User talk:Maxforige77

Ustaše
Hi, regarding your recent edit. I agree with deleting the text in question (a quote allegedly made by Winston Churchill), it is not solely because the quote belongs in a different article, it is because the quote is NOT sourced -- the New York Times article reflink is from the Op-Ed page and is made in that context. I have been unable to find a reliable original source for the quote in question by Churchill (see ). Quis separabit? 02:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Yeah was unable to find other sources to back it up aside from that news article. Quriouse where it manifested from as it was brought by a Serbian activist. Thanks for the heads up. Maxforige77 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I'll remove it if I come across it in any other articles. I'll let you know if someone is POV/OR-pushing. Quis separabit?  02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do the same. All the best Maxforige77 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Generally speaking, yes - although I wouldn't necessarily frame it as "regime's treatment towards Croats", it's a great deal more complex than that. This is the issue of the so-called "Croatian question" in relation to the internal political dynamics. Also, I'm not sure a dedicated section would be the best solution - I've just made a quick scan of the article looking for key points (1939 Banovina, 6 January dictatorship, Radić assassination) and found these are covered rather lightly. So, I guess that what already is there needs to be expanded, while still not hijacking the article with excessive detail.

While the topic is not too controversial, it would be a good idea to discuss major changes beforehand, in the article's talk. GregorB (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True, It shouldn't go in to much detail as there is a spin-off article about it already. But there should be a somewhat expansion on the issue of police targeting individuals.etc. So that readers would be aware such problems did exist. I had a problem with an editor who made it an obstacle to do so beforehand. I don't have much experience so as to properly go in and expand upon it without overwhelming the article. Not sure if you would be interested or know any other editor on hear interested in doing so? I'm short on time at the moment. Maxforige77 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This happens to me too: sometimes I notice that an article is deficient in some respect, but I don't have time, capacity or inclination to fix it. (Quite frankly, Kingdom of Yugoslavia is all three: history is really not my forte, and the topic in hand is quite complex.) This is, of course, quite natural: it's almost always easier to notice a flaw than to fix it.
 * When this happens, I usually leave a comment in the article's talk. This is helpful to other editors; in particular, it tends to motivate those who happen to agree with your assessment and who will say to themselves: "Well there it is, I'm not the only one who noticed it". But it is also important if there are people who disagree, because they will say so - that's better than going into arguments and edit wars later.
 * My advice would be:
 * If there are minor issues that can be fixed right away, go ahead and to it.
 * For major stuff, leave a message in the article's talk and state what you feel are flaws in the article and how would you address them.
 * Ask in the talk page of any of the projects involved (WT:CRO or others) - people might provide more comments or opinions and with a bit of luck you might interest someone in actually doing it. GregorB (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm surpirsed there aren't more editors on here. Thanks for the tips. All the best. Just a quick question. You mentioned the treatment of Croats I brought up as more complicated than that. What did you mean? I'm still learning about this era and am curious about how Croats and other groups faired during that era. Just want to know how big if at all the topic is. Maxforige77 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes: not really a surplus of editors here, which is why articles generally stay the same for years, then change quickly once an editor gets interested and gets down to it.
 * There are numerous reasons for the complexity of the KoY and the resulting problems. It was created in the aftermath of WWI, in circumstances which were not equally fortunate for all sides. The new country was modeled on Serbia, which was a largely agrarian society with rather limited democratic traditions, to put it mildly. The more developed western parts of the country had little influence, and most things were run from Belgrade. Etc., more knowledgeable people could add a thing or two.
 * From the current Croatian perspective, it is easy to ascribe all problems in the KoY to nationalist conflict between the Croats and the Serbs. While obviously this is a major theme, it is not the whole story.
 * These kinds of articles are difficult to write, because it is not sufficient to list the facts, one has to put them into perspective, and that requires a degree of all-round knowledge which is rare. GregorB (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a reader looking at the page could end up with an incorrect or skewed assessment of the subject matter in that case. If there is possible information unaccounted for. I hope at least this article is for the most cover all the bases. Maxforige77 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Croatian Affairs in Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Actually, no, I think I already answered that on the relevant Talk page. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Was not sure you had seen what I wrote in that talk page. Will keep the discussion there. Sorry about that.Maxforige77 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)