User talk:Prof. Baltazar

Ok, tell me what is factually wrong in my version of the text?

My adjustment was not, in any way driven by the decision that was brought by the club management. Although, everything that this management claims concerning this important part of clubs history is correct. Moreover, this should have been done long time ago. Građanski and Dinamo are ideed the same club, which many sources confirm, such as Legende zagrebačkog nogometa. I agree that Football Federation of Yugoslavia claimed that these were two different clubs, but I hope I don't need to explain their resons, as I believe you know them. In fact, Football Federation of Yugoslavia is not authoritative to decide wheather the clubs year of foundation is 1911 or 1945. I would like to point out other similar examples of clubs that were also abolished shortly after World War II. such as Werder Bremen, Borussia Dortmund, OFK Beograd and many others. They also consider their pre-war incarnations as a part of their history. Many people and authorities through history tried to neglect the fact that Građanski and Dinamo are the same club. Finally, after the official acceptance of the foundation year (1911) by UEFA (which should be considered the most reliable source) and the change of clubs name from NK Dinamo to GNK Dinamo the unjustment that goes on for almost 66 years has been corrected. I'm afraid we have opposite opinions on this subject, so I'll revert the article.

Gradjanski and Dinamo are not the same club and I have yet to see any evidence for it which is not merely circumstantial (yes, Dinamo took over the same colours of Gradjanski and some of their players, but they also took over HASK players and HASK's stadium). I have no clue what Legende zagrebackog nogometa is, and if you plan to use it as a source you should clarify what it is. As for the Yugoslav FA's authority on the matter - it was the governing body of the sport in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia - meaning that all Yugoslav titles won by Gradjanski were awarded to them by the YFA, as well everything that Dinamo had won between 1945 and 1990. In fact, except from the WWII period 1941-45 the Yugoslav FA was the top footballing authority in the country throughout Gradjanski's and most of Dinamo's existence - and it never recognized continuity of any of the major clubs with the exception of Hajduk Split and Zeljeznicar. WHY they decided so is not ours to debate about nor is it relevant. There are copious amounts of publications, Dinamo almanacs, books, newspaper articles and lexicons which all regard Dinamo as having been founded in 1945. This was also the club's own official viewpoint for 45 years, and there is a bronze plaque at the corner of Gunduliceva and Hebrangova ulica erected in 1975 which epecifically says so. We are talking about history here, not what is "just" or "unjust". If Mamić held a club assembly tomorrow in which it decided that hey, maybe the club was in fact founded in 1789 or 1606, would we re-write the article to correct the "injustice"? Nope. Not to mention that Gradjanski had been disbanded in 1945 - it was not merged, renamed, re-formed or re-established - but disbanded. Ceased to exist. And all this for a club which itself claims that it is a brand new legal entity since 2000 when former players sue them for unpaid wages. This is ridiculous. No present-day Dinamo fan hasn't got a clue about Gradjanski and/or any of its players or coaches, and I suppose even the club's management is not ineterested in talking about it much, probably because they know how close the club had been to the Ustashe regime during WWII. So yes - Gradjanski had indeed been disbanded for political reasons, along with Concordia, HASK and many others - but it is not our job to correct 66-year-old wrongs. Also, how they had the ingenious idea of coming up with this in 2011, some 21 years after the breakup of Yugoslavia, is remarkable. And one might also mention that for a time in the 1990s Fredi Kramer, supported by the club management, claimed that the club ("justly" renamed Croatia) was in fact founded in 1903. Is that more just or less just than 1911? Also, see WP:SOAPBOX.
In any case, you need to convince editors in a discussion at Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb about your ideas. Please stop simply reverting without discussing it first in the article talk page or you might get yourself blocked from editing. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't replied on most of my proofs such as UEFA acceptance, and the way all the other clubs in Europe resolve this issue. Anyway, I see that you're not familiar with a lot of events that occured in 1945. Therefore I'd like you to read the article that I wrote yesterday on the Croatian discussion over this issue (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:GNK_Dinamo_Zagreb) which will explain every statement that you hold for the argument against the Dinamo centennial. I also think that the English article should be coordinated with the Croatian one, in which the year of foundation is 1911. I will also put the link to Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb, however I noticed that you're the most firefierced proponent for the absurd Yugoslavian theory of Dinamo being founded in 1945, so I suppose that reaching consensus with you would be also reaching consensus with anyone else.

1. What is your "proof" regarding UEFA acceptance? Can you provide a link to UEFA.com which would show that UEFA accepts April 1911 as Dinamo's founding date? If not, than it is not a proof is it?
2. "The way other clubs in Europe resolve this issue" is something which editors at WP:FOOTY are familiar with. If you are unhappy about the article's content I suggest you consult more knowledgeable editors there.
3. For your information, I am very familiar with the origin of the club and the history of NK Dinamo Zagreb, Građanski and the stadium at Koturaška. In fact, it was me who wrote most of the present-day Građanski article andthe entire article about Stadion Koturaška. So when you copy-paste Građanski history into the GNK Dinamo article you are just moving around stuff I wrote way before you got the idea of coming here and promoting revisionism.
4. I read the essay you wrote at hr.wiki and I regret to inform you that I failed to see a single convincing argument in there. Your whole story relies on a book "Legende zagrebačkog nogometa" published in 1996 (51 years after Dinamo's foundation) in which one Zvonimir Magdić printed a whole lot of hearsay about the club's origin. Not only is it impossible to verify the factual accuracy of his statements and conclusions - it also has very little value in convincingly stating the case for 1911 as it hardly trumps the fact that the CLUB ITSELF and its national FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION had claimed otherwise for 45 years. In addition, the essay you wrote at hr.wiki is chock full of WP:OR, rumors and misinformation. Try reading Pero Zlatar's 1982 book "Priča o Dinamu" which talks about this in very precise terms in the opening pages. Also, try consulting any of the almanacs issued by NK Dinamo (and there were at least three issued - in 1960, 1975 and 1985 - I happen to own the 1985 edition), in which Fredi Kramer also talks about this in very clear terms. I intend to scan both books and use them to illustrate a separate section about the club's origin and history. I could refute almost any claim you wrote there (I loved the part about Kiev Dinamo - that's very original; also, HAŠK did have some problems about claiming its heritage; where did you come up with the idea that returning old names was allowed in the 1950s; OFK Begrade was also never regarded as BSK's successor during SFR Yugoslavia, and so on, and so on.)
5. Rules about notability and article editing guidelines are not universal across all wikipedia editions so even if nonsense like this passes at hr.wiki, do not think that it implies in any way that it should apply at en.wiki as well.
6. What you call "absurd theory" is very well supported by a myriad of reliable sources. What you claim on the other hand is simply an opinion. Pushing it stubbornly will hardly make it any more convincing. Sorry. Timbouctou (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]