Sowberryhagan

Zvonko Bušić‎

Sowberryhagan,

We need to talk. We need to talk about neutral text (i.e., not slanted toward some Croatian nationalistic point of view), and we need to talk about reliable sources (which zvonkobusic.com or whatever is not, and which the NY Times is). And we need to talk about Original Research. See WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. After you've had a chance to read these, we will examine each paragraph in Zvonko Bušić‎, one by one. I'll be back. -- Y not? 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Y, I have no problem working with a neutral administrator to ensure this article is within the rules and standards of Wikipedia, and am more than happy to make whatever changes are necessary in the article for that goal. However, I do not believe that you are neutral on the subject of Zvonko Busic, and therefore I strongly believe that you should recuse yourself from any role that involves use of your power as administrator in refereeing this article. Here are three reasons why I have come to this conclusion: (1) within the Julienne Busic article, you repeatedly and erroneously insisted that Zvonko was not eligible for parole until after he had served 30 years, despite the reference in that article to the original appeal court decision webpage which clearly indicated eligibility after 10 years (8 years for Julienne) and despite numerous newspaper articles starting in 1977 that clearly state that the trial judge sentenced Zvonko to life with possibility of parole after 10 years. There are two possible explanations for these errors, and I'm afraid neither is consistent with your being an effective referee for this article. (2) in the Rodman's Neck Firing Range article, to reference Busic's bomb at the range you inserted a news article whose main purpose was to propose and discuss the possibility that Zvonko was the LaGuardia bomber (who murdered 11 people), a clearly inflammatory suggestion about a living person which is irrelevant and pointless as a reference to your statement that his device caused a death at Rodman's neck. The fact that it would have been easier to insert numerous other articles that are not inflammatory and that would have been more than adequate references for your statement again calls into question your neutrality. And (3) there is not a shred of nationalism anywhere in this article about Zvonko Busic, which is simply a factual accounting of the contents of numerous court and parole documents that are in public ownership. Nowhere in any of those referenced documents or within this article is there any position argued or even suggested in favor of a national Croatian state, culture, language, of any kind whatsoever. The fact that you seem to be unable to approach this article without seeing "nationalism" being actively propounded again is evidence that there is a bias that is clouding your perceptions either of this subject or this particular individual. Again I am happy to work with Wikipedia to ensure that this article is up to its standards, and I think that process will proceed most smoothly if a neutral administrator is involved. --Sowberryhagan (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)