Talk:Nada Klaić

Citations re Klaić's attitudes
The part that speaks about Nada Klaić's attitudes (explicitly) is in the other part of the text. I'll give you the page number later (with few citations). Kubura (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note
Please, don't revert. These citations were written by eminent musicologist Emil Čić and writer Marijan Horvat Mileković. Ivan Štambuk, you are supposed to know that word "nationalist" on the West has very negative conotations, almost as "chauvinist" in former Eastern block. Please, don't try to diminuate the contributions of other users and sources by etiquetting. Please, read rule WP:ETIQ. Further, how come that you've appeared on the article that you've never edited before? And only four hours (05:41, 16 June 2009 ) after I've been working on it  (01:35, 16 June 2009). Man, you did that in 5 o'clock in the morning!! In that time of night you're following me (going after me) and revert my edits and write inflammatory comments! What's with you, man? It's obvious that you're wikihounding me. Wikihounding is forbidden behaviour. Read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. You've been having that custom before, and as it's obvious, you've continued with that. Please, don't do that. You're grown person. You ought to have your private life. Don't mess into others' lives. Kubura (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Eminent musicologist", ROTFL. How about some eminent historian ?
 * Indeed the word nationalist has negative connotations, and Fokus is hardline nationalist piece of toilet paper ridden with right-wing Ustašoid theories and Communist paranoia. I have every reason to dismiss it as unreliable source. Find a reliable source from a serious publication (encyclopedias, peer-reviewed journals etc.) that discuss theories of a highly renowned scholar that Klaić is in such defamatory tone, and then we can put it in the article. See RS.
 * I have this article on my watchlist, and am not "wikihounding you" (I couldn't care less about your contributions). Feel free to report my "disruptive behaviour" to "upper instances", you'd be surprised that the outcome will not be same as you imagine it would be on Croatian kikirikipedia, where your closely-nit nationalist milieu is self-protective over everything that has something to do with Croatian nationalist psyche ^_^ This has abs. nothing to do with you but with the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivane Štambuče, don't play dumb. Wikihounding is your "specialty". You've proven that on Croatian Wikipedia. "Your watchlist"? Yeah, interesting, four hours after my edit on this article. And still very fresh from my discussion with you. Also is interesting that you have never been editing this article. Your first edit was reverting of my edit (16 June 2009). And this article exists from June 26 2006! Unlike you, I've been editing this article much before you (first time Jan 10 2008). Don't try to improve your position in discussion by mocking ("ROTFL, "piece of toilet paper", kikirikipedia") or phrases that directly defamate and etiquette ("hardline nationalist", "right-wing Ustašoid theories", "Communist paranoia", or "your closely-nit nationalist milieu is self-protective over everything that has something to do with Croatian nationalist psyche" ). You obviously haven't read any single number of that magazine. That musicologist is also publicist and essayist that deals with politics and religion in his works. If en.wiki tolerates Misha Glenny as some "source", how can you reject Emil Čić? You're not the expert who'll be consulted as "expert for magazines". Your cannot exclude magazines like "Hrvatsko slovo" and "Fokus". If you cannot see them, than you're filtering information. Your only criteria is: if the sources are in accordance with your assertions or not. If they are not, you simply choose no means to remove and reject it. You cannot work like that on encyclopedia. Hrvatsko slovo is an eminent Croatian magazine for culture. Many eminent Croatian scientists and artists are contributing for that magazine. Fokus is also an eminent Croatian magazine. Following eminent Croatian and foreign authors contributed for this magazine. See the names (and you dare to call this source as unreliable (in your summary of your revert) ?): academist Stjepan Babić, Sanda Ham, Marko Veselica, Ivo Derado, Radovan Pavić, Mirko Vidović, fra Hrvatin Gabrijel Jurišić, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Emil Čić (high Austrian awards), Vladimir Rem, Frano Baras, Boris Havel (Cro. representative at International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem; he got his academic degree in Hebrew University in Jerusalem; do you want to say that they propagate right-wing Ustashi theories on that university?) etc.. Further, these authors are living persons. You've etiquetted those persons. Read WP:Biographies of living persons. And who are you? Some anonimous person who pretends that he's some top scientific authority. Don't threat your opponent with "you'll be reported". That's not a way to communicate. That's an verbal violent way to put a pressure on your opponent to give up. Your personal point of view, regarding those references, is disrupting Wikipedia. You're threat that I'll be reported is gaming of Wikipedia's system. Read WP:GAME ("Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view"). You are not allowed to remove references. If these aren't in accordance with your personal attitudes and your personal point of view, that's your problem. You did that several times, despite being warned (June 16 2009, 4 h 6 mins after my edit),  (19 June 2009, 4 h 16 mins after me) and  (June 24 2009, 36 mins after me). That's called edit/revert warring, Ivane Štambuče. "Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms and often reverting rather than considering others' points " Read again the rules WP:ETIQ, WP:EDIT WAR, WP:GAME, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:Biographies of living persons. We can find some more rules that you've violated, but this should be enough.  You've been explicitly warned . Please stop. Kubura (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kubura, find RELIABLE SOURCES that support this ridiculous defamation of the most renowned Croatian historian of the 20th century, something other than radical-nationalist magazines like Fokus and Hrvatsko slovo. Which part of this question are you unable to comprehend? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fokus, and especially Hrvatsko slovo are the magazines that've had academists and eminent scientists as theirs contributors. These scientists have proven their scientific validity through decades of scientific work. They are reliable sources, unlike you. And what are you, Ivan? Some historian wannabe who has the fixation that he's the top authority that'll arbitrate what's good and what's not. Sorry, you cannot disqualify opponent's arguments by spitting on/difamating its arguments. Kubura (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kubura, gubiš vrijeme. Članak je generalno OK- realno, napisao sam ga ja- i nema se što dodati. NK je zaslužna i ima dosta slabih točaka (poglavito glede Hrvatstva u staroj Bosni), no od Čića i Milekovića nikad ništa. Naravno, HS i Fokus su sjajni listovi, no i uz loše priloge poput Ćićevih i sličnih bajki. Sadašnji naraštaji povjesničara ispravljaju njezine promašaje i daju sve bolje rezultate (Ćošković, Ančić, Lovrenović,..), te nema potrjebe za njekim amaterima. Mir Harven (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, Mir. I don't agree with everything that Čić and Mileković say, but if she wrote such things as Čić says (commenting historical events from non-neutral point of view; such writings belong to football fan's expressing, not scientific). Ako je istina da je onako komentirala povijesne događaje u znanstvenim radovima - kao da je navijala za drugu stranu (???!!!), onda ju to teško kompromitira. I hope you know more about the accusations about her scientific frauds - forging of historical sources (in sources stood urborum, and she wrote that it said srborum). Kubura (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fokus and HS are fascistoid nationalist right-wing publications and are not reliable sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)