Jump to content

Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Accused of war crimes

Since war crimes allegations are a topical point regarding contemporary Balkan leaders. I added the fact that ICTY prosecutors would have indicted Tudjman for war crimes if he had lived longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The ICTY prosecutor's statement that Tudjman would have been indicted if he had lived longer is verifyable as is the fact that the Gotovina indictment lists Tudjman as a participant in a "joint criminal enterprise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tudman did NOT commit any warcrimes! It was the Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epepeplko (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes, Croatian POV

Can you explain removal of each of these quotes. The links were provided, but quotes were just blanked. Also Croatian POV (stating Tujman's opinion as facts, frequent references to pan-Serbian greater Serbia etc, as it were facts and not Croatian POV etc. do not fit into NPOV policies).

NDH was not just some Nazi puppet state, but an expression of a thousand-year will of Croatian people.

— Franjo Tuđman

There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it. But we have concluded that only with war we can get independence for Croatia. This is why we have negotiated while at the same time we formed armed troops. ("Rata ne bi bilo da ga Hrvatska nije željela. Ali mi smo procijenili da samo ratom možemo izboriti samostalnost Hrvatske. Zbog toga smo vodili pregovore i iza tih pregovora smo formirali svoje oružane snage.) Tudjman on Jelacic square, 24th of May 1992. [1]

— Franjo Tuđman

Dont worry about weather there are 3% or 5% of Serbs - the important thing is that there will never be 12% ever again Tudjman to the veterans of Croatian secession war.

— Franjo Tuđman

Franjo Tuđman

The estimated loss of up to six million dead is founded too much on both emotional, biased testimonies and on exaggerated data in the postwar reckonings of war crimes and on the squaring of accounts with the defeated.

— Franjo Tuđman

I will finish what Pavelic has started. 250,000 Serbs can start packing their suitcases!

— reportedly said to Edo Murtic.

[2]

Mylan 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Here is Mylan's last version of the quotes that are subject to reverting. Mir Harven et al. delete everything except the initial note and the first two quotes. The presense of a third quote ("There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it.") in the "non-disputed" group is something that Mylan recently started doing, and IMO it is not justified, because that quote is indeed disputed (and used to be in the disputed group). For comments on the [insufficient] sources, see thread "Quotes, Croatian POV".

  • "There seems to be a general consensus that Tuđman has made the following statements (the parts typed in bold are often quoted alone):

Since many government-paid propagandists insinuate we (HDZ/CDU) are in fact agents of UDBA and KOS (Yugoslav political police), and point out that many of our founding members have Serbian and Jewish wives, I am very happy that my wife is neither Serbian nor Jewish, so they cannot question my credentials with regard to that matter.

— Franjo Tuđman

[about the Holocaust] The estimated loss of up to six million dead is founded too much on both emotional, biased testimonies and on exaggerated data in the postwar reckonings of war crimes and on the squaring of accounts with the defeated.

— Franjo Tuđman

There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it. But we have concluded that only with war we can get independence for Croatia. This is why we have negotiated while at the same time we secretly formed armed troops. Tuđman on Jelacic square, 24th of May 1992. [3]

— Franjo Tuđman
  • Actually, no. The problem is that little confirms it either. The source given here is a recent anti-Tudjman article. The first mentioning that I know of is at the Milosevic trial, in a somewhat dubious situation (translated from a Dutch or English voicecover, and omitted by the interpreters, so that Milosevic himself translates it). Somebody asked for confirmation on a Croatian forum and no-one remembered having heard it, even though they didn't rule out that it could have been said. I suspect that the source of our source is the trial. --85.187.44.131 17:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the key part of the quote There would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it should be bold, since it is that part that is most frequently quoted. It seems that the rest was provided as a context. In original, this sentence is Rata ne bi bilo da ga Hrvatska nije zeljela, and you can see that there are plenty of sources on it, not only serbian, but Croatian too (main Croatian newspapers etc. quote it without any hint of controversy) google.co.uk search Maayaa 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Croatian newspapers and most of the links in general are just reporting what Milosevic said at the trial, without trying to comment on anything, so the absence of a controversy means nothing. The few other mentionings are of a later date, when I suppose the quotation had gained currency among patriotic Serbs. On at least three forums, there were people referring to that statement, but no Croat remembered having heard it, many doubted its authenticity (forum.hr, b92.net. The reaction was typically like this (p221.ezboard.com - 31k):
  • Milosevic did say it at the trial:
Page 32217
15 As Jovic said in his book which was quoted here, they were

16 determined to follow this through even though at the cost of incidents and

17 conflicts.

18 Let me remind you from Tudjman's great speech, which was quoted

19 here when he said there would have been no war had Croatia not wanted it,

20 without such a war, no one would have been able to expel half a million

21 Serbs from territories which they had inhabited for centuries, and who at

22 the time of Croatian secession were not asking for a state but only for

23 autonomy and who, up to that point according to the Croatian constitution,

24 were a constituent people in Croatia because Croatia had been defined as a

25 state of the Croatian people, the Serbian people, and others, and this was

Page 32218

1 later deleted.

Spoken on 1 Tuesday, 31 August 2004 during the ,"[Defence Opening Statement]" UN ICTY -- Esemono 12:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah i like this

"The remaining quotes are regularly attributed to Tuđman by his critics to prove his supposed historical guilt, but their authenticity is disputed.:

So, we will let east in peace, and we have to solve south and north (UNPA zone). Solve, but in what way? That is the topic of this discussion. To hit the Serbs so hard that they will disappear forever, and that whatever we don't occupy immediately capitulates in a few days.

(Some defenders of Tuđman claim that the whole Brioni transcript was a hoax, made up by Mesic controlled militia in order to discredit Tudjman and show that he planned the cleansing of the Krajina Serbs).

NDH was not just some Nazi puppet state, but an expression of a thousand-year will of Croatian people.

— Franjo Tuđman

Don't worry about whether there are 3% or 5% of Serbs - the important thing is that there will never be 12% ever again

— Franjo Tuđman to the veterans of Croatian secession war.

I will finish what Pavelic has started. 250,000 Serbs can start packing their suitcases!

— reportedly said to Edo Murtic, according to a Serbian defense witness at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, claiming to be citing a Croatian newspaper. [4]

--85.187.44.131 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that unsuppored, disuputed and unreliable quotes should no be used as basis for wiki articles. All IP address changes should be blocked, especially for articles which have a high level of disputation. The edits by the person(s) behind the IP address, have no intention in furthering the quality or readability of the article in question. FrontLine 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to be informed about the nature of the discussion here. At all. If I had wanted the quotes to be on the page, they would be there right now. I'm also the only one who has actually taken the pains to argue in detail against the quotes. If you are interested in what my position has been, please read this talk page and the article history. --85.187.44.131 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Tuđman as president part

1. there are two statements, "backed" by Croatian sensationalist press (Nacional etc.): a) that Tuđman's daughter was implicated in a criminal activity (financial sort); b) that his grabdson somehow "escaped" from Croatia in order- the text implies- to avoid consequences of an alleged financial misconduct. As for Tuđman's daughter, the article is about Franjo Tuđman- not his extended family. The legal "presentation" is, in this matter, a poor show- Tuđman has been dead since 1999. & his daughter prosecuted in 2007. There is a grave suspicion about the political misuse of the whole legal matter at all (where had been Croatian attorneys from 2000. to 2007. ?). Moreover, if we take this legal proceeding "as is", it remains that: 1) this is about Tuđman's daughter, not about him. His property is acquired completely legally. 2) there is no evidence that Nevenka Tuđman's purportedly dubious financial transactions are connected or helped by her father. Franjo Tuđman is in no way (for instance in the prosecutor's or judge's declarations) implicated in this failed trial. As for his grandson, he (a grandson) went bankrupt, largely, due to constant media harrassment (Nacional among other tabloid trash) & switched his business opeartions to the land of his father, Serbia. I don't care about his (Dejan Košutić's) financial transactions, but would again like to stress- there is no shred of evidence his financial succes (and subsequent failure) have had anything with the breach of the law. Whatever tabloid press harps on.

2. the second thing is Tuđman's popularity. I've given the sources, but due to fluctuating nature of electronic media, it's hard to spot the TV show and public opinion polls & bracket them in time. I toned down the figures- which are between 65% and 90% (these are reliable figures from Denis Latin's show & Puls agency)- and will try to locate the sources if they are still existing on the Web. But, one thing has to be clear: Croatian Television (HRT), Večernji list,..etc. are on one scale of information reliability, while the papers like "Nacional" or "Feral" are unreliable sensationalist junk. A wiki article should clearly make the distinction between yellow journalism and regular media. Mir Harven 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 1)Who are you to tell what newspaper is junk or not ? For you everybody which write truth about Franjo tuđman presidency write junk. You are attacking Feral (to which Franjo Tudman in his time has given special tax to pay) and Nacional but only 1 source is from Nacional ? What newspaper for you is writing truth ?
  • 2)Maybe you will even tell that Croatia court is junk because he has find that Nevenka Tuđman has used her influance in time of her father presidency to give job for server stations to person for provision. There is many other things for which she is under suspicion but I speak only for which she is guilty before court ! All in all Nevenka Tuđman has been Croatia version of Boris Jelcin daughter.
  • 3)In time of Franjo Tuđman presidency his grandson has been speaking in newspaper that his greatest problem is his grandfather because everybody thinks that he is success because of him

. When his father has died ......

  • 4) Smiljko Sokol president of highest court in Croatia has been saying short after Franjo Tuđman death that his property has not been acquired completely legally and that his decision in time of his presidency has been given under pressure.
  • 4)For end tell me which honest president which in democracy is giving position chief of secret service to his son ?

There is no point in speaking with somebody who think that Croatia economy today has been better in 1999 (end of Franjo Tuđman rule) of 1989 when GDP has been 30 % greater. Rjecina 8:18, 22 March 2007 (CET)

Franjo is a Croatian Hero. Glory to his name and never forget the Heroes that have given their lives for Croatia since the first Croat was born!!!!!

Bad English

Would someone correct the English in this article, since it is really bad! (take a look at the "family"-section -> ) Adminix 20:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who wanted the war

  • Croatia wanted independence.
  • Serbian leaders were not permitting Croatia to become independent.
  • Serbian leaders were threatining with war in case of Croatian independence.
  • Croatia declared independence.
  • Serbian army invaded Croatia

Conclusion:Croatia had to start war against them!

Another example:

  • Nazi Germany wanted the territory of Danzig
  • Poland did not wanted to give their territory
  • Nazi Germany attacked Poland
  • Poland had two choices:to have war or to extinct

Conclusion:Poland started war against Nazi Germany!

--Anto (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

War Crimes

I changed the "would" back to "may", simply because it's a speculation that we cannot prove based on the evidence available. If there is a source that specifically says that he was going to be charged, then we can include that. But saying there is enough evidence is not the same thing. Besides, there is no telling what political pressures might have come into play to prevent his going on trial. Also, I did a lot of copyediting last night. I didn't finish the last two sections, so if someone else wants to take a crack at it feel free! Dchall1 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus}}, discussion started over a month ago. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Franjo Tuđman → Franjo Tudjman — Orthography overwhelmingly used in reliable sources in English. Following the eventual closure of long-running move discussion at Novak Djokovic, it seems timely to propose this move. Firstly, the issues are essentially the same (English language sources overwhelmingly use the "dj" digraph when writing both of these names, not the D-with-stroke letter of Gaj's Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet -- not to be confused with any other D-with-stroke characters, of course), and secondly, because the spelling used here (and at that point, not being proposed for renaming) was cited as an example of alleged double-standards. So, in theory, this should make everyone happy, right? </grim irony> —Alai (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Highlights of sources using Tudjman

Subject's Own Works

References

Media

Offical

Highlights of sources using Tuđman

Media

  • B.92 (This is a Serbian media organization with an English service.)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • From WP:RM, Support: Per the same justifications for moving the Djokovic article; English usage is the deciding factor in how we name our articles; "Tudjman" is by far more common. Should be an open and shut case. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That is simply not the man's name, and the letter "đ" (in English it would be pronounced as the letter "j") is always used on Wiki to spell the names of Croatian names which need it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the discussion revolves around what is verifiable, not what is necessarily the most correct. If you look at the sources for this article, all of the English language sources (i.e., the only relevant ones to this discussion) use "dj", not "đ". Per the naming conventions, we name articles based on prevalent English usage, in this case, it is clearly in favor of "dj". Also, arguments analogous to WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't valid; just because other articles don't follow the clear naming guidelines doesn't mean this article has a free pass to do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Direktor, please tell me which these other Croatian names that Gaj's script is "always" used on, regardless of English-language usage, and contrary to the naming conventions, and I'll be glad to propose those for similar moves. As I said, that's exactly the same "argument" that was deployed at Novak Djokovic, using this article as such a "precedent". If such Anglicisation offends you, and you feel there's an objective case for not using it, write to the NYT, the BBC, etc, and tell them to "correct" their usage, and WP will inevitably follow. Alai (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, take a look at the sources used in this very article; the English language ones prefer "dj" overwhelmingly. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't vote twice!
  • Don't call my statement emotional falsehoods! I could say for yours too!
  • Your opinion is just your opinion! Not a proof!
  • Word "vagina" is much frequently spelled as pussy! Shall we use that "spelling"? . I remind you that in English there is no standard for spelling the foreign names. So , Croatian names are spelled on Croatian standard!
--Anto (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not citing our opinion, we're citing common English usage, as demonstrated by the NYT, US State Dept., the British Foreign Ministry, Britannica, and so on. And no, "vagina" and "pussy" are two totally different words, so that example isn't valid. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not discussion how the Tuđman is spelled in anglophone world!. This is discussion should it be titled Tudjman just because it is used English resources? I say NO! As much as other South Slavic user will!

Or Spanish, German etc. --Anto (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is very much a discussion about how Tudjman is spelled in the English-speaking world. WP:NC (an official policy) states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". As we have demonstrated, the majority of English speakers would recognize Tudjman over Tuđman. You're arguing agaist established guidelines and policy, which isn't really a sustainable position. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And I would keep asking for a proof that this is established policy. It is disputed issue in guidelines and for every article without diacritics, there are 100 of them with diacritics. So I would say that Tuđman is according to established policy on Wikipedia.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing policy with practice. We have repeatedly linked to established policies and guidelines, such asWP:NC and WP:UE. That these policies are not followed in other articles is not justification for this article to do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; we don't just vote on an issue. If you don't have a legitimate argument, your opposition to the move will be ignored. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew that, but I didn't have time to explain. As in the case of Đoković, I prefer accuracy over common usage. Simple. -- Bojan  17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you are !voting against established practice and policy; and you are !voting for the (inaccurate) claim that Tuđman is usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What established practise and policy? -- Bojan  19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:Use English, and WP:NAME#Use English words Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This rule apply to cities like Belgrade (Serbian Beograd), Vienna (German Wien), Rome (Italian Roma). Tuđman is only correct title. -- Bojan  20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But, Đoković and Tuđman cannot be compared with Columbus.His original name is Cristoforo Colombo (no diactitics) I don't know how it entered into English language, but it is not our concern. And why mentioned England. Perhaps we should rename Croatia to hr:Hrvatska, Germany to de:Deutschland? I wrote on previous discusion about Đoković that commons English usage is made for medieval kings/popes/explorers... -- Bojan  16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here isanother evidence: [6]. If you type the names of these people without diacritics . I can assure you that you can find much more resources in English than in case with them!! Try it at Google ,Yahoo, MSN ,Lycos, Altavista or any other web-search engine.
I am not sure if native English speakers will be able to read Franj Tudjman properly! Should we then rename it into Frunyo Tudjman ???
Using GooGle in a seek for English results:
Tomas Luceno : [7]: 76300 results!
Tomás Luceño[8]: 5880 results!

Do I need to say more??

--Anto (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose -the original names should be inserted. Like in many cases before.

[9] , [10] , [11] , [12] --Anto (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose I have always seen "Franjo Tuđman" in English language sources such as online newspapers. Húsönd 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if you posted links to this evidence, especially if it is online, so that others may evaluate your statement.Erudy (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This one, for instance, has some of the best coverage of anything happening in the Balkans. Húsönd 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's all well and good, but you will probably have to provide more sources than that, if you're going to contradict what Britannica, the NYT, the US State Department, the United Nations, and the British Foreign Ministry have to say on the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Hah! Sources have no hierarchies, either they're valid or not. And frankly, I prefer to use mine as a source for the Balkans than those you mentioned. And when it comes to sources, I'm quite picky. Húsönd 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Is B92's use of 'Tuđman' perhaps related to the fact that they are "a radio and television station in Belgrade, Serbia"? 80.135.108.37 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Might be, yes. After all, unlike people from other lands who'd never heard the name of the Croatian president (this discussion might is likely to be the first time for some), Serbs next door are aware of how to write it right. Húsönd 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I think sources do have hierarchies. For instance, a blog post would not be as authoritative as Britannica. An article by a tabloid would not be as authoritative as one by the London Times. And so forth. In fact, admitting such "less authoritative" sources on an equal playing field as more authoritative ones would likely tilt the scales even more decisively in favor of Tudjman, as they are even less likely to use "Tuđman". Personally, I don't think that the use of Tuđman by one Serbian based media organization outweighs the massive evidence on the other side. However, I appreciate that you are at least attempting to establish an evidential basis for your claims, in contrast to many of those who have also opposed this proposal. I will add your citation to the list of evidence at the top.Erudy (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                • We're not talking about blogs (which aren't even accepted as sources) nor tabloids, B92 is a renowned, trustworthy source. What would you do if the US State Department wrote Tuđman and Britannica wrote "Tudjman"? Flip a coin? Or are there hierarchies among those as well? Sorry, but that argument makes little sense to me. This is a matter of accuracy of the Croatian president's name, and there is no greater accuracy than the name written with the diacritics. After all, the Croatian language uses the Latin alphabet, just like English. The diacritics are perfectly acceptable and welcome. Húsönd 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • But when they don't disagree, we don't have to flip a coin. (If good sources split evenly, our guidance would indeed be to use local usage as a tie-breaker.) Demonstrate that the good sources split, as the Croatian patriots have failed to do, and I will change my !vote. If they don't. there is no greater accuracy than the name written with the diacritics is a lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • I don't have to go fetch more sources simply because you think it's the majority that counts. How many times do I have to tell you that we have antagonistic views on this matter and is therefore futile for you to express your positions as if they were absolute truth? I even wonder if you contemplate the possibility that others may have different opinions without being naturally stupid people. Húsönd 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • Husond declines to admit that he is part of one of the fringes on this issue: the always use diacritics movement, in which he stands out by writing otherwise sound English and not engaging in national self-pity, as below; there is the other, larger, minority view that they should never be used. These two views cancel. Most Wikipedians adhere to WP:UE: use them when English usually does. That's why it's a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • I agree that the people who use only ASCII are a minority; this is why our guideline does not support them.
                      • So are those who would use diacritics whether or not, as here, they are how his surname is usually spelled in English. This is the English Wikipedia; it should communicate in English, and avoid Tuđman as it should avoid absolutely opposite of what. Neither is English; both are barriers to comprehension. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                        • As I say below, the prevalent spelling is the result of an error, since most non-Croatian newspapers are much too lazy to write non-ASCII characters. Should we follow that error? Admiral Norton (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments of nom and Pmanderson|Septentrionalis. There is a great imbalance in favor of the Anglicised version of his name in English language sources. Zuiver jo (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for move. I am often in favour of local spelling, but in this case, English usage is clear and overwhelming. This is a discussion that should be based on wp policies, not on personal preferences. I would like to state that there is a policy WP:UE, which states that wp should follow general usage of English language publication. Sources for this are given by the nominator. There are no policies WP:Consult foreign dictionaries or WP:repair false editorial decisions by mass media or WP:use the name in the passport. All opposers should rethink their vote in light of the presence or absence of these policies Jasy jatere (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As I have pointed here and on other places:there is no rule which says that there must be used strictly English spelling. As for Croatian so for Spanish,french, portugues and all other names. General usage of English language publication is not used in many other examples for accuracy reasons. Why should here?--Anto (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose. The usage of dj has arisen because of the inability to write đ. Wikipedia engine allows the use of Croatian characters with diacritics, so đ is the logical solution! Admiral Norton (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Admiral Norton, even though he opposes. Why dj has arisen is not relevant. As long as it has risen, Wikipedia should not be the instigator of change, it should be a reflection of current usage. Compulsions70 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Franjo Tuđman is personal name. There are diacritics down there, not because of aesthetics. It should be used for correct writing of names (especially personal) in the first place. Hundreds of names are already written by diacritics, what's problem with this one? An argument for dj because of common English usage and the number of hits in Google is irrelevant. This is encyclopedia, not journalistic article or forum online, it should give accurate information, it is proposed to be educative. There is redirection tool for those who are typing dj. Ie Goran Ivanišević (IPA: [ˈɡɔran ˈiʋaniːʃɛʋitɕ] - this is encylopedical! Google (English): Ivanisevic 95.500; Ivanišević 27.900; Ivanishevich 40. There's no need for some special explanation why 1st number is predominant. The tablatures without specific diacritics. But we have it. A guy is not Ivanishevich, that's all. And this one is not Tudjman. Andreas Möller is not Andreas Moller and Nwankwo Kanu is not Anwoankwoah Kanoo. We are writting their personal names properly because of respect for their persons and their culture. Must we change a few thousands of already edited ić's to ich's now? This is 21st century. All those, who want more American natives called Indians just because somebody thought it was India, can simply turn off their computers, take off their clothes, find some bone of a dead cow and howl that well known music from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. No offense please, just joking. Zenanarh (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support English usage. We have Michael Collins rather than Mícheál Ó Coileáin, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha rather than Симеон Сакскобургготски, and Muhammad rather than أبو القاسم محمّد . This is the english-language wikipedia: articles and titles should be in english. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Absurd argument, "Michael Collins" is under that name per common usage in the English language. "Симеон Сакскобургготски" and "أبو القاسم محمّد" aren't even in the Latin alphabet. The issue here is the use or not of the diacritic. Húsönd 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The argument is what the title of the article should be and you yourself have just admitted (for Michael Collins) that the article should be "per common usage in the English language", i.e. Tudjman. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That is simply not correct. His real name was Michael Collins, not Mícheál Ó Coileáin. That's why this article was named like that. If it was the other way, then Wikipedia would follow naming convention for Irish names that says use diacritics! --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I quoted Husond verbatim. DrKiernan (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
            • So indeed. What I meant was that we have "Michael Collins" and not "Mícheál Ó Coileáin" because the former is the most commonly used name in the English language. As for "Tuđman" versus "Tudjman", it's not a matter of which name is the most common, but a matter of how should this most common name be spelt. Húsönd 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - by convention, we use diacritics in Latin-alphabet language personal names unless there's a great reason not to. In this case, there isn't. Tuđman is accurate and it's not hard to read or recognise (especially when combined with "Franjo"). The other sources cited are very sparing in their use of diacritics: an é here, an ü there, but not much more. (Indeed, much of the English-language press referred to "Gerhard Schroeder".) Here, we have a commitment to using English (not that Tudjman is particularly more "English" than Tuđman), but we also have a more international perspective and dedication to accuracy through native-language spelling, and I think the current title strikes a suitable balance between those demands. Biruitorul (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
hr:Engleska, sr:Енглеска, and sh:Engleska are none of them the "original spelling" of England. Do the oppose !voters wish to move those articles, or is this a double standard? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal names can't be translated! besides there many examples of Spanish , Italian and Portugues names used with diacritics . Why this one should be an example?? The IPA pronounciation is mentioned on the to of the article as well as anglicized version (Tudjman )

Tuđman is written in all wikipedian articles that use latin script. German, Dutch, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Norwegian, Finnish etc.

Here are couple examples of German articles spelling Tudjman . here here here etc.. But on de.wiki is Tuđman . As it should be!

Why "Tuđman " appeared ?? Only reason for existing the Tudjman - spelling is lack of knowledge about Croatian ortography . Or simply laziness due the fact that there are no diacritics in English!

There are many examples of using the diacritics in Wikipedia .Just take a look at Spanish in this example!

I am sure that there English-language resources about these persons. I am quite sure that they don't use diacritics!

About Novak Đoković...It should be Đoković.

I will be the first one who will support renaming!

--Anto (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out something you just stated:
"Or simply laziness due the fact that there are no diacritics in English!"
Is this not the English wikipedia? Shouldn't English usage be what determines how our pages should be named? As for the other Wikis, I believe there is a standing policy to not cite ourselves, as we're not a WP:RS. We're also only discussing English usage, not German, or any other language. As for the usage of accent marks in Spanish names, that may be because they are used in English language sources. No one here is saying "diacritics can never be used", we are saying "they can only be used when English usage favors them". This is clearly not one of those cases. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat : reason for existing the Tudjman - spelling is lack of knowledge about Croatian ortography !!!

Some guys don't have an option to use Croatian keyboard on their PCs. at least they did not have it in past-before Unicode and MS Multilanguage support and all other things which enable it. In that time was usage only of (U.S.) English keyboard with no any diacritics. In English speaking area writers did not want to bother themselves with such "triffles". We know that even today foreign student don't get their diplomas properly spelled. They can not get documents properly spelled. But, this is not USA, UK,Australia neither any English speaking country .This is internet that belongs to everybody.Not just to English speakers!

BTW, the frequency of usage is not some sort of criteria. That's just thematter of mass-psychology. Which ot relevant at all!

--Anto (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on why diacritics are not used in English language sources are not relevant. The only relevant point is that they are not used in this instance. Yes, the internet is not just for English speakers; hence, the reason there is a Serbian Wikipedia, a Romanian Wikipedia, and so forth. This, however, is the English Wikipedia, which represents English usage. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this picture:

Why are all these symbols there for??

Why Wikipedia programmers made all these options? For fun?-certainly not! --Anto (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That the characters exist doesn't mean that they should be used in the article's title. No one is saying that the "đ" should be completely omitted, just that the common English transliteration should be given preference for the title. Please, argue based on policy and sources, not based on analogues to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be the problem with Tuđman at all?

The second URL is definitely easier to memorize . But... don't we have all CTRL + A (Select all ) , CTRL+C (Copy) , CTRL+V (Paste) and other useful commands that make our typing easier.

Much complicated situation is with languages that do not use latin script. Article about Tuđman in Russian has the following (much more complicated ) URL

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%2C_%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BE

How we are then supposed to transl(iter)ate it ?? --Anto (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is not what's easier for us, it's what's easier for the readers, who likely haven't been to this article before, so they can't have bookmarked the url. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For Croatian (or generally South Slavic) readers Tuđman is easier. There is a redirection Tudjman =-->Tuđman

So, foreigners do not have problems seeking for Tudjman.

--Anto (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia, however, is intended for general readers of English, who will recognize Tudjman; many of them have never seen Tuđman, and will not recognize it.
English language has more non-native than native speakers. That's the essence. So the person that speaks English as a second language wonn't be always reading "Tuđman" . "Tudjman" will probably be read as "Tuđman" by a native speakers.But ex. French and Spanish speakers will not pronounce it properly simply because there's o sound "đ" in their language.

--Anto (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • In short, welcome to the English-speaking world, where personal names are routinely translated: Alexander I of Yugoslavia, not Aleksandar, and Karadjordjevic, or even Karageorgevich, not Karađorđević; Henry IV of France, not Henri (I see Croatian uses Henrik); Louis Kossuth, not Lajos; Henry Fuseli, not Heinrich Füssli. We are intended and designed to communicate with that world, and this piece of patriotism interferes with that primary purpose. Those who wish to see only their own spelling, and not the barbarous inventions of outlanders, should confine themselves to their own WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a tradition for translation of foreign names (Luj-Luigi-Louise-Ludwig etc.) . That was the practice until last 100 years. The remaining of that tradition is still today personal names of the rulers.

Another exmaple: Palaiologos used instead of anglicized Palaeologus [13] , [14]

Anyway even if is written "Tudjman" I am not sure whether you are able to read it properly. Are you? Or better transliteration would be :Thugman, Thugyman, Tugyman,Toogymun ... ??

P.S. I did not say that I want to see only Croatian spelling! I did not require that. Neither anybody of us! . So, don't forge my words!

At the beginning of the article is clearly written :

  • The title of this article contains the character Đ. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Franjo Tudjman.
  • In English, his surname is usually spelled Tudjman.

--Anto (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If we use Beeijing instead of Peking... --Anto (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If we shall use "Tudjman" hy do we have this template?

" Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as"

  • letter "Đ" is available in title of the article. It is obvious due the wiki software
  • Is the letter "Đ" undesired?? Well , I don't if any letter or script would undesired... or ... why would some diacritics would be desireable and others not?

There is no Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Finnish). But Finnish spelling is respected:diacritcs are used! So the Croatian should be. At least until we get Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Croatian) --Anto (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is reply to DrKiernan because he provided totaly irellevant arguments. First, أبو القاسم محمّد (Muhammad) is not written in Latin alphabet! The same thing goes for Симеон Сакскобургготски (Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). And about Michael Collins. That was the man's original name, not the Irish version! --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Jesus's personal name was Yeshua. Buddha's personal name was Siddhartta Gautama. Articles are at their common english-usage not the personal names of their subjects. DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting ??

There is no need for this voting because editors are loosing time for nothing. In support of this statement I will use articles Slobodan Milošević and Zoran Đinđić. I am sure that somebody will demand during 2008 that names of this articles change and we will have similar voting. About this and many other similar South Slavic names we need decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or something similar. Because of this reason I will not vote. --Rjecina (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If English usage supports keeping those articles at their present titles, no one here will object to it. If not, then perhaps there will be similar proposals. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So far, we have only your proposal about Novak Đoković.

--Anto (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my proposal, I became involved in it (as well as this one) because there was a listing at WP:RM, where I frequently work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed no need for this; no evidence has been presented that Tudjman is not English usage. This is not a vote; m:Voting is evil; this is a comparison of reasons to change and not to change. None of the reasons not to change comply with our policies; all of them would justify a move of the Croatian article to hr:England, which no-one, including me, would wish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rjecina, Wiki should devealop some kind of standard for this or the result will be confusion. We can't have some names written one way and others the other. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading WP:UE I have started to support change of name but if we look section dispute issues then we are having problems because of this statement:"There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð."
I do not see reason why wikipedia (or users) is having disagreement with German, Icelandic and Faroese names but South Slavic names need to be writen without characters š,č,ć,ž,đ ?
Maybe my comments is mistake made because of my poor english but I will like to recieve answer.
In my thinking we still need to have Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee decision so that we can change names of all articles in very short time period. This is only solution. --Rjecina (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rjecina as well. Wiki should develop a standard rule about this issue, so this same argument wont be argued again, whether we are talking about Tuđman or Đokovic or Đinđić.--Jesuislafete (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And we do. Let's follow it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What we mean is that people won't understand why his name is Tudjman, while Đokovic or Đinđić have that strange đ rune in the place of "dj". Confusion will arise in the mind of the innocents stumbling upon these articles (provided they give a rat's a.., of course;). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Djokovic is normally anglicized; but there are Croatian names which are not. This "confusion", if anybody does care, is an endemic hazard in reading English prose about Eastern Europe; other sources vary too. Anyone fluent in Croatian (and many who are not) should understand that these are the same sound; the rest should see the names they will be familiar with and not have to worry about it. (We should indeed use Tudjman on other articles, both to avoid cross-article confusion and to make the other articles clear to monoglots; but there's no rush. Any time before publication will be fine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(Croatia's not in Eastern, but in Central and Southern Europe.) I'm still against "dj", but I suppose we should stick to Wiki policy. Its still a huge job getting everything standardized. Personally, I can't see what's the big deal either way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

I cannot say that producing this article is much to be proud of; there are virtually no sources before the edit-warred sections on Tudjman's controversies; and while there is an effort to include multiple POV's, most of it is in the "Some say...others say" style which usually indicates that both the some and the others are Wikipedia editors. Despite appearances, we are not a blog.

Tudjman's 1957 book was used by generations of Yugoslav officers. Yeah, right. The entire paragraph is a type specimen of OR argumentation, but this is nonsense; how many generations were there between 1957 and 1992 anyway? (Or is this claiming that Tudjman's book continued be used under Milosevic? Now that really requires a source....extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural racism

As much as I can see , German ,Spanish French ,Portuguese , even Czech name spelled correctly. But some "genious" guys are trying to be "bigger catholics than Pope himself". If we see the footbal shirts we see diacritcs for Spanish speaking players but not for Croatian!!

What's the difference? I haven't seen anybody is traying to change Spanish name replacing diacritics. That's discrimination , putting down!

I can bet that Dutch , German, French etc. writers do not use Š Đ Ž Č and Ć in their articles. More that 90 %. but on their wikipedia those letters are used!

Does anybody make problem abou that?? NO! --Anto (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is targeting specific nationalities, and it's a failure to assume good faith to make that kind of accusation. For example, the first time I encountered Erudy, the one who proposed the move for Djokovic, which resulted in this move proposal, was when he proposed moving SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) from its original name that used the "ß" in the title, because common English usage favored the expanded spelling. If you have the time to do the research, go on any of the Spanish, German, French (or anything else) named pages, and demonstrate that the diacritics they're using aren't widely used in English sources. Otherwise, don't criticize the editors here for racism. As DIREKTOR says below, we're just taking policy and guidelines, and enforcing them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt this is the result of an anti-Croat conspiracy. The real problem is the relative obscurity of South Slavic culture in general, which is the reason for the predominant use of "dj" instead of "đ" in most relevant names (this is, of course, only an example). No its not fair, and we may not like it, but there isn't much we can do about it, really. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that was anti-Croatian conspiracy. I say that is just a discrimination! --Anto (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The "discrimination" (if you want to call it that) is not something we can hope to correct here and now. The guys here on Wiki are simply following the guidelines, we can't call anybody discriminatory for that. In other words, its not their "fault", its simply how things are. But lets put this back into perspective, its really a small insignificant matter after all (the spelling of the name of one guy). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Step by step! I believe that this in site for one POV (English speaking people) but also by others'. At least it should be!

I really don't understand this . If you type Tudjman in Google Yahoo Altavista Lycos MSN live search

or any other web-search engine you will get this article on the top! No mather that it's name here Tuđman!

--Anto (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki naming conventions. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with moving from Tuđman to Tudjman, because "it's mostly used in English".
We have redirect function. What's problem with that?
Otherwise, what's next? Abolishing of Latin 2 keyboard (ISO/IEC 8859-2, "Slavic" one)?
On my keyboard there're no Slovak or Czech letters, but I'll always give advantage to their letters and create redirect, e.g. from Bedrich to Bedřich (i ne pada mi na pamet priusmiravat na inačicu bez njihovih slova). Original name first.
What is next? Besançon to Besancon? François Mitterrand to Francois ...? Sissel Kyrkjebø to Kyrkjebo? Plácido Domingo to Placido? Lech Kaczyński to Kaczynski? São Paulo to Sao Paulo? João César Monteiro to Joao Cesar Monteiro? Bedřich Smetana to Bedrich...? László Sólyom to Laszlo Solyom? Citroën to Citroen? Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu to Calin ...-Tariceanu? José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to Jose ... Rodriguez...? José Trinidad Cabañas to Jose ... Cabanas? Ivan Gašparovič to ... Gasparovic (or Gashparovich)? Václav Havel to Vaclav...? Vladimír Špidla to Vladimir Spidla (or Shpidla)? Adil Çarçani do ... Carcani (or Charchani)? Mehdi Bej Frashëri to ... Frasheri? And so on... On these places (both small and big nations), it was respected the original name. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not arguing for a clear "no diacritics ever", or "always use diacritics" rule; we are arguing to enforce policies and guidelines that stipulate using the most common form used in English-language sources. If you can demonstrate Besançon (for example) is widely used in English-language sources, then it should, according to policy, remain as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The point is (and I repeat this 5th time !) : Besançon is not widely used in English reasorces! You can not demonstrate that -it is imposible as to prove that Earth is a plane. As well as Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu or any other name with diacritics . But there are million of names in the article titles accepted in diacritics! --Anto (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If I can demonstrate it, will you rescind your argument? I think there is evidence that Besançon is used in English. For instance, Britannica uses it, Columbia Encyclopedia uses it, Encarta uses it. I'm running out of time, but I could likely find more. As for your other examples, I think they should be addressed singly, on their talk pages. Some may be appropriately named, some may not. How do we decide? We have a clear guideline that is the result of extensive compromise and which depends on verifiable evidence. That's what we are trying to apply here.Erudy (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The "only" difference is that Tuđman is not 2000 years old town. Wikipedia should use Belgrade and not Beograd, like Croats do. Can you find that kind of proof for Éamon de Valera or Lech Wałęsa? For both of them Wikipedia decided that there is no need to use most common English name.

Main argument behind is WP:UE is that name should be recognizable. Who would get confused is he types Franjo Tudjman and get page that says Franjo Tuđman, with comment that it can be anglicanized like Franjo Tudjman? No one!

Also, on following rules. Check this page's history. Wikipedia decided that you are wrong! --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    • here we go again: the discussion is for some reason re-opened. it seems there is a campaign for using the "English name forms" for South Slavic languages.

And do not see such a campaign for Spanish names. Reason ??? Let's see the statistics:

      • Spanish native speakers: cca 350 million
      • Croatian and Serbian native speakers : cca 16 million
    • It is obvious that "hablantes" can not be overvoted so easily and it mission impossible to "anglify" their names.

English -language paper encyclopedias use some names with diacritics in their campaign. I seriosly doubt that Besançon has started to be written in its original form without the protests from France. So now scholars use diacritics but ordinary writers don't!

    • As I have told couple times here:any foreign name can is mentioned at least 2x more without diacritics.

you can always find 2x more Besancon. This campaign should go first with bigger fish! --Anto (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternative explanation: for whatever historical reason, the English language and it's users are more familiar and comfortable with Spanish diacritics in some cases. So much so that sometimes the convention is not to omit them. Of course, this is not always the case. The Grand Canyon was converted from "Cañon"; it's the Rio Grande rather than "Río"; Mexico rather than "México". Once again, it's a case-by-case basis. Our commitment to verifiability and usefulness means that we should respect the conventions English and its users are demonstrated to employ.
This is not a conspiracy agains Croatia or Croats. (Or anyone else.) Please realize that there are hundreds of national alphabets/languages/orthographies, and the extent to which we retreat from the conventions of the vast majority of wikipedia users is the extent we make wikipedia less navigable and readable. A title that follows convention is more likely to get clicked on in google, is more likely to attract readers, and perhaps is more likely to attract editors. Everyone appreciates the work and effort that Croats (or other nationals with expertise) put into these articles. It's the same appreciation that we have for scientists or other specialists who contribute in other areas. However, there is a degree that specialists can forget that they are talking to the informed public, and sometimes that public must change the form of contributions in the interest of intelligibility. That's why we have Dog instead of Canis lupus familiaris. It is certainly an ongoing effort, but just because it is not complete doesn't mean that it cannot be started. For instance, here, on this page.

Respecfully, Erudy (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way , why this discussion is re-open ? To find more and more people who will reapeat that "Tudjman" is more used in English. That's not disputable fact-we have already told . Can we find other proofs instead of persistently repeating that one in a round? --Anto (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What proofs would satisfy you?Erudy (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
let's go , step by step:
  • proofs that English speaker (monoglot) would get confused if (s)he seeks for "Tudjman" and (s)he sees "Tuđman". Wrong! there is an explanation at the top of the article.And redirection!
  • proofs that English language has standard for writting the foreign names. it does not have! Moreover:Spelling of the names is not under rule of any language.Neither Croatian in this case.It is the matter of personal choise: Tuđman signed himself as Tuđman, not Tudjman,Tugiman , Tugyman or which ever way. Since the name is in Latin script there is no need for transliteration
  • profs that English speaker will not find this article browsing the web if if the title is Tuđman.

I have proven that it is not true. Moreover, it will appear on the top at : Google Yahoo Altavista Lycos MSN live search

I am clear that English speakers are much more familiar with Spanish than with Croatian.That's the fact that we have to deal with. I know that probably English speakers won't be reading señor as senor. Due the time even English monoglots have learned to do that.Reason is much bigger number of Spanish speakers. That's sort of cultural exchange. The articles about certain persons are made for informing. And first step is to know how the name is spelled.

Not to think that Dubrovnik is in Bulgaria.--Anto (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we could as well write Frunyoh Toojmuhn and it will be more correct than Tudjman. Tudjman is a simple typo and it is trying to be passed of as the real version of the name. Why did "Tudjman" arise? Because a typist couldn't find "đ" on his keyboard, so he wrote the archaic form "dj". Tudjman doesn't give English speakers any hint to right pronunciation, so it's an unnecessary and faulty replacement for the real name because someone is trying to eradicate the use of correct spelling while pretending to follow Wikipedia guidelines. We should put an end to this. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

--Anto (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a native English speaker myself but from a fairly multicultural country (Australia), I have absolutely no problem with the correct spelling (đ) being used. To be fair to my fellow English speakers who disagree, they are not part of some anti-Croat conspiracy (or anti-anything really) - for most native English speakers the diacritics are unfamiliar. However as Anto correctly notes below, this encyclopaedia is for the English language and is not exclusive to the English speaking countries of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and others. The problem with using the alternate spelling is that it is technically incorrect, from the point of view of pronunciation (to explain this, djar would be pronounced like the Turkish city Diyarbakir, while đar would be pronounced like the English word "jar"). The classic case of names ending -ić being pronounced "ick" instead of "itch", or š being pronounced "s" in some names is the exact reason we need the correct spelling, with a redirect from other commonly used spellings (eg in the media) to the main article so people don't get lost finding it, or can easily enter the url from a US English keyboard. The fact is that "use English" does not actually mean "use a non-diacritic Latin alphabet", as many many proper names of people or places are spelled with diacritics - I think this has been a subject of some misinterpretation of the guideline that exists. Orderinchaos 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Native and non-native speakers

Here is the data about English language :

First language: 309 – 400 million

Second language: 199 – 1,400 million

If we take the middle value we can see that number of non-native English speakers is 800 million- 2x more than max. estimated number of native speakers. --Anto (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I think you may have forgotten India and Pakistan. There's even more :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Audio file

Should we just record a pronunciation for his name? That will make the things easier! --Anto (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter what way this debate resolves, a native speaker pronouncing the name as an .ogg sound file would be fantastic IMO. Orderinchaos 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb nationalists abuse the chronological order of events

"Still, it was invoked by Tuđman's opponents. During his 1990 election campaign, Tuđman notoriously said: "Since many government-paid propagandists insinuate we (HDZ/CDU) are in fact agents of UDBA and KOS (Yugoslav political police), and point out that many of our founding members have Serbian and Jewish wives, I am very happy that my wife is neither Serbian nor Jewish, so they cannot question my credentials with regard to that matter."

This statement by Franjo Tudjman was made much later and had nothing to do with the 1990's election as far as i know.Last time someone providied the refference it was called Franjo Tudjman 1992-1995.So it has nothing to do with the perlude to battle events as Serb nationalists would like to give more reasons for themselfs because they killed thousands of people.

Franjo Tudjman officialy apologized few days later after he made that statement and explained what he meant by that joke-incident. Ante Pavelic's wife was Jewish yet he was a war criminal from WW2 and a nazi.Josip Broz Tito's wife was Serbian and he was a communist. With that joke he ment that he didn't have to carry any historical weight from the past. But off course this is used by Serb nationalists to incite animosity and prejudice towards Tudjman and Croats in general as it was done throughout the war.

I will provide refferences and sources just as i find the NPOV ones.

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to look this article:Timeline of Yugoslavian breakup--Rjecina (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i will.thx.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond's lie[citation needed]

Husond has three times blanked the statement, with which both sides agreed above, that Tudjman is the common spelling of the subject's name in English. The #evidence for this is above; I repeat it here, and invite him to explain his vandalism Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Subject's Own Works

References

Media

Offical

Could you please change the title of this section? WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF apply here. Also, please refrain from calling my edits "vandalism", I think I know well what vandalism consists of and it's definitely not what I am doing. Your edits, however, by reflecting an attempt to enforce an obvious and unilateral point of view, could in fact be considered vandalism if you had persisted with them. Because they're not content dispute, just plain point of view. It's useless to pick sources, or even search the entire web for numbers about the usage of Franjo Tuđman versus Franjo Tudjman. It's easy to prove that both versions are used in English language, and that has been proven indeed, but you cannot prove which one is the most common simply by doing a web search. It's like searching the web and saying that "eggplant" is more usual than "aubergine". It depends on the point of view of each speaker, location, and every single publication and usage of the word, something that I find rather impossible to determine no matter the numbers and sources you gather. Furthermore, it's also irrelevant for the first paragraph to mention which of the variants, already mentioned at the top, could be the most common. And last but not least, it also obviously attempts to promote the usage of the "Franjo Tudjman" you like so much, and I must remind you that Wikipedia is not used as a vehicle for promoting one's preferences. Please don't turn your frustration into disruption (and incivility). Thank you. Húsönd 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, what's the factual accuracy you tagged the article for? Húsönd 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We are required to assume good faith, but this is rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. I have tagged for Husond's falsehood by omission. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This response, indeed, demonstrates bad faith, as do Husond's blankings. The claim that it is impossible to determine rarity by observation is contrary not only to our own practice but the practice of English dictionaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is often good practice to bend over backwards in such matters. I will therefore insert the merely factual: English reference works, news media, and diplomatic usage spell the name Franjo Tudjman;[1] so do Tudjman's English publishers.[2] I believe this to be excessive concession to a fundamentally dishonest argument, but will concede so far for the sake of peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of peace I would agree with that statement, if only with a few slight modifications:
  • English reference works, news media, and diplomatic usage often (1) spell the name "Franjo Tudjman" (2); so do Tuđman's (3) English publishers.
(1) the word "often" must be inserted, because not all reference works, etc, spell "Tudjman".
(2) this should probably go with inverted commas instead of bold type (normally used for the first mention of the subject only).
(3) should be back to "Tuđman" here in order to conform with the title and rest of the article.
Húsönd 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. because not all reference works, etc, spell "Tudjman". I do not see any such reference works cited above; if they can be found, often might still be undue weight on exceptional cases.
  2. Not practice or policy. We bold all common forms; we should certainly bold the most common.
  3. The title and the rest of the article are the result of invalid nationalist arguments above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) Check [16] listed above. I won't look for more. One source suffices to prove not all references spell "Tudjman".
  • Not a reference work, as claimed; the website of a Belgrade news service. Citing one source (probably a translation error from the Serbian) in this manner is undue weight.
(2) "Franjo Tudjman" is already in bold type at the very top, along with "Franjo Tuđman". No further bold is necessary for the rest of the article.
  • A misstatement of practice. This is effectively a dab header, not part of the article. Other uses of {{foreignchar}} bold all names when mentioned; see Lüneburg
(3) There you go again. The move proposal was closed as unsuccessful, regardless of any arguments you may consider nationalist. You may notagree with the closure but, like it or not, Tuđman shall be written "Tuđman" on this article in order to conform with its title. User:Husond 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The arguments of the Croatian nationalists mean that there is no consensus to move the article. It is doubtful whether these arguments, based as they are on opposition to policy, and unsupported claims of racism, should be considered as much as they have been; but that is a discussion for another place. They, please note, have been arguing that we should ignore Tudjman even though, as they acknowledge, it is more common in English; Husond is alone in attempting to suppress a fact obvious to anyone who reads about the Western Balkans in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Pmanderson here, WP policy is WP policy no matter how wrong it may seem to use "dj". I. of course, mean no offense or quarrel towards the opposition to the move, I understand your position fully. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

campaign by User:Pmanderson

We have all agreed how the name "Tuđman" is misspelled in English speaking world like many othe foreign names. That is not disputable fact to anybody. And I think we would all agreed that misspelling the foreign names is not present only in anglophone world. We can read English to understand it . And you don't have to bring here entire state of Michigan to repeat that in a "chorus".

  • If you can do nothing to deny my arguments but to label me as "nationalist " that is (at least) pathetic .User:Husond User:Biruitorul, and User:Orderinchaos are not Croats , I doubt if they have ever been Croatia., and certainly not Croatian nationalists. You are not some Wp:Psychologist so your presumptions about somebody's state of mind are irrelevant and nobody is interested in them.Btw, IrićIgor also is not from Croatia and I doubt he is an "fan" of Tuđman .
  • We did not ignore "Tudjman" . That is mentioned at the top of the article. For that purpose we have templates like "foreingchar". You can add it in infobox , too . That would not be a problem.
  • Have you ever been to Croatia ??? Have you ever been to Europe ?? Do you speak some South Slavic language?? It is really strange how somebody from the other continent "knows" what "everybody knows" about certain issue. If you are some PhD living in downtown that does not mean that you know something better from somebody from the mountain about that particular mountain.
  • One more thing  : Native American population was until recent times called "Indians" in English and other languages, too . Geronimo , Cochise and others were called "Indian leaders" and that was the most common English name-and moreover still is. After their insisting that name were changed . Because these are the facts : they are not some Indians. They have no connection to India. That name was invented by half-litterate explorers in that era who believed that they came to "India". Neither women are not "squaw" ("squaw"is an expression for "vagina", btw) . So, the will have to accept that it is Đoković , Tuđman etc. Not Djokovic, Tudjman.

Some WP:policy (particularly WP:UE ) is not valuable in many thing. Such as articles aboutthe persons with foreign names(there are , I guess , dozens of thousands such articles)

Every rule has its exception. --Anto (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We have all agreed how the name "Tuđman" is misspelled in English speaking world like many othe foreign names. That is not disputable fact to anybody.
This is the other lie. We have not agreed on any such thing. There are two attitudes which can be taken when a foreign language has the bad taste to respell one's native names, as Croatian respells California.</irony> One can accept hr:Kalifornija, and en:Tudjman as part of the experience of foreignness. Or one can insist that one's native ways be followed to the letter, like an Ugly American bellowing in a shop (if only he talks loudly enough, the Croatians will understand him). This Wikipedia calls the second approach nationalism, and reprehends it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is one of your lies.Look at the pages :hr:Bill Clinton, hr:George H. W. Bush,hr:George Washington,hr:John F. Kennedy, hr:Éamon de Valera, hr:François Mitterrand. Personal names are never transliterated because they are simply not for transliteration!! Names for the countries are the different issue. That is the matter of English speaking world how they will call particular country, city river. Your name is P.M. Anderson and can not be Ali-Pasha Idrizi--Anto (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for today changes

  • 1 Many Croats from northwestern Croatia believe that Muslim of Bosnia are Croats. From where has this come. deleted
  • 2 Party which cannot be classified along criteria dominant in stable societies. Why ? How ? This is right wing party. Explain why this party is not normal ? deleted
  • 3 Franjo Tuđman stalking with cease fire agreement. I agree with you but you must write that JNA has broken must of this agreements or it is misleading. Statement deleted
  • 4 Karađorđevo agreement speak about Tuđman wish to take Herzegovina where Croats are majority. He has not wanted to take Muslim but Bosnian territory. changed
  • 5 All comments after that deleted because it is personal thinking of user. Example you speak about views and I will show 1 example which clear state that it is not a view but fact. Link is speaking how weapons has been taken from Croatian territorial defence before Tuđman has taken power. Why weapons has been taken if it is not preparation of war ? [17] . To make long story short personal thinking are not for wikipedia.
  • 6 Significan drop of GDP in 1999 is deleted. 1998 and 1999 has been years of world wide financial problems. deleted
  • 7 About Jasenovac there is no need to say anything...

--Rjecina 12:09, 30 September 2007 (CET)

ASCII

The assertion that Tudjman is more common due to the fact that ASCII system doesn't recognize character "Đ", is unsourced; I believe it to be simply false. Croatian names were being anglicized with dj before ASCII existed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be the truth. But (modern) English alphabet contains no diacritics!!-that is the fact!! And reason for the "transliteration" . --Anto (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So extremes meet. The people who want, as I do not, to remove đ and ç from this Wikipedia entirely, would agree that they are not English letters. This is the strength of their argument, and valid as far as it goes. It is why our policy is to decide, in each case, what English actually uses; here it uses Tudjman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You confessed finally!

Good!

You have finally confessed that you just want to remove all the diacritics! That you are not interested in anything else. And you gave yourself proper name:extreme! You and 2-3 guys hounding this anti-diacritics campaign at couple articles. No mather that everybody else considers them as normal. AS for en.wiki so for the others. --Anto (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"The people who want, as I do not, to remove đ and ç from this Wikipedia entirely, would agree that they are not English letters." What part of not do you fail to understand? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So you don't want to remove diacritics from Wikipedia entirely. Just from two articles, right? Also, WP:UE speaks about Latin, not English letters. And đ and ç are Latin letters. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course Croatian uses a Latin alphabet; if you want to argue with someone who thinks we should confine ourselves to the 26 English letters, go elsewhere because I don't think so; you won't have to go further than the Djokovic discussion. But in reaching a decision between the people who would always keep ç and those who would always temove it, the rule is Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them. Those are compiled above; Tudjman is also the overwhelming majority usage in the sources for this article. We should therefore remove diacritics here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why support the wrong spelling? Should Wikipedia err just because others have done so? Admiral Norton (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no error. This is the correct spelling in English; it is not an error, any more than Rome, Nuremberg are errors; or Henrik IV or Kalifornija are errors in Croatian. What would the Croatian Wikipedia say if a Frenchman were to insist on Henri and Louis instead of Henrik and Luj, on the same arguments? So here. Please stop applying a double standard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again! "Correct spelling of the foreign names in English " is such oxymoron as "curvature of the cube". Can you ,please ,find me some English grammar/ortography manual that describes such a rule?? which English grammar/ortography says "write Tudjman , not Tuđman ".Moreover ,English has no rule neither for spelling the English names ( Shawn,Shaun or Sean- one of the plenty examples of spelling diversity) . Tuđman was anonymous outside Yugoslavia and emigration from Yugoslavia until the 90s when he became the president. You will hardly find any English language resources before 1988 (when he involved into politics and founding HDZ ) that writes about him. and till 1988 computers had much lower capabilities.--Anto (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, on Croatian Wikipedia we have hr:Louis Pasteur and hr:James Brown, not Luj Paster and Džejms Braun. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I think it's interesting and rather paradoxical when Pmanderson says that he does not support Wikipedia confined to the 26 English letters, and that characters such as ç should be used in situations where their usage is present in a majority of English language sources. Because everyone knows that there is no word containing diacritics that would be spelled with them in a majority of English language sources. English language keyboards have no diacritics, thus there is a strong, strong tendency for their suppression or disregard, naturally resulting in a majority of sources that lacks them. It's a simple reason, that in no way should interfere with the accurate encyclopedia we're trying to make here. Húsönd 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Husond, however, engages in his usual misstatement of fact. We are not considering googling the web; we are considering the usage of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia uses Åland Islands, Besançon, Göttingen because the same sort of sources cited above for Tudjman use them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Really?! Since when do we "sort" sources? Either they are sources or they are not, there are no sorts of sources that are more important or relevant than other sorts of sources. Húsönd 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[
Don't attempt to dumb-ify me. Yeah yeah, peer-reviewed journals, magazines, mainstream newspapers, etc., I know all that very well. If you take those out what do you have left? Blogs? Geocities? When I say "sources", I mean "sources that can actually be considered sources". I think it's all pretty clear. Instead of manipulating the words of others in order to make them look stupid, you should e.g. try to focus on arguments others bring to you and which you fail to reply constructively. Like, go up a couple of comments and reply to my concerns on your personal diacritics policy by bringing me a word containing ç whose usage you would support on Wikipedia (since you say you're not against all of them). I'd be thrilled to see that word, and compare it with the usage of đ for this very article. Húsönd 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that Husond has jumped to the other side of the issue; after criticizing an appeal to "reliable secondary and tertiary sources", he now acknowledges that they (and not the mass of unreliable websites) are the sources to which we should appeal.
  • He is welcome to examine the example of cedilla which this discussion has been citing since the beginning: Besançon; as Erudy points out above, the same encyclopedias which use Tudjman use Besançon; so does the NYTimes, as here. I support it; indeed, because it is established English usage, it is uncontroversial on WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times? And I thought that you were going to check the usage of "Besançon" in aaaall of those sources you praised so much for writing "Tudjman". The "majority", as you called. Anyway I'm not wasting more of my time here, talking with you is like going around in circles, and your kind of argumentation requires unlimited patience that I simply don't have. Húsönd 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is a proposal to move to Besancon which is not WP:Point, I may examine more sources on its spelling. These four are enough to demonstrate that there is not overwhelming consensus in sources for Besancon, as there is for Tudjman. In any case, I have answered Husond's question: what diacritics would I defend? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The other interesting thing is that both å, ç and ö are in Windows-1252 encoding and đ isn't. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this "reliable source"?? Even "the most reliable sources" can make a mistake. --Anto (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we look to the consensus of reliable sources (and consider whether they may be dated). Anto's position requires that all the sources cited for the move have made the same mistake. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream newspapers" ??? which ones? Those which you know??? why the only criteria for newspaper is to be "mainstream" ??

Other world's way : Finnish people complain: " It is not Kimi Raikkonen but Kimi Räikkönen" .Could you please , correct it? -Ok, we will do that!

American way of working: Finnish people complain: -" It is not Kimi Raikkonen but Kimi Räikkönen" -No. that is English spelling but. -But it is not correct ... -Who cares??? It is the English usage! -But... -No but! That is how we do!

It is the common practice for usage originaly name spelling for every person in all the Latin-script based wikipedias. Including English . Until some people decided to become bigger catholics than Pope himself  :((

--Anto (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.
  • Several, I believe most, of the supporters of the late move request were not Americans.
  • I prefer this PoV to the one Anto prefers, which would equally lead to "It is not fi:Lontoo but London; could you change please." The Finns would (rightly) reply that it is none of our business what Suomi calls London, and they are writing to be intelligible to Finns. That would indeed be imperialism, and deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The propoeser of move (Alai ) is Scottish.Active move supporters were 4-5 Americans.Other suppporters were more-less "parachuiters" that gave no contribution to this article before. They have just been repeating WP:UE , WP:UE ,WP:UE ... etc.
  • I was talking about personal names , not toponyms neither royalty. Tuđman was not member of some royalty (who change their names after coronation) neither some showbiz celebrity that has changed his name to be more recognizible. He didn't even used to live in English speaking country where he possibly could transliterate his name. For names of contemporary persons in native latins scripts only valid name is that one in his documents (passport, birth list etc. ) About toponyms:yes, the custom is usage of translated names. But, it is beeing improved. We now have Sulawesi , Beijing etc. --Anto (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand how this argument can be repeated for every single article. One would think that, like in law, once the decision was made to move Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic, the precedent has been made and all we have to do now when put in the same situation is put the evidence down that prove eg. "Tudjman" is the common version in English and, if evidence are valid, move it. No, we are going to discuss about every single article, resulting in zigzag decisions throughout the set of articles. So Novak Djokovic is going to stay like that, Tuđman is going to stay in its Croatian version, and it will all depend on how stubborn members are. Anto and company are bringing up some "right and wrong spelling" argument, while it is obvious this is a matter of national pride to them, having in mind Anto is Croat himself (based on his name) and with how much zest they keep this fight running. I suggest - to either annul the prior decision about Djokovic, which would make wiki consistent again but the text harder to read for the English speaking, or use the decision made there and apply it on all the same cases. It's very simple if you don't pour in the national issues. --Ml01172 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating

Couple things to repeat(because obviously some people do not read them) :

  • The personal name spelling is not the matter of any "national feeling". Just about accuracy. And if Tudjman is "correct spelling" as π =3.14 . just one aproximation, simplification, ... however you prefer to call it
  • I suggest to you to push the usage of transliterated name forms for Spanish names. I am "quite sure" that you will succeed. :8:- which are about 10000 of biography articles on en.wiki . Piece of cake, right??
  • I am convinced that 80% of the people from the anglophone countries would say that Croatia is neighbour country to Russia- which is total nonsense! That (wrong!) "common anglophone opinion " is equally meaningless as it is the opinion that that Tuđman's "proper name" is in fact "Tudjman". Modern labor philosophy:when you find out a mistake-try to eliminate it. Do not celebrate it as your "success"!

--Anto (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid, it is a matter of national feeling, as I explained above. I do not claim it's just Croatians that feel so, but probably other nations, too; that's why it's so hard to change these things when proper. "When proper" assumes that the majority of newspapers, books, TV-stations, etc. use it in that form. "Not proper" would be if that transliteration is not accustomed, the forms vary between various medias etc. If it was only about accuracy, than why would any of you mind if the article started with the English form followed by original name in parenthesis? That would provide (and does provide) both easy reading for English-speaking people and accuracy as well. I'm afraid, however, that it's not about accuracy at all. If it wasn't for national feeling, than it would be great coincidence that always in these arguments the great opposers are mainly people from corresponding ethnic groups, such as Croats here, Serbs in Djokovic's talk page, etc. I really (and I guess many others) want this to stop and take English language as priority above national feeling (which I don't think anything bad about). In Russian wikipedia almost all names are transliterated, in Serbian too, even when written in Latin letter, Chinese, Hebrew, Bulgarian, etc. so why would the English wikipedia be an exception? Each and every article would at the very beginning contain the original name in parenthesis, so accuracy would be no problem. --Ml01172 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a big deal of work, and no one wants to deal with tens of thousands of articles that need this correction, and if we decide to keep the names of articles in their original form, than in the name of consistency we need to do so for all articles without exceptions; that means reverting article move for Djokovic (AFAIK it's the only one that succeeded in this), and other articles if there were any. It would be plain stupid to have only that article moved, 'cause then it would be a real reason for Serbian national feeling to thrive here and a reason for Serbs to feel discriminated. If I'm the only one who sees this, than it's a real pity. --Ml01172 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: Serbian and Croatian languages have strict rules how to write foreign names. English language does not have.[citation needed] Point 2: Most of the English speakers use diacritics.[citation needed] --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no points here - if there were, then Novak Djokovic page wouldn't have been moved to its current name. There was an argument there, decision has been made based on different arguments, and the page was moved. This page is an example of the exactly same case as Novak, so there are no points and accuracy issues. I kindly ask the administrators what they think about this and when they plan on moving this article, having in mind it's exactly the same case as Novak Djokovic and the precedent has been made. --Ml01172 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, there some (very) important points here. Unfortunately!
    • Comparisons to Bulgarian,Russian , Hebrew wiki are not valid. We are talking whether it should be transliterated smth from one Latin -script name to another. This was not case here . Neither on other only Latin-script based wikipedias.

Case of Novak Đoković is ( I believe) , unique case of intende forced transliteration.And some people wanted to use it as benchmark.

      • Decision about the moving to Novak Djokovic was mainly the result of outvote. Not smth that we should take as absolute reference.  :((

--Anto (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-latin vs. Latin script

it is funny (or to be specific hypocritical) that smbd who talks about the necessity of name transliterations mentions always :Bulgarian,Russian,Hebrew,Chinese wiki- all that use non-latin scrypts.

here I present articles based on Latin scripts on different wikis: absolute majority of native spelling:

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What did he do between 1967 and 1989?

Was he in politics, or business, or what? It doesn't really say. It says he gave interviews and wrote stuff, but not much else. --AW (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


That is not well known. He was working in the institute for history (AFAIK). His political activities in that time were very often interrupted by with imprisoning. He was not the deputy in parliament , mayor or smth like that.... if you ask thatAñtó| Àntó (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

This is an almost word-for-word copyvio from the BBC article referenced, except that it adds "somewhere" and "these circles" to cloud the fact that this is probably just the opinion of a eulogist, which is by the way located at the end of the article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Different person (sry didnt know how to format my own point) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.87.211 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/hr__indx.html Where in the croat constitution are the serbs excluded. If anything it explicitly states equality among all ethnic groups. Given the constitution probably was ignored in this area during the war it still is inconsistant with the citation to the BBC article as previously stated above by another user. The BBC article states that Tudjman vetoed any attempt to place the serbs into the constitution however after reading the 1990 constitution I found the opposite. Can anyone clear up this descrepancy for me?


Religion

What is his religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.23.88.10 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


AFAIK , he was baptized and confirmed prior the ww2 as Roman Catholic .But he was not practing catholic rituals (mass goer). He has married in church in 1996. after his cancer was dicovered.Cardinal Franjo Kuharić has made threat to him not to allow his burial in a Roman Catholic cemetery if he does not do that. It was famous that when was going to mass his colleagues (i.e. Gojko Šušak) had to instruct him when to sit,when to stand, when to bow, when to prostrate etc.

Tuđman vs. Tudjman?

Bog,

is Tudjman correct in today's Croatian or is that 'Serbo-Croatian'?. Hvala, Imre

Tuđman is correct in Croatian, but some people argue that, since this is English edition of Wikipedia, English orthography should be used, hence Tudjman. See archived discussion above. --bonzi (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Like S. Husein"!?

"Franjo Tuđman was person just like former iraq dictator Saadam Husein"

Yeah, the pinnacle of objectivity and non-POV writing! --bonzi (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This was only vandalism. Removed now. Vandal warned. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence does not need to be qualified

Currently, the lead sentence reads:

"Franjo Tuđman (/fra:ɲɔ 'tudʑma:n/) (May 14, 1922 - December 10, 1999) was the first president of Croatia in the 1990s."

I don't think it's necessary to qualify him as the first president "in the 1990s", he was simply the first president of the country. I suggest that the lead sentence be changed to:

"Franjo Tuđman (/fra:ɲɔ 'tudʑma:n/) (May 14, 1922 - December 10, 1999) was the first president of Republic of Croatia."

I would have done it myself but I wanted to make sure there aren't any objections. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tudjman picture

There is great an face picture of Franjo Tudjman at Croatian version of wikipedia with fully rights link title. I think it is definitive better than this one on english wikipedia...I dont want to put it up because i dont know how to....

thank you

(sorry on bad english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.175.147 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia articles on "Franjo Tudjman"; BBC English service, the New York Times, and its summary on Tudjman, CNN, CBC, the Economist, and the Washington Post; the US State Department, theUN (Official General Assembly Resolution Extending Condolences on Tudjman's death), the British Foreign Ministry, and the Austrian Foreign Ministry writing in English.
  2. ^ See Horrors of War : Historical Reality and Philosophy, M. Evans, New York, 1996, cover and title page
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franjo_Tuđman/Archive_2&oldid=1085445006"