Talk:Mirko Norac/Archive 1

untitled
Please note that the man who wrote the most of this article prefers this version of the article.

As GFDL says in it's prebamle, "...this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.", so please don't remove this notice if you really don't have to.

--Dijxtra 08:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cry baby, cry. [ personal attack removed by Duja]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.5.121 (talk • contribs)

Failed GA
Summar of citatations missing and some citatations needed. Alvin6226 talk 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article has real potential, but it needs work.
 * 1) The citations are excellent.
 * 2) The prose leaves a lot to be desired, but is not horrendous in most places. In some places though, it is painful to read:
 * He took part in operation Maslenica where his unit was first to reach the Maslenica plateu and later commanded operation Medak pocket as the commander of this brigade where he was wounded in both hands and legs by unexploded mine
 * please get someone who can write English well to look this article over and make it readable.
 * 1) A lot of groups and people are mentioned without any explanation, for example: who is Tihomir Orešković? What are the Stanko Opsenica barracs? what was their part in the conflict? In this portion the reader doesn't even have a clear idea of what the two sides were in the battle. what was operation Maslenica? why was it important that he reached the plateau first? as a reader I don't want to have to read the entire article on the battle just to understand the life of this man. You may argue that he only took part in these battles and their details are not the ones that should be mentioned in an article about him, but what about operation Medak pocket? it says that he was a commander, so you should at least mention that it is explained in the below section. these are just some examples, there are more problems of this nature.
 * Most of these issues are in the Military service section.
 * 1) Most of the war crimes and public opinion sections seem okay, though i'm going to do a revision of all the language used in the opinion section.

Talkstosocks 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
I'll pay attention to the Public Attitude ... only:

1. ''Upon the issuance of an indictment of Mirko Norac by Rijeka County Court, the Croatian political scene ruffled. Many people started objecting to it, stating that the indictment was aimed at the dignity of all of Croatian soldiers who had defended the country in the Croatian War of Independence.''

- who are the many people?

- what is their political profile, ethnicity, coming abroad, coming local, etc.

- are the many others which do not care about Norac or treat him no more than a criminal? 2. The fact that Norac disappeared after the indictment persuaded many that he had been handed to the ICTY and they demanded that premier Ivica Račan (a social-democrat and reformed communist who had come to power in elections the year before, after the 10-year long reign of the right-oriented HDZ) explain what had happened to Norac.

- completely unimportant and with no value

3. Numerous demonstrations and rallies took place all over the country in the next few days, abundant in Ustaše and NDH iconography.

- is this a civilisation achievement of the European level worth to be mentioned in an ecyclopaedia???

4. ''Roadblocks appeared around town of Sinj where some soldiers in local barracks threatened to free Norac by force[6]. Oppositional political parties put pressure on the government to intervene in the judicial system of the country and clergy stated their support for (then fugitive) retired general.''

- so the mob has to judge about of his guilt and not the court???

5. ''On February 11, 2001 in Split, war veterans (formed into the "Središnji stožer za obranu digniteta Domovinskog rata", trans. "Central headquarters for defence of Homeland war dignity") organised a large rally of support for Norac under motto "Svi smo mi Mirko Norac" (trans. All of us are Mirko Norac). This rally was attended by 100 thousand people including numerous oppositional politicians, bishops, retired generals of Croatian Army, alkars in their official uniforms, and numerous eminent Croatians.[9] The protesters openly expressed an aim to topple the left-oriented government of Ivica Račan, accusing it of treason and profanation of Croatian War of Independence and calling it a "marionette government". They chanted slogans like "Cigane Mesiću" (trans. Mesić - gypsy)[9].''

- so the mob says 'we are all Norac', Racan is 'marionette', aimed to topple the current government???

- the number of 100 000 supporters is overblown - more accurate estimates 30 - 35 000 collected accros the whole Croatia took by paid buses to the places of 'public support'

- also, read in the subtitle (Primitive mix ...) below:

Learning that, the diplomats acredited in the Croatian capital city of Zagreb - sent message to Croatia - we would not again attend the contest if Norac, a war criminal, is a member of the Alka Cavaliers Society.

and answer these simple questions - are these diplomats representants of some public opinion? is that public opinion much stronger than the one supporting Norac?

- how it might be important to a reader who does not share any positive attitude toward this 'hero'???

6. ''Ivo Sanader of HDZ (who became Croatian premier after the next parliamentary elections) was one of many oppositional politicians who spoke at the rally. He gave a speech defending Norac and calling for the government to step down.''

- is there any public opinion abroad or local which is on quite opposite side: Norac is just a war criminal???

--Velebit 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Note. Due to the fact that my original contribution to this discussion was vandalized by Dijxtra, I am restoring it to the original version. The discussion level offered by the named user is below any rational criteria and per the as-is basis - declined.--Velebit 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Primitive mix of praise of his 'achievements' and crime he commited
The secession war was a crime per se. The consequences to common people living in today's Croata are terrible:

- economy was destroyed to a great extent - more than 100 000 invalides - more than 250 000 drug addicts - tremendous foreign and domestic debt that amasses cca 40 billion US$ - rule of gang of criminals, cheaters and liars - the country is neo-colonialised by selling key industries to foreigners at a bargain price

This 'hero' was just a criminal whose 'achievements' are glorified ony by those who are liars and cheaters or primitive and stupid nationalists.

Quote from Villains vs. noble men, talk page of List of Croatians

On the list of Croatians there are two people Nikola Tesla and Mirko Norac. There is no need to tell who was Nikola Tesla. Mirko Norac is a war criminal sentenced to the 13 year term and jailed. During the secession war, he was a commanding officer in the Gospic county area where is the Tesla's birthplace - village of Smiljan. This infamous soldier, the Tudjman's general, is trained as a waiter (this is the only 'military' knowledge and education he posess) and all his military achievements were raped women, killed elderlies and children, looted properties and burned homes.

Accrording to the Jutarnji list - a Croatian daily newspaper, Croatia decided to honor great inventor and scientist - Nikola Tesla, the Serb. Nothing wrong, but

- it shall be known that Ustase (1941) turned to ashes the Serbian orthodox church (where Nikola's father, reverend Milutin served as a priest) and the home where Nikola was born, killed a great number of villagers and destroyed the tombstones/memorials of Nikola's parents (father Milutin and mother Djuka)

- in the same town of Gospic in the year of 1993, the monument erected to honor this great man was blown up to pieces and the town square named after Tesla was renamed - which reads in Croatian below:

http://www.jutarnji.hr/nedjeljni_jutarnji/clanak/art-2006,7,8,memorijalni_kompleks,34822.jl

''Taj je kip bio postavljen na sredisnjem gradskom trgu, koji je tada nosio ime Nikole Tesle, a u međuvremenu je preimenovan u Trg Stjepana Radića. No, u siječnju 1992. Krsinićev je spomenik miniran velikom količinom eksploziva tako da se razletio u komadiće''

Nevertheless, Nikola's home was 'restored' - the original building was made of wood, the new one - all brick and concrete. A brook who was running nearby was diverted to run closely to this new house. The house belongs to the Serbian orthodox church and was looted during the secession war (1991-95) by Croatian police under pretext of saving and protecting Nikola's parents belongings. Of course, all this 'honor' of 'restauration' of Nikola's birthplace was just an ocassion for many Croatian nationalists to polish their images as civilised and educated people. Not a single representative of the Serbian orthodox church or living Tesla's relative (William Terbo, Nikola's grand nephew - for example) is consulted or invited as a guest.

The Gospic town mayor Milan Kolić, who was mayor in the time of blowing up the monument and renaming the Tesla's Square into Stjepan Radic Square says:

- Ovim centrom se grad Gospić, naselje Smiljan i cijela Hrvatska zele oduziti svom slavnom sugrađaninu Nikoli Tesli - rekao je Milan Kolić, gradonačelnik Gospića koji je na čelu grada bio i tijekom Domovinskog rata.

which reads: "By this center (the Tesla's 'restored' home and the Serbian orthodox church rebulid) town Gospic and entire Croatia wants to pay tribute to their famous fellow citizen Nikola Tesla"

The whole article is written in a highly politically correct manner - not a single word that Tesla was not actually a Croat - rather a Serb. Not a single word of apology (coming form Croatians 'dignitaries') for destruction of everything that holds any memory to this great man - Nikola Tesla.

But, as to the new Croatian hero, Mirko Norac - he is still a member of so-called Alka Cavaliers Society (Vitesko alkarsko drustvo) which runs every year a medieval type contest celebrating some victory over Turks some time in the 16th century -in the Croatian town of Sinj.

Learning that, the diplomats acredited in the Croatian capital city of Zagreb - sent message to Croatia - we would not again attend the contest if Norac, a war criminal, is a member of the Alka Cavaliers Society.

http://www.jutarnji.hr/dogadjaji_dana/clanak/art-2006,7,15,sinjska_alka,36003.jl

Diplomati u RH zbog Norca će i ove godine bojkotirati Alku

Iz diplomatskog kora, međutim, stizu vrlo jasni signali kako će veleposlanici, po svemu sudeći, i ove godine bojkotirati Alku, i to zbog činjenice da je Mirko Norac jos uvijek član VAD-a, premda je osuđen za ratne zločine.


 * Could you please say what's wrong with this article? The fact that he is a war criminal doesn't mean his military service didn't happen. --Dijxtra 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

POV check

 * First of all, I changed the subject of this paragraph from "Failed GA" to "POV check" since you didn't do what is required to make this GA candidate failed (deilsted it from WP:GA/N and switched templates).

I'll pay attention to the Public Attitude ... only:

1. ''Upon the issuance of an indictment of Mirko Norac by Rijeka County Court, the Croatian political scene ruffled. Many people started objecting to it, stating that the indictment was aimed at the dignity of all of Croatian soldiers who had defended the country in the Croatian War of Independence.''

- who are the many people?
 * Many people were: "100 thousand people including numerous oppositional politicians, bishops, retired generals of Croatian Army, alkars in their official uniforms, and numerous eminent Croatians."

- what is their political profile, ethnicity, coming abroad, coming local, etc.
 * I don't know what is their political profile, ethnicity or place of origin (in fact, it is highly unlikely that all of this people had same political profile, ethnicity and place of origin), so I didn't put that information in the article. If you have that piece of information and you can source it out, feel free to add that information.

- are the many others which do not care about Norac or treat him no more than a criminal?
 * Which many others do you talk about? Those which didn't take the streets to protest about Norac's indicement? I don't know, it is really, really hard to say what "many others" thought about a certain topic.

2. The fact that Norac disappeared after the indictment persuaded many that he had been handed to the ICTY and they demanded that premier Ivica Račan (a social-democrat and reformed communist who had come to power in elections the year before, after the 10-year long reign of the right-oriented HDZ) explain what had happened to Norac.

- completely unimportant and with no value
 * I do not agree with that. It described the athmosphere in Croatia in that moment quite well, and I think that piece of information is quite relevant. But, if you prove that this piece of information is wrong (again, by citing your sources), I will be happy to remove it.

3. Numerous demonstrations and rallies took place all over the country in the next few days, abundant in Ustaše and NDH iconography.

- is this a civilisation achievement of the European level worth to be mentioned in an ecyclopaedia???
 * This is not "a civilisation achievement of the European level", but it is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Srebrenica massacre also is not "a civilisation achievement of the European level", but it has an article of its own. Which level of civilisation achievement is something is not a criterion for inclusion in encyclopedia.

4. ''Roadblocks appeared around town of Sinj where some soldiers in local barracks threatened to free Norac by force[6]. Oppositional political parties put pressure on the government to intervene in the judicial system of the country and clergy stated their support for (then fugitive) retired general.''

- so the mob has to judge about of his guilt and not the court???
 * Please read this section once again and bold the part which says "mob has to judge about of his guilt and not the court".

5. ''On February 11, 2001 in Split, war veterans (formed into the "Središnji stožer za obranu digniteta Domovinskog rata", trans. "Central headquarters for defence of Homeland war dignity") organised a large rally of support for Norac under motto "Svi smo mi Mirko Norac" (trans. All of us are Mirko Norac). This rally was attended by 100 thousand people including numerous oppositional politicians, bishops, retired generals of Croatian Army, alkars in their official uniforms, and numerous eminent Croatians.[9] The protesters openly expressed an aim to topple the left-oriented government of Ivica Račan, accusing it of treason and profanation of Croatian War of Independence and calling it a "marionette government". They chanted slogans like "Cigane Mesiću" (trans. Mesić - gypsy)[9].''

- so the mob says 'we are all Norac', Racan is 'marionette', aimed to topple the current government???
 * Yes.

- the number of 100 000 supporters is overblown - more accurate estimates 30 - 35 000 collected accros the whole Croatia took by paid buses to the places of 'public support'
 * Do you have references which support that claim?

- also, read in the subtitle (Primitive mix ...) below:

Learning that, the diplomats acredited in the Croatian capital city of Zagreb - sent message to Croatia - we would not again attend the contest if Norac, a war criminal, is a member of the Alka Cavaliers Society.

and answer these simple questions - are these diplomats representants of some public opinion? is that public opinion much stronger than the one supporting Norac?
 * Yes, this diplomats are representants of some public opinion. I don't know if that public opinion is much stronger than the one supporting Norac since I don't have relevant sources talking about strength of various public oppinions.

- how it might be important to a reader who does not share any positive attitude toward this 'hero'???
 * I'm very sorry, but I don't understand your question. Could you please rephrase it?

6. ''Ivo Sanader of HDZ (who became Croatian premier after the next parliamentary elections) was one of many oppositional politicians who spoke at the rally. He gave a speech defending Norac and calling for the government to step down.''

- is there any public opinion abroad or local which is on quite opposite side: Norac is just a war criminal???
 * I don't know. Probably there is. But I don't have sources supporting that. And I don't see what does the above quote has to do with your question.

--Velebit 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I answered your questions, could you please answer some of mine:


 * 1. You allege that this article is written from a POV. Which POV is it? Pro-Norac or anti-Norac?


 * 2. Which information does this article lack to became NPOV?


 * 3. Let me remind you that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. " Which information in this article is not verifable?


 * --Dijxtra 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you refuse to answer my questions, and just keep reading the same questions calling me a vandal in the way, I'll persume that you have no intention to speak with me and will remove the tag. --Dijxtra 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

' Very good article'
If you try to find an article about this 'hero' (Norac) in the Ecyclopaedia Britannica or in the Microsoft Encarta - you'll fail. The reason is simple - today there are many 'heroes' like him - in Sudan, Rwanda, Sadam's Iraq or Talibanic Afganistan. Writing an article about such a man is fruitless.

The article about this man, as it was written here, is very good in the sense that it depicts a primitive attitude toward innocence, heroism, and patriotism in today's Croatia. So, the article, as written - shall be preserved.

The most striking thing here is - the public attitude. If an innocent, brave, and honest man is harassed or jailed - the public attitude will be always based on the actions of Amnesty International, civil rights groups, prominent intellectuals abroad and foreign governments - on behalf of the discriminated person.

In the Norac case - the public attitude is based on the mob rules. The mob find it appropriate that 'the indictment was aimed at the dignity of all of Croatian soldiers who had defended the country' and 'Numerous demonstrations and rallies took place all over the country in the next few days, abundant in Ustaše and NDH iconography' - were aimed to protect the 'innocence' and 'bravery' of this man. So the Nazi iconography plus presence of the 'Ivo Sanader of HDZ (who became Croatian premier after the next parliamentary elections)' are the strongest points of this public attitude???

Congratulations!

On the other side, Croatian fans who formed a human swastika during the August 16 2006 exhibition game in Livorno, Italy - were dispersed by the Italian police and FIFA is moved to punish Croatia's soccer federation. Any Italian prime minister candidate did not consider it opportune to join the fans. The police action is the only way to handle this kind of 'public attitude'.

Needless to say that you cannot find anything else about Norac in the world's mainstream media except that he is a war criminal.

And, at the end, about his military 'achievement is considered by military analysts like Davor Domazet and Davor Marijan to have been crucial to keeping Croatia united'. You definitely have to accept this due to the fact that you have the word of such 'prominent' 'military analysts like Davor Domazet and Davor Marijan'. Of course - his greatest achievement is definitely - as stated in the article - 'He executed one woman himself to incite the killing'

The funniest thing I read above - is the one from the POV check subtitle:

Question:

Numerous demonstrations and rallies took place all over the country in the next few days, abundant in Ustaše and NDH iconography.

- is this a civilisation achievement of the European level worth to be mentioned in an ecyclopaedia???

Answer:

This is not "a civilisation achievement of the European level", but it is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Srebrenica massacre also is not "a civilisation achievement of the European level", but it has an article of its own. Which level of civilisation achievement is something is not a criterion for inclusion in encyclopedia.

Bravo!

The person who answered the question - is nicknamed as Dijxtra - probably after the prominent Dutch computer scientist - E. Dijxtra. From my college student days, I have some equally funny memories about a man of the similar self-praise and self-importance and of extremely primitive and stupid nature who unanimously earned the Einstein nickname.


 * Your point being? --Dijxtra 09:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. Anyway, if nothing else this inspired me to add a not a forum template, seen at the very top of this page... GregorB 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
Here is the assessment according to the Good Article criteria:
 * 1. It is well written
 * Fail – Improvements has been made, but this article still needs a thorough copyedit (grammar and spelling errors). There are a lot of places with missing articles (“a”, “an”, “the”). As an example, just in the first two sentences, the following corrections are suggested: “a” former general, “the” youngest ever colonel, “the” Croatian army.
 * Point taken. My English is not in best shape, I'll ask some of en-5 users to fix grammar and spelling as soon as other issues are addresed. --Dijxtra 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Weak Pass – Sources are cited, hence verifiable. But in order to bring about Wikipedia credibility, more sources should be cited especially for such a controversial character.
 * 3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * Pass – The article covered his early years to his imprisonment, although more information on his early years would be preferable.
 * 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fail – It is clear that the article shows a particular POV. There are some assertions like “hacking Croatia into 5 zones that could later be forced to surrender” which does not support NPOV. The POV is made more clear in the section “Public attitudes toward Norac” which mainly covers the viewpoints of his supporters. For such a controversial character, especially one that has been convicted of war crimes, other alternate viewpoints must exist. Clearly not all viewpoints are presented here. I would suggest getting more sources and present the views of the prosecutors of the ICTY and the victims of the crimes.
 * Huh. Strange. Now, don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and I'll do my best to fix the article. But before proceeding, I must say I'm a bit surprised by this because I usually get criticised for anti-Croatian POV :-)
 * Either way, I'll have to ask you to help me by explaining some of your statements. Regarding the hacking of Croatia thing... well, I don't see how this is POV. Intentions of JNA were quite clear: stabilising situation in Croatia by use of armed force. Spliting a country in zones is a efficient way of doing that, and by securing Gospic, JNA would be free to advance to the seaside and split Croatia there. (of course, if you still insist this sentence is POV, I'll remove it I'm no POV warior)
 * As of public attitude towards Norac... well, in those days his supporters were the only ones which expressed their viewpoints. There were no contra-rallies, there were no political parties saying Norac should be freed except for those forming the government. Viewpoint of ICTY was quite clear: they requested Norac to be prosecuted (which is mentioned quite a few times in the article), and viewpoint of victims of his crimes should be selfevident, I persume. If you wish I can write few more sentences about how "ICTY didn't change it's opinion while protests were happening", how "families of Gospić massacre victims continued to condemn Norac's crimes" and how "Croatian government didn't interfere with legal system of Croatia" but it sounds a bit wierd to me...
 * Again, as with hacking of Croatia, I am willing to change the parts which you find POVish, don't worry, I always try to be easy to cooperate with. --Dijxtra 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See the notes below. RelHistBuff 09:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. It is stable
 * Weak Pass – Although there are no edit wars, the history reveals some neutrality disputes with reverts. This, however, reinforces the issue about point 4.
 * 6. It contains images
 * Pass

I would encourage the editors to find other editors to join in and help bring the article up in quality, perhaps through the Biography project. Once these items are fixed, please resubmit the article again for GA status. RelHistBuff 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional notes
I will try to help out a bit. Realize though that I am only a neutral reviewer so I may not understand all the detailled issues. I think the POV perceptions comes from the use of the English language. It doesn't have to be removed. Just made to be neutral.


 * 1) The phrase "was the event that turned the tide" sounds like someone made a statement or opinion. If so, then this should be cited (footnoted). Otherwise it looks like it is the article's author's opinion. "The siege and conquest of the Gospić garrison was the event that turned the tide of the advancing JNA forces. "
 * 2) Concerning the phrase "frustrated plans of hacking Croatia into 5 zones", firstly the word "hacking" implies using an axe. It's rather rough language and not encyclopaedic. Why not use "splitting" like you mentioned or even better "dividing"? Also you mentioned these were JNA's plans, so you should say "frustrated the JNA's plans of dividing Croatia into 5 zones. Note that as this is an assertion, one should cite a reference.
 * 3) The phrase "if Gospić had fallen, Croatia would have been cut in half and her defense capacity greatly reduced" also sounds like an opinion. Someone must have stated this. For example, one could rewrite this "Person X noted that the division of Croatia would have greatly reduced her defense capacity".

Concerning the "Public attitudes..." section, the problem is the matter of reader's perception. Norac is found guilty of crimes and then the next section states that many in Croatia objected to it. But one wonders is that all there is? One wonders is there another side to the story. I would guess the situation is much more complex than that and there must have been some opinions from the prosecutor of the Rijeka County Court (sorry I meant this court not the ICTY which did not go through with the prosecution). There must have been some minority view statements who wanted justice. One should not have to "create" the statements, but one has to find them (some research work). Otherwise the story is incomplete and the article appears POVish (even if it is not meant to be POVish).

I hope this helps. I also would suggest that you try to get other editors to help out, not just for the English, but also for helping you find additional content. RelHistBuff 09:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, you hepled a lot. I will now try to fix this issues and then I'll drop you a note before I renominate it to see if looks good to you. --Dijxtra 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Norac
Thanks for your interest in your role played with the Mirko Norac article. I was in the process of reading the Afd about it and was in the middle of leaving a reply that I thought it should be kept but edited, made neutral or etc in the case that it wasn't neutral. Right as I tried to leave my reply I saw that Adam Bishop had deleted it I think on the grounds for being bad faith. I hope you don't mind but I undeleted the article and did my best to edit it and make it neutral

Personally, I'd had no knowledge of Mirko Norac and am neutral as far as to whatever his or his followers or dejectors have to say about him. But in all due respect I hate seeing one's ideas censored. I think we should encourage others to make Wikipedia the best we can. If what I've submitted is neutral, I hope that not anyone else reverts it to an unneutral article.

Thanks again and feel free to check out my work on the public access television article where I make numerous contributions. DavidWJohnson 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Norac tags
Copied from my talk page Bwithh 23:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to the article for Marko Norac. For what it's worth, I'm not the one who removed the AFD tags from previous. I didn't even know they'd been there before. My edit and attempt to make the article neutral was in hopes of not seeing it deleted again completely, but to encourage others to keep the article neutral so wouldn't be deleted in the first place. In all due respect, how do you still see it unneutral or having weasel words? It would be my pleasure to make the article what it should be and I encourage others including yourself to do so.

Thanks again and please feel free to check out my contributions to the article for public access television. DavidWJohnson 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there David, thanks for the very polite note. I know its not you who removed the afd tag - this was removed by someone else (I checked the edit history previously) who is actually an admin (I was a bit surprised, as the removal does still seem out of process). Anyway, the afd tag should not be removed until the article for deletion discussion is closed (and then, only by the admin who closes the discussion) - this discussion is still very much active and unclosed. To remove the afd tag now disrupts the afd process. Other issues: the cleanup tag is unrelated to the neutrality issue - I thought that there were a number of English language issues with the article, but I think now I was a bit hasty with this tag (there are still a few phrases that need sorting out e.g. "waiter high school" but the issues are not as many as I thought). The weasel words tag is related to the use of the "some say" and "some think" type sentences - this is problematic even if they are used to give the idea of balance - see WP:WEASEL. There were a couple of these lines, but these make major claims about serious issues. I've taken them out of the article now. If they can be referenced properly, more detailed versions could be introduced. Hope this clarifies things, thanks Bwithh 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Bwithh. I agree and salute your changes.  In all due respect, I personally find "waiter school" a bit comical, but I do believe it's correct.


 * In general my sentiments towards censorship in general are that it's unbecoming for any of us who would hastily delete one's work vs. doing our best to encourage its transformation into the best that it can be.  I think it's easy for us to be chomping at the bit so to speak to crucify someone vs. encouraging them.  Call it an unconscious fallacy on our parts if you will, but I still know we can do better.


 * As for "Weasel Words," again in all due respect, I think that was a poor choice of words on Wikipedia's part, while "Misleading" would've sufficed. I think "Weasel Words" is rude.  What if the contributor had no intention of writing misleading words?  What they take it the wrong way and never visit Wikipedia again?  Is that good business?  True, maybe it sounds funny, wasn't intended that way to offend, and leaving would be rash on one's part.  But, is it good business?  I say, No.  I'll go so far to say that I think it's similar to the concept of our unconscious fallacies I mentioned above, and our tendecy to be rash in taking delight with coming up with descriptions like "Weasel Words."  I think we can do better.


 * Finally, I'll hopefully sum up my point by using my work on the Public Access Television article as an example. Today I nominated it for GA and FA status.  I expected feedback, but I'd hope it wouldn't all be what one in all due respect could call negative, rude, and abrasive.  I politely answered most of the replys.  Finally I reverted my nominations.  Not anyone mentioned if they'd liked things about the article.  It was all about how wrong it was.  I'd hope someone would've at least noted my contribution of adding a link to the Wiktionary definition  for Public Access, but they didn't.  The same went for my addition of images, a History section and etc.  In sum I think we can do better than that.  I hope that we do.  Thanks again Bwithh.  DavidWJohnson 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A few reasons why to delete this article
It is funny thing to even read this article. Telling people about youngest ever colonel of Croatian Army and not telling the fact that the Croatian president Tudjman - and his superior in some way - was a man despised by the world leaders (nobody attended his funeral) and considered as a war criminal too - is a fraud! It is fraud not to tell that Norac's superior and commander-in-chief Janko Bobetko was an indicted war criminal who avoided the ICTY dying before getting chance to be handed over to the ICTY. To put it differently - what is the real value of this rapid advancement of a half-literete man in the ranks of some army??? It is fraud to say that he was duke of Sinjska alka and not to tell that the Zagreb diplomatic corps publicly annonced their disgust by the fact that this (Norac) man was honoured that way and refused to participate in this commemorative and solemn event.

Rewrite of this article
I have a strong urge to revert what has happened to this article in last few edits, but I'll stick to WP:1RR in this case since I wrote the article and I don't want to violate WP:OWN. So, I will now put forward some remarks which I feel should persuade people watching this talk page that a revert to my last version in needed.

First of all, whole section about protests is gone. Information about roadblocks have gone. You know, Croatia might sound a bit exotic to someone who hasn't been here, but roadblocks on Croatian streets are not a common sight, in fact we haven't had them since the war. I feel those are very much relevant and shouldn't be removed from the article. As for removal of mention of the protests... let me give you a paralel. Split is the biggest town on Croatian coast. It has nearly 190.000 inhabitants. On the rally, there were 100.000 people. That's 53%. Now let's take a city on American coast, say, Los Angeles. 53% of it's population is around 2 million people. Say, if 2 million people took the streets of Los Angeles, would that event be mentioned on Wikipedia? I'd say it would, and I'd say the rally needs to be mentioned. The second reason why it should be mentioned is because the protesters requested the government to step down and were carrying Ustaše insignia. And current prime minister gave a speach at the rally. If Angela Merkel showed up in 2004 on a rally of support for indiced war criminal and requested Gerhard Schröder to step down while people in public waved with Nazi flags, would that be mentioned on Wikipedia? Sure it would. Therefore, I request the section that was deleted to be returned.

Now on to speciffic edits.
 * Intro
 * Removal of "and is considered a war hero by many." Sounds like a weasel word, but I don't know how to say it the other way. 100.000 people gathered to suport him and that people regard him as a war hero. That statement is sourced out. How do I tell it so it doesn't sound weasel?
 * Removal of "The issuance of an arrest warrant for him in 2001 sparked large protests in Croatia." What's wrong with this one? Having roadblocks and 50% of second most populated town on the streats is not "large protests"?
 * Military service
 * "ATJ Lučko is elite unit of Croatian police" -> "ATJ Lučko is a unit of the Croatian police". Well, if anti-terrorist unit of Croatian police is not an elite unit, then what is?
 * Removal of image which shows position of Gospić - why? It is crucial to see where Gospić is for understanding impact that defense of Gospić had for the war.
 * Deleting whole bunch of information on defense of Gospić. Ahem, that's pretty much like removing reference to Battle of Moscow from article about Zhukov. Can somebody please explain to me how Norac's command of defense of Gospić is not relevant for Mirko Norac?
 * Removal of "where his unit was first to reach the Maslenica plateau, strategically, a very important area where a bridge connecting Dalmatia with the rest of Croatia is situated. This operation made land traffic between Dalmatia and the rest of Croatia possible." - how is that not relevant?? What's wrong with this sentences?
 * "His accomplishments in the war led to his exultation as a war hero among many Croats." - umm, like in the intro section, how do I write it so it doesn't sound like weasel words?
 * War crimes
 * Removal of "man controlling the Gospić area at the time de facto" - perfectly sourced out claim. Why are you removing perfectly sourced out claims, together with the source?
 * Imense deletions in "Operation Medak pocket" section. Ummmm... can anybody please expain to me what is irrelevant in deleted material? Please?

Conclusion: I have been working on this article for more than 9 month now. Hours and hours of searching for sources have been spent. I have nominated this article a bunch of times for GA status, and it has failed every time, with very good reasons. And I have tried really hard to meet any concernes brought out on this talk page. But this... (trying really hard to stich on AFG, NPA and CIVIL)... edits... made this article look really sad. Somebody please revert it to my previous version. Then we can all sit down and see what is wrong with this article. --Dijxtra 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the version of when your rewrite was finished since your name pops up everywhere in history. Thanks. - Tutmosis  15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, see, I didn't rewrite the article, I wrote the article. My version is here: . Current version is result of a rewrite. And I think the article should be reverted to my version.
 * Okay looking at your version Ithere are some pov statements (pro-Mirko). By the way, in no way is this a personal issue for me. Here are some unsourced and pov statements from your version:
 * The siege and conquest of the Gospić garrison was the event that turned the tide of the advancing JNA forces and frustrated plans of hacking Croatia into 5 zones that could later be forced to surrender. The most important region was Lika and its centre Gospić: if Gospić had fallen, Croatia would have been cut in half and her defence capacity greatly reduced.
 * OK, I could leave without this section because I don't have access to military books from which I could source that out. But just look at the map, to me it is just plain obvious that if you take Gospić, you cut Croatia in half... But, yes, I can't cite the source since this sentence is just general knowledge here... --Dijxtra 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This achievement is considered by military analysts like Davor Domazet and Davor Marijan to have been crucial to keeping Croatia united.
 * What's POV where? No weasel words, people who said that are named. What's wrong with this? --Dijxtra 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * His accomplishments in the war led to his exultation as a war hero among many Croats.
 * Again and again and again, what do I have to do to support this claim? Just name it, I'll find it. I don't consider him a war hero, I consider him a bloody criminal who should rotten in jail, but the fact is that at this year's Alka people aplauded on mention on him for few minutes. Just tell me what I have to do to support this sentence. --Dijxtra 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * However, Croatian jurists are divided on this issue: many claim that Croatian constitution explicitly allowed political activity of the Croatian military.
 * Yes, that's quite evident weasel, I don't know who it ended up here. --Dijxtra 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to state that Public attitude towards Norac should be very strongly sourced and in its current form is very pro-mirko. Half of it should talk about people who see him as a war criminal to balance it to NPOV. - Tutmosis  15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all so strange for me since I have a reputation of anti-nationalist and strongly detest any kind of nationalist propaganda... but the fact is that tere were no counter-rallies. And I just can't make up data. Most of the Croatian populus was highly nationalist in that moment. I wasn't I didn't support him, but that doen't change the fact that there were no rallies other than those of support for Norac. See Anschluss. There are no hints of negative public reaction to anschluss in Austria. Why? Because there wasn't one. So are we going to remove the whole section? No. Man, I'm pacifist and I really don't like the man, but I feel there should be an article about him so we don't forget what happened here. Do you all really support removal of mention of one of the biggest rallies in Croatia? I just can't understand that...


 * Let me just say this: I'm an expirienced Wikipedian, and I love to ask first and shoot later, as you see from my lack of reveting. I think that discussion is our friend. So just tell me what I have to do to support my version of the article and I'll do that. Thanks. --Dijxtra 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Per comments to those individual statements, its not just about weasel words. Those are very strong claims that need a source or should be removed. And regarding the general knowledge sentence, to me its more like original research, it would be better to just write statements that have been published. Well I do think you are being sincere that your not trying to push pov since in your version you were not afraid to state things that clearly label him a criminal (example "when around 100-120 local Serbs were murdered by men under his command"). I think you just happened to run into pro-mirko sources while researching. I did not come here to attack your version but just to help you out since your a major editor of the article and are in confict with other users. If you truly can't find any anti-mirko sources (I wouldn't know I havent tried) then the people who label you pov-pusher should give you some otherwise they should stop deleting views they dont like. - Tutmosis  16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In all due respect I don't think it's you User:Dijxtra but the nature of many other Wikipedia contributors. In general people don't like war criminals; therefore consciously or unconsciously nothing anyone or you write will ever make a difference to them.  You've made it clear you don't endorse the man, but that's not the point.  You've added or had added every thing asked by others that you could find about Mirko Norac, but that doesn't matter.  Some of your research came off pro-ish I think too, but that doesn't matter either.


 * Listen to what people are telling you, "find more anti-Mirko sources" and find something else that someone else wrote and copy that. Does that make sense to you?  It doesn't make sense to me?  The article should be objective.  The article should be original.  I think you've tried doing both.  Maybe with not perfect results but you've tried.  Another ea. look at when you tried to get a GA status and you were asked to get citations and sources.  You did.  But they still wouldn't give you GA status, but they quibble over you missing one source or citaion even though you'd fixed all the others.  Even if you made it perfect it would never be perfect enough.


 * I think that's sad. A well written article objective about a war criminal should be a possible GA canidate.  But that's not the way things work unfortunately.  People don't like war criminals.  People like video games and movies and tv shows.  That's why they end up getting GA or even FA status.  Their supporters know one another, pal around on Wikipedia, and get that sort of thing.  I'm sure someone may read this and list exceptions, but they'll be just that, exceptions.  People don't like war criminals.  They like video games, rap music, and who dumped who in the last issue of People.  Sad but true.


 * Finally, I think much of your information about battles, the map, and ect. was deleted by others or myself because it was about those things and not specifically Mirko Norac. I think I understand how you see a signifance with his relation or major relation to them, but others will just see it as glorification vs. well written research.  I tried to do what I can for you by making the edits that I did.  True, it may now read like a skeleton of an article that only lists what he's done to present, but at least it may not be deleted totally.


 * But, unfortunately that will probably be the case, where an administrator deletes it forever, with no explanation, and if you research that administrator you may end up finding no rhyme or reason to his other numerous deletions on his contributions page, or you may find that he frequently contributes to an article about Xena Warrior Princess or whatever. Hmm, Mirko Norac war criminal or Xena Warrior Princess?  I'll let you decide who's making a signifigant contribution but I think you already know where you and I stand on the issue.  I'm objective.  If you want my advice, write your own article on a sheet of paper, archive it, and maybe in 50 or more years from now people will look at it and say it's  brilliant.  That's the way things work I think.


 * It's like the story about the gym manager who's staff told him the floor couldn't be cleaned because its surface had been damaged and so the dirt never came out when mopped. Somebody who worked out at the gym kept telling him the problem was simply that the staff was using dirty mop water to mop the floor.  The manager didn't believe it.  Finally the guy convinced the manager to let him take him aside and prove his point.  He spit on the floor, wipped it with a rag, and the floor turned at least seven shades lighter than it had been.  The manager was shocked.  He'd been fed a line of lies for years.


 * The moral of this story is that sometimes you just have to ignore everybody else, get down on your hands and knees, and clean the mess up yourself. Sad but true.  Don't give up.  Just be yourself.  That's what makes you you.  People don't like it when you break the mold and want to write about a war criminal instead of pop music.  So ignore them.  Be yourself and let it go.  Good job buddy.  I love ya, but God loves you more.  Your Brother in Christ,  DavidWJohnson 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, but I think I've had enough. I now see that people here just lack a prospective. For instance, this edit comment: remove second sentence from intro: someone had to be the youngest col., and the "duke" thing appears to be of minimal importance. Since the times of Ottoman Empire, it has been the greatest honour from a man from that part of our country to became a duke of Alka, but you people here just don't understand that. And, that's fine. You are not from Croatia, and it is of minor importance for you. And, I've finally realised that it's not that you have a problem by lacking a prospective, it's me, I have too much of it. It just must be that I think to high of some things which are important for my country. But, this is English language Wikipedia, not Croatian language Wikipedia, so things which are important for Croatia are, naturally, not understood by this community, and that's OK, that's why we have Wikipedia in Croatian. I will now translate my article, move it to Croatian Wikipedia and remove it from my watchlist. I'd just like everyone to note that although I'm pissed off at all of you for removing months and months of my research and getting this article to a sorrowful state, I did not revert and I'm damn proud of it. :-) I'm now removing this article from my watchlist, hope you don't mind, take a good care of it. --Dijxtra 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Regarding the comment:


 * Thank you for your kind words, but I think I've had enough. I see that people here just lack a prospective. For instance, this edit comment: remove second sentence from intro: someone had to be the youngest col., and the "duke" thing appears to be of minimal importance


 * Excatly! I'm glad you picked up on that.  That night or the next day I realized I'd wanted to point that out.  That pretty much sums it up don't you think?  Not important because "somebody" had to be the youngest col., and the fact that he became a duke to be of "minimal" importance?  That's like an American saying that fact that John F. Kennedy being the youngest president isn't important because somebody had to be the youngest president.  Or, like saying that an American receiving the presidential medal of recogination, which I think is the highest honor an American can receive, to be of minimal importance.  Any children's text book with an article on these people would point out this.


 * So it's with extreme pity on behalf of my fellow Americans that I in-part agree with your conclusions. One, it's not so much you that was wrong but them.  Two, I agree with your Croatian sentiments and think an objective article about Mirko Norac is deserving there.  Three, I wouldn't delete the American article completely even though you were the creator of it.  Like I said someday it could be respected, but then again it could just as easily be erased today.  I would separate yourself from it and claim dishonor ship of it indefinitely but not definitely until a better time would present itself.  Therefore, I think your choice to leave the original article note at the top of the discussion page was good.


 * Please don't become jaded, resentful, or unloving towards all things considering this learning experience. It's not simply an American fallacy but a fallacy of all mankind.  All we can do is love our neighbor as ourself.  Please keep me informed of your work.  Your brother in Christ,  DavidWJohnson 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Basic rules on presenting a living military commander
1. He is not yet convicted guilty of the war crimes in the ICTY, so showing first a picture of him with the title Norac in trial prejudices the reader.

2. Only showing a picture of a modern military reader in a reenactment uniform ridiculs him and the armed forces he represents. It is OK to show a picture of a military commander doing this, but you have to show a decent picture of him in real uniform beforehand. Of course from a Croatian perspective this is a great honour, but few people outside Croatia do understand this (add perhaps a short explanation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs).


 * I moved it back solely on the aesthetic basis; it's silly that the reader has to scroll down to see how he looks like. It's not my fault that there is only a "criminal" and a "hero" picture, not a neutral one. He is convicted guilty of the war crimes with the Croatian court AFAICT, so the image showing him in a courtroum is not out of the order. Duja 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the order, starting with hero finishing with the criminal. We have the courtroomsentence in the header. I think another possibility is to split this article:
 * First part the war-hero. with the hero picture. Second part the convicted war criminal and his crimes with the courtroom picture. I will try and ask for a neutral picture of him. Still, as long as one is not convicted guilty by a court it is not fair to present first a picture of this person in this (ICTY) court. [Wandalstouring with login trouble] 84.155.54.52 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral image of Mirko Norac I'm trying to get it released. Perhaps someone can help. Wandalstouring 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA (October 2006)
The article fails to meet (at least) this criteria: Regards, Dijxtra 08:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Broad in coverage: The fact that arrest warrant for Norac made 100.000 people take the streets in Split is not even mentioned. And, why was Norac made the youngest colonel? Why was he made general? Seems like he was awarded ranks in overly random fashion, since I don't see any accomplishments of his in this article which are impressive enough to promote him so fast.
 * Also, there's some poor formating like broken reference, unformated reference in "Maslenica and Medak" subsection and no " " template for "Operation Medak pocket" section.

Unexploded land mine?
"In the operation Norac was wounded in both hands and legs by an unexploded land mine[5]." Did someone throw a land-mine at him, bruising his hands and legs? If not something tells me the landmine was 'exploded' when it injured him.

Additionally, I could understand a comment about a death or injury in peace time from a munition being referred to as 'unexploded' as in it did not explode during the war it was used in. A cluster bomb or an artillery shell should explode after being fired but sometimes do not and therefore kill people after their intended date of explosion. However a land-mine is designed to explode after it is planted and generally is intended to injure or kill military personnel.

Perhaps this part of the article could be edited simply to omit the 'un' or the 'unexploded' part of the land mine sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling of surname
I moved the Mirko Norac page to Mirko Norać, thinking the latter was the correct spelling. I was avised by a Wikipedian (User:Thewanderer), whom I know to have greater knowledge than I regarding this, that the old name was the correct one. Thus I reverted the name back, re-adding fact tags and rv POV/cruft. Sorry for any inconvenience. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)