Talk:Stop the War in Croatia

Vandalism and neutrality
An unregistered user with the IP adress "89.111.226.192" has added the template, and called the article (without any arguments) "pure nationalistic garbage." He also did similar when it comes to former Yugoslavia, nationalities and war. (See: Special:Contributions/89.111.226.192).

In which ways is this article nationalistic?

It is a fact that Croatia was under attack by Greater Serbian nationalists, and that Serbian radicalists like Milošević, tried to transform Yugoslavia into a Greater Serbia.

Milošević used a rigid control of the media to organize a propaganda campaign in which the thesis that Serbs were the victims and the need for readjust Yugoslavia to redress the alleged bias against Serbia. This then was then followed by Milošević's anti-bureaucratic revolution in which the governments of Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro were overthrown, which gave Milošević the dominating position of 4 votes out of 8 in Yugoslavia's collective presidency.

Slobodan Milošević had repeatedly stated that all Serbs should enjoy the right to be included in Serbia.

This stuff already happened before war, after the death of Marshall Tito. Croatia had to declare independence to save it's identity. And this song, with it's music video was the only way to show the world what is really happening, because as in the article mentioned, neither the world or Europe took Croatia's cry for help seriously, and war tensions were commented as a "Balkan payoff". MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * '[W]ithout any arguments'. False. I listed the blately biased and unattributed statements in my edit summary. Based on those, any rational person can see why they shouldn't be included in an encyclopedic article and that they're smothering the article with nationalism. The biggest issue here is the fact that the statements are unattributed and that there aren't any sources verifying anything. Now, because the summary wasn't enough for you, let's go through the article (it's quite short, so it won't take long).
 * 'The song has been listed among the 100 most listening songs on the Billboard top chart for weeks'. No reference confirming this.
 * 'With the song, Tomislav Ivčić presented the dramatic reality in Croatia in August 1991, which was hit by barbaric Greater Serbian aggression.' There's no source of him saying that, and even if he did, you would absolutely need to write it along the lines of, 'Tomislav Ivčić said that the song was meant to "present the dramatic reality in Croatia in August 1991, which was hit by barbaric Greater Serbian aggression".' If it's based on someone else's critique/review, WP:NPOV requires much different wording, i.e. 'Tomislav Ivčić presented the early days of the Croatian War of Independence' or directly attributing the opinion of a certain reviewer (John Smith from ABC Magazine described the song as 'something-something.')
 * 'In the early 1990s, neither the world or Europe took Croatia's cry for help seriously, and war tensions were commented as a "Balkan payoff".' No reference confirming the 'Balkan payoff' comment, and using phrases like 'cry for help' is absolutely not encyclopedic.
 * '44 world stations broadcast to a millions people the truth about war in Croatia.' [emphasis mine]. This type of language is quite troubling. You're implying that 'the world' had been getting a skewed and false view of what was happening in Croatia until a song was released that revolutionised how the war was perceived. That's ridiculous, and there's nothing confirming it because... well, because it's just ridiculous. For the record, I'm not denying that it might have had an impact, but it certainly wasn't as colossal as you made it out to be. There's no reliable source for 'Hundreds of news reports and cover pages followed' either, I should add.
 * 'The song launched by Tomislav Ivčić was supported by many famous celebrities like Phil Collins, demanding the suspension of the Greater Serbian aggression.' While it is true that Phil Collins supported it based on the 'TV kalendar' reference, 'the suspension of the Greater Serbian aggression' should be in quotes or should be reworded as 'demanding to end the war in Croatia', because that's the title of the song, after all.
 * The last sentence is referenced by a video by Croatia's very own state television and I don't think it's unreasonable to look for other unbiased sources that would verify the impact of the song. And while I'm discussing references, the second one doesn't work.
 * Anyway, based on all of that, I think the article needs a major rewrite which is why I'm restoring the tag and adding Refimprove. The rest of your comment doesn't have anything to do with this article in particular and doesn't address any of the problematic statements I included in my summary. What I would recommend, and I mean this sincerely, is for you to go and read up on how to write neutral encyclopedic articles and how to deal with attributing statements. --89.111.226.192 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * '44 world stations broadcast to a millions people the truth about war in Croatia.' [emphasis mine]. This type of language is quite troubling. You're implying that 'the world' had been getting a skewed and false view of what was happening in Croatia until a song was released that revolutionised how the war was perceived. That's ridiculous, and there's nothing confirming it because... well, because it's just ridiculous. For the record, I'm not denying that it might have had an impact, but it certainly wasn't as colossal as you made it out to be. There's no reliable source for 'Hundreds of news reports and cover pages followed' either, I should add.
 * 'The song launched by Tomislav Ivčić was supported by many famous celebrities like Phil Collins, demanding the suspension of the Greater Serbian aggression.' While it is true that Phil Collins supported it based on the 'TV kalendar' reference, 'the suspension of the Greater Serbian aggression' should be in quotes or should be reworded as 'demanding to end the war in Croatia', because that's the title of the song, after all.
 * The last sentence is referenced by a video by Croatia's very own state television and I don't think it's unreasonable to look for other unbiased sources that would verify the impact of the song. And while I'm discussing references, the second one doesn't work.
 * Anyway, based on all of that, I think the article needs a major rewrite which is why I'm restoring the tag and adding Refimprove. The rest of your comment doesn't have anything to do with this article in particular and doesn't address any of the problematic statements I included in my summary. What I would recommend, and I mean this sincerely, is for you to go and read up on how to write neutral encyclopedic articles and how to deal with attributing statements. --89.111.226.192 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is referenced by a video by Croatia's very own state television and I don't think it's unreasonable to look for other unbiased sources that would verify the impact of the song. And while I'm discussing references, the second one doesn't work.
 * Anyway, based on all of that, I think the article needs a major rewrite which is why I'm restoring the tag and adding Refimprove. The rest of your comment doesn't have anything to do with this article in particular and doesn't address any of the problematic statements I included in my summary. What I would recommend, and I mean this sincerely, is for you to go and read up on how to write neutral encyclopedic articles and how to deal with attributing statements. --89.111.226.192 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, based on all of that, I think the article needs a major rewrite which is why I'm restoring the tag and adding Refimprove. The rest of your comment doesn't have anything to do with this article in particular and doesn't address any of the problematic statements I included in my summary. What I would recommend, and I mean this sincerely, is for you to go and read up on how to write neutral encyclopedic articles and how to deal with attributing statements. --89.111.226.192 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me show you something...
First of all — You can't tell me that your quote >This "article" is pure nationalistic garbage.< is an argument.


 * "The biggest issue here is the fact that the statements are unattributed and that there aren't any sources verifying anything. Now, because the summary wasn't enough for you" —... citations are added


 * "There's no source of him saying that, and even if he did, you would absolutely need to write it along the lines" — done


 * "You're implying that 'the world' had been getting a skewed and false view of what was happening in Croatia until a song was released that revolutionised how the war was perceived. That's ridiculous, and there's nothing confirming it because... well, because it's just ridiculous." — Check my first section in this talk page. I also want to show you this propaganda leaflet from the Serb controlled JNA.


 * "'In the early 1990s, neither the world or Europe took Croatia's cry for help seriously, and war tensions were commented as a "Balkan payoff"" here we go, and go again ...

MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, you've added some citations, but you seem to be ignoring my points on how to actually write a neutral encyclopedic article and how to attribute a statement to somebody—i.e. '&thinsp;John Doe, in an interview with Jessica Jane / for The International Music Magazine, said that the song was "about this and that"&thinsp;' instead of saying 'The song was about this and that', as if it's a general and neutral statement (which isn't the case here, and that's why it needs to fixed). Therefore, I'm restoring the POV tag until the non-neutral statements are properly attributed to people who've said them or are reworded. P.S. The last linked video on YouTube isn't a credible source for such a broad statement as 'In the early 1990s, neither the world or Europe took Croatia's cry for help seriously, and war tensions were commented as a "Balkan payoff"&thinsp;', especially given the fact that it's just an interview with the aforementioned author, and I've already said that using state television as the only source is not the greatest idea when it comes to articles about Croatia's past. Please try to find third party sources—like the LA Times story taken from the Associated Press—or, if it's simply not possible to find any, try to rely less on existing Croatian sources when it comes to the terminology they use, and fix the rest of the stuff I mentioned. I'd gladly fix it myself, but you know how that old saying goes—give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. -- 89.111.226.192 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio
To the writer of this article: The next time you contribute to Wikipedia please don't translate text from HRT and copy it word-for-word to a page. Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)