This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'd suggest that the article be renamed to
Tihomir Orešković (soldier). The current title breaks
WP:POVNAMING (encroaching on
WP:BLP in the process). Apart from that, "war criminal" is not the minimal disambiguating context (given the fact there are no other soldiers named Tihomir Orešković).
If the term "war criminal" is problematic, I am open to solutions -- "soldier", however, is not one of them, as that is not where his fame/infamy derives from. Also, it is an insult to soldiers.
Quis separabit?21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Evlekis was apparently banned for sockpuppeting, so I don't see how this would taint his article move, especially given the fact that it was done back in May 2012 and has not been contested since.
Well, as far as Orešković and Abe -- sometimes people just don't fit into the usual categories. You can't fit a square peg in a circular hole, or something like that. That being said, having a "rather unusual" disambiguation may be necessary if something better can't be found. As I asked above, how about ICTY indictee or just criminal or convict?
Quis separabit?22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
"ICTY indictee" seems a bit off (he was convicted and merely happens to be also indicted by the ICTY), "criminal" is the same as "war criminal", only more vague, and "convict" is again odd, as it suggests that he is notable for his stay in prison.
My argument about Orešković and Abe being exceptions is indeed potentially flawed, as they might be exceptions for a reason. Still, I don't see what that reason would be.
Let me also note that I would not object to
Tihomir Orešković dab page identifying him as a war criminal/convicted of war crimes/involved in Gospić massacre or whatever, since dab pages need to help the reader reach the intended topic, and "aha, that's him alright" is the reaction we're looking for. Title disambiguation works in a slightly different way, though.
There's nothing controversial about calling a soldier a soldier. I've moved the article, there's no point whatsoever in appearing to violate BLP policy for people who have already served prison time, the disambiguation marker is not a soapbox. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It is an insult (I don't care about "controversial") to call a war criminal a soldier because you don't happen to like the alternative disambiguations. To call him a soldier, especially when he was calling most of the shots, is a form of rehabilitation like he was "just following orders", which, by the way, ceased being a valid defense back in Nuremberg.
Quis separabit?15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
But that's just your personal opinion AFAICT. It's standard practice to describe the generic occupations of people, and it's standard practice to use the most generic possible disambiguation marker first. If much worse people such as
Adolf Eichmann or
Maks Luburić are duly described with their ranks in their lead sections, this guy should not be an exception.
WP:NCDAB actually explicitly advises against proper nouns so this new version is even worse :)
Pardon my butting in, but the disambiguation and article title policies say we go for conciseness where possible. By far the most common disambiguator used on en WP for people whose occupation was soldier is... soldier, regardless of whether a particular soldier was convicted of war crimes. Soldier is the most concise term that dab's this fellow from the other fellow by this name, so the dab should be (soldier), not (Croatian Army), which would only be necessary if there was another non-Croatian Army soldier to dab from. If there was an Australian soldier by the same name, he would be (Australian Army) and this fellow would be (Croatian Army). The dab is not an opportunity to try to make a point about his notability, which is determined independently of dab, the first sentence of the lead is where his notability is established. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Well,
@Peacemaker67: actually you are not butting in -- I invited you on your talk page to join the colloquy. I am all for simplicity and succintness but if the soldier in question is an officer (a General, say), to label him or her merely as a soldier is misleading. The person would still be notable but to label a General simply as a "soldier" is misleading and inaccurate.
Quis separabit?22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I was already commenting here when you posted on my talk page. (general) is also simple, and if the person was one, it is also commonly used, as is (officer) for those with more responsibility than a soldier. Anything more is usually unnecessary to dab him from other people of the same name, unless of course there is another soldier, officer or general of that name to dab from. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hmm. So I went to look what kind of an officer he was, and all I could find is "Secretary of the Lika Crisis Headquarters", which doesn't sound like an army position. It took a few educated guesses to arrive at the Supreme Court verdict at
http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=463 which says:
Da je optuženik Tihomir Orešković samo formalno bio tajnik tzv. operativnog štaba, a da je njegova stvarna uloga i moć bila mnogo značajnija, značajnija i od uloge i moći Ante Karića govori čitav niz provedenih dokaza.
translates into: "A whole series of presented evidence testifies that the defendant Tihomir Orešković was only formally a secretary of the so-called operational headquarters, yet that his real role and power was much more significant, more significant even than the role and power of Ante Karić."
Whereas Ante Karić was introduced as ... povjerenika Vlade Republike Hrvatske za koordinaciju kriznih štabova koje pokriva područje Policijske uprave Gospić - translating into 'the commissioner of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the coordination of crisis headquarters within the jurisdiction of the Gospić Police Directorate'.
So this Orešković was actually more of a political figure than a military figure? This presents a most annoying dilemma with regard to how to disambiguate him with the businessman-turned-Prime-Minister who we have disambiguated as "politician". I'm out of ideas at this point. Assuming the other Orešković forms a government and remains in power for any appreciable amount of time, we will undoubtedly end up making him the primary topic, but that doesn't resolve the issue of the disambiguation marker of this one, esp. because it will become that much more visible in the hatnote (per
WP:TWODABS). --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
08:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe someone can find an existing example of disambiguation being used for someone else who was effectively the head of military police?
The translation of pukovnik is colonel. That would make more sense in terms of him being subordinated in some way to Norac. Perhaps (officer) would be a better dab given the confusion over rank?
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
11:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, Orešković's military role seems to be have been fairly limited, and colonel (rather than general) makes sense. I'd agree with "(officer)".
GregorB (
talk)
12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That seems acceptable. The verdict above does actually once mention ranks - ... predstavlja se kao komandant HV-a u Lici, kao načelnik operativnog stožera, dopukovnik, ... - translated "... identified himself as the commander of the Croatian Army in Lika, as head of the operational headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel, ...". It's doubtful anyone would confuse
officer with
CFO. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I do have to mention the irony of referring to a deposed officer as one, esp. in context of the Croatian word for officer - časnik, which is derived from the Croatian word meaning - honor. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
16:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'd suggest that the article be renamed to
Tihomir Orešković (soldier). The current title breaks
WP:POVNAMING (encroaching on
WP:BLP in the process). Apart from that, "war criminal" is not the minimal disambiguating context (given the fact there are no other soldiers named Tihomir Orešković).
If the term "war criminal" is problematic, I am open to solutions -- "soldier", however, is not one of them, as that is not where his fame/infamy derives from. Also, it is an insult to soldiers.
Quis separabit?21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Evlekis was apparently banned for sockpuppeting, so I don't see how this would taint his article move, especially given the fact that it was done back in May 2012 and has not been contested since.
Well, as far as Orešković and Abe -- sometimes people just don't fit into the usual categories. You can't fit a square peg in a circular hole, or something like that. That being said, having a "rather unusual" disambiguation may be necessary if something better can't be found. As I asked above, how about ICTY indictee or just criminal or convict?
Quis separabit?22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
"ICTY indictee" seems a bit off (he was convicted and merely happens to be also indicted by the ICTY), "criminal" is the same as "war criminal", only more vague, and "convict" is again odd, as it suggests that he is notable for his stay in prison.
My argument about Orešković and Abe being exceptions is indeed potentially flawed, as they might be exceptions for a reason. Still, I don't see what that reason would be.
Let me also note that I would not object to
Tihomir Orešković dab page identifying him as a war criminal/convicted of war crimes/involved in Gospić massacre or whatever, since dab pages need to help the reader reach the intended topic, and "aha, that's him alright" is the reaction we're looking for. Title disambiguation works in a slightly different way, though.
There's nothing controversial about calling a soldier a soldier. I've moved the article, there's no point whatsoever in appearing to violate BLP policy for people who have already served prison time, the disambiguation marker is not a soapbox. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It is an insult (I don't care about "controversial") to call a war criminal a soldier because you don't happen to like the alternative disambiguations. To call him a soldier, especially when he was calling most of the shots, is a form of rehabilitation like he was "just following orders", which, by the way, ceased being a valid defense back in Nuremberg.
Quis separabit?15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
But that's just your personal opinion AFAICT. It's standard practice to describe the generic occupations of people, and it's standard practice to use the most generic possible disambiguation marker first. If much worse people such as
Adolf Eichmann or
Maks Luburić are duly described with their ranks in their lead sections, this guy should not be an exception.
WP:NCDAB actually explicitly advises against proper nouns so this new version is even worse :)
Pardon my butting in, but the disambiguation and article title policies say we go for conciseness where possible. By far the most common disambiguator used on en WP for people whose occupation was soldier is... soldier, regardless of whether a particular soldier was convicted of war crimes. Soldier is the most concise term that dab's this fellow from the other fellow by this name, so the dab should be (soldier), not (Croatian Army), which would only be necessary if there was another non-Croatian Army soldier to dab from. If there was an Australian soldier by the same name, he would be (Australian Army) and this fellow would be (Croatian Army). The dab is not an opportunity to try to make a point about his notability, which is determined independently of dab, the first sentence of the lead is where his notability is established. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Well,
@Peacemaker67: actually you are not butting in -- I invited you on your talk page to join the colloquy. I am all for simplicity and succintness but if the soldier in question is an officer (a General, say), to label him or her merely as a soldier is misleading. The person would still be notable but to label a General simply as a "soldier" is misleading and inaccurate.
Quis separabit?22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I was already commenting here when you posted on my talk page. (general) is also simple, and if the person was one, it is also commonly used, as is (officer) for those with more responsibility than a soldier. Anything more is usually unnecessary to dab him from other people of the same name, unless of course there is another soldier, officer or general of that name to dab from. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hmm. So I went to look what kind of an officer he was, and all I could find is "Secretary of the Lika Crisis Headquarters", which doesn't sound like an army position. It took a few educated guesses to arrive at the Supreme Court verdict at
http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=463 which says:
Da je optuženik Tihomir Orešković samo formalno bio tajnik tzv. operativnog štaba, a da je njegova stvarna uloga i moć bila mnogo značajnija, značajnija i od uloge i moći Ante Karića govori čitav niz provedenih dokaza.
translates into: "A whole series of presented evidence testifies that the defendant Tihomir Orešković was only formally a secretary of the so-called operational headquarters, yet that his real role and power was much more significant, more significant even than the role and power of Ante Karić."
Whereas Ante Karić was introduced as ... povjerenika Vlade Republike Hrvatske za koordinaciju kriznih štabova koje pokriva područje Policijske uprave Gospić - translating into 'the commissioner of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the coordination of crisis headquarters within the jurisdiction of the Gospić Police Directorate'.
So this Orešković was actually more of a political figure than a military figure? This presents a most annoying dilemma with regard to how to disambiguate him with the businessman-turned-Prime-Minister who we have disambiguated as "politician". I'm out of ideas at this point. Assuming the other Orešković forms a government and remains in power for any appreciable amount of time, we will undoubtedly end up making him the primary topic, but that doesn't resolve the issue of the disambiguation marker of this one, esp. because it will become that much more visible in the hatnote (per
WP:TWODABS). --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
08:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe someone can find an existing example of disambiguation being used for someone else who was effectively the head of military police?
The translation of pukovnik is colonel. That would make more sense in terms of him being subordinated in some way to Norac. Perhaps (officer) would be a better dab given the confusion over rank?
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
11:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, Orešković's military role seems to be have been fairly limited, and colonel (rather than general) makes sense. I'd agree with "(officer)".
GregorB (
talk)
12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That seems acceptable. The verdict above does actually once mention ranks - ... predstavlja se kao komandant HV-a u Lici, kao načelnik operativnog stožera, dopukovnik, ... - translated "... identified himself as the commander of the Croatian Army in Lika, as head of the operational headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel, ...". It's doubtful anyone would confuse
officer with
CFO. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I do have to mention the irony of referring to a deposed officer as one, esp. in context of the Croatian word for officer - časnik, which is derived from the Croatian word meaning - honor. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
16:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply