Talk:Ante Gotovina/Archive 2

intro poll
wrote:
 * I say again. When 88% of people of any country consider man a hero this is pretty important.

Opinion polls are fickle and citing one single poll is entirely unencyclopedic by any measure; this is not WP:Lead section material. It's in the article body, but it's just not lead section info. A reference to a secondary source that analyzes his hero status could be lead section material, OTOH. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the poll is made by relevant media it should clearly be included in the article.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which it is, like I said already. It's just not given undue weight. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Undue weight? Please. I say again. If 88% of people of any country consider man a hero that is something that should be given due weight. Also poll that says that 95% of people in Croatia considered the first verdict unjust and now after the seconf verdict 96% of peole are happy and satisfied while just 0,3% are bitter.


 * http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/ekskluzivno-hrvatska-ujedinjena-biraci-svih-opcija-zadovoljni-presudom-i-sretni-sto-je-oluja-cista.html


 * (Here is a link of one of three main televisions in Croatia poll)


 * This is very important given the attitedes toward wars in ex Yugoslavia. For instance I've seen numerous polls in Serbia in which 40% more or less consider Ratko Mladić hero. So you could argue wheter he is a hero or war criminal and this is debate within Serbia. If 90% of Serbians considered him hero I would be pretty much convinced that he is a hero. Such numbers in this day and age when people have so many different opinions and don't agree much on anything is very very important. It says in the article that such consensus is unprecedented in Croatia's polling history. So it's important to emphasize that a man who was accused of being a war criminal and a controversial figure is a hero for 88% of people of his homeland and that 96% of people are happy with the verdict that says he is innocent.


 * I don't agree with your opinion that this is not so important to be in introduction. Pp.zg.hr (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joy's position - time and reflection are likely to vary such "polls" considerably.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To pp.zg.hr: please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and it should not rely on primary sources, but on secondary sources. Please read WP:PSTS. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

New Picture
I think the picture needs to be updated to reflect present reality: Gotovina as a free man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A picture of just his face is not all that notable; his arrest photo is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? This old photo needs to replaced with a more recent, better one. There are at least hundreds of photos of Gotovina, which can be easily found via Google search. EDIT/Further explanation: This (current) photo also implies that Gotovina is a criminal,which is simply not true. https://www.google.hr/search?um=1&hl=en&qscrl=1&biw=1024&bih=684&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ante+gotovina+freed&oq=ante+gotovina+freed&gs_l=img.3...3752.4586.0.4665.6.6.0.0.0.0.156.236.4j1.5.0.ernk_timediscounta..0.0...1c.1.mZ5jmGJsr1w --78.1.130.226 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Him being welcomed home as a hero, having been found not guilty on all charges, is much more notable than a misleading arrest photo. The community would like to nominate something along these lines: http://www.google.com/imgres?start=208&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lhx&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1366&bih=604&tbm=isch&tbnid=ssp_f0pQ45RlcM:&imgrefurl=http://pandithnews.com/2012/11/17/i-benefited-from-apartheid-t-shirt-sparks-south-african-race-row.html&docid=lJCzLB-6FR4sGM&imgurl=http://pandithnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Gen.-Mladen-Markac-and-Gen.-Ante-Gotovina.jpg&w=429&h=322&ei=BM-qUK3UFI_imAWBn4CgAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1066&vpy=141&dur=415&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=191&ty=72&sig=116859428427110052034&page=9&tbnh=151&tbnw=196&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:37,s:200,i:137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.20.16.89 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing misleading about the photo. He was arrested and convicted. The photo could be cropped--whatever other photos are linked here is trivial if they're not on Commons. Also--what, "the community would like to nominate..."? Which community is that? We don't play that way. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

He was also acquitted and set free. That is the reality of the situation, not a guilty verdict or conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.20.16.89 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a photo in here? Something like this, if a better one is not found for Gotovina as a free man: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.internationallawbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/250px-Ante_Gotovina.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.internationallawbureau.com/index.php/gotovina-and-markac-acquitted-by-icty-appeals-chamber/&h=162&w=250&sz=16&tbnid=him3aSriTqdUBM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dante%2Bgotovina%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=ante+gotovina&usg=__uXhoLf9cyFo08x_V058FI4SorH8=&docid=g9qHoypvlQ66GM&sa=X&ei=NKpOUcSNC4SnlAWa9oC4BA&ved=0CJIBEP4dMA4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a photo in here?


 * Please read Uploading images. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

--- Awesome. Thanks Joy. Now let's get someone in the community to go ahead and upload an appropriate picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.92.163.122 (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

HVO "allegiance" in 1992
I couldn't immediately verify this information, the google search gives me only a smattering of forum posts about it, and a mention in which is also anonymous (unsigned). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, finally found something on the fifth page of search results: lists it tersely, bio zapovjednik HVO-a Livno. A better source would be nice. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Del Ponte, Haradinaj, ...
While removing the text:
 * In an interview with a Serbian newspaper, Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of the ICTY, said she disagreed with the release of the two Croat generals. "I am expecting verdict against Ramush Haradinaj to be made soon" she added, "and there is danger that the same happens again. You know I am very disappointed."

I wrote:
 * rv coat-racking - this is the biography of Gotovina, not the place to air anyone's grievances about largely unrelated events

wrote:
 * this is not the biography of Gotovina, und not the place to air and it is not anyone's grievances about largely unrelated events (are you kidding us), it is Calra del Ponte.

It's hard to reply to this kind of incoherent writing, esp. coupled with insults WRT the Vedrana Rudan comment, but I'll try nevertheless. Del Ponte's opinion on the Gotovina appeals verdict is already stated above. It is entirely expected that she, as the original prosecutor, would be negative about a negative verdict for her case. It's basically saying the sky is blue. Saying it twice is redundant. Repeating her statements about Haradinaj is irrelevant to Gotovina. It's two different court cases which do not have any overlap other than her role, and that's irrelevant to Gotovina's biography. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think we understand each other wrong. I do not hate anyone and please do not accuse me for nationalistic behavior ok. The topic Gotovina: I do not mean this bad at that time, but I thought at the time that you may be write as a Croat eventual not neutral, because many do this not. In the end, I've retired, although the article is not neutral and Carla del Pontes comments about the release of Gotovina as very important, they played a very important role in the whole process. It should be no attack. I'm sorry, i had no evil intentions. Best regards Joy.--Nado158 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Joy, in regards to your 'fat conspiracy' summary, you may want to read this recent comment by someone who was part of the events: Of course, there are tons of other facts, like assassinations of protected witnesses, etc... but I guess it is all big fat conspiracy (tw, you didn't mention theory -- does it mean it's not only a theory but reality! I agree with you completely, it is a big, fat, ugly conspiracy against the justice). 178.148.221.155 (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any such musing specifically related to a trial separate from one person is simply not material for the article about that one person. There is probably some place for discussing conspiracy theories, but individual biographies certainly aren't it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)