Wikipedija:Kafić/prigovori na Meti 2. vrste

Izvor: Wikipedija
Prijeđi na navigaciju Prijeđi na pretraživanje

Stranica [1] Zadnje uređivanje kod unosa ovog bilo je [2] 01:33, 18. listopada 2013.

Opet se zaobilazi Pogledajte komentara. Ovo su stvari koje se rješavaju ovdje, a ne na Meti. Kubura (razgovor) 07:29, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Na ovim stranicama bilo tko može podnijeti, čitati, i komentirati konkretne podatke vezane uz moguće upitne sadržaje članaka hrvatske Wikipedije, te uz postupak njihova uređivanja. Molimo pažljivo pročitajte i slijedite donje upute.

Molimo posjetite stranicu o postupanju ako želite podnijeti, čitati, ili komentirati podatke vezane uz postupanje pojedinih suradnika prema ostalima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji.

Molimo posjetite Talk:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content|stranicu za razgovor ako imate bilo kakvih pitanja, ili ako želite raspraviti bilo koju značajku skupljanja podataka o sadržaju članaka hrvatske Wikipedije.

Ova stranica je otvorena za doprinose do kraja listopada 2013.


Ovakvi su vidovi komentiranja nedopustivi. Tko misli kritizirati druge, neka se prvo potpiše pod suradničkim imenom kojim se inače služi, a ne napadati kao neprijavljeni odnosno s novostvorenih računa. Kubura (razgovor) 23:12, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Upute[uredi kôd]

|content, reversion, edit limitation, talk page comment|patrol|article patrol|article title|article title|content|sadržaj, vraćanje inačice, ograničenje uređivanja, komentar na stranici za razgovor|provjeravanja članaka|naslovima članaka|naslovom članka|sadržaje}}

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

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

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

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

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

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


Submission outlines - Skice podnesaka[uredi kôd]


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

Sorted submissions - Razvrstani podnesci[uredi kôd]


Istospolni brak[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Istospolni brak (), article title changed to "Brak i istospolnost" ("Marriage and homosexuality") on 2013-05-29
    diff by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales
    Description: changed the title of the article into "Marriage and homosexuality", as in that gay marriage only has an appearance of marriage, which made Croatian Wikipedia the only Wikipedia out of some 40 different languages with that aritifical title that disputes its existence. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
  2. Informacije: Istospolni brak, naziv članka je promijenjen u "Brak i istospolnost" 29. svibnja 2013.
    izmjenu napravio Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales
    Opis: naziv članka je promijenjen u "Brak i istospolnost", kao da gay brak ima samo privid braka, što je hrvatsku Wikipediju učinilo jedinom Wikipedijom od 40-ak različitih jezičnih verzija koja osporava njegovo postojanje.
  • ZA Partially support First of all, the title is odd: AFAIK, in the Croatian language there is no such word as "istospolnost", and it is unclear what is it supposed to mean (as already noted in the talk page[3]). Literally translated to English, this could mean "same-sexness", or "the quality of being of the same sex". Go figure. Still, according to SpeedyGonsales, "[...] even a strange name like that is, in the absence of a better one, preferable to the current biased condition".[4] This was before the article was moved, so - if I understand correctly - SG thought that "Same-sex marriage" is a biased title. In the same edit, SG says that's because by law, same-sex marriages in Croatia do not exist, which is more or less the reason why the article shouldn't be named like that (?!?!). Pardon my French, but this is blatantly biased homophobic BS. Giving partial support because the move was made after a talk page discussion (no opinion on whether the move accurately reflects its outcome or not, though). GregorB (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
PROTIV Disagree Not only "istospolnost" exists in Croatian language, but there is a croatian word for homosexual: "istospolnik".[1] Istospolnost is homosexuality. If you understand what is homosexuality, than you understand what is istospolnost. --Zekoslavac (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me in witch dictionary you can find word "istospolnost" i "istospolac". I can only find "homoseksualac"[5] Istospolnost exist only in Slovenian.[6] --DobarSkroz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Surely you don't believe YouTube is to be treated as a lexicographic source. The point is something else entirely, though: is there a valid reason for the article not to be named Istospolni brak ("Same-sex marriage")? It isn't. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Youtube link goes on speech of HDZ politician who had homophobic statements in the last local elections [7]. So it seems that "istospolnik" except as newspeak word can be seen as hate speech to? --DobarSkroz (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mihailo (mitropolit)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Mihailo (mitropolit) (birth was Miraš Dedeić , the second head, rebuilt the Montenegrin Orthodox Church)
    Description: User Markus cg formerly known as Markus cg1 insert false and incorrect information.
Comments: This article celebrates his head sect called the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • {{comment}} Kolega2357, could you please give more information + sources why this is questionable, and if possible provide a version diff? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can say that I don't know anything about the subject, and this info isn't enough to form an opinion one way or another. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{neutral}} I've read the text, but could not identify clearly what's exactly problematic about it. I am not an expert on Mihailo mitropolit, so a little more clarification should have been given here.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mile Budak[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Mile Budak, entire section "Političar", text survived with minor changes from article creation in 2004 to 2013-09-20
    patrol log, originally entered by Suradnik:Mir Harven;
    Description: Right-wing POV op-ed apology for a co-author of NDH racial laws[8][9] and an outspoken advocate of Serb genocide.[10] The section was removed only after the first report about it appeared on an older version of this page, and after the section screenshot appeared on a Facebook page.
    Multiple attempts to remove or tag as POV reversed. For example this, a relatively modest attempt to make the section more neutral, with an attempt to discuss it at the talk page after it was reversed twice without explanation, was met by freezing the article and a heavy-handed response by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales. Quotes: "removing content [which was unsourced in the first place] without explaining why is vandalism," "edit comments are not a venue for user communication." The argument boils down to claiming that whatever is already in place and cannot be proven false -- which is true by default for arbitrary statements of opinion that largely comprise this section -- remains there forever. Miranche (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Mile Budak, cijeli odlomak "Političar", tekst je preživio samo sa manjim izmjenama od stvaranja članka 2004. do 20. rujna 2013.
    patrol log, kojeg jeizvorno postavio Suradnik:Mir Harven;
    Opis: desničarsko osobno mišljenje i apologetski natpisi jednog od autora rasnih zakona u NDH[11][12] i otvorenog zagovaratelja srpskog genocida.[13] Odlomak je uklonjen tek nakon pojavljivanja prvog izvještaja na starijoj inačici ove stranice, te nakon što se screenshot odlomka pojavio na jednoj Facebook stranici.
    Razni pokušaji da se taj odlomak ukloni ili označi kao POV su poništeni. Primjerice ovdje, relativno skroman pokušaj da se odlomak učini neutralnijim, sa pokušajem rasprave na stranici za razgovor nakon što je izmjena poništena dva piuta bez objašnjenja, što je dovelo do zamrzavanja članka i krutog odgovora Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa. Citat: "uklanjanje sadržaja [koji nije ni imao izvore] bez objašnjenja je vandalizam," "komentari u izmjenama nisu put za komunikaciju suradnika." Argument se svodi na to da se tvrdi da što god je pisalo na početku ne može biti potvrđeno kao netočno -- što je istina po defaultu za nasumične izjave mišljenja koje uvelike tvore ovaj odlomak -- te ostaje u članku zauvijek. Miranche (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Support Misapplication of policy - IP edit was definitely not vandalism, and the revert effectively protected the outrageously biased and non-encyclopedic section. Note IP user merely attempted to repair the section (which was IMO virtually impossible to repair), while the latest edit kills it entirely.[14] Yet, the first one was supposedly "vandalism", but the last one stays? I'd like to hear an explanation for that. Also note article was semi-protected for extended periods due to "frequent vandalizing", although in some cases in wasn't vandalizing at all, and whether it was "frequent" or not is also debatable. In effect, this semi-protection made POV problems and other irregularities harder to fix.GregorB (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Comment from a non-Croation-speaking Wikipedian -- It looks like Budak also had serious issues with Jews. [15][16] Yet, the Croatian Wikipedia article on Budak contained the following [per Google Translate]:If you look at these arguments is quite easy to see that Budak opponents demonize his degree of guilt with weak arguments.[17]. Additionally, the contrast with the English Wikipedia article on Budak[18] is remarkable. English Wikipedia states that Budak asked Hitler for help on March 31, 1941 (before the April 6 Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia), while the Croatian one did not mention this, and instead implied that the racial laws were [per Google Translate] "imposed by Nazi Bigwigs [with Budakovo opposition]." William Jockusch (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Support Article argues that the racial laws were imposed to Budak with his opposition. He is declared irrelevant and unimportant, and they believe that only participation in the government of the NDH is not a criterion for judgment. Quote from Budak speech: "The basis of the Ustasha movement is religion. For minorities such as Serbs, Jews and Gypsies we have three million bullets.'ll Kill part of the Serbs. One of the rest will be deported, and the second part of the force to accept the Roman Catholic faith. This will be a way to resolve Croatia of Serbs and in the next 10 years it will be 100% Catholic. " Mile Budak a rally in Gospic. Published in the "Narodne novine" (Official newspaper) 7th srpnja 1941st--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Potemkinova sela[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Potemkinova sela (), edit on 2013-06-10, reverted 2013-09-09
    Description: Suradnik:Rakovicazauvijek wrote following text: Today, the phrase is often used [to describe] appearances that attempt to make false impression on existence of something that doesn't exist at all. In recent Croatian history, an example from 2010s was when Croatian medias, especially television, made reports from imposed [gay] parades and protest rallies of militant activists who allegedly fight for gay rights. [News media] portray them so it appears that they occupy whole TV screen, while in reality media avoid taking shots from bird perspective, 'cause that perspective would show that people (including homosexuals) boycotted parades, politicians and media who wholeheartedly promoted those parades, and that those parades were attend by 10-20 professional activists led by politicians of unpopular regime and with great police protection.
    His edits were marked as patrolled by sysop Kubura. The passage were removed from the article when this ongoing controversy begun by an anonymous user. If this is not batshit crazy, I don't know what is. -- Bojan  Talk  15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Potemkinova sela, izmjena 10. lipnja 2013., poništena 9. rujna 2013.
    Opis: Suradnik:Rakovicazauvijek je napisao sljedeće u članku: Danas se ta fraza često koristi za one pojave kojima se pokušava stvariti lažni utisak o postojanju nečega što uopće ne postoji. U novijoj hrvatskoj povijesti to je bilo 2010-ih kad su hrvatski mediji, posebno televizijski, izvješćivali s nametnutih parada i prosvjednih skupova militantnih aktivista koji se tobože zalažu za prava homoseksualaca. Slikom prikazuju kao da ih je pun ekran, a u stvarnosti izbjegavaju prikazati slikom to s visine, jer takva bi slika pokazala da je narod (uključujući i homoseksualne osobe) bojkotirao paradu, političare i medije koji su zdušno promicali te parade, i da se u paradama i prosvjedima i radi o 10-20 profesionalnih aktivista predvođenih političarima nenarodnog režima.
    Njegovu izmjenu je provjerio i potvrdio administrator Kubura. Odlomak je uklonjen nakon izbijanja kontroverzi koju je započeo anonimni suradnik. Ako ovo nije ludost, ne znam što je. -- Bojan  Talk  15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree This is one of the most blatant en:WP:COATRACK violations I have ever seen, and a display of extremely bad judgment by Kubura, which raises serious questions about him being fit to be an administrator. GregorB (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Homophobic stupidity --DobarSkroz (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree I laughed my socks off when I read this. You cannot even read an ordinary article without finding some off-topic anti-LGBT content in it anymore.--Seiya (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree A simple, less controversial, example would be far more appropriate.William Jockusch (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rodne studije[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Rodne studije (), article titled "Rodna ideologija" ("Gender ideology") from creation to 2013-09-20
    title change diff, originally entered by anonymous
    Description: en:Gender studies - "translated" into "Gender ideology" on Croatian Wikipedia.
  2. Talk page comment - Komentar na stranici za raspravu
    Info: Rodna ideologija ("Gender ideology"), comment by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales on 2013-06-04
    Description: He locked and refused that the article can be renamed in accordance with its official name. His comment: "That's an ideology, how good or bad, that's still not known today, but that it is aggressive, i.e. destructive towards the social categories of today - that is a fact." [19]. This means that out of 20 different language Wikipedias, the Croatian one is the only one with that artificial title that disputes its existence. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Rodne studije, naziv članka je preimenovan u "Rodna ideologija"
    promjena naziva članka, kojeg je izvorno stvorio anonimni suradnik
    Opis: Rodne studije su "prevedene" kao "rodna ideologija" na hrvatskoj Wikipediji.
  2. Komentar na stranici za raspravu
    Informacije: Rodna ideologija komentar Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa 4. lipnja 2013.
    Opis: Zaključao je članak i odbio se nazove u skladu sa svojim službenim imenom. Njegov komentar: "To je ideologija, koliko je dobra ili loša danas još nije poznato, ali da agresivno odnosno destruktivno nastupa prema danas prevladavajućim društvenim kategorijama - to je činjenica." [20]. To znači da od 20 jezičnih verzija Wikipedije, hrvatska je jedina sa takvim umjetnim nazivom koji osporava njegovo pravo ime. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Support Reason for changing title was: "the term does not exist in the Family Law"; of course that is not problem for articles like "creationism" that exists in and it doesnt exist in croatian laws and education.--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Split Pride[uredi kôd]

  1. Edit reversion - Poništavanje uređivanja
    Info: Split Pride, edited by Suradnik:, reverted by Suradnik:Zeljko on 2013-08-12
    diff; no reason given, editor's comments deleted
    Description: Deleted references about prominent religious figures calling for and justifying violence against LGBT persons; references to reputable sources in the diff. Blatant POV exclusion of encyclopedic content harmful to the en:Catholic Church Miranche (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{neutral}} While it is wrong to delete these references, it is too weak of an argument to support calling the whole article controversial just because of that. Numerous religious figures called for death and lynch of prominant celebrities throughout history, but is it really relevant to not mention these wackos in every article? --Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{oppose}} Those references have many missinterpretations inside, and also text on Wikipedia written by user is missinterpretation of events that took place in Split. While I don't mind if someone writes about religious figures calling for violence, first of all they didn't call for violence. They didn't justify violence. They simply pointed out that this violence has its cause, its reason, and organizers of Split Pride knew it would happen. Split Pride was organized just one day before catholic holiday, and it was on the same route as catholic procession? No to mention it was first gay pride in Split. The one in Zagreb wasn't as provocative as before because people of Zagreb learned to ignore them. Perhaps we should write some lines and provide references about that too? Than we can be all called fascist (over and over again) --Zekoslavac (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

U ime obitelji[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: U ime obitelji ("In the name of the Family", an anti-LGBT organization that wants to restrict marriage only to a man and a woman)
    edit by Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales on 2013-05-29
    Description: he changed a sentence that says "Croatia would join numerous other countries..." into "Croatia would join countries of the Western civilization (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia...) ...that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman by constitution" --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: U ime obitelji, anti-LGBT organizacija koja želi ograničiti brak samo na ženu i muškarca
    izmjena Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa 29. svibnja 2013.
    Opis: promijenio je rečenicu koja je išla "Hrvatska bi se pridružila brojnim drugim državama ..." u "Hrvatska bi se pridružila državama zapadne civilizacije (Poljska, Mađarska, Bugarska, Latvija, Litva...) ...koje su ustavnom odredbom pravno definirale brak kao zajednicu žene i muškarca " --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree "Countries of the Western civilization" is en:WP:PEACOCK and POV. ("Numerous" is also peacocky, POV and makes no sense as "four or so countries out of 200" can't be described as "numerous".) "Western civilization" is also disingenuous, because AFAIK all countries that have legalized same-sex marriage also belong to the Western civilization. This is a minor, but telling irregularity: judging by the examples we've seen, whenever SG acts contrary to established policies, it is an action compatible with a (far) right wing outlook. GregorB (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Content & reversion
    Info: Suradnik:Chvrka added biased, untrue, unreferenced (pseudo)critique, and prevented removing bias (Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales also did the latter).
    Description: Suradnik:Chvrka added "... Initiative is therefor homophobic, according to LGBT activists, according to the common usage of that label in Croatia - for putting down those whose attitudes are not in accordance with some of the LGBT activist requests, because they think that these requests are damaging for other parts of society." (in Croatian: "Inicijativa je zato homofobna, prema mišljenju LGBT aktivista i prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čiji stavovi nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista jer drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva."). (diff). There have been several attempts to remove this bias, but they were quickly undone, first by admin Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales after only 17 minutes (diff), secondly by editor who introduced that bias Suradnik:Chvrka (diff), and later by another person.
    After the controversy became public, I requested on the talk page for the bias to be removed, because it is unsubstantiated, untrue, and not in accordance to NPOV. Suradnik:Vodomar responded with straw man argument, and Suradnik:Chvrka instead of removing bias, camouflaged it into a reference (diff)! Again I complained on the talk page, and nobody reacted, so I corrected the issue and for now nobody has undone it. --Marekich (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj i izmjene
    Informacije: Suradnik:Chvrka je dodao pristrane, netočne i nereferencirane (pseudo)kritične informacije, te spriječio uklanjanje pristranosti (Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales je također činio isto).
    Description: Suradnik:Chvrka je dodao "Inicijativa je zato homofobna, prema mišljenju LGBT aktivista i prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čiji stavovi nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista jer drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva."). (diff). Bilo je pokušaja uklanjanja ove pristranosti, ali su ubrzo poništene, prvo od administratora Suradnik:SpeedyGonsalesa nakon samo 17 minuta (razlika), a potom od suradnika koji je prvi dodao tu nepristranost, Suradnik:Chvrka (razlikr), a potom i od drugih osoba.
    Nakon izbijanja kontroverze, zahtijevao sam na stranici za razgovor da se pristranost ukloni, jer je ničim podržana, neistinita i u neskladu sa pravilima o neutralnoj točki gledišta. Suradnik:Vodomar je odgovorio slamnatim argumentom, a Suradnik:Chvrka, umjesto da ukloni nepristranost, ju je pak sakrio u izvor (razlika)! Opet sam prigovorio na stranici na razgovor, a nitko nije reagirao, pa sam promijenio sadržaj i za sada ga nitko nije poništio. --Marekich (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Seiyo, izjava " U ime obitelji, anti-LGBT organizacija koja želi ograničiti brak samo na ženu i muškarca" napadački je argument. To je tvoj osobni stav. Odakle ti uopće pomisao da je to organizacija usmjerena protiv pripadnika LGBTIQ zajednice? Kubura (razgovor) 23:48, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Citat: "...danas je na zagrebačkoj Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti organiziralo 40-minutnu akciju "Tomorrow belongs to me (1933)" kao odgovor na anti-LGBT inicijativu "U ime obitelji", koja ima za cilj promjenu Ustava. Ona bi elitizirala određenu demografsku skupinu ljudi, dok bi zanijekala prava ostalih.".--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET) je tu inicijativu nazvao "anti-LGBT", a jedan televizijski voditelj u središnjem Dnevniku jedne TV-kuće rekao "da se potpisnici zahtjeva za raspisivanjem referenduma zalažu za 'homofobnu izmjenu Ustava'."...teško uvrijedio preko pola milijuna građana predbacujući im homofobnost, tražimo ispriku .... To o "anti-LGBT" i "homofobnosti", to je POV autora tih tekstova.
U pismu toj TV-kući (od 27. svibnja 2013.), Građanska inicijativa 'U ime obitelji' navela je "Sve ovo ima poseban značaj u kontekstu onoga čemu je javnost u posljednja dva tjedna mogla svjedočiti. Fizičkim napadima na naše volontere te pozivima na nasilje objavljivanim na društvenim mrežama[21] (uz pripisivanje istih 'homofobnih“' ciljeva građanskoj inicijativi), sada se uvredama na račun građana u svojoj središnjoj informativnoj emisiji otvoreno pridružila i (ime TV-kuće).
Obrazac ponašanja već viđen.
Inicijativu U ime obitelji su potpisali predstavnici praktično SVIH vjerskih zajednica [22], a inicijativa nije ograničena samo na vjernike. Potpisnici su naglasili "svatko ima pravo na svoju spolnu orijentaciju" te time uopće nije usmjerena protiv zajednice LGBTIQ.[23]
Eto, toliko. Kubura (razgovor) 07:26, 16. studenog 2013. (CET)

Zvonko Bušić (w:Zvonko Bušić)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Zvonko Bušić (was the Croatian political activist and fighter against Greater Serbian hegemony)
    Description: User Heraklit has insert the falsification of these biased information. On Croatian Wikipedia is shown the terrorists as a national hero. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Zvonko Bušić (hrvatski politički aktivist i borac protiv velikosrpske hegemonije)
    Opis: User Heraklit je ubacio falsifikate u ovoj pristranoj informaciji. Na hrvatskoj Wikipediji terorist je prikazan kao nacionalni heroj. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA Too much POV. The whole article is practically an anthem to him.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA It's hard to call airplane hijacker - political activist. So is pretty hard to call this text just biased.--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • PROTIV Strongly oppose Even judge in USA concluded that Zvonko Bušić was NOT a terrorist. This accusation is serious lack of knowledge about Zvonko Bušić (possibly result of reading too many left-wing articles written by ex-communist journalists and activists). Not only he is considered a hero among majority of people in Croatia, but on his funeral there was so many people, polititians from major political parties in Croatia, many famous persons, many soldiers, and check the location of his grave: croatian soldiers all around him! Also, when he released passangers who wanted to get out of that plane, he had support of the rest. People even photographed together with him - and they were hostages! They were asking him how can they help! Also those that were released spread fliers about situation in Croatia and Yugoslavia! And so on, and so on... So your opinion simply doesn't stadn a chance against reality. To me it is unbelievable that someone can write something like that despite all the evidence, witnesses, verdict, statements, documentaries etc. Full suport to administrators. --Zekoslavac (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA Someone planting bombs and kidnapping airplanes is a terrorist. He was also unbalanced, and has recently committed suicide by swallowing a hand grenade. On his funeral you could see all of the prominent extreme-right supporters. hrwiki's article is biased starting from the first sentence in the lede (borac protiv velikosrpske hegemonije. "fighter against the Greater Serbian hegemony"). Yugoslavia was a socialist country, there was no "Greater Serbian hegemony" - that's one of the mythologems fabricated by Croatian nationalists, and with which this article abounds from the beginning to the end. Many of the citations are invalid, being self-published obscure web pages (Hrvati AMAC, imotskiportal etc.) - but that's not unsurprising because those are the only places you could find support for such statements. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Quote from an article after the suicide of Zvonko Busic's about "Greater Serbia hegemony":
"At the time of this, for one patriot for other terrorists (why the media so ultimately separate those two things?) warned on a difficult position of Croatia in Yugoslavia, and it was in 1976. Socialist Republic of Croatia had 80,000 unemployed (today is 340,000), the largest croatian national company INA was preparing to give two republican and one federal prime minister (Peter Fleković, Milović Ante, Ante Markovic), the head of state was Tito (Croat), Yugoslavia's last three prime ministers were Croats (Branko Mikulic, Milka Planinc, Markovic) , Croatian shipbuilding industry was the third in the world, "Rade Koncar" (Croatian electrical, transport and energy company) had 25,000 workers... "
Citat iz jednog članka nakon samoubojstva Zvonka Bušića o "velikosrpskoj hegemoniji":
"U vrijeme kada je ovaj, za jedne domoljub a za druge terorist (zašto mediji tako ultimativno razdvajaju te dvije stvari?) upozoravao na težak položaj Hrvatske u Jugoslaviji, a bilo je to 1976., Socijalistička Republika Hrvatska imala je 80.000 nezaposlenih (danas ih je 340.000), najveća nacionalna kompanija Ina spremala se dati dva republička i jednog saveznog premijera (Petar Fleković, Ante Milović, Ante Marković), šef države bio je Tito, zadnja tri premijera Jugoslavije bili su Hrvati (Branko Mikulić, Milka Planinc, Marković), hrvatska brodogradnja bila je treća u svijetu, “Rade Končar” imao je 25.000 radnika..."--DobarSkroz (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA They should also add he served milk and cookies to little children in the airplane :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. Content
    Info: Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012. (Special war against Croatia (1995 - 2012)); entire article is POV and WP:SYNTH rant about nonexistent topic; excellent example of craziness and paranoia of the Croatian Wikipedia editors.
    Created by Rakovicazauvijek on 2012-12-06, and patrolled by hr wiki sysop Kubura (Patrol log).
    Description: This article is about non-existent topic. There are no reliable sources about Special war against Croatia, simply because there is no Special war against Croatia. The fact that several hr wiki administrators (Kubura, MaGa, Fraxinus) patrolled this article (Patrol log) and didn't see any problem with it, speaks enough about the state of that project.--Wikit 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Contents included these claims: "The ICTY trial on Croatian War that followed was a trial of Croats for breaking up Yugoslavia." I had no idea that Gotovina, Ademi and Markač broke up Yugoslavia? And since they were found not guilty, does that mean that Croats did not break up Yugoslavia? This is crazy.
    Other sentences were: "Historical, intelligence, police, judicial and expert analysis will give an explanation if some people in the Croatian state leadership and state institutions, some influential Croatian media, some Croatian intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals acted or did not act in a way that it went in favor of the special war for these reasons: high treason, mercenary obedience to foreign bosses who gave them power, betrayal of Croatia for money (by selling Croatian interests for personal gain), opposition to sovereign Croatia as such, cowardice, opportunism, condescension, poltronism, incompetence, resentment policy, politics, doing nothing, confusion, ignorance, lack of preparation or greed." No sources, no references, nothing. Not a single name was given. It throws such harsh words at an invisible enemy and the irony is that the paragraph speaks in the future tense, that the police and judiciary have yet to determine if someone did this - at all.
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012.; cijeli članak je nečije osobno mišljenje i sinteza, jadikovka o nepostojećem sadržaju; izvrstan primjer ludosti i paranoje urednika hrvatske Wikipedije.
    Članak je stvorio Rakovicazauvijek 6. prosinca 2012., a provjerio i potvrdio ga je administrator Kubura (Evidencija pregledavanja promjena).
    Opis: Članak o nepostojećem sadržaju. Nema pouzdanih izvora o "Specijalnom ratu protiv Hrvatske", jednostavno stoga jer nije bilo nikakvog "specijalnog rata protiv Hrvatske". Činjenica da je nekoliko administratora na hr wiki (Kubura, MaGa, Fraxinus) ovo provjerilo i potvrdilo (Evidencija pregledavanja promjena) te nije našlo nikakvih problema s tim, dovoljno govori o stanju tog projekta.--Wikit 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Sadržaj je uključivao sljedeće tvrdnje: "Haaško suđenje Domovinskom ratu koje je uslijedilo bilo je suđenje Hrvatima zbog razbijanja Jugoslavije." Nisam imao pojma da su Gotovina, Ademi i Markač razbili Jugoslaviju? A pošto je utvrđeno da nisu krivi, da li to znači da Hrvati nisu razbili Jugoslaviju? Ovo je suludo.
    Druge rečenice bile su: "Povijesne, obavještajne, policijske, sudske i stručne analize dati će objašnjenje jesu li neke osobe u hrvatskom državnom vrhu i državnim institucijama, nekim utjecajnim hrvatskim medijima, neki hrvatski intelektualci i pseudointelektualci djelovali ili nedjelovali na način da je to išlo u korist tom specijalnom ratu iz razloga: veleizdaje, plaćeničke poslušnosti inozemnim nalogodavcima koji su im dali moć, izdajom Hrvatske za novac (prodajom hrvatskih interesa za osobnu korist), protivljenju suverenoj Hrvatskoj kao takvoj, kukavičluka, oportunizma, snishodljivosti, poltronstva, nesposobnosti, politike nezamjeranja, politike nečinjenja ničega, smušenosti, neznanja, nepripremljenosti, lakomosti, površnosti ..." Nema izvora, ničega. Nijedno ime nije navedeno. Baca takve opasne riječi na nevidljivog neprijatelja a ironija je da taj odlomak govori o budućnosti, da će policijske i sudske analize tek utvrditi da li je netko ovo učinio - uopće.
  • ZA Agree - What special war? Who is leading it? When did it start? When did it end? How long is this war going on? 10 years? 100 years? 300 years? I haven't got a clue about it, nor my neighbor. When ever someone talks about "invisible wars" like this, you know it is a FRINGE THEORY.--Seiya (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Mostly Agree - On English Wikipedia, we have en:War on Women. So there is precedent for having "war" articles that do not refer to an actual war. And the link to "special war" does make it clear that a "special war" is not an actual war. But this Croatian example is worse than the English example -- for example, the section entitled "Domovinski rat" ("Patriotic War" per Google Translate -- refers to the actual 1991-5 war) does not give a single reference for its assertion that some not-very-clearly-specified conglomeration of English, Dutch, French, Italian, German, and U.S. interests prosecuted this "special war".
  • ZA Agree "Special war[fare] against Croatia", defined as a totality of hostile psychological/propaganda, economic and intelligence activity by foreign governments against Croatia, is exclusively a fringe conspiracy theory topic espoused by the Croatian far right. It's more or less just another local variant of the en:Stab-in-the-back myth. I couldn't resist translating the opening paragraph in the "Domovinski rat" section.
The roots of this special war[fare] are in the diplomatic, economic and military conduct of the English, French and Dutch diplomacy, media, intellectual, pseudo-intellectual and other interest groups that were disinclined towards Croatia. They were characterized during the Croatian War of Independence by the obstruction of Croatian efforts towards complete liberation of its territory and its international recognition, by conscious and unconscious lack of recognition of the heroic resistance by a small, unarmed, perennially defamed and vilified Croatian nation against the predominant and protected Greater Serbian attacker.
Now there's a smell of neutrality in the air... I could go on, there are plenty of such gems inside, but what's the use? More or less the entire article is a piece of garbage, as far as its encyclopedic value is considered. GregorB (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree This is pure nonsense copied from the blog--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.
    The answer will be on the hr:Razgovor:Specijalni rat protiv Hrvatske 1995. - 2012. (talkpage) of that article. Data and examples will be added. Scientists' help is also announced. Kubura (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The anwser should be here. The War in Croatia ended in 1995, and there are zero reliable sources (a term a sysop should be familiar with) that mention any "special war" after 1995. Any special warfare that happened against Croatia happened during the 1991-1995 war, not later. You mention Davor Domazet Lošo as one of your sources. Well, if you believe everything he says, then you should already now start an article about the new Yugoslavia that will be pronounced on Vidovdan 2014.--Seiya (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Special war for special people with special needs in special institutions. In short, xenophobic POV blogs are not any evidence. In this article on wikipedia it might be able to write objectively only as an example of xenophobia and conspiracy theories. Talk page on Wikipedia where you do the censorship is not discussion page, rather your pamphlet --DobarSkroz (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Kubura, I'm glad to see addressing this info, although I don't think contributors to this page need to be reminded what's a talk page. Seiya, IMO there's no trouble to discuss any extra sources presented at, whether there, here, or both places. People blocked on of course don't have any choice but to discuss it here. Miranche (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree That has to be the worse wiki article I've read in my life. "special war"? WTF? Mir Harven was also mentioning the RfC as a form of "special war". The whole article is one giant conspiracy theory violating every single wiki policy designed to filter this junk. I find User:Rakovicazauvijek on hrwiki suspicious - they only write these kind of extremist articles, and all of them appear to be patrolled by User:Kubura. Which leads me to conclusion that this is User:Kubura's sockpuppet which he uses to promote theories so radical, that even he himself wouldn't dare to sign them, not even under a nickname. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA What exactly is this? xD This looks like a bad attempt at a fairytale... utter nonsense with nationalistic bias that should be deleted as per the pure non-existence of such a phenomenon, except in the heads of paranoid groupations. Citing Domazet as a relevant source for this this article would be equal to citing Hitler or Goebbels while denying the Holocaust --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Slamnati (w:Straw man)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Created by Vrkach on 2013-05-11, and patrolled by hr wiki sysop Kubura (Patrol log).
    Description: Even article on this logical fallacy is used to defend right wing politician Ruža Tomašić from what incumbent Prime Minister of Croatia Zoran Milanović understood as hate speech. -- Bojan  Talk  17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Članak stvorio Vrkach 11. svibnja 2013., a provjerio ga Kubura (Evidencija pregleda).
    Opis: Čak i članak o logičnoj grešci se koristi kako bi se obranio desničarski političar, Ruža Tomašić, od trenutnog premijera Hrvatske Zorana Milanovića koji ju je prozvao zbog govora mržnje. -- Bojan  Talk  17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree I can only repeat what I've said under "Potemkinova sela" above. GregorB (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Example is taken out of context. It's not mentioned that she started her speech with defending Zdravko Mamic who called Minister Jovanovic: "Croatohater, unworthy of the ministeral position because he was a Serb, and to have blood cells that hate all Croat"--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} NO kidding!! Ruža Tomašić has mentioned no Serbs! It was the Milanović who did it. Bunch of nonsense.--Anto (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You should vote about whether there is bias in the article or not, and not whether the (unnecessary) given example is logically correct or incorrect. The purpose of the article should be to explain logical fallacy, and not to promote current right-wing politician by highlighting one instance where Tomašić was wrongly interpreted by left-wing (or actually left-center) Milanović. You should revise your vote. --Marekich (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
She did not mention Serbs, but this was reviewing on Mamic hate speech and she sad "you must be able to say that chetnik is chetnik"--DobarSkroz (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić (w:Ivo Andrić)[uredi kôd]

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

Indoktrinacija (w:Indoctrination)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content - Sadržaj
  2. Created by Croq on 2009-11-18.
    Description: Croq wrote an article with one sole purpose, as well as all of his articles he write his personal view on the history of Croatian in Yugoslavia. This time he used Indoctrination to equate the fascist youth with communist youth. Organizations that he mentioned, though fall into this topic, can hardly be put in the same basket. Youth actions that served to renew the country in ruins after the war are not the same thing as raising xenophobic killers. But Croq forgot that throughout human history a permanent example was religious indoctrination. On Croatian Wiki is forbidden to speak in a negative way about religion and especially the Catholic Church. Examples of deleting catechism [24], [25], [26], and w:Franciscan youth [27].--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{neutral}} POV because it protects religion, but not enough to warrant calling the whole article problematic.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There was major edit and update after it was shown on fb page--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! I translated introduction from English Wikipedia after the article was exposed on fb page. Seiya you should check any other older version (this is the most recent before my edit) and judge by them, not by my updated version. --Marekich (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Jugokomunistička propaganda (Yugocommunist propaganda)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content - Sadržaj
  2. Created by Croq
    This is a sick historical revisionism, quote mining and utter rubbish from author who is not familiar with WW2. Here is an easy refutable example:

Collaboration between German Nazis and Yugoslav Communists was prolonged during the war in the form of agreement on mutual non aggression. Tito's communists do not attack fascists, and fascists do not attack antifascists. (Suradnja njemačkih nacista s jugoslavenskim komunistima je nastavljena i za vrijeme rata u vidu dogovora o međusobnom nenapadanju. Titovi komunistički antifašisti do tada ne napadaju fašiste, a fašisti da ne napadaju antifašiste.)

If this is true, then this properly sourced article and many featured and good articles on WW2 in Yugoslavia are not true. And German soldiers and diplomats who survived and wrote memoirs such as w:Hermann Neubacher, w:Lothar Rendulic or w:Otto Kumm were indoctrinated by communists... -- Bojan  Talk  17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. Sadržaj
  2. Članak stvorio Croq
    Ovo je bolesni povijesni revizionizam, miniranje citata i smeće autora koji nije upoznat sa Drugim svjetskim ratom. Evo jednostavnog primjera:

Suradnja njemačkih nacista s jugoslavenskim komunistima je nastavljena i za vrijeme rata u vidu dogovora o međusobnom nenapadanju. Titovi komunistički antifašisti do tada ne napadaju fašiste, a fašisti da ne napadaju antifašiste.

Ako je ovo istina, onda ovaj članak sa ispravnim izvorima i mnogi drugi izabrani i dobri članci na temu Drugog svjetskog rata i Jugoslavije nisu točni. A njemačke vojnike i veleposlanike koji su preživjeli rat i pisali memoare (w:Hermann Neubacher, w:Lothar Rendulic ili w:Otto Kumm) su indoktrinirali komunisti... -- Bojan  Talk  17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  • ZA Agree The article is a big pile of various violations, most prominently en:WP:POV and en:WP:SYNTH. The content is not salvageable. Note the article was fully protected due to an edit war, and left protected for almost two years, from Oct 2010 to Sep 2012.[28] GregorB (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree A comedy of an article.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree User Croq wrote a series of "Yugocommunist" articles like this, but this is one the worst. In each one he is repeating the same fringe theories--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA Pile of nonsense. I still remember the vicious personal attacks on me when I tried to correct/delete this excuse for an article. Utter nonsense with nationalistic bias --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lov na Gotovinu (Hunt for Gotovina)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Lov na Gotovinu; an extremely biased article with en:WP:COATRACK and en:WP:BLP violations; created in May 2013
    Patrol log - has been patrolled by Roberta F. and Kubura [29].
    Description: An incredibly biased article ostensibly on a TV documentary (of questionable notability) about the hunt for Ante Gotovina, but actually an attack on supposed Gotovina's enemies. Particularly problematic are paragraphs in which living people are accused of various crimes, "collaboration", and "high treason"., a far right portal, is used as one of the sources. GregorB (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacije: Lov na Gotovinu; iznimno pristran članak sa en:WP:COATRACK i kršenjima en:WP:BLP, stvoren u svibnju 2013.
    Evidencija pregleda - pregledali su ga Roberta F. i Kubura [30].
    Opis: Nevjerojatno pristran članak tobože o TV dokumentarcu (upitnog značaja) o lovu na Antu Gotovinu, ali u stvari napad na navodne Gotovinine neprijatelje. osobito problematični su odlomci u kojima su živi ljudi optuženi za razne zločine, "kolaboraciju" i "izdaju"., portal krajnje desnice, se koristi kao jedan od izvora. GregorB (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree A comedy of an article, times ten. Sentences include: "[The documentary] handles the biggest Croatian political disgrace in history" and "The day after Gotovina's arrest, when the ICTY's chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte had an inflammatory provocative outburst in Belgrade (opening of a champaign) and victoriously announced how he was arrested" and can already go down in history of Croatian Wikipedia's (unintentional) satire. But the most comical sentence for me is this one: "It was a shameful hunt for a man, a witch hunt that belongs to the darkest pagan rituals of an era before Christ." This one should win an award for the comedy of the year. I should unsubscribe to National Lampoon and subscribe to Croatian Wikipedia, they are funnier than Željko Pervan.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA ZA Lovely :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

GregorB ipse dixit. Ili je možda "koga srbi, taj se češe"?
GregoreB, Seiyo, ako smatrate da ste u pravu, ovo što ste napisali gore napišite pod svojim pravim imenom i prezimenom u novinama i internetskim medijima.
GregoreB, ono o tome da je "portal krajnje desnice", to je napad ad hominem. Kubura (razgovor) 23:35, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Može se on ili bilo tko drugi češati, ali je ovaj članak i dalje katastrofa. Kubura, potpuno nerelevantno odgovaraš jer samo izbjegavaš primjedbe upućene sadržaju (ono sa "poganskim vremenima" stvarno je komedija) i govoriš ili o politici ili o osobinama osoba koje prijavljuju nepravilnosti. Apsolutno je nebitno da li je ovo prijavio Djed Mraz, Željko Pervan ili predsjednik Brazila, bitno je da je nepravilnost tu i da je stajala jako dugo na hr wiki u tekstu.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET)

Koncentracijski logor Jadovno (')[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Changes amounting to holocaust denial accepted by the admin. A difficult to explain decision to fully protect the article.
    Description: A sentence in the article read "It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 people were killed in the camp, mostly Serbs, Roma, Jews and Croats.". The sentence is referenced to Slobodna Dalmacija, a major Croatian daily, which quotes the 2010 speech by Croatian President Ivo Josipović. On 26 June an IP user changes the sentence as follows: "The number of victims is unknown, while some deal with scientifically unfounded figures, between 30,000 and 40,000 people, mostly Serbs, Roma, Jews and Croats, which is physically impossible." The SD reference is retained, but none of the changes are supported by it. On July 7, SpeedyGonsales patrols the change and accepts it,[31] although it is clearly denialist and falsifies the source. On 20 February 2012, Vodomar fully protects the article without an explanation or a plausible reason. On 21 September 2013 Vodomar erased and fully protected his user page and talk page, so he's apparently not available for comment. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Weak support, because it was (partially) corrected in the meantime.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any meaningful changes, the problematic sentence is still there (and the article is still fully protected). GregorB (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
They deleted the "physically impossible" sentence, but you are right, the first part of the problematic sentence is still there.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct, "... which is physically impossible" has been removed, the rest stays and can't be corrected by non-admins. GregorB (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sekularni fundamentalizam (Secular fundamentalism)[uredi kôd]

  1. Content:
    Info: Secular fundamentalism - a non-existing term approved by Croq [32].
    Description: Somebody obviously does not understand the difference between atheism and secularism. Secularism simply demands seperating state from the religion/church. How somebody could call that "fundamentalism" is beyond me. Out of six sources, only one mentions something relevant to the topic, but it refers to "Atheist Fundamentalism". Croatian Wikipedia is the only one with an article called like this.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj:
    Informacija: Sekularni fundamentalizam - nepostojeći termin kojeg je odobrio Croq [33].
    Opis: Netko očito ne razumije razlike između ateizma i sekularizma. Sekularizam jednostavno zahtijeva odvajanje države od religije/crkve. Kako netko to može zvati "fundamentalizmom" je meni nepojmljivo. Od šest izvora, samo jedan spominje nešto relevantno za temu, ali se odnosi na "ateistički fundamentalizam". Hrvatska Wikipedia je jedina sa člankom takvog naziva.--Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Another article based on blog written by unprofessional commentator on extreme right wing portal Originally it was used for personal conflict and aversion to Pavle Močilac becaouse he was commenting controversy in media. His name is deleted after article in fb Page [34] --DobarSkroz (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. Content - Sadržaj
    Info: Another science-fiction article that mentions a battle for the Krk airport during the Croatian war that never happened. Created by sysop Kubura.
    Description: A SYNTH of various battles far away from Krk (Plitvice, Šolta, Sljeme...), but nothing about the actual fight or defence of the Krk airport itself. Belligerents in the infobox even include the Yugoslav People's Army, even though it never attacked the Krk island?! Kubura created the exact same article on English Wikipedia, but was deleted under the right explanation: "...a non-notable (non-)event: the "defense" of this location during the Yugoslav wars apparently, according to the article, never happened. The place was merely occupied by military in order to prevent a hostile offensive, which – as far as I understand the article – never materialized. No actual fighting is reported". --Seiya (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA AgreeSame stupidity as "Special war against Croatia 1995. - 2012."--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page.
    The answer will be on the hr:Razgovor:Obrana zračne luke na Krku (talkpage) of that article. Data and examples will be added. Scientists' help is also announced. Kubura (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kubura, I'm glad to see addressing this info, although I don't think contributors to this page need to be reminded what's a talk page. Personally I welcome discussion of any extra sources presented at, whether there, here, or both places. People blocked on of course don't have any other choice but to discuss it here. Miranche (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A DobromSkroz je glupost ono o specijalnom ratu protiv Hrvatske, a cijeli broj Vijenca govori o tome, Domazet-Lošo govori o tome, evo još [35]. Kubura (razgovor) 23:31, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Za "Specijalni rat" odgovaraj u navodu o "Specijalnom ratu", ne u "Obrani zračne luke na Krku". Do sad si osporio samo tri primjera, ali ovaj nije među njima.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET)

Novak Đoković[uredi kôd]

  1. Content - Sadržaj
    Info: Otac mu je Crnogorac, a majka Hrvatica iz Vinkovaca. (His father was a Montenegrin and mother Croat from Vinkovci.)
    Description: Part of article with biased sources. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} Interview from is not a biased source (although IMHO this info does not deserve such a prominent place in the article). 20:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree This is not true and unnecessary.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ZA Agree Per Soundwaweserb. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} How can his interview, and his statement can be biased source?--DobarSkroz (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} Father really originates from Montenegro, and mother from Croatia. --Zekoslavac (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} Kolega and Soundwaveserb have, on several occasions (on, shown signs of nationalism within their replicas and this is just an example of such hegemonic interpretations. Đoković is undoubtedly Serb and a Serb tennis player, but that does not change the fact that his parents have different heritage. This request is nonsense, parallel with some of the articles on --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Antifašizam (')[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: One line described Antifascism as a "mental, spritual disorder".
    Description: On 27 August 2013, an anonymous user wrote one line in the article that stated that today's Antifascism is actually "fight for Communism and Marxism, fight against Capitalism, Titoism with Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents, a developing genocide of profit knowledge, culturcide, genetical, spiritual, moral and creative disorder, limiting all human rights" [36]. hr:User:DobarSkroz deleted that particular line [37], but hr:User:Croq reverted the edit, a dozen times [38] [39] [40]. DobarSkroz then went on to complain about that with these words on the talk page: "This is a wonderful Wikipedia when it considers a fact that antifascism is this: fight for communism, fight against capitalism, Titoism with Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents...If this is not garbage from some extreme right-wing, I don't know what is?"[41]. SpeedyGonsales replied to him with, quote: "Proleterians of all countries unite! Smile.svg", end quote, and Zeljko blocked DobarSkroz [42]. And the irony is - that line about antifascism being "culturcide, moral and spiritual disorder, etc." was deleted a month later, anyway,[43] and none appologized to DobarSkroz.--Seiya (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sadržaj
    Informacija: Jedan odlomak je opisivao antifašizam kao "duhovni, moralni poremećaj".
    Description: 27. kolovoza 2013., anonimni suradnik je napisao u članku sljedeći odlomak, koji je tvrdio da današnji antifašizam "ustvari predstavlja nekoliko pojmova zajedno: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima, razvojni genocid profitnog znanja, kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, ograničavanje svih osnovnih ljudskig sloboda" [44]. hr:User:DobarSkroz je izbrisao taj odlomak [45], ali je hr:User:Croq to poništio, tucet puta [46] [47] [48]. DobarSkroz se potom žalio zbog toga na stranici za razgovor ovim riječima: "Divna je Wikipedia koja može smatrati činjenicom da je antifašizam: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima... Ako ovo nije smeće iz znaosa nekog extremenog desničara onda ne znam što je?!"[49]. SpeedyGonsales odgovorio mu je sa, citiram: "Proleteri svih zemalja ujedinite se! Smile.svg", kraj citata, a Zeljko je blokirao suradnika DobarSkroz [50]. A ironija je - taj odlomak da je antifašizam "kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, itd." je ionako izbrisan mjesec dana kasnije, [51] a nitko se nije ispričao suradniku DobarSkroz.--Seiya (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Uređivanje koje Seiya osporava zapravo govori o izvornom antifašizmu kao nečem pozitivnom!
[52] Referencirano je na izvor.
Uređivanje govori o zastranjivanju s pozitivnih tradicija jednog pokreta.
Zlonamjerni prigovaratelj prešutio je ovaj dio teksta koji ide iza onog citiranog teksta, a bitno mijenja sadržaj. Pročitajte potcrtani dio:
"Današnja hrvatska strana riječ "antifašizam", u bivšem jugokomunističkom i sadašnjem ponovnom značenju hrvatskih novih ideoloških neokomunističkih jednoumnika, ustvari predstavlja nekoliko pojmova zajedno: borba za komunizam i marksizam, borba protiv kapitalizma, titoizam s jugoboljševičkim genocidom nad protivnicima, razvojni genocid profitnog znanja, kulturocid, genetski duhovni, moralni i stvaralački poremećaj, ograničavanje svih osnovnih ljudskig sloboda.Sve potpuno suprotno od prave riječi antifašizam s kojom se komunisti manipulacijski ukrašuju i sakrivaju."
Zar ćemo raspravljati putem ovakvih podvala? Kubura (razgovor) 23:43, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Trebalo je bolje formulirati, objasniti a ne blokirati suradnika. Čak i uz ovo djelomično pojašnjenje, ta je rečenica teško pristrana ("Duhovni poremećaj"?!) i nije trebala biti u takvom obliku. Ali ponavljam, Kubura, za sve što misliš da je pogrešno obrisano sa hr wiki, slobodno možeš osobno vratiti u prvotno stanje.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:45, 27. listopada 2013. (CET)

Vjekoslav Luburić (')[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Extremely POV article, which bears this label for three years. A romantic epic, almost entirely copied from a biased biography of one of the most ferocious war criminals in Croatian history. The article created by Wüstenfuchs on 13.07.2009. [53] Verified by: Roberta_F.
    Description: Likely one of the most biased biographies on Luburić's early years have been portrayed as a youthful rebellion of a man with a rising national awareness, without any mention of crime. Luburić established death camps in NDH, while mentions this only casually, without a single detail or figure on the genocide perpetrated there. Some of the most brutal crimes against the civil population which he oversaw as the commanding officer are not mentioned:,,. Neither does it mention that he personally brutally liquidated prisoners for violating "camp discipline". The article also does not mention the sadistic torture of imprisoned antifascists in Sarajevo, reported on In 1945 Vjekoslav Luburić ordered the liquidation of all inmates, and the camp and the town to be demolished and burned, in order to cover up all traces of the crime. The end of the war in this article is described as "The catastrophe of May", not because of mass killing of camp prisoners and the attempted cover up, but because Partisans liberated Croatia and Luburić had to flee. The period in which he established the Ustasha guerrilla and terrorist organization is referred to in this article as his "fight for Croatia", while Ustashas are "nationalist guerrillas". There is a whole host of other examples of dilution of crimes and of glorification of criminals. Here are some of the worst quotations:
  • "Although in the field this young officer has a reputation of being tough and hardheaded, he does not have anything of the pathological murderer as some like to point out."
  • "Dozens of Serbian Orthodox orphans will be saved and placed into institutions at the expense of "Ustaška obrana""
  • "he shows an unquestionably modern side incompatible with the primitive and crude picture that some want to affix to the General"
  • "the treacherous assassination that brought death to General Luburić, a man in his own way devoted to the fight for Croatia, and who died as a soldier from enemy blows."
  • The level of consideration toward the Holocaust and genocide of some of the more prominent users on is revealed in this comment by User:MirHarven, after being portrayed in the media as pro-fascist: "the text on Luburić - about which Yugoslav nationalists are going hysterical - is actually a funny story about some Croatian Robin Hood, written as a novel about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday." [54]--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (please fix the translation Ksivonci (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)) (fixed Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
Informacija: Ekstremno POV članak koji drži tu oznaku već tri godine. Romantična epopeja skoro cijela prepisana iz jedne pristrane biografije o jednom od najstrašnijih zločinaca u hrvatskoj povijesti. Članak je stvorio Wüstenfuchs 13.07.2009. [55] Provjerila: Roberta_F.
Opis: Vjerojatno jedna od najpristranijih biografija na Luburićeve rane godine opisane su kao buntovništvo mladića u kojem raste nacionalna svijest, bez spomena kriminala. Luburić je osnovao logore smrti u NDH a to samo spominje bez iti jednog detalja ili brojke o genocidu koji je tamo počinjen. Neki o najbrutalnijih zločina nad civilnim stanovništvnom u kojima je bio zapovijednik uopće nisu spomenuta:,,. Ne spominje se ni da je osobno brutalno ubijao zatvorenike zbog kršenja "logorske discipline". Također se ne spominje ni njegovo sadističko mučenje zatvorenih antifašista u Sarajevu o kome postoje svjedočenja na 1945. Vjekoslav Luburić je naredio da se likvidiraju svi zatočenici, a logor i mjesto do temelja sruši i spali, kako bi se prikrili svi tragovi zločina. Kraj rata je u ovom članku opisan kao "Svibanjska katastrofa", no ne zbog ovih pokolja logoraša i zametanja tragova zločina već zbog toga što su Partizani oslobodili Hrvatsku a Luburić morao pobjeći. Razdoblje u kojem je osnivao ustašku gerilu i terorističku organizaciju za ovaj članak je "borba za Hrvatsku", a ustaše su "nacionalistički gerilci". Postoji još hrpa primjera razvodnjavanja zločina i veličanja zločinaca. Par najgorih citata slijedi:
  • "Premda na terenu ima reputaciju da je čvrst i svojeglav, taj mladi časnik nema ništa od patološkog ubojice kako neki vole isticati."
  • "Desetine pravoslavne siročadi bit će spašeno i smješteno u institucije koje u svom trošku održava "Ustaška obrana""
  • "pokazuje jednu nedvojbeno modernu stranu koje je nespojiva s primitivnom i sirovom slikom koju neke žele zalijepiti generalu"
  • "podmuklom atentatu koji je donio smrt generalu Luburiću, čovjeku koji se na svoj način posvetio borbi za Hrvatsku i koji je umro kao vojnik od udaraca neprijatelja."
  • Razina osjećaja prema holokaustu i genocidu nekih istaknutijih suradnika na odražava se u komentaru korisnika Mir Harvena nakon što je prokazan u medijima kao ustašofilski: "tekst o Luburiću-oko kojeg histeriziraju orjunaši- zapravo smiješna priča o nekakvom hrvatskom Robinu Hoodu, pisana kao roman o Wyattu Earpu i Docu Hollidayju." [56]--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (slight reword Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
Comments - Komentari:
ZA ZA Death camp commander's biography written like a hagiography. The tone of the article is how he did nothing wrong, how anything wrong he could've done was due to unfortunate circumstances that surrounded him, how tragic was his death (ordered by dirty Yugoslav commies), how he was a big patriot and how he suffered under "Serbian hegemony". The only thing that he's encyclopedically notable for (as a founder/commander of Jasenovac and other camps) is given two sentences.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
ZA ZA Hitler had a great relationship with his dog, if I remember my history. Let's base the article on that and not the fact that he killed millions. Goebbels killed his children out of pity (he had not wanted them to live in a world without Nazism) - let us interpret that as an act of mercy, an act of a caring father towards his children and proclaim him the Father of the Century. This article is so full of nonsense that one can hardly describe it with mannered language --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
ZA Strongly support A whitewash. The word "crime" or its derivatives appears four times in this article, once about Luburić and three times about his assassination by the Yugoslav secret service. His assassination (death toll: one) takes up two major sections at the end of the article, while his role in the Holocaust (Jasenovac death toll: 77,000-99,000[2]) is directly referred to in a total of three sentences. The one piece of specific information about his role in the Holocaust is the name of the major concentration camp he founded & ran (Jasenovac), with zero details on what happened inside. The single impersonal mention that "tens of thousands of people were killed" in the camps (which camps? by whom?) does not count as a detail. Changes to the article since the media broke the stories have been minor, the only notable one that the section title "May catastrophe" now reads "The end of World War II". A single attempt to remove some of the more biased sections on 2013-09-10 has been reverted 13 minutes later. A no brainer. Miranche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Gvozd[uredi kôd]

  1. Content
    Info: Heavily biased content introduced by Kubura on 2012-11-02[57]
    Description: The text is: "[...] the decision of the SDSS majority (a Serb party) in the Gvozd municipal council was to change the town's name to Vrginmost. The Croats objected to this name change and still call the town Gvozd (Catholic Church, the largest Croatian party, currently in the opposition, Croatian nationally conscious right wing, local Croat majority, Croatian Facebook community, and Croatian media which are not foreign-owned)." The current content of this section is somewhat more "balanced", in a sense that it is composed of two POV segments. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

GregoreB, prekini s argumentiranjem ad nauseam i ipse dixit. Evo opširna razgovora na Razgovor:Gvozd. Kubura (razgovor) 23:45, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Unsorted submissions - Nerazvrstani podnesci[uredi kôd]


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

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

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

Facebook posts[uredi kôd]

Content-related posts on the Facebook group.

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

Timeline Photos[uredi kôd]

Started by Miranche (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC), entered through 2013-09-22. Miranche (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

September 5 - 8
  • [58] 2013-09-05. Probably from article hr:Ustaše, section titled "Evaluation" and saying that current views of Ustaše are still one-sided black-and-white demonizing clichés, promoted by "imperial democracies like Britain & France" in order to, as patrons of Yugoslavia, "exculpate themselves from their complicity in crimes of Yugoslav states." Excerpt in the screenshot appears like pure editorializing with no source.
    • [59] H-Alter article linked in this post
  • [60] 2013-09-05. POV excerpts from articles hr:Vjekoslav Francetić, hr:Ante Pavelić, hr:Maks Luburić, hr:Sabirni logor Jasenovac
  • [61] 2013-09-05. Excerpt probably from hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj (Serbs in Croatia), claiming that Serbs in Croatia are descendants of Balkan w:Vlachs (descendants of Celts & Romans) who moved while fleeing Turks. POV because Slavic Serb ancestry of Croatian Serbs is are denied. Two sources claimed.
  • [62] 2013-09-06. Again probably from hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj, 20th century paragraphs which appear not to contain the Ustaša WW2 genocide against Serbs.
  • [63] 2013-09-06. Excerpt from Rational Wiki Wiki Wiki, largely sourced editorial on why Croatian Wikipedia resembles
    • Removed User:Seiya's strikethrough -- there are footnotes that seem relevant & I'm not sure if they have been looked into. If so, please excuse my intervention, but it'd still be helpful if you could share a few words on what these are & where else they're covered. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [64] 2013-09-07. Analysis of the Croatian Wikipedia coverage of the hr:Danica (logor) Danica concentration camp.
  • [65] 2013-09-07. The Serb parentage of hr:Josip Runjanin, who composed the Croatian anthem, is allegedly denied.
  • [66] 2013-09-07. Probably from hr:Razgovor:Ustaše. A claim by a prominent admin that Ustaše were not created as a criminal movement, but that their crimes cannot be justified.
September 9 - 15
  • [67] 2013-09-09. Excerpt from hr:Potemkinova sela (Potemkin's village), claiming that Pride parades in Croatia are staged by activists & politicians of the "non-national regime". {{ok}}.
  • [68] 2013-09-09. Excerpt from hr:Antifašizam (Anti-fascism), claiming it to be equal to a whole litany of crimes, some real but most quite ahistorical ("Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents), ascribed to Yugoslav communism. One source claimed.{{ok}}
    • [69] 2013-09-14. Likely repost of the same excerpt.
  • [70] 2013-09-09. Another excerpt from hr:Antifašizam (Anti-fascism), claiming that "antifascist-" celebrations are organized in Croatia at taxpayers' expense. One source claimed.
  • [71] 2013-09-10. Large excerpt from hr:Kroatofobija (Croatophobia). Numerous issues, no sources in the excerpt.
  • [72] 2013-09-10, media coverage in E-novine.
  • [73] 2013-09-10. Count of mentions of "zločin" (Crime) and derived words in the articles on hr:Adolf Hitler (2), hr:Josip Broz Tito (5), hr:Ante Pavelić (0).
  • [74] 2013-09-11. Excerpt from hr:Kroatofobija (Croatophobia), list of sources. Among them appears to be, the Croatian version of The Onion.
  • [75] 2013-09-13. Excerpt from hr:Hrvati u Egiptu (Croats in Egypt), claim that was Croatian. One source claimed.
    • The source on Jawhar al-Siqilli is self-published, and although some RS support could be found,[76] Proleksis is silent on the issue.[77] This is minor, but the article suffers from a significant en:WP:COATRACK problem. Yet another malus for Kubura. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [78] 2013-09-13. Excerpt from hr:Slavko Linić, allegedly entered by one of the administrators, making claims about Linić based on the "stereotypical definition" of the character & customs of the people from the town he's from. Appears unsourced.
    • Weakly agree with User:Seiya's strikethrough. The entire problematic text seems to have been copied wholesale (albeit allegedly with permission) from here and is nothing but a smear. It is highly embarrassing that the text remained online for over 2 years, from 2006 to 2008, and that several administrators who are at the center of the current controversy edited it as though it was a genuine piece. However, the article was rightfully stubbed 5 years ago, noone tried to bring it back, and remains a stub to this day. Miranche (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [79] 2013-09-14. Excerpt from hr:Ubojstva Srba u Sisku 1991.-1992. (Murders of Serbs in Sisak 1990-1991). The total number of identified victims (611) is not mentioned, only those explicitly named by the source (107). Unrelated information discrediting the source is included in the article, but a claimed attempt to include more info (albeit also weasel worded) allegedly resulted in blocking the editor.
September 16 - 22
  • [80] 2013-09-16. Claim in hr:Imagine (pjesma) (w:Imagine (song)) that the song was neither communist or anti-religious, supposedly citing John Lennon himself, contrasted with Lennon's statement on that Imagine was "virtually the Communist Manifesto".
  • [81] 2013-09-16. Excerpt from hr:Indoktrinacija (w:Indoctrination). While the prime example is that of communist ideological indoctrination in former Yugoslavia, the post claims that attempts to mention religious indoctrination are being reverted. {{ok}}.
  • [82] 2013-09-17. Excerpt from an admin's talk page about hr:Judith Reisman, by a user claiming to correct article POV. The user also criticizes the content of hr:Jure Francetić and threatens to find ways to desysop current administrators. The Facebook post claims the user was blocked.
  • [83] 2013-09-18. Excerpt probably from hr:Jure Francetić, with discussion of unattributed quotes as well as recent edits to make the articles more palatable.
  • [84] 2013-09-18. Excerpt from hr:Mile Budak, entire section "Političar" (Politician). Basically an editorial apologizing for a literary author who prominently supported Serb genocide as an Ustaša government minister. One source for a minor fact. {{ok}}
  • [85] 2013-09-20. Excerpt from hr:Detuđmanizacija (Detudjmanization). At least partly fictional diatribe against the w:Cabinet of Ivica Račan I. Unsourced.
  • [86] 2013-09-20. Title of hr:Rodna ideologija ("Gender ideology"), the name for w:Gender studies in Croatian Wikipedia. {{ok}}
    • [87] 2013-09-20. Excerpt from hr:Razgovor:Rodna ideologija ("Talk:Gender ideology"), by an administrator, arguing why "Gender studies" is inappropriate. At best, unsourced WP:OR. {{ok}}
  • [88] 2013-09-21. Excerpts from hr:Razgovor:Brak i istospolnost ("Talk:Marriage and homosexuality), by the same administrator, explaining why the article was renamed from "Istospolni brak" (Same-sex marriage). Again, at best, unsourced WP:OR. {{ok}}
September 23 - 29

Istospolna seksualnost[uredi kôd]

Heavily biased. Here's an interesting quote:

Pogrdni nazivi nanose uvredu i bol, diskriminirajući su, te se ne bi trebali koristiti, a naročito ne u javnom govoru, govoru u medijima, osim ako se radi o izravnim citatima koji se odnose na osobne predrasude osobe koju se citira: "peder", "pederko", "pederčina", "pešo", "guzičar", "lezba", "lezbača", "homo", "homi", "kraljica (teatra)", "ona-on", "on-ona", "dajguz", "đukica", "tranzić", "tranzi", "topli brat".

There's more, of course:

U Hollywoodu, homoseksualizam se danas prodaje bolje nego bilo što drugo.

And so on, needs to be looked into. GregorB (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This really deserves translation.
Pejorative names are insulting and inflict pain, are discriminatory, and should not be used, especially not in a public speech, a speech in the media, except in the case of direct quotations relating to the personal prejudice of person you are quoting:...(a list of insulting names in Croatian)...
In Hollywood, homosexuality is now selling better than anything else. (This one really takes the cake!) 14:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

LGBTIQ[uredi kôd]

Section Suvremene kritike LGBTIQ aktivizma Last paragraph: "Among psychiatrists and psychotherapists some that consider only heterosexual impulses as normal, and are willing to provide therapy (mainly aimed at reducing sexual desire, for young people and a complete reversal) to th non-heterosexual individuals who freely requested such psychotherapy services. Internationally most notable professional association that promotes this approach to LGBT topics is NARTH ("National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality"), professional association of psychotherapists in the United States publishing its own journal on treating unwanted same-sex preferences, and publishes technical guidance to the psychotherapist. [3]"

Nowhere in the article is not mentioned that such practices were condemned by the American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association, as harmful for the patients, since many of the patients committed suicide as consequences of such therapies, and all of them suffered severe lasting consequences in their life. Even NARTH itself retracted its claims, not to mention that there are initiatives to juridically prevent such practices on individuals who are not considered adults. (Ksivonci (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Homoseksualnost[uredi kôd]

Section Evolucija i današnje ponašanje "Evolution is a passive process of adaptation of the organism to the environment, with the aim of survival / maintenance of the species. Since the evolution is a slow process, many qualities that once we needed remained to us today. So e.g., men have better orientation in the space, because once they were hunting, and for it was necessary spatial orientation. For the same reason women are better at visual search, because they gathered the fruits (berries, etc. ) for what was needed this ability. Preference for sweet taste is also a consequence of evolution as sweet often meant healthy and safe, while bitter - toxic.

Homosexuality is explained as a possible byproduct homosociality (same-sex friendships) . In order to maintain good relationships among the groups of people having a common task like going to hunt and purpose achieved, homosexuality has been developed, in order to strengthen the friendship and better emotional connection. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of helping in trouble, and thus contributed to the preservation of the species." Is this Monty Python show script, perhaps? Ksivonci (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

References[uredi kôd]

Jednostavno rješenje[uredi kôd]

Ako se ne slažete sa sadržajem nekog članka, iznesite Vaše primjedbe na stranicama za razgovor tih članaka. To se ondje rješava.
Pročitajte Wikipedija:Rješavanje prijepora, Wikipedija:Konsenzus, Wikipedija:Ostati hladne glave kad se uređivanje zaoštri, Wikipedija:Pretpostavite dobru namjeru i držite se toga.
Ako želite napraviti značajniji zahvat, pri čemu namjeravate mijenjati prethodni sadržaj (znači, ne dodavati) najavite to na stranici za razgovor. Nastojte poštovati one koji su uređivali prije vas.
Ne vrijeđajte neistomišljenike. Optužbe u stilu "nacizam, rasizam, ksenofobija, fašizam i t.d." (bilo da ste uputili izravno suradniku ili na sadržaj) nisu način na koji ćete "pobijediti u raspravi", niti je to isprika za uklanjanje sadržaja članka (to krši Wikipedija:Bez osobnih napada). Primijetio sam da koliko je to puta netko napisao, a da ta osoba uopće nema pojma što ti izrazi znače. Samo "optuži za krađu sira", a to što sira nije ni bilo, "nije bitno".
Kada želite nešto promijeniti ili kad nešto osporavate, morate argumentirati. Imajte na umu Wikipedija:Provjerljivost.
Razgovarajte s neistomišljenikom. Postoji procedura za rješavanje sporova.
O kritikama ovdje: svaka nepotpisana kritika isto kao da nije napisana. U nepotpisane kritike spadaju i kritike "novih" suradnika. Ako imate što reći, napišite to suradničkim imenom pod kojim inače uređujete na Wikipediji (i pišite na stranicama za razgovor članaka), u suprotnom, sve spada na bukačku retoriku.
Uvažavati bukačku retoriku isto je kao kad bi se smijenilo predsjednika i premijera republike temeljem poruka tipa "odlazi" "ne valja" "pokvarenjak" napisanih izmetom u javnom zahodu.
Primijetio sam da su mnoge gornje primjedbe na račun kolega i ovog projekta Wikipedija:Maltretiranje i troliranje. Zbog ovakvih napada, militantni kritičari ometali su rad Wikipedije da bi nešto "dokazali".
Zlonamjernici su izvršili teški napad na hrvatsku Wikipediju radi destrukcije iste. Zaziva se eliminiranje neistomišljenika (koje se defamiralo), cenzura (brisanje cijele, ignoriranje lokalne zajednice, nametanje svojih ljudi.
Točno se vidi da su napadnute određene skupine suradnika [89], prijetilo im se u Wikipedijskom i izvanwikipedijskom prostoru [90], besramnost napada išla je do ovakvih stvari - objavljivanja osobnih podataka [91], a sve radi nametanja vlastite pristrane točke gledišta. Kubura (razgovor) 07:48, 24. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Molim uzdržite se od argumentiranja tipa argument ad hominem, argument ad populum ("svi kažu", "većina kaže"). Primijetio sam i ine brojne logičke pogrješke kojima se zlonamjernici služe radi nametanja svoga stava: Ad nauseam ("beskonačne klevete, ispiranje mozga") , Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum e silentio, Argumentum ad temperantiam, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Ipse dixit, Argumentum ad lapidem i tako dalje (Godwinov zakon se potvrdio). Kubura (razgovor) 23:28, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Tako za sve gornje članke na koje imate prigovor, izvolite pisati na stranicama za razgovor. Za to nemate šta kriviti admine, nego nađite konsenzus, raspravite s neistomišljenicima. Budite pristojni, ispravno argumentirajte i to je to. Kubura (razgovor) 23:28, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

GregoruB je sve na šta naleti "pristrano" (biased stuff). Nema argumenata, nego "on je to tako rekao". Oratio ad nauseam. Kubura (razgovor) 23:55, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Primijetio sam da brojni kritičari NISU pretpostavili dobru namjeru administratorima, ophoditeljima i suradnicima Kubura (razgovor) 06:28, 16. studenog 2013. (CET)

Kako su kolege suradnici komentirali[uredi kôd]

Kolege suradnici reagirali su na ove napade na administratore hrvatske Wikipedije i na napade na općenito. Vidjeti sadržaj Kafića od studenoga, Kafića od listopada i Kafić od rujna. Kubura (razgovor) 06:28, 16. studenog 2013. (CET)

Još neke stvari koje su napadači zaboravili[uredi kôd]

Neka pravila koja su prekršili napadači na i na admine Na engleskom su dostupna ovdje. (Wikipedija:Maltretiranje#Objavljivanje_osobnih_podataka)
"Wikipedia administrators' actions can bring them into direct conflict with difficult users and at times they too are harassed. Typically this happens when an administrator decides to intervene in a dispute with a view to warning or blocking disruptive parties or preventing their continual troublesome behavior.
Administrators are volunteer editors like any other user. They are not obligated any more than any other user to take any specific action beyond expected good conduct and responsiveness, and they are not required or expected to place themselves in an uncomfortable situation, to undertake actions which will diminish their enjoyment of working on Wikipedia or place themselves at risk in any way. Administrators who feel that they may have such a situation are advised to seek advice, discuss privately with other administrators, or pass the matter to another administrator willing to make difficult blocks."
This page has been created in response to the increasing numbers of admins who are being threatened and harassed off-site or in real life because of admin actions they have taken on Wikipedia.
The real-life harassment is usually possible because admins have inadvertently given out too much personal information about themselves, perhaps incrementally without realizing that an adversary would be able to piece the information together, or because when they first joined Wikipedia, they felt they had no reason to preserve their anonymity.
Although comparatively rare, examples of harassment can include cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, verbal humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and mocking.
Ovo ćemo prevesti i na hrvatski. Kubura (razgovor) 07:53, 16. studenog 2013. (CET)