Talk:Human rights in Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] initial discussion between Boris and Gonzo

I've started the page, lots more needs to be added, this is just the begining. Gonzo, how should we branch out this article? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we should cover the current situation in this article, note the progress that has been made, but not go into specifics. We can then add a section about the 1990-1999 period, where the general situation back then can be described, and a link to "Human rights in Croatia in the 1990s". We can go into more specifics there, and branch out according to needs. In that sense Dalmatian pogrom of May 1991 can stay as a separate article, but slimed down to specifics. We can add articles about other incidents accordingly. Btw, where did you come up with this text, it doesn't seem like a stub? --Dr.Gonzo 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say. We should talk more about the progress than the crimes. Is that it? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We should approach the subject objectively. I'm not suggesting that the Serb question should not be adressed here, I'm saying that we shoud avoid Undue Weight. Infact, i think a section of the article should be titled "1990-1999" and HR violations against Serb population can be addressed there, but it should be kept concise. There's no need to blow up this article out of proportion if you can branch out to more specific articles. It makes it easier for readers and editors. --Dr.Gonzo 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you really want the article to be neutral, then you should have nothing against the text I added, which is from the 2004 Amnesty International report on human rights in Croatia, where it's stated that Croatia has done very little to bring local war criminals to justice and give back Serb property back to the Serbs. So, these are verifiable sources, and I hope you don't have anything against Amnesty International. All of the text in the article is either from Human rights watch or Amnesty International and I ask everyone not to change it. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I want it to be neutral, but that works both ways. I'll accept only well sourced claims, everything else, especially malicious bias will be removed. Amnesty International sources are fine. Also, I noticed you just copied entire paragraphs from those reports, and I have to inform you that it's unacceptable, due to copyright. You can quote it though. Please try and write the article in your own words, and when you're done we can do our best to try and make it as NPOV as possible. --Dr.Gonzo 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright? It's a report, released to the general public. How is it copyrighted? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you shouldn't just transplant it here without giving due credit. However, as I said, you can quote it all you like. --Dr.Gonzo 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Gonzo, you told me to rewrite the article. I started doing that, and you reverted it. You told me I shouldn't transplant the article, and I changed it, but you revert it back to the transplant! Maybe we should just delete the whole article together with Dalmatian Kristallnacht, and live happily pretending it never happened... -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Youre twisting my words. I said you need to give credit, not just transplant it as if it originated here. All you did was remove the parts of the text that you didn't like. I wanted you to put it in quotes and say this comes from Amnesty international, that's all. Btw, no need to turn hostile on me, I'm still ready to compromise, and if I remember correctly you said you weren't proud of your previous behaviour on Wikipedia and wanted to make up for it. Well here's your chance. --Dr.Gonzo 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, whatever you do to the article, I will support. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task list

• find verifiable sources of the pogrom of Serbs in 1991. (Slavonia and Dalmatia)
• write more about Croatia's challanges reguarding human rights and their obligation to the Serbs that were forcibly expelled from their property during the War in Croatia.
• not enough info. on Croatian war crimes, need more information.

I ask everyone with an open mind to help out, and please, no nationalist remarks in the article (I'm thinking of people who are in Croatia, or other countries of the Former Yugoslavia, who might be influenced by propaganda), I know it's a sensitive issue, and we all need to stick to the facts. Cheers, -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank God we have someone like you as a neutral arbiter. EurowikiJ 07:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's very nice of you. I try my best to help out biased opinions like your own. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, guys. This is really not necessary. EurowikiJ, I think you got to know my stance pretty well and you know I wouldn't let propaganda fester here without opposing it vigorously. Bormalagurski, you know I have dealt fair with you in the past and I can vouch for EurowikiJ when I say I'm 99.9% sure his intentions are honorable. Let's just bury this and get on with contributing without unnecessary personal attacks. I believe all facts should be made available here, not just the ones you like, but strict NPOV needs to be enforced. If we can keep our heads cool we can make this article both informative and neutral. And God knows an article like this is sorely needed, or we'll have 10 more "Medule's" on our hands soon... --Dr.Gonzo 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing you missed is that I've tried to be nice and cooperative with EurowikiJ, as you can see here, but he has replied with:

I don't believe this. I am sorry but I am really getting tired of this charade. I honestly think it is astounding that someone whose contributions are a vivid reflection of a biased outlook coupled with provocative back-handed remarks feels obliged to patronize another contributor by lecturing them on how to edit here on Wikipedia and, above that, implicitely accuse them of being disruptive. Amazing! Sorry but I've had enough of this farce.

How can I cooperate with this user if he doesn't trust me at all? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'll vouch for you if necessary, but don't prove me wrong. If you apologize, he will apologize too, I'm sure. I think this has been blown out of proportion already, and no wonder, with all the accusations that have been flying around in the last month or so, but lets try and be reasonable, and work this out. This state of affairs benefits noone. Infact, it even made me doubt in what we were doing here, but then I remembered - it all starts with yourself. If you're a honorable person and you dont spread malice, hatred and bitterness, people will recognize it. If you help them when they need it they will reciprocate. If you treat them fairly and with respect they will treat you the same. So that's what you need to do. Don't expect others to change, start with yourself. No one is out to get you, no one is deriding your opinions or feelings, all we ask is that you contribute in a NPOV way. That's all it takes. --Dr.Gonzo 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HRW information

There are parts of the article that sound as if they were copied and pasted from HRW's web site. This seeming bias detracts from the otherwise truthful nature of the content. The Amnesty report seems much more detailed and referenced, parts of it could be reproduced instead, to dispel the notion of relying on a single source (the HRW). --Joy [shallot] 14:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)