing views of the Radical Party as well.--Avala (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for these sources. They are neutral external sources that allow us to even expand this content to say that analysts interpreted the letter to be the direct support of Putin to Tadic Osservatorio sui Balcani: "Tadiću je podršku uputio i predsednik Rusije Vladimir Putin" - "Tadic received endorsement from president of Russia Vladimir Putin" Kommersant: "Shortly before the election Russian President Vladimir Putin sent to Boris Tadic congratulations on his 50th birthday and wished him success in his further political career. Analysts in Belgrade considered it as indirect confirmation that that Moscow hopes for Boris Tadic to be elected for a new term." but surely we can add that the endorsement was questioned by the Serbian Radical Party (Democratic Party and Socialist Party interpreted it as endorsement and Democratic Party of Serbia wasn't very clear) as found in Glas article. There are more external sources having the unambiguous titlea Putin podržao Tadića - "Putin endorses Tadic". And according to WP rules we can't go outside of the scope of what we find already published in external sources. I suppose that we can now work on what we will include in the article, how will we word it. I would personally keep it as it is but if you prefer it that way we can expand it to say that Putin letter was seen as endorsement to Tadic by media and political leaders but was denied by the opposing Serbian Radical Party. It would be slightly longer but would perhaps give a clearer insight into the matter for an unaware reader.--Avala (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed something, Boris Tadić reelection campaign, 2008. As for your second link, it is a copy and paste from b92. None of the links are first hand info, and on top of everything this is a private letter whose text we do not know, so this is all speculation. Clearly some feel one way others feel another way - hence without proof it is not legitimate to be on the main page of boris tadic. Again, you are not willing to any compromise, and are very arrogant in your support. Your POV is blatantly obvious. (LAz17 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).
Yeah sure, I missed the article I created. Have you stopped for a second to think that this letter is not part of the reelection campaign? As for the rest, I suggest you read the WP:SOURCES to find out that media are a perfectly normal source, we don't need official sources only; as the matter of fact using only official sources to write about politicians would be very bad as it would leave no space for information on issues that the official sources would try to hide.--Avala (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

←I have relisted this article at WP:NPOVN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

proposal from the NPOVN

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I am copying my proposal for the dispute resolution from the NPOVN page.

The dispute is not even close to be solved as there is no discussion. It keeps being diverted and it wont get us anywhere, except for getting more and more text blocks. I think the main reason for this is that we had no real proposals to work on so here I go first. The disputed text reads:

Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Tadić a week before the election, in which he wished Tadić a happy 50th birthday and all the very best in his activities for “the welfare of our friends, Serbia.” [1]

I am now, in light of new refs provided by No such user, proposing the compromise solution:

One week before the election, Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Tadić, in which he wished Tadić a happy birthday as well as all the very best in his activities for “the welfare of our friends, Serbia.” [2] In media this was mostly seen as support to Tadić[3][4] and it caused a reaction from many political leaders in Serbia. While most of the leaders agreed that this was a letter of support to Tadić, some questioned whether it was only a letter of support to Serbia and the Serbian Radical Party representative disputed the letter and stated that their candidate was the one enjoying the support of Russia.[5] Analysts in Serbia considered it as indirect confirmation that Russia hopes for Boris Tadić to be elected for a new term.[6]
  1. ^ "Putin pisao Borisu Tadiću" (in Serbian). B92. 2008-01-14. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
  2. ^ "Putin pisao Borisu Tadiću" (in Serbian). B92. 2008-01-14. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
  3. ^ Putin podržao Tadića
  4. ^ Predsednički izbori u Srbiji, svi spremni za prvi krug
  5. ^ Podrška kandidatu ili poruka Srbiji?
  6. ^ The Belgrade Battle

Let's try to move from here, OK? Any input? I would appreciate to read what neutral users have to say, how would they work on this, how would they try to solve the problem. Thanks --Avala (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Completely. First of, this absolutely should not be on the main boris tadic page, and instead may go on the page for re-election, if there. Second, you are full of POV stuff. You say that most political party leaders agreed that it was support for Tadic. Most? What the hell are you smoking? Get off of your cocain or whatever you are on. Well, it's probably deliberate POV. Your last sentence there is really appalling, reaking with extreme POV. You ignore to mention other sources - like top officials in Russia saying that it is a great shame that Tadic won instead of Nikolic. Truely disgusting, what you are trying to do here. Look, we know you are a Tadic supporter. At least take your sick POV out. Here is a better solution: "One week before the election, Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Tadić, in which he wished Tadić a happy birthday as well as all the very best in his activities for “the welfare of our friends, Serbia.” Some media outlets supportive of Tadic saw this as support to Tadić. Some questioned whether it was only a letter of support to Serbia, and the Serbian Radical Party representative disputed the letter and stated that their candidate was the one enjoying the support of Russia." This is a lot more balanced, not reaking of the stench of strong POV. Again, it is something to be put in the reelection campaign article, not the main tadic article. (LAz17 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
The last sentence that you wrote about: "Your last sentence there is really appalling, reaking with extreme POV." is actually almost word for word copy from the reference - "Analysts in Belgrade considered it as indirect confirmation that that Moscow hopes for Boris Tadic to be elected for a new term.". As for me missing some information, well this is the whole point of this section - to discuss, to give proposals etc. Propose what you think is missing together with references and we will add it. The rest of your post is pure insults and you deserve to be stripped of your rights to edit Wikipedia, this time not temporarily.--Avala (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Laz, please calm down and watch your tongue. I don't agree with Avala either, but you're stepping far over the line of WP:CIVIL. You cannot possibly win an argument by insulting the opponent. If I were an administrator, I'd be inclined to block you...
I don't think that any information about the letter should be on the main Boris Tadić article. Nobody so far (myself, BWilkins [2] and, well, LAz17) have seen too big a deal in it to be really pending to the Tadić's campaign. If anywhere, it belongs to the election campaign article. I think that even the press had paid too much attention to the letter -- which is explainable in the heat of the election campaign, but we should not be bound by that.
As for the phrasing... not too bad attempt, but you're badly hiding that you're a hardline Tadić's fan... which is not in itself a bad thing, but it's generally not good for a Wikipedia article about a politician. No such user (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that this was notable and you yourself have proven that it was notable by posting links to media articles that covered the issue and that show how all political leaders responded to this letter so it's hard to claim this is not a notable event. Judging that the press has given too much space to something and that we are smarter and that we will decide instead of them what is notable crosses the WP:NOR policy. If main media widely report on something and we don't write about that event here then something is wrong and we could be in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I am also puzzled by proposals to move this to the reelection campaign article when firstly it was claimed that we should remove this specifically because it was believed that the letter was in no relation to the election whatsoever. What would it do in the reelection article then? I think I proved I am not a "hardline Tadić's fan" by making this proposal that would include opposing views by the Serbian Radical Party. I do however believe that the President of Serbia, whoever he is, should have a good article on Wikipedia. Anyway I do hope that some neutral editors will step in, even after the tirade.--Avala (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the original dispute arose because it was sourced from the B92 source which merely retold the (boring) contents of the letter. When other sources surfaced, it became apparent that there was some fuss about the letter. How much fuss is another issue. I -- and others -- still think that it wasn't too important to deserve a mention here. It may be enough to deserve a mention in the election article.
I think you're misinterpreting WP:NOR. Just because something appeared in the news (and of course it did appear in several outlets) does not automatically make it so important that it must be included in WP article. For the start, I (and others) don't agree with your assessment that it was "widely" reported.
Also, mentioning an opposing view to something does not automatically make it NPOV. A POV can come from selection of the material to include. Take this hypothetic paragraph:

""The Courier" reported that Joe Schmoe had a mistress for several years, and that he forced her to an abortion[1]. Schmoe vigorously denied it, and the newspaper issued an apology after he threatened them with the lawsuit.[2]"

See? In this example, although everything was sourced, both sides were presented, there's a hint that Schmoe is a chauvinist bastard, though there's no enough proof for the court. Just as, in your paragraph, there's a strong hint that Putin favors Boris Tadić, just that he never had the guts to say it aloud. Leave it out please. No such user (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

First off I would caution both Avala and LAz17 about their behaviour. They appear to be engaged in an edit war and have reverted each other on the article more times than is acceptable - at the moment there is clearly no consensus and neither editor should be changing the article based on "consensus". Both have also verged on being uncivil in the discussion above - LAz17 more than Avala but neither is completely innocent. In my opinion both editors are lucky to have avoided a block. I think both editors need to take a step back from this and let other editors comment. I'd suggest that neither editor makes any proposals until such time as outside comments have been received and I'd further suggest that they think very carefully about any replies to outside views and try not to inflame the situation. It is obviously that these two editors are going to disagree and one making suggestions is just going to rile the other. The way forward in my opinion is to get outside views and then come back to making suggestions - it may also be worth getting third parties to make suggestions. If the NPOV notice board does not result in more views then it may be necessary to start a RfC. I'd suggest that this step be taken by a third party - I'll be happy to do so in a few days if necessary.

As for the argument itself I first point out that I can't read the foreign language sources so I'm basing my view on what has been written above and what has been included in the article. It would appear to me that this is quite a complicates situation and to do it justice it would probably require quite a lengthy section in the article. Both of the proposed additions above are quite long. As pointed out above merely stating what was said in the letter would suggest to the normal reader that there was some support there but it's more complicated than that especially given the weirdness of diplomatic communications. In my opinion this would be giving the subject undue weight and so should not be included on this page.

In the re-election article I agree that this letter is probably worth mentioning providing reliable sources can be found that give reaction to it provided the reaction suggests that the letter was meant to influence the election. If no such sources can be found then the letter shouldn't be included at all as we are synthesising. Dpmuk (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I am so lucky that after more than 5 years on Wikipedia I avoided a block for being called a cocaine smoker, a disgrace, stubborn one, of obnoxious ego, full of POV stuff, doing Truely disgusting things, that my opinion no longer matters etc. by a single user - LAz17 on this page. Lucky me. I am also guilty for trying to move things from a deadlock discussion going back and forth by making a proposal from which I clearly stated I wanted to start a constructive discussion and see more proposals, not to do evil things as accused by LAz17 who called one sentence in my proposal "Your last sentence there is really appalling, reaking with extreme POV." which proved to be almost an exact copy from an outside reference provided by a third user. Maybe I should have actually switched to incivility so that I could at least understand the accusations. I am also guilty for pointing out to libelous statements by LAz17 of "Tadic giving money to fags" and for thinking that when WP policies state that these things are taken seriously that they are taken seriously. As for the constant pointing out that this could work in reelection campaign - I find it completely contradicting to claims that this is unrelated to election that usually come before such proposals. As for finding sources that say that the letter was meant to influence the election - you wont find those as no one can speak in Putin's name, however what you can get is what we do have - it is what analysts say and what were the reactions by politicians - Ivica Dačić of Socialist Party of Serbia; Dragan Todorović (politician) of Serbian Radical Party; Jelena Marković, PR of Democratic Party (Serbia); Andreja Mladenović, PR of Democratic Party of Serbia. --Avala (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You should not even be on wikipedia, reason alone for creating the page "list of belgrade metro stations", when belgrade does not have a metro. DSS's statement said nothing about Russia supporting Tadic, it only said that they hope for the patterns of good relations between serbia and russia to continue and increase. You are just letting off frustration and steam now. No need for it. Start being constructive. Again, I feel that Avala's input is no longer needed. He said what he had to say and his input is no longer a benefit. I suggest that Avala be shut up, and me too, until this is resolved by others. Of course, Avala being a hardcore supporter of this president is reason enough for him to always jump in with POV. (LAz17 (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).
Also, opinions of other serbian party officials are not relevant. It all boils down to those who are tadic supporters and those who are not. We have some who support the idiot, and we have some who support the other idiot who was running against him. (LAz17 (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).
Sorry for taking so long to apply. I wouldn't have given my opinion of I'd known I was going to be so busy over the intervening days as I don't feel it's fair to just post and then not reply. Unfortunately in this case I was unexpectedly busy.
Avala - It's the attitude you display in your reply (and elsewhere) that made me make the 'block' comment. I can definitely understand your frustration but you should try to remain calm and civil and not rise to the bait. Doing so only makes it more likely that you'll be blocked as well (I'm not an administrator but to date I'm surprised LAz17 hasn't been blocked whereas I'm not really surprised that you haven't been as it would be a very harsh block). As for your proposal, I don't think your guilty of anything and to be fair it's a reasonable proposal. My comment about possible leaving it to third parties to make a proposal was purely because of how involved you've become in the situation and I thought that proposals would be better received by Laz17 if they didn't come from you given the obvious problems they have with you - to some extent I fear they may oppose it purely because of who proposed it rather than it's content (I can only apologise to Laz17 if that's not the case but it is their actions that have made me think it's a possibility).
As for the content I obviously didn't make myself clear. I am aware that only Putin (or possibly who ever drafted the letter if it wasn't him) can comment on the intention of the letter. I was talking about what politicians / analysts etc. thought the intent was. Given there is likely to be differing views the only fair way to deal with the issue is, in my opinion, to do a relatively in-depth discussion (at least a paragraph - your proposal is this length) and as stated above I think that amount of content would be giving the issue undue weight in this article (but not in a re-election article).
Paz17 - Your first sentence is totally unhelpful and is likely to inflame the situation. I also think that making, largely unfounded, statements about another person's political beliefs, and stating your own, is unhelpful and against the spirit of wikipedia. I think your idea of both of you taking a step back for a while is a good one although you could have worded it much, much better as again the wording is some what inflammatory. Dpmuk (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh...get a grip here

Heads of state send other heads of state birthday greetings all the time, with almost identical wording (although George W's were usually written in crayon). The fact that a head of state got such a card is not newsworthy nor encyclopedic. The mistaken reaction (if properly documented with reliable sources) may merit a minor mention on a re-election article, but really, who gives a crap? This birthday greeting does not merit attacks, edit-warring, or saying "you don't belong here". I'm going to assume you're all adults, please act like it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you?
They scheduled the elections just after his 50th birthday, so that his team could use the expected birthday greetings as a weapon in the campaign...just kidding of course :P No such user (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So what do we do if Avala comes back, and writes several paragraphs of how he strongly feels that this should be how it was, before this dispute? What do we do then? I have been warned on incivility - when he is provoking it. He is trying to get me blocked. Can we get a consensus finally? Not everyone has to agree for there to be one. It's like saying some guy denies the holocaust... he keeps on denying it, and so why should it matter what the person says? Not everyone has to agree for there to be a consensus. I believe that this dispute has gone too far really. It needs to be finished ASAP, and the only one here who is holding that up is Avala, who is going against of what everyone is saying. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).

Blind reversion

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Avala, what you did here is rude on several accounts:

  1. You reverted...
  2. ...without a shred of edit summary...
  3. ...restoring the sneaky vandalism ("Pera Popovic Beg")...
  4. ...apparently without even reading the source [3], which clearly says how the school is titled, and that it wasn't Tadić who was arrested, but his friends.

Please don't do that. No such user (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor this article - [4] : Једном приликом био сам чак и ухапшен, због учешћа у демонстрацијама када сам тражио да се ослободе ухапшени студенти. Био сам у затвору неких месец дана. Затворили су нас у Падинску скелу. Било је у извесном смислу брутално, али и то је за људе. - On one occasion I was even arrested, for participating in demonstrations when I was asked to release students arrested. I was in prison for about one month. We were closed in Padinska Skela. It was brutal in a sense, but it is for the people.. Thank you. As for calling the simple error - sneaky vandalism makes me laugh. It was an error and that's all.--Avala (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The removed sentence was not sourced from that source (which, if we read WP rules very strictly, is not reliable enough, being self-published by Tadić, though I'm not going to hold you for that). I'm not "censoring" anything, it's just my crystal ball that isn't working.
And you're still kindly asked to use edit summaries, at least when doing non-trivial edits. No such user (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Avala, use on rollback on good-faith edits is rude to fellow editors, as you did in all those instances [5] [6] [7] [8]. WP:ROLLBACK clearly says that it should be used only on blatantly unproductive edits, i.e. pure vandalism, while you're using it as tool in content disputes. Next time, please spend some time writing a coherent summary why you're reverting. Please consider this as a warning. No such user (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see by which criteria is Tadić "1st president of Serbia". He was the first president of independent Serbia, but it's not the same thing. List of Presidents of Serbia is quite long. Even if you think he's indeed the first one, simply omitting the number in the infobox conveniently avoids a point of view on the issue: it's not as if there stood "15th president of Serbia". No such user (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tadic a Croat

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

It is always sad to hear of what happened on both sides in ww2. The Chetniks and Ustashe not only killed other ethnic groups who wouldn't join them but their own people. In the case of Mr Tadic whos last name is of Croat origin without doubt I can understand him being very anti Croat because of what happened to his grandparents. This sort of story was also common in Dalmatia where Ustashe killed Croats...SAD BUT TRUE..

This is a good lesson that the Chetniks and Ustashe were an evil minority hell bent on distruction and nobody stood in the way, not even own people...anyone who says iam wrong must be crazy.

I think death of Yugoslav Partizan war hero Bosko Buha (ethnic Serb)sums this up, he was killed by Serbian Chetniks...see what i mean..killed by own blood.

Evergreen Montenegro1 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone should disagree Evergreen. Celt 16 Apr 2006
We can add partisans to that list as well Krakas 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a place for such discussion, but bringing down the Chetniks to the same level as Ustashe and paralel their incomparable crimes is at least malicious. And should be forbidden by International law, like Jews did for crimes over their people. Chetniks were sometimes brutal soldiers fighting the greater part of WW2 against Germans, and the other part of war against domestic enemies on the same side as Germans, while Ustashe held concentration camps which had several hundred thousands Serbs, Romas and Jews dead (see article for an example). --213.244.209.253 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that Tadic has Croat roots? The name sounds more Croatian to me as well, but there are a lot of crossover names. My name originates on Rab Island and is popular in Croatia, but it is also found among Serbs. I would never dream of trying to convince them that they are Croats because there is more to who a person is than their name or genetic origin. Regardless, it would be interesting from an acedemic standpoint to know if Tadic has Croat roots. I must also take some exception to the notion posed that Tadic is "anti-Croat" because his family were victim of the Ustase. Nothing in Tadic's policy has appeared to be anti-Croat and he currently has a relatively friendly relationship with Croatia. I can agree that the Chetniks and some Partizans were cruel like the Ustase though, but winner of wars write the history books. My father's parents were both tortured and killed by Partizans at the end of WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another proof that Croats and Serbs are one and same thing (having same names, same language, same recent history), - just like Novak Djokovic and many others have said. Regards;207.216.132.111 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Serb Surnames - Like most of the Serb surnames, 'Tadic' is a patronym derived from the name of the 'rodonacelnik' founder of the family. In the case of the surname 'Tadic' the founders name was Tadija, which is a common Serb name of Orthodox Christian origin - Thaddeus. Similar Serb surnames built on the same basis are - Vasiljevic/Vasojevic (Vasilije), Petrovic (Petar), Jovanovic/Jovovic (Jovan/Ivan/John), Pavlovic (Pavle/Paulus), Artemijevic (Artemije), Teodosijevic (Teodosije) etc. Croats bearing such surnames, are those of Serb ancestry that assimilated in the Croatian national corpus in the course of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.78.141 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boris Tadić. 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:

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Boris Tadić. 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:

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boris Tadić. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Boris Tadić. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Tadić. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Tadić. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sentence "His maternal grandfather and six other relatives were killed by the Croatian Ustaše during World War II at the Jasenovac concentration camp." is utterly wrong. To show why, it's enough to take a look at the given reference. When the Cyrillic script there is converted to Latin, you can see the following sentence: "Moj deda ubijen je od strane ustaša, na brutalan način. Kao i dobar deo majčine porodice. Pet, šest članova su završili u Jasenovcu." In English this would literally be: "My grandfather was killed by Ustashe, in a brutal way. As well as a significant part of my mother's family. Five, six of the family members ended up in Jasenovac." So first of all, he **did not** state that any of his family members were murdered at Jasenovac. Second, he said five or six, not six. As a matter of fact, there is a text where Boris Tadić explicitly talks about his grandfather and there he clearly states that he was murdered at the Jadovno camp.[1]

Nbanic (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tadić na komemoraciji u Jadovnom" [Tadić at the commemoration in Jadovno] (in Serbian). Retrieved 2017-01-14.

Dispute

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

It is ok to highlight the controversies of all authorities, but citing individual examples must follow conclusions after the consensus of relevant sources, especially academic consensus. No relevant international institutions have been cited, as well as no Google Scholar and Google Books search results. This is about WP:NOR, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:NOTNEWS etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the Controversy section, recently (and I'd argue, misleadingly) renamed to Policy. As for original research, the reports I referenced were all criticism of Tadić that was available, with no aspiration to judge its validity. The sources referenced were authoritative - the BIRN, the European Federation of Journalists, Politika and the removed link to the statement by the Anti-Corruption Council and the two largest journalist unions (both the section and the report, which I admit was linked in the news report which was referred to, and was not conveyed in full in the news report itself, directly link Tadić to Šaper and Đilas. Thus, I would dispute its disinclusion from the article). Granted that e-novine would in retrospect not be considered a reputable news source. However, its editor Luković was at the time defended both by Peščanik, Radio Free Europe and the journalists' association of Vojvodina. I would hardly consider these sources gonzo journalism.--Aleksamil (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The section is not encyclopedic, it is more like newspapers that randomly list personal statements (WP:TOOMUCH, WP:NOTNEWS). Most of the section consists of primary sources, personal views and accusation of Ljiljana Smajlović and gonzo SNS-biased portal (WP:PRIMARY). It is not recommended to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (WP:SYNTHESIS). For example, there are criticisms of the media situation ahead of the 2012 elections, but there were more who spoke of balanced media, and even the election observation organizations highlighted the many national-frequency television broadcasted far more affirmative content about the Serbian Progressive Party. Also, the Freedom House described the media situation as generally free in 2011 , while severely criticizing the situation after Vučić came to power.
There is rarely any reference that links Tadić to the mentioned events, and almost none explains the connection of an individual situation to the overall context of “systematic censorship” (WP:NOR). Citing individual examples must follow conclusions after the consensus of relevant sources, especially academic consensus. As I have already said, no relevant international institutions have been cited, as well as no Google Scholar and Google Books search results. I have added two relevant sources from the Google Scholar database that describe the context of the media situation during the Tadić rule, but even in this case, there is no scientific consensus because of the small number of papers. To me, this is like trying to equalize the situation of that period with the severe suppression of media freedoms by authoritarian regimes (WP:GEVAL).--WEBDuB (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe the section goes into excessive detail, I propose transferring parts into the article Media freedom in Serbia, but a section on the criticism Tadić has received is a perfectly valid point in an encyclopedic summary.
While I agree that the section in great part consists of personal statements, I would hardly say it's from irrelevant actors. The accusations of Ljiljana Smajlović were, as I've pointed out, corroborated by both the European Federation of Journalists and the two main journalism associations at the time. E-novine were, up to that point, on good terms with the Liberal Democratic Party and other pro-western actors, and only became aligned with the SNS after these events. I would assume this is the reason their accusations were also supported both by Peščanik and Radio Free Europe. As for reaching conclusions of my own, I followed WP:INTEXT for all accusations on which I am well aware no consensus has been formed.
Other than that, I agree with your initial removal of the Verica Barać article since the news of the presentation, organized by the Anti-corruption Council and the NUNS and UNS, didn't refer to Tadić himself, unlike the report linked in the news article. I support your latest addition to the section, detailing the deterioration of media freedom under Vučić, since I am in no way trying to paint a false picture of Tadić being equally authoritarian. Adding more text on the deterioration following Tadić's time in office and transferring some of the detail excessive for an article on Tadić to Media freedom in Serbia could help add needed context and not seem as creating a false equivalence. --Aleksamil (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
We can discuss and give some examples, but the content of Wikipedia articles should present general facts. In this section, there is no a perfectly valid point in an encyclopedic summary. It is not allowed to cite multiple references to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Many Wikipedia rules have been violated. There is no consensus of scientific sources, relevant international organizations and observers of election conditions. It's not correct that a whole section in the encyclopedia article dedicated to personal accusations and assumptions. I have already cited the only two sources from the Google Scholar database, summarizing the context that even had a critical note. That is enough to highlight this context I think the whole section based on that assumption is unnecessary, especially not as extensive. All public figures are facing critics. In principle, I am not opposed to the controversy sections, but the information should be properly integrated and summarized. In this case, there is no conclusion by the mainstream media and academic sources about a systematic curtilation of media freedom and that it was one of the leading characteristics of Tadić's biography. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
While I concede it is helpful to give context of further deterioration of media freedoms under Vučić, so as not to create a false equivalence, Tadić has indeed been accused, as I've already pointed out, both by the European Federation of Journalists, two national (NUNS and UNS) and one regional journalists' organizations, the BIRN, Radio Free Europe, the polemic talk show Nedjeljom u 2 etc. Every less reliable source, and arguably even the mentioned reliable ones, were cited following In-text attribution (WP:INTEXT) which is to be used, as pointed out in WP:CITETYPE, for "statements of opinion or uncertain fact". I don't believe the evidence you've presented points to any of the rules being violated, given the attribution of the accusations in text.
As for "citing multiple references to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", no conclusion was pointed out, only the very bare accusations, all attributed accordingly and cited almost word for word. Yes, every public figure faces criticism, but I can hardly see how this brushes off the need to present at least the most reliable of these critics. Especially seeing as one would be hard pressed to argue most of these sources were fringe, even conceding the fact that very little scholarly attention has been paid to the criticism Tadić received during this period. --Aleksamil (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Again and again, European and national journalists' organizations wrote about the incidents and individual events but did not directly link Tadić to the media situation, not even the government. There are conclusions from organizations (such as Freedom House) that there was general press freedom during this period, so there is no single conclusion. An encyclopedia is not a place to list individual events and personal statements. Especially, we must not summarize only the negative examples to draw one conclusion. Even the existence of this section can lead to conclusions. It is not correct to arbitrarily interpret why scholars have not paid attention to this topic. Maybe because this topic is just speculation? If we searched, we would find criticism for every state official, but we should include in the articles only a generally accepted topic in mainstream media, academic sources, and relevant organizations. --WEBDuB (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
As I've already said, most summaries were written trying to link Tadić in the same manner, and no more strongly overstated than in the text themselves. That is, word for word, and to give an example "Posebnu ulogu u finansiranju medija i njihovom držanju u ekonomskoj zavisnosti i neizvesnosti, imaju agencije za odnose sa javnošću, marketinške i produkcijske agencije, koje su uglavnom u vlasništvu stranačkih aktivista, ili sa njima povezanih osoba. Te agencije, između ostalog, već godinama kontrolišu tržište reklama. ... Značajno mesto na tržištu reklama imaju agencije koje su u vlasništvu visokih funkcionera Demokratske stranke (DS) i bliskih saradnika Predsednika Republike Borisa Tadića. Savet je u Izveštaju, izmedju ostalog, analizirao uticaj koji na medije imaju agencije Meken Erikson grupe, koje su u vlasništvu Srđana Šapera, i agencije Multikom i Direct media, u kojima udeo u vlasništvu ima Dragan Đilas, gradonačelnik Beograda i zamenik predsednika Demokratske stranke." (A special role in the financing of media and keeping it in economic dependence and uncertainty is held by PR agencies, marketing and production agencies, which are mostly owned by partisan activists, or people connected to them. These agencies have been in control of the advertising market for years, among other things. ... A special place in the advertising market is held by agencies owned by high ranking officials of the Democratic Party (DS) and close associates of the President, Boris Tadić. In this report, the Council has, among other things, analyzed the influence over the media held by agencied of the McCann Erickson group, owned by Srđan Šaper, and the agencies Multicom and Direct Media, partially owned by Dragan Đilas, mayor of Belgrade and vice president of the Democratic Party). Summarized solely as "The report concluded that marketing agencies owned by senior Democratic Party officials and Tadić's close associates, namely Šaper and Đilas, held a significant share of the advertising market." This is from the report of the Anti-Corruption Council, presented at the round table with both the NUNS, UNS and the ombudsman, which you initially removed altogether, I would argue not following WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. So your point that these reports do not directly link Tadić or the government is false. Of course, if I am mistakend and it is true in some of the mentioned cases I am in favor of removing the cases in point.
As for opposing views, say by Freedom House, of course every state official has both positive and negative reception coming from different sources, but this is included in Tadić's Criticism section, a section dedicated to, well, criticism. And initially, the only conclusion that was pointed out and not attributed to its source was the existence of the section altogether, as you point out. However, even with that, you yourself have added a short introductory sentence which summarizes that Tadić has received mild criticism over his treatment of the media, which has (goes without saying, really) worsened under the SNS. I believe this is enough of a short conclusion to validate the existence of the section altogether, and I applaud its addition since I believe, as I've already said, that it gives needed context.
To summarize my thoughts – if we searched, I believe we would indeed find criticism of most public figures, and I believe the criticism coming from valid and reliable sources indeed has a place in an encyclopedic summary of an official's career. Of course, with the addition of an in-text attribution so as not to state opinion as fact, and the inclusion of further context, so as not to, in this case, create a false equivalence with the democratic backslide Serbia is currently experiencing. As for the validity of the sources levying criticism at Tadić, Wikipedia defines reliable sources as "University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers" per WP:SOURCES. Most sources, perhaps with the exception of e-novine, in whose case I would argue the transition to gonzo journalism came after the events pointed out, hence RFE/RL's defense of the medium, do indeed fit the bill. The only conclusions that were pointed out and not quoted word for word from the sources were the existence of the section itself, that is, before you added the short analysis from the journal European Politics and Society, which does indeed warrant a further discussion on (reliable) criticism of Tadić's media policy.--Aleksamil (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Tadić/Archive_1&oldid=1137929599"