Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 8 May 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia High‑importance Milošević–Tuđman Karađorđevo meeting is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance Milošević–Tuđman Karađorđevo meeting is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

moved Karađorđevo agreement to Karađorđevo meeting: There was no any proof that it was the agreement. So it can be only negotiation. -- Aradic-en 10:10, 5 March 2008

• Moved back because we are talking about common names of certain events, not the real meaning for instance Armenian genocide was probably ethnic cleansing but it's known as Armenian genocide -- 85.158.35.222 18:02, 29 March 2008

• • There is no consensus about this event amoung Croats, Serb and Bosniaks. As well as amoung other authors from outside.

As I wrote :there is no written or any other proof that confirms the theory about some agreement. I included both POVs for that reason:pro et contra. No witness has confirmed the existence of any kind of agreement. So the title can not be "Karađorđevo agreement" . "Innocent until proven guilty! " . when some some solid proof appears for that it can be called agreement! So far "Karađorđevo agreement" is a bigfoot. Nobody can prove its existence! --Anto (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again,again

• there are no proofs for the agreement-not written one for sure! Until you find it we can't talk about it as about agreement.
• Those who talk about the "agreement" were not present the meeting (Mesić ,Ashdown or who else)
• Calling Tuđman's ruling as "authocratic regime is POV and not allowed here.
• An article from Slate is a quite negative pamphlet about Tudjman. The author narrates the stories he has heard from somewhere else. A tone of inaccurate statements. Tertiary source an disputable -can not be accepted as "proof". Most important it says only 1 sentence about the Karađorđevo meeting-neither mentioning Karađorđevo by name.

--Anto (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Autocratic is the term used by Encyclopedia Britannica (2008).

Read about Karadjordjevo:

• ICTY - BH PARTITION PLANS IN FORM OF A STAIN

217.75.202.131 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Also , you should read about Peace plans offered before and during the Bosnian War that says how plans about division of BiH have been Alija, too. As well as the international (OUN) officers/dplomats

To Kruško and his sockpuppets:

• "Authocracy " totally suspicious. Bunch of political oponents worked with no limits during his rule. Lot of newpapers wrote .Some of them were extremely against Tuđman ( see Feral Tribune ) -and nobody had any consequances for that.
• This "source" is a testimony of person which :1) was nto present at Karađorđevo meeting 2) does not say that any "agreement" was signed
• I haven not removed any of your sources . but you have removed couple my sources- So stop vandalizing with you POV pushing.

--Anto (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, remain civil. Don't accuse me of something I am not. User 217 is blocked, because of vandalism, I have nothing to do with him, if you don't believe me ask administrators.

Second, I don't understand why you have deleted the whole article?! It doesn't matter do you agree with it, or not, you should not delete something with the source, it is against the rules. It is obvious you like Franjo Tudjman, that's ok with me, but Misplaced Pages is something else. It is clearly designeted that the witness said something (It is not put as it is verified fact, but the testimony is verified fact): As Okun described it etc. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have not deleted whole article ! Moreover, I have not deleted any source (what ever their reliability is! ) I have just re-shaped the sentences with no sources. As it is! There are no any proof that it was signed something like that.

• Ante Marković does not mention any "agreement" in Karađorđevo here. Herbert Okun was not present at the meeting . Yes , he said what he said but his claims are second-hand rumours that can not be accepted as solid proofs at all. --Anto (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd version

I will try to write 3rd version with which you both will be happy. My english is not very good so there will be need for you both to work latter on article.

Only for information we are having consensus about sources for articles about Yugoslav Wars. In my thinking you both need to see table on talk page of article Yugoslav Wars.--Rjecina (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, it is obvious that you are a good editor. We also have another problem with Anto's version. His English is terrrible, I don't even understand some sentences in his version, your version is much better English. For example, this sentence:

Serb and Croat supporters insist nothing concrete was established while Bosnian supporters maintain that the two leaders conspired.

This is not football, there are no supporters. There are just witnesses, some of them are Croats, some of them are Serbs, some of them are international diplomats. For instacne, Blaž Kraljević who supported the idea about Bosniak-Croat unity, was informed about Graz agreement, he publicly discarded it.

I am aware of consensus about the sources, but thank you anyway that you mentioned it. That's the only right way on Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Prosecutor statement is against wikipedia NPOV policy because his job is to be POV (this has been earlier discussed on wikipedia).--Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some witnesses. Hrvoje Šarinić was involved in Karađorđevo negotiations directly!! Okun and Ashdown or who ever else was not! So , I don't see why their speculation is beeing taken as granted

Hrvoje Sarinic was a member of Tudjman's team. It would be really stupid to incriminate yourself admitting that you participated in the deal. Don't you agree? There is also Ante Markovic, Tudjaman's trascripts, and Croatian president Stjepan Mesic. Tudjman told them what he planned, the problem is they didn't want to participate in it. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Second thing:This was one of many negotitions during war there. Some of them included Bosniak leadership : see Peace plans offered before and during the Bosnian War--Anto (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Karadjordjevo happened before the war. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ante Marković and Stipe mesić were not present at Karađorđevo. So , their testimonies are second-hand rumouring. bla bla bla the testimony of hrvoje šarinić might not be 100% neutral but it is only direct source. --Anto (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only direct source is Franjo Tudjman's transcripts, which confirmed the testimonies of Ante Markovic and Stjepan Mesic, and rejected Hrvoje Sarinic, who was also very active in similar dishonest events according to the transcripts. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Those "transcripts" are disputable quality. Feral Tribune is not a source. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA! ANTO are you kidding me? ICTY has original transcripts, not Feral reprint. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplement

What about this sentence?

• However, during his testimony at ICTY he denied the existing of the agreement

It seems that the source doesn't match the sentence. Which part of the source confirms the sentece? Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just told Anto that! ANTO WHY DON'T you show us where in this source is your sentence?! 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ICTY quote

About this ICTY verdict , one quote, paragraph 14 :

Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991. The policies of the Republic of Croatia and its leader Franjo Tuđman towards Bosnia and Herzegovina were never totally transparent and always included Franjo Tuđman’s ultimate aim of expanding Croatia’s borders.

That discussions refer obviously to this one. But, there is no any mentioning of "agreement,pact,treaty..." or something like that. So, I will remove the mentioning that it was really an agreement. As well as I will remove Category:Treaties from this article. Unless somebody provides another verdict where are mentioned specifically words like "agreement" --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this article is a column (or to say precisely pamphlet ) and can not be taken as reliable source.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I have been asked to render a third opinion on the naming of this article. Since there is no recent discussion about the proper name, can both sides please read Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions and explain why they think their title better fits Misplaced Pages policy? Thank you --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Yugoslavia articles
• High-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• Start-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• High-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
• Start-Class Croatia articles
• High-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• Start-Class Serbia articles
• High-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles