Talk:Tihomir Orešković (officer)

Rename?
, I'd suggest that the article be renamed to Tihomir Orešković (soldier). The current title breaks WP:POVNAMING (encroaching on WP:BLP in the process). Apart from that, "war criminal" is not the minimal disambiguating context (given the fact there are no other soldiers named Tihomir Orešković).

I believe this is currently the only article in Wikipedia that uses "war criminal" in a parenthetical disambiguation. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If the term "war criminal" is problematic, I am open to solutions -- "soldier", however, is not one of them, as that is not where his fame/infamy derives from. Also, it is an insult to soldiers. Quis separabit?  21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @GregorB: How about ICTY indictee or just criminal or convict? Quis separabit?  21:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure "soldier" is unacceptable? Click on these links and see what happens: Dragan Nikolić (war criminal), Heinz Schubert (war criminal). However, I stand corrected on my claim above: there's Hiroshi Abe (war criminal). GregorB (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) was changed to Dragan Nikolić (Serbian commander) by an indefinitely banned editor (User:Evlekis), so that may need reviewing (see ). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As far as Heinz Schubert, I have no problem calling him an SS officer. Unfortunately Orešković does not lend himself to terms like Nazi or Ustase (neo-Ustase in my opinion, but I know that doesn't count), so a mutually agreeable term will have to be found. Quis separabit?  21:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Tihomir Orešković (Gospić massacre) ?? Quis separabit?  21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Evlekis was apparently banned for sockpuppeting, so I don't see how this would taint his article move, especially given the fact that it was done back in May 2012 and has not been contested since.
 * A look at the prevailing practice among articles which have Category:People convicted of war crimes as a parent seems to confirm that:
 * Orešković and Abe are the only two people disambiguated as "war criminals"
 * Some are disambiguated as Nazis and SS personnel
 * Others, however, are largely disambiguated in neutral terms, as politicians, physicians, officers or soldiers.
 * I believe this is not a coincidence.
 * Tihomir Orešković (Gospić massacre) is much better NPOV-wise, but is rather unusual. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as Orešković and Abe -- sometimes people just don't fit into the usual categories. You can't fit a square peg in a circular hole, or something like that. That being said, having a "rather unusual" disambiguation may be necessary if something better can't be found. As I asked above, how about ICTY indictee or just criminal or convict? Quis separabit?  22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "ICTY indictee" seems a bit off (he was convicted and merely happens to be also indicted by the ICTY), "criminal" is the same as "war criminal", only more vague, and "convict" is again odd, as it suggests that he is notable for his stay in prison.
 * My argument about Orešković and Abe being exceptions is indeed potentially flawed, as they might be exceptions for a reason. Still, I don't see what that reason would be.
 * Let me also note that I would not object to Tihomir Orešković dab page identifying him as a war criminal/convicted of war crimes/involved in Gospić massacre or whatever, since dab pages need to help the reader reach the intended topic, and "aha, that's him alright" is the reaction we're looking for. Title disambiguation works in a slightly different way, though.
 * Until we get more input from other editors, let's keep it as it is, but failing that I'd favor a move to Tihomir Orešković (Gospić massacre) as a good compromise. GregorB (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Quis separabit?  14:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's nothing controversial about calling a soldier a soldier. I've moved the article, there's no point whatsoever in appearing to violate BLP policy for people who have already served prison time, the disambiguation marker is not a soapbox. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an insult (I don't care about "controversial") to call a war criminal a soldier because you don't happen to like the alternative disambiguations. To call him a soldier, especially when he was calling most of the shots, is a form of rehabilitation like he was "just following orders", which, by the way, ceased being a valid defense back in Nuremberg. Quis separabit?  15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But that's just your personal opinion AFAICT. It's standard practice to describe the generic occupations of people, and it's standard practice to use the most generic possible disambiguation marker first. If much worse people such as Adolf Eichmann or Maks Luburić are duly described with their ranks in their lead sections, this guy should not be an exception.
 * WP:NCDAB actually explicitly advises against proper nouns so this new version is even worse :)
 * On an unrelated note, can you please use the standard indentation style, just indenting by one colon at a time? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any other convicted war criminal with an article disambiguated as "Soldier" on Wikipedia? Quis separabit?  16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "On an unrelated note, can you please use the standard indentation style, just indenting by one colon at a time?" -- OK, sorry. Quis separabit?  16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any other convicted war criminal with an article disambiguated as "Soldier" on Wikipedia? Well, as far as neutral dabs go, I've found Ivan Tomašević (soldier), Donald Payne (British Army soldier), Emil Müller (German officer), August Schmidt (Luftwaffe), Rudolf Lehmann (military judge), Fritz Fischer (medical doctor), Hans Eisele (physician) and Robert Kajuga (militiaman). GregorB (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you have kind of proved my point -- only two have "soldier" in their disambiguations - Ivan Tomašević (soldier) and Donald Payne (British Army soldier). I fixed Tomašević, I don't know what to do with Payne, so I would leave Tihomir Orešković (Croatian Army) as is, unless you have a serious objection. Quis separabit?  21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon my butting in, but the disambiguation and article title policies say we go for conciseness where possible. By far the most common disambiguator used on en WP for people whose occupation was soldier is... soldier, regardless of whether a particular soldier was convicted of war crimes. Soldier is the most concise term that dab's this fellow from the other fellow by this name, so the dab should be (soldier), not (Croatian Army), which would only be necessary if there was another non-Croatian Army soldier to dab from. If there was an Australian soldier by the same name, he would be (Australian Army) and this fellow would be (Croatian Army). The dab is not an opportunity to try to make a point about his notability, which is determined independently of dab, the first sentence of the lead is where his notability is established. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, @Peacemaker67: actually you are not butting in -- I invited you on your talk page to join the colloquy. I am all for simplicity and succintness but if the soldier in question is an officer (a General, say), to label him or her merely as a soldier is misleading. The person would still be notable but to label a General simply as a "soldier" is misleading and inaccurate. Quis separabit?  22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was already commenting here when you posted on my talk page. (general) is also simple, and if the person was one, it is also commonly used, as is (officer) for those with more responsibility than a soldier. Anything more is usually unnecessary to dab him from other people of the same name, unless of course there is another soldier, officer or general of that name to dab from. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, @Peacemaker67 -- just to make sure I/we all understand you -- officer or general are acceptable disambiguations for higher-ranking soldiers. Is this right? Yours, Quis separabit?  22:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the accepted practice, and accords with policy. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, guys (@GregorB, @Joy) -- what say you? Perhaps we should reconnoiter. How does either Tihomir Orešković (general) or Tihomir Orešković (Croatian general) sound? Quis separabit?  00:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, (Croatian general) is unnecessarily long. There is no other general to disambiguate him from. The title should be Tihomir Orešković (general). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. So I went to look what kind of an officer he was, and all I could find is "Secretary of the Lika Crisis Headquarters", which doesn't sound like an army position. It took a few educated guesses to arrive at the Supreme Court verdict at http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=463 which says:
 * Da je optuženik Tihomir Orešković samo formalno bio tajnik tzv. operativnog štaba, a da je njegova stvarna uloga i moć bila mnogo značajnija, značajnija i od uloge i moći Ante Karića govori čitav niz provedenih dokaza.
 * translates into: "A whole series of presented evidence testifies that the defendant Tihomir Orešković was only formally a secretary of the so-called operational headquarters, yet that his real role and power was much more significant, more significant even than the role and power of Ante Karić."

Whereas Ante Karić was introduced as ... povjerenika Vlade Republike Hrvatske za koordinaciju kriznih štabova koje pokriva područje Policijske uprave Gospić - translating into 'the commissioner of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the coordination of crisis headquarters within the jurisdiction of the Gospić Police Directorate'.

So this Orešković was actually more of a political figure than a military figure? This presents a most annoying dilemma with regard to how to disambiguate him with the businessman-turned-Prime-Minister who we have disambiguated as "politician". I'm out of ideas at this point. Assuming the other Orešković forms a government and remains in power for any appreciable amount of time, we will undoubtedly end up making him the primary topic, but that doesn't resolve the issue of the disambiguation marker of this one, esp. because it will become that much more visible in the hatnote (per WP:TWODABS). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone can find an existing example of disambiguation being used for someone else who was effectively the head of military police?

BTW this is like an inverse of the case of Ante Pavelić (1869–1938). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph and NYT refer to him as a general though. This book says he was a retired general, which makes sense given the other references to him being a general. I still think the dab of (general) should be used. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Večernji list says Orešković was a colonel (pukovnik - hope I'm translating correctly) before he was stripped of his rank by President Josipović in 2010. GregorB (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The translation of pukovnik is colonel. That would make more sense in terms of him being subordinated in some way to Norac. Perhaps (officer) would be a better dab given the confusion over rank? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Orešković's military role seems to be have been fairly limited, and colonel (rather than general) makes sense. I'd agree with "(officer)". GregorB (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems acceptable. The verdict above does actually once mention ranks - ... predstavlja se kao komandant HV-a u Lici, kao načelnik operativnog stožera, dopukovnik, ... - translated "... identified himself as the commander of the Croatian Army in Lika, as head of the operational headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel, ...". It's doubtful anyone would confuse officer with CFO. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have to mention the irony of referring to a deposed officer as one, esp. in context of the Croatian word for officer - časnik, which is derived from the Croatian word meaning - honor. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)