Talk:Vladimir Beara

Removal of content sourced to Večernji list
A brief comment on this edit. Večernji list is a reliable source, as daily newspapers in Croatia go and, in particular, the author of the article in question (Zdravko Reić) is a prominent sports journalist.

To me, the problem with the statement - that is, that Beara always declared himself a Croat in censuses - is that is not clear how Reić got this information. He words it as if it's public knowledge, but census records are confidential, and the only person who knew the truth was Beara himself. In the absence of any sort of corroboration, this claim can quite legitimately be challenged.

On a side note: it is important to steer clear of hyperbole when assessing the sources, and argue in line with WP:RS. GregorB (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This sort of text reminds me of Kurir's style (maybe one level up on the quality scale). It is not RS as we do not know how he got that info (maybe he made it up or something like that, it is possible). Another note is that the author is trying to proclaim Beara to be an Orthodox Croat, which we can only attribute to one dark ideology.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure where my reply went but does the article state his ethnicity is Croat or nationality? Because ethnic Croats who are Orthodox Christians do exist, however is not every Serb in Croatia, Croatian by nationality? Similarly a Croat in Serbia would be a Catholic Serb by nationality? Not rhetorical questions I’m curious how these identities are usually described. Regardless I agree with you, the article doesn’t seem like a reliable source for the mentioned edit. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is historically no such thing as Orthodox Croats. I do not plan to give you a free history lession on Catholic Serbs (mostly a former category). Stop with the attempts at manipulation because we are not ignorant fools over here.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)
 * Manipulation? Of what? Considering your condoning of Ustashe insults in the Tesla talk page, I don’t think You come across as someone looking for a respectable discussion. Funny you don’t deny the existence of Serbs that are Catholic. These are minority groups but they do exist. Who is “we”?74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Get your facts straight. Serbs were not Orhotox Christians untill the time of Saint Sava and his brother Stefan the First-Crowned. He is the first-crowned not because there were no kings before him (like king Constantine Bodin) but because of massive drift towards Orthodoxy. Certain communities, such as Cavtat and Kotor remained loyal to their original belif. Croats never were Orthodox Christians, unless we can count Ustashe puppet church. The two can not be put on the same table because "Orthodox Croats" are nonexistent. If you want respect - you need to earn it, I am sorry. That will not be achieved with manipulation of historical facts, which is also directly insulting towards the victims of "people" who wanted to create "Orthodox Croats" by means of mass murder and conversion. That is off the point. This ref. is not RS, because it is a wild claim published in a local tabloid - without any shred of evidence.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the most insane altercation I’ve had on the internet as of yet. I was literally agreeing with your reply just asking about the journalist’s wording of “Orthodox Croat” and if he was referring to ethnicity or nationality. I really don’t need to earn respect from someone like yourself. Don’t worry bud. Accusing people falsely because you read to far into some kind of “deep meanings” is not my problem. Sorry. But I’m not gonna just take your attacks. I haven’t manipulated anything. You keep conflicting nationality/ethnicity. And I haven’t the slightest clue why you are flying off the rails. The notion that A Croat can only be Catholic or that a Serb can only be Orthodox Christian is absurd. There are Catholic minority groups in Greace and Ukraine of those respective ethnicities of those countries. Hungarians have multiple secta of Christianity. So how am I being insulting? One can be a Catholic Russian because that is their country but their ethnicity is Polish. And I never claimed that Croats as a whole are Orthodox or that Serbs as a whole are Catholic. Don’t even try to twist my words as being insulting to Serb victims of the Ustashe.  Why you are trying to antagonize me, I have no clue.  Oh you are good but not that good. Me acknowledging other religion groups is equivalent to comparing all croats to Ustashe and hurling it as a insult? You are not one to talk. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The meaning of ethnicity and nationality is not the same in North America and EU (with several variations). I am the one to talk because I actually know what I am talking about, for starters. Considering that we have 3 editors here saying that this is not RS - I shall remove it.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, . I agree that the source isn´t good enough to support the claim about how Beara declared himself in censuses. But you have yourself changed the statement to According to Split-based journalist Zdravko Reić, for which the source is quite adequate. --T*U (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a version which I came up with until we finish this discussion on the TP, nothing else. Sure, it is per NPOV but the source is still a tabloid and tabloids can not be used for something as important as this statement.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no personal knowledge about the newspaper, but from the Wikpedia article about it, I see nothing to indicate why it should be useless as a source. Furthermore,, according to you one of the 3 editors here saying that this is not RS actually says exactly the opposite of what you claim: Večernji list is a reliable source and adds that the author of the article in question (Zdravko Reić) is a prominent sports journalist. If you want to remove the current text by discrediting the source, you will have to take it to WP:RSN. --T*U (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have no personal knowledge (like GregorB and I do) than you should not be so quick with your comments, even more so if you decided to base your opinion based only on this Wiki article. It is a tabloid, national populism at its best. Reić is a well-known sports journalist but this particular statement is a wild claim and evoking his authority here is a textbook logical mistake. This is important, per Wikipedia: Reliable sources: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
 * Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keyword: to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made. In this case "the statement being made" is: "According to Split-based journalist Zdravko Reić, Beara declared himself as a Croat in the state censuses." The source is not used to support any claim about how Beara declared himself. It is (thanks to you) used to support the claim that Reić says he did declare as a Croat. You surely see the difference? --T*U (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is still not reliable. I see the difference. Vasi and you think that it should remain in the article, I think that is not per RS and not relevant in any way, and the same was more or less claimed by GregorB and IP editor. Therefore, we have no consensus for this new edit.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The version that GregorB commented on, said In censuses, Beara would always declare himself as a Croat (and I agree that the source is not strong enough to make that claim). Let us wait to see if will comment on the current version. Also pinging  and  for input, since they both have edited this page recently. --T*U (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point a couple of things out. It is interesting that a croatian source is questioned but stuff like serbian Mozzart sport is just fine. Furthermore,if the info given in Večernji list was not valid i would be able to list a dozen serbian newspapers blasting the same article. That stuff happens constantly in the ex-yu media.Finally i would again like to point out that Beara would't be able to stay in Split during the war if he didn't declare himself a Croat. Peace SerVasi (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * THey are not fine either. That is an additional opinion and not a RS.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadko, I would encourage you to use honest edit summaries. I find this edit summary in particular disingenuous. Večernji list is a major newspaper and you know it.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  20:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of readers is no proof of quality. It is the sort of newspaper with populist texts on the likes of Arkan and texts like "I cheated on my wife with the nanny, we had sex on the flour". This statement is not per basic rules, quoted in my response above. This is becoming to look more like we want it and you don't, which is not the case here.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, their website has a lifestyle section. If one trashy lifestyle section on the website was enough to summarily discredit the entirety of a publication, we'd have a whole lot less sources available for WP use than we do now.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You are quick to slander and throw around a lot of big words.Your comments kinda lose all credibility.But as soon as soneone makes a joke you report them.Your only weapon is slander and i don't expect anything else in response.Also issa crime. Peace SerVasi (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall, once again, point out that: 1) This addition is not per basic rules (explained and quoted above). 2) There is no consensus here on the TP.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear now that a small number of newbie editors just want to push the info. by any cost. This is what happens when admins do not do their job with reports.There can be no mention of consensus because you should get one for the addition of this tabloid gossip in the first place, not the other way around. Please do not spin, it will not pass.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A "small number" of newbie editors is still alot greater than 1 stubborn chetnik sympatizer who causes controversy on not only croatian but also bosniak and albanian articles.Also time spent on wiki doesn't matter if the issue is not techical. Would you claim to be more reliable than a publicaly aclaimed historian who signed up today? Peace SerVasi (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, this sort of comments should be placed on a forum, for angry teenagers most likely. See: Civility and Etiquette and No personal attacks. Any next personal attack will be reported. I encourage you or any other editor to report this content pushing to an admin or ask for outside opinion/s. I shall do this, because we have no RS and I am not the only editor to say the same. P.S: A small gift for Vaso - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Nikola_Tesla%27s_honorary_Chetnik_diploma.jpg cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only did you not deny my claims (that were backed up by your whitewashing of chetnik related articles) but you also went even further lol. You were also quick to call me an ustasha in the past which i strongly deny. Feel free to report i did nothing wrong.Seems like reporting is your only fall back option when u take an L. Peace SerVasi (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, just some quick comments: I really wish biographical articles would stay away from investigations of someone's ethnicity or background when that piece of information is not really relevant for the biography itself, and person's notability in particular. (That's just a wish - alas, I know it won't help here.) GregorB (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC) I am okay with the current version, but I still think that the content of this sort (from local tabloids) should be kept away from articles whenever possible. After all, I rephrased the quoted sentence per NPOV.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  01:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I stand by my earlier assessment of Večernji list as a reliable source, generally speaking, particularly considering the way its news reporting is quoted by other media (cf. ).
 * 2) I see no reason to doubt its reliability in this particular context.
 * 3) I still have some (non-guideline) doubts regarding the veracity of the statement in question, as already explained above.
 * 4) The rephrasing of the statement (According to Split-based journalist Zdravko Reić, etc.) makes it obviously true, and that's kind of phrasing I normally like (takes care of both the truth-value of the statement and gets rid of POV). Still: while one can gather all bits and pieces of reliably sourced but conflicting information, do we really need to make the article into a polemic or a blow-by-blow account of two opposing theories?