Jump to content

Talk:Milan Tepić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milan Tepić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Let's write something on the controversy. For instance, Croatian side often speaks that this man was hoping to make a much larger detonation which would endanger the city of Bjelovar, thus committing a war crime against civilians. He was stopped in his deed by Croatian defenders. It would be interesting to see how both sides see his role. 89.164.74.44 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Tepić

[edit]

Could you please explain first why it should be poorly sourced content and then put various senseless warnings. BTW, we are in 2022, not in 2021. --Silverije 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple wikipedia uses reliable sources, what you provide were 3 newspaper articles who do not cite any sources that Tepic was convicted, accused or sentenced as a war criminal, second per WP:FRINGE even those newspaper articles doesn′t claim that he is considered a war criminal outside Serbia, that would mean by more countries. So it s not senseless, what is senseless is putting those kind of accusation without any formal judgment or source.Theonewithreason (talk) 16.January 2022 (UTC)

War crime

[edit]

In Croatia, how many people consider Tepić to be a war criminal and what war crime did he commit for that to stand? Kanikosen (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we can't ignore that his glorification was a first class problem between the two countries. That's stated in a few sources, and Serbian president visit was postponed because of it. That he is a hero is also how some perceive him. Not everyone in then-Yugoslavia thought he was a hero, right? Ponor (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to claim war criminal charges, you will have to prove them. What court convicted him or like in the case of Bobetko [1] made rulings about war crimes that could involve him? Should we write how he is perceive in every country in ex Yugoslavia? Who are people who consider him war criminal, and for what reason? Kanikosen (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors here should know that you're in dispute on Croatian Wikipedia about the very content that you removed in this article and that you're, imo, editing here to make a WP:POINT. Otherwise, perception is the word: hero for some politicians, not hero/criminal for some others. Per reliable sources. Ponor (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should know that Ponor is admin on Croatian wiki, and [2] have problems with Serbian and Croatian history. We don't even speak same language in his book. Beside, this is personal attack on me. I fail to understand, how can someone be war criminal when no court made ruling.
So, again, what war crime? How could 0.031416square kilometers explosion managed to destroy Bjelovar? Are we going to write some people belive Earth is flat in article about shape of planet Earth? Kanikosen (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please explain to user Kanikosen what "Comment on content, not on the contributor" means. I find his 22:25 comment very disturbing, and I think he should apologize for it. To be clear: I do not have problems with any language or anyone's history. I do have problems with editors picking sides, instead of keeping WP:NPOV. I do have problems with someone editing one Wikipedia to prove a point (on another Wikipedia), and not saying so. Ponor (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, admins are more than welcome to do that. I am more than sorry if you find yourself insulted, and I apologize for it, but you opened with the claim that my edit was made to WP:POINT. We are on a wiki project that is not connected to the Croatian language. You yourself on the Croatian language have made it clear that anything that happens here has no connection to the wiki. HR, so I find it disturbing that you followed me here to remove my edit. Kanikosen (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponor, I don't see any personal attack by Kanikosen; a little heat/sarcasm doesn't constitute a personal attack. Kanikosen, you're apparently having a similar content dispute at hr.wiki as you are here. That said, I don't see any reason for you to assume that Ponor is "following" you here. I suggest both of you use the usual methods of dispute resolution to resolve your content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We were arguing on Wiki.hr, and then he came here and edited my post. So, how would I call that?
    But it's not important, as he claims that on wiki.hr he will delete every instance of someone calling Tepić hero, or he will place Tepić status by every EX Yu Republic. So I'm waiting to see if he agrees to the same solution here. Maybe we are both wrong in our view of this problem. Kanikosen (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, Kanikosen announced to me (in Croatian) he was making a POINT here. And I'd still like him not to make comments about who I am and what I believe, for he's soooo unbelievably wrong.
    On his last comment: deleting the perception information from Wikipedia will not make that perception disappear. The perception is an issue and deserves its place in our articles. It's not something I made up, it's there and we have to live with it. Ponor (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By telling you to check and that you are free to do what you want? So why did you follow me here?
    Perception that war crime is committed, but no one can explain what war crime is that? How that works? Perception that explosion that had effect on 0.031416 square kilometers would level city 2000 times that size? Kanikosen (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just said it: because you told me you'd remove the other existing well-sourced point of view from the English article, as you did in the Croatian one.
    I've been through all this bludgeoning with you before. You'll attempt original research by saying that the 31416 sq. m (338350 sq. ft., 314160000 sq. cm) crater caused by the explosion wasn't big enough (source?) to cause any damage, even though a reliable source (Karaula pp. 21-22) says that by detonating the smaller portion of the stored weapons he managed to evaporate 8 people and destroy or damage 437 buildings (...).
    Then I'll ask you to summarize what many sources say, that he's (by some, somewhere) considered a (delusioned) (war) criminal (endangering the lives of civilians, perhaps?), but you'll be asking me to explain how this or that was possible, claiming that all the issues you raise need to be addressed before the sourced content can be put back into the article. Well, they don't.
    So how would you summarize what the sources you removed say? Read them, please read them well, find more sources if you want, summarize. Ponor (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one doing original research is you.
    So to make it clear, you can't tell me what war crime Tepić committed?
    Then, Karaula on page 21 gives a 200-meter radius of explosion. That is 0.031416 square kilometers. Now, mind telling me how far Bjelovar is from Barutana?
    Windows breaking and minor damage, and from page Karaula 12, we know that JNA stored regular anti-tank mines and artillery shells in military storage designed when blown up, not to endanger civilians.
    So somehow JNA stored their ammo in way one lucky enemy hit or someone smoking in storage can take out town with 50 000 people? That is just amazing, and I would like you to cite that. Kanikosen (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The crater was 12 meters deep [3].
    To compare, one Iskander rocket hitting the ground makes a larger crater [4]. So one Iskander can take out a city with 50 000 people?
    And evaporated? That is a funny word, as even Tepić remains where recovered, along with all 11 members of Zenge. Kanikosen (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but Kanikosen doing original research is all I'm seeing here. If you're an expert in explosions, do publish a scientific paper, let secondary sources cite you and we'll talk what a 1700 t blast could have done. Also, do read available sources: 8 (or more) bodies have never been recovered = evaporated. If you don't trust the sources (more sources can be provided), you're absolutely free to discuss their reliability where such stuff is discussed. But I don't see how you're going to hide the fact that the issue was so big that president Vučić's visit to Croatia was delayed and there were protests from many, including Centar za suočavanje s prošlošću Documenta, and Croatian ministry of foreign affairs. Ponor (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vučić regulary cancels his trips [5]. So I fail to see how that is noteworthy?
    Mind showing me in a scientific paper or anything like that that will prove pathetic 1700 tons of mines and shells (not 1700 tons of explosives) that made a 12-meter crater, less than one Iskander would endanger Bjelovar? Some random personal opinion? Can you cite expert?
    In Croatia, he is often perceived as a war criminal with the intention of destroying the city of Bjelovar with explosives he had at his disposal. But again, the issue I find problematic is "often perceived" because it's something undefined and doesn't attribute the opinion to anyone specific, which isn't verifiable.
    Plus, I don't understand how what he did can be considered a "war crime," no civilians were killed. He blew up a warehouse in the heat of battle. That's fair play. Kanikosen (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

war criminal

[edit]

His actions probably didn't constitute a war crime because there was a valid military objective and no civilians were harmed (otherwise, I expect this would have been mentioned in the Balkan Insight article because BI is usually scrupulously balanced). Nevertheless, it is verifiable that some Croatians believe that he was a war criminal. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and and in Article you retruned this line In Croatia he is considered a war criminal.
As there is no war crime, not probably but there is not war crime, assault on military target, by army personel, and army personel defending itself, is how war crime?
Plus, mind explaining to me how everyone now in Croatia think Tepić is war criminal? Kanikosen (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is "verifiable," I strongly urge you to provide a concrete and verifiable source. Thus far, the only reference presented is a newspaper article that vaguely asserts "some Croats believe" without substantiating this claim with evidence.
As a Croat myself, I can confidently state that the vast majority, likely exceeding 95% of Croats, have never heard of Milan Tepić. Given this context, one must question the rationale behind introducing such a fringe viewpoint into the article. Furthermore, even among the limited number of Croats familiar with Tepić, the only reason they know of Tepić is the (verifiable) fact that Serbia decided to honour him with a medal for heroism. And it is also the only reason those people decided to label him a war criminal - simply in opposition to Serbia. It's a soap opera, not a encyclopaedic content.
But again, feel free to provide a verifiable source that substantiates the claim that a "significant" portion of Croatian people regard Tepić as a war criminal and the claim may remain in the article. Without meeting this fundamental criterion, I believe that the article should refrain from incorporating such unsubstantiated and generalized beliefs.
Or what? Should every article about war heroes from Croatia and Serbia include a section speculating about the beliefs of some unidentified Croats or Serbs, suggesting that the individual in question is, in fact, a war criminal? Cause this is where this all is leading to.  Imbe  hind 💊 23:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any sources for your claims or are you only going to perpetuate Kanikosen's opinions? I find it interesting how you guys always come together, like when one is updating the other's user page. 86.33.75.100 (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you always hiding behind IP? Kanikosen (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out that I haven't inserted any claims into the article so I do not need to source them. The burden of providing verifiable sources rests with the editor who introduced the information, not me or Kanikosen. We were just pointing out the obvious - unsourced information should be removed from the article. And what is your reaction? Rather than addressing the need for credible sourcing, your response veers into ad hominem territory. It's essential to maintain a focus on sourcing and accuracy rather than diverting attention to unrelated matters or affiliations between editors.  Imbe  hind 💊 12:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, the only reference presented is a newspaper article that vaguely asserts "some Croats believe" without substantiating this claim with evidence. As a Croat myself, I can confidently state that the vast majority, likely exceeding 95% of Croats, have never heard of Milan Tepić. Oh look, it's a Wikipedia editor vaguely asserting "95% of Croats have never heard of Milan Tepić" without substantiating this claim with evidence. Well, they've said they're confident about it, so that surely counts as a reliable source right? I'll have a go: "as an evolved primate myself, I can confidently state that most of the moon, likely more than 90% of its mass, is made of cheese". Like it or not, my statement and yours are equally worthless.
But again, feel free to provide a verifiable source that substantiates the claim that a "significant" portion of Croatian people regard Tepić as a war criminal and the claim may remain in the article. There are six of them in the article. They are very clearly verifiable—all that is required is reading them, which you have clearly not done, as you think "there is only one reference presented". If what you think is that a survey of the Croatian populace would disprove them, you can wait until such a survey is done.
Or what? Should every article about war heroes from Croatia and Serbia include a section speculating about the beliefs of some unidentified Croats or Serbs, suggesting that the individual in question is, in fact, a war criminal? If it is contained in reliable sources, yes. I see no problem with that. Do you see a problem with neutrally reporting verifiable and sourced information? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read sources, did you AirshipJungleman29 ?
Souce 1, 1 person complains, Marko Marusic. A right wing priest [6].
Source 2, Marusic Marko Marusic, but this time is 1st. cousin of 1st guy.
Source 3, The soldier, Major Milan Tepic, is seen by the Croatian side as a criminal. No mention of who thinks that from Croatian side [7].
Source 4, [8] copy paste of article 2, again Marko Marusic.
Source 5, [9] No mention who or what, and insane number of 200 killed Croats.
Source 6, Damir Pernar and Grantferger. [10] 2 Croatian soldiers.
So go on, point me on 6 sources that mention "significant" portion of Croatian people regard Tepić as a war criminal. You didn't read single article, did you? Kanikosen (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you cite me saying: "Oh look, it's a Wikipedia editor vaguely asserting "95% of Croats have never heard of Milan Tepić" without substantiating this claim with evidence. Well, they've said they're confident about it, so that surely counts as a reliable source right?", you are missing the point entirely. The point is that my view hold about the same amount of merit as sources cited in the article. And yet, I'm not the one inserting anything into the article. Other people are.
Since you seem unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, let me cite directly from it: "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)"
My view and certainly views of several people mentioned above by Kanikosen, DO NOT represent the views of majority or even a significant portion of Croatian people. How can I tell? Well, 3 (not) random people from Croatia are just that - 3 (not) random people. And without a proper survey nothing more than that - individual opinions of those (non) random people. In other words, their POV. However, please do note that WP:NPOV clearly asks for "at least one published survey" before allowing editors to insert general qualifications such as "people say" or "in Croatia he is considered" into the article.
Finally, if you take the time to read through WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV perhaps you'll begin to understand why the statements of Marko Marusic, Damir Pernar, and Grantferger could only be used on Wikipedia attributed to themselves, but then, if you read WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL you should also be clear on why their views are in fact irrelevant in this case.  Imbe  hind 💊 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milan_Tepić&oldid=1199376731"