Talk:Zvonko Bušić

Blog or encyclopaedic article?

Te article, as written, resembles to a blog and uses blogs as references.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No blog is given as a reference in this article, nor does the article resemble a blog (Sowberryhagan (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Busic's 'official site' is a blog that contains ONLY SELECTED INFORMATION favorable to him.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgeries in article

The statement

During sentencing, the trial judge John Bartels stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" and that although his methods were wrong, his action was motivated by noble ideals; that is, Croatian independence

is a forgery. From http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/592/13/258617/ is visible that the appelate judges were LUMBARD, FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges. The sentence also states:

Terrorism, both domestic and international, is one of the gravest problems of our day. The skyjacking here involved was a heinous example of such terrorism. It resulted in the death of a New York City police officer and the maiming of other police officers. The lives of eighty-five passengers and seven members of the crew of the TWA plane were placed in jeopardy during the twenty-seven hour skyjacking which terminated when the plane, which took off from New York for Chicago and was not intended for trans-ocean flights, was forced by the skyjackers to fly across the Atlantic and to land at Paris, after refueling stops at Montreal, Newfoundland, Iceland and London.

I don't understand the point or your use of the term "forgery" (Sowberryhagan (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

The judge John Bartels' opinion comes from a letter (see http://www.zvonkobusic.com/dokumenti/b1.pdf) sent to the US Parole Commission Northeast Region, Philadelphia PA on June 13, 1989

Yes. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

As of referencing Silberman, Laurence H. in (Spring, 1977), Foreign Policy, pp. 3–27, there is no trace of any Siberman's opinion about this case. The Silberman's article was published before the sentence was delivered. The other reference even did not mentioned Silberman in any context ("the Yugoslavian government applied strong and successful pressure on the State Department to punish Zvonko and his group to the harshest possible degree by denying parole beyond the trial judge's recommendation"). --71.191.31.183 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Silverman article does indeed reference this specific case, on page 21 of the article. His statements on that page go far beyond the brief reference to Yugoslav influence made in this Wikipedia article. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

• Please, provide full quote and full reference information. What you say "According to statements by former White House employees and the former Ambassador to Yugoslavia Laurence H. Silberman, the Yugoslavian government applied strong and successful pressure on the State Department to punish Zvonko and his group to the harshest possible degree by denying parole beyond the trial judge's recommendation." does not make sense to me. If Silberman said what you wrote, then it makes no sense at all. How was Silberman able to say what happened AFTER publishing his article?? --66.151.103.8 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

In the article is not mentioned that Busic [1] escaped from prison nor about suspicion that he involved in LaGuardia bombing nor about kin of slain cop rage after Croat terrorist Zvonko Busic is freed, sent packing.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2011(UTC)

Stating as fact that Busic is guilty of a heinous unsolved crime is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article about a living person (Sowberryhagan (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

• Personal point of views here are welcome but not in the text. If something is not to your liking, do not try to disqualify this way. Your answers are incomplete and incorrect. So, I've put back all changes made and tags, too. Please, refrain from accusing others for vandalism. Your text here is not final, nor mandatory, nor objective. --66.151.103.8 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Stating as fact your personal opinion that a living person is guilty of a heinous unsolved crime violates Wikipedia's standards for living persons. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively with regard to the subject's privacy. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

I've reverted the article to the version that existed before you added this objectionable material. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

• I see that you are again providing incomplete responses. No one claims that a living person is guilty of a crime he did not commit. It is about SUSPICION published in mainstream media and shall be here as-is. How about all other deficiencies? Omitting Busic's escape from prison, public dissatisfaction with his release, one-way (favorable for him)writing about his crime which you are stubbornly forcing and deleting all changes and not providing correct and accurate references, etc, etc?--66.151.103.8 (talk)

Stating as fact your personal opinion that a living person is guilty of a heinous unsolved crime violates Wikipedia's standards for living persons. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively with regard to the subject's privacy. Wikipedia policy is to remove this objectionable material without discussion. Reverting again to previous version before the objectionable material was inserted. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

20:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagreements

To Sowberryhagan:

• 'Stating as fact your personal opinion that a living person is guilty of a heinous unsolved crime violate ...' is a nonsense which you invented and attributed to me. Not in my comments nor in the previous version of article which are you regularly reverting to your version, is not visible what are you attributing to me. This false accusation cannot be used as excuse for reverts you have done. This is a gross violation of Wikipedia rule about civilty and collaboration. Please, stop it immediately.

• Introductory and 'Hijacking' paragraph were considerably improved which you reverted based on false accusation. You do not own this article and collaboration among users is mandatory.

• Forgeries. Attributing his text the Yugoslavian government applied strong and successful pressure on the State Department to punish Zvonko and his group to the harshest possible degree by denying parole beyond the trial judge's recommendationto Laurence H. Silberman, is a nonsense. Silberman did not say it in the referenced article (Silberman, Laurence H. (Spring, 1977), Foreign Policy, pp. 3–27) nor it make sense. The first parole denial came on Oct. 30, 1978, the article is published in may 1977 i.e. a year and more before the denial and the article did not mention Busic in any context. Your writing is a blatant forgery!
• During sentencing, the trial judge John Bartels stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" is yet another nonsense for reference provided do not support it. Judge Bartels gave an opinion that sound close to your text it 1989, not during sentencing as you stated. So, please, provide proper reference or remove your text I quoted here.

• Website http://www.zvonkobusic.com/ is a blog in its entirety that uses available information about this act of terrorism selectively and in a nationalistic and biased way.

• You are not allowed to remove POV, factual accuracy, and needs reference tags solely and without discussion and considerable article improvements.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to address any concerns you have with this article. However, your two statements at the opening of this article are a violation of the living person standard of Wikipedia.

These two statements are:

"Is a terrorist of Croatian lineage" and "mastermind ... of a bombing of Grand Central Station in New York"

"Is a terrorist" is your personal opinion. It makes as much sense as to say that Nelson Mandela "is a terrorist of South African lineage" as the first statement in his article. The fact that somebody committed acts in the past that could be considered terrorist by some does not imply that they are currently a terrorist. Your statement is objectionable, controversial, insulting, and libellous. It violates Wikipedia living person standards and will be removed without discussion.

The statement that the subject masterminded a "bombing of Grand Central Station" is false, there was no bombing in Grand Central Station. "Bombing" in English implies that a bomb was detonated. There was no bomb detonated in Grand Central Station. There was no intent to detonate a bomb in Grand Central Station. The subject left a device with explicit instructions for disarming, with the intent that it be disarmed. That act is not a "bombing". The subject was not convicted of "bombing". The statement is literally false on several levels and libellous.

All your criticisms of this article are trivial and easily addressed. But they will not be addressed in an article containing these two false and libellous statements at the top of the article. (Sowberryhagan (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC))

See also WP:TERRORIST. At present, this article is weakly sourced, badly written, and contrary to the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I stated at WP:BLPN, this article reads like a rant. I will start the process of rewriting it to conform to reliable sources and to remove the astounding amount of hyperbole.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've pruned, reworded, and removed. I removed two sections, one of which was wholly unsourced, the other of which was partly unsourced and the other part based on nothing but speculation (even though reported in sources). I've substantially reworded and shortened the information from the appellate decision (there's already a main article about the hijacking - we don't need that much detail - also, the word "terrorist" is never mentioned in the opinion, which is the only source). The one part I've left in (reluctantly) is what Bartels supposedly said during trial. There's no source for it that I can easily verify. I suppose I or someone else can look for an online source that supports it. If not, I suggest removal because the sources are too light.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Court documents clearly labelled this criminal act as terrorism. You did not read nor verify anything. Please, go back and read carefully the reference I've provided.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Which court document? Perhaps you're confusing one of the concurring opinions with the main opinion - that conurrence, which is brief, uses the word "terrorism". That isn't enough for us to use the word "terrorist" in our description of the events.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• You did not read this document 592 F.2d 13: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Zvonko Busic, Julienne Busic, Petar Matanic, Frane Pesut,defendants-appellants United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 592 F.2d 13 Argued Dec. 8, 1977.Decided Oct. 30, 1978.Concurring Opinions or you do not understand the text of this document? Be so kind not to use meaningless phrases, rather profound knowledge if you have any about this case.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

About Wikipedia rules and style

All of you who responded to my changes done earlier, bear in mind:

wording is strictly based on the legal, court documents

accepted by mainstream media

accepted and used by valid and reliable literature about terrorism

It is disgusting to compare ordinary terrorists to Nelson Mandela, Nobel prize Winner, and a great man who did not kill anyone nor did any act of terrorism in his life.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are POV and unsupported. I've reverted you twice and put increasing warnings on your Talk page. Your wording is NOT supported by the appellate decision cited in the article. The word "terrorist" is NEVER even mentioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• My edits are strongly supported by valid and reliable sources. You are not reading any of the references I've provided!--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The only source cited in the Hijacking section is the 2nd Circuit opinion. As I've said several times now, it does not support your use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorists", which you use many times.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, be advised to read in its entirety all references provided, if you are capable to understand them.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

About false accusations related to my edits

Here is what I've written earlier on this talk page:

From http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/592/13/258617/ is visible that the appelate judges were LUMBARD, FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges. The sentence also states:

Terrorism, both domestic and international, is one of the gravest problems of our day. The skyjacking here involved was a heinous example of such terrorism. It resulted in the death of a New York City police officer and the maiming of other police officers. The lives of eighty-five passengers and seven members of the crew of the TWA plane were placed in jeopardy during the twenty-seven hour skyjacking which terminated when the plane, which took off from New York for Chicago and was not intended for trans-ocean flights, was forced by the skyjackers to fly across the Atlantic and to land at Paris, after refueling stops at Montreal, Newfoundland, Iceland and London.

The above quote comes from a valid and legal US Court document!

Furthermore, from the mainstream media: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946611-1,00.html

The terrorists seized control of flight 355 by threatening that at least one of the group would detonate an explosive he had presumably carried on board under his clothes; such a bomb would not be detectable with present airport security systems. The leader was a beefy, bearded man. "He was the goon, but he was nice," recalled one passenger, James Perkins, a regional sales manager for Schenley. "He kept his hand in his pocket all the time, as if he had a gun." One of the skyjackers was a young woman who claimed she was an American and was married to another member of the group. The terrorists were polite once in command, distributing to all the passengers leaflets explaining their organization, "Fighters for Free Croatia," and their aims. But they ordered the plane to turn north toward Montreal, where it landed at Mirabel International Airport and was refueled.

Where and which way is POV to name terrorists as terrorists?!--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You really don't need this many sections to discuss the same issue. As I said above, the "terrorism" comment comes from a concurring opinion and is insufficient to label the five hijackers terrorists. The Time article is using the term loosely. It is a charged term and should not be used to describe a BLP without more support than this. Busic was not convicted of terrorism. He was convicted of air piracy. Therefore, to use the term "terrorist" here on Wikipedia is going too far.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, use profound knowledge about this subject, if you have any, not the meaningless phrases. Their act of air piracy and bombing is clearly qualified by the Court: The skyjacking here involved was a heinous example of such terrorism.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New changes

I removed the material that said Bartels said complimentary things ("noble") during sentencing. The sources were unverifiable, and when I looked for sources, I found precisely the opposite (which I did not put in the article as it was unnecessary). Here are two examples: #1; #2. I also tightened the material in the same section.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I also removed one of the individuals mentioned in the Hijacking section. He is not mentioned in the 2nd Circuit opinion, and I added a newspaper cite that only four people were convicted. Nor do the sources cited in the main article (which also has five) seem to support the 5th person. Some of the sources don't reference him at all. One Croatian source I can't figure out even after a Google translation. If he actually participated and there is a reliable source for that, he can be added back in with a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanations needed

I still do not see reasons for removal two of previous sections that are seriously written and referenced fully. Thus, I've put them back.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2011

And I've reverted them again. This is old material that was poorly sourced (in some instances not sourced at all), often not conforming to sources, and generally unencyclopedic. Parts of it were also far too detailed for this article as there are main articles that cover the same material. If you want to discuss the material, then do so in increments, meaning take it piece by piece, not as one large blob of unmanageable material.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, avoid meaningless disqualifications. You removed two sections that are sourced and necessary. What was unencyclopedic and how do you can prove it? "often not conforming to sources"? How and where?

In addition

The widow of the policeman filed a lawsuit against the responsible police bodies for "gross negligence".[9][10] In the suit she stated that the police supervisor placed the officers under his command at unnecessary risk by attempting to disassemble the device while ignoring safety procedures, rather than simply detonating it remotely.

makes no sense in the Trial and Imprisonment section . The US Court rejected this nonsense. Moreover, the widow did not absolve Busic of the crime he committed (killed her husband by planting the bomb). --66.151.103.8 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist

Of course, this man is a terrorist, publicly and legally. Croatian emigrant? Where, in his native country? He was initially an American immigrant, for a couple years; after he was a jail bird for 32 years, then his immigrant status was revoked and he was expelled from the U.S., for good.

Moreover, he was a member of the Croatian National Resistance, a terrorist organization banned in Germany in 1980ies. As a terrorist and a member of a terrorist organization, this man cannot ever enter Germany, nor even EU.

I saw that a whole paragraph about public reaction to this terrorist release from the prison was removed. Why? Why it is important to address the attitudes of those who worked on his release then?

As far as I see, the article is heavily biased and contains incomplete information like: came to Vienna, Austria to study (college dropout, I assume), not guilty of the policeman's death because of someone's negligence and lack of protection of those involved in defusing the bomb (rejected by the US Court)(!).

What "Taik" means here? Something like "Che" or "Mahatma"? --Eleven Nine (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific information you wish to add to the article that is relevant and supported by reliable sources, please indicate what the information is and the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Busic's blog removed

Last week I've contacted RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Amsterdam Netherlands asking them not to host Busic's blog (www.zvonkobusic.com). Got their thank-you response and had the blog not hosted by this company as of Friday, July 15th. Now it is time to remove this blog from Wikipedia.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at this issue, but at least now I understand why the site is no longer accessible. I also note that the IP who is currently blocked solicited you to come here. I also note that you are a newly registered user and appear to have an agenda. I'd advise you to be careful about what you say and what you edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Article improvements

• Leading section: as per discussion, the U.S. Code and the International Law, provided references, this man is a terrorist.
• Backgroud: Given an evidence that he was a member of a terrorist group banned in Germany for carrying acts of terrorism
• Hijacking: Restored an earlier version as more elaborated and punctual (the bomb wounded three policemen, not just one)
• Trial and imprisonment: Corrected single statement. Judge Bartels did not reduce the sentence but just make Busic eligible for parole.
• Reactions on Busic’s Release: Restored this section as necessary and bringing back neutrality of the article to a greater extent.

--209.51.184.10 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your change and posted a warning on your Talk page. Your version is almost the same as 71.191.31.183's. That IP is currently blocked. My assumption is you are the same person. If you do it again, I will seek a block based on, among other things, block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article is heavily tilted toward Croatian nationalism. No one is a patriot, a freedom fighter by committing terrorist acts: hijacking a passenger plane, killing a police officer.

A sad thing is that the users who tried to introduce some sense to the article are chased away.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not condone what Bušić did, but the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is always very blurred and can only be determined in retrospect as both labels are meaningless. We have to go with what reliable sources describe him as: e.g. the rather lengthy New York Times article described him as a "Croatian hijacker" or "Croatian nationalist" and calls his accomplices "co-conspirators". Nowhere in the article are the hijackers described as terrorists. Timbouctou (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Busic was sentenced to life in prison for committing a terrorist act by, the most notably, the US Court. There are many references citing that fact. There is a clear and a strong line between the terrorist and the freedom fighter.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the only fact here is that he and his co-conspirators were convicted for something called air piracy, i.e. hijacking an airplane. The NYT article is quite detailed - read it, you might learn something. Timbouctou (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I see that you don't understand what's in NYT article, or, at least, pretending that you don't see what's in the article. Here is the NYT articel quote:

Zvonko Busic, a Croatian nationalist who served more than three decades in U.S. prisons for a 1976 hijacking and a bombing that killed a New York City policeman, has committed suicide. He was 67.

In addition, there are the Court documents stating clearly what is the crime and what was the verdict and the sentence. I'm not going to fight you and the likes anymore. --96.241.218.72 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, please notice the absence of meaningless labels such as "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in the article you yourself quoted above. Also, I fail to see the relevance of your addition on Otpor - how is Bušić's supposed membership relevant to his biography since none of his obituaries mentioned it, how do we even know that the organisation itself is even notable, and what does "Otpor loyalist" even mean? The book you cited discusses Otpor in detail (pages 68-72) and the author does not describe it as a terrorist organisation at all (the word itself is hardly mentioned in those pages). Timbouctou (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(Possible) education discrepancy.

Says he finished school in Imotski (maybe at that Mate Ujević gymnasium), but graduated in Zagreb.

Does this have something to do with taking the matura in a city, or is this a contradiction?

Education in Croatia didn't help me, maybe you? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zvonko Bušić. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081011115136/http://www.avsec.com/interviews/busic.htm to http://www.avsec.com/interviews/busic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)