Talk:Ivica Dačić/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What's the objection to this? As far as I can tell, it's just summarising what a source says; but 23 editor reverts it as "totally non-neutral and unproductive". Why? bobrayner (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, let me think... Maybe because Serbia hasn't recognized Kosovo? I know right... What a stunning revelation! 23 editor (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I see where the problem is.

You object to "recognition". However, the source - and the edit - discuss normalisation. So there doesn't have to be a conflict after all.

However, if you do continue to disagree with that text, the best way forward may be for you to avoid working on articles where your beliefs cannot be reconciled with what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Look at this Recognition of Kosovo and former views? What? Who said Serbia recognized Kosovo? You're a POV pusher, and a very bad one at that. You should try looking at your own edits for once... My god! 23 editor (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as the EU accession talks are gathering momentum and taking on increasing significance, I recommend adding the following line to the EU Membership section: "Dačić, who will lead Serbia’s accession negotiations with the European Council, has described the EU accession talks as the “first step” in his Government’s plans to reform the country."^[1]. In the interests of transparency I am declaring that the Government of Serbia is my client. I will post on the COI noticeboard. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds positive to me, but I think it would be helpful to go into more detail and provide more context, rather than just presenting a soundbite. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't support your assertion. It says that (EU) accession talks is "the first step of this great journey we are about to undertake". No mention of "Government’s plans to reform the country". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I accept your points – what I think is needed is something that illustrates the development of his role in Serbia's progress towards EU accession and shows how those ambitions tie in with domestic policy. How about:

Following the European Council’s confirmation on 28 June 2013 that formal negotiations for the accession of Serbia to the EU could begin, Dačić announced that the Serbian government would remain continuously in session with a view to completing the talks within four to five years.^[2] The Prime Minister has said that harmonisation with European laws is an integral part of the government’s plan for boosting investment and employment.^[3] Vivj2012 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds ok. Just instead of "The Prime Minister" put "He" or "Dačić", for consistency reason. I myself would also avoid "four to five years" stipulation. Someone might read this article in four to five years.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense – how about:

Following the European Council’s confirmation on 28 June 2013 that formal negotiations for the accession of Serbia to the EU could begin, Dačić announced that the Serbian government would remain continuously in session with the aim of completing the talks as quickly as possible.^[4] Dačić has said that harmonisation with European laws is an integral part of the government’s plan for boosting investment and employment.^[5]

Would you be happy to make that edit? Owing to the COI I'd prefer not to make it myself. I've done the Harvard referencing so you can take it straight from the source. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is being vandalised by User:23 editor, who is apparently unhappy about a balanced view and promotes one-sided slanted POV, vandalising the article repeatedly.

Can someone do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Calling my edits "highly slanted POV" on your edit summary while inserting non-encyclopedic, possibly slanderous language to a Wikipedia article shows the extent of your bias. My edit is cited with Tanjug and the The Guardian. Your POV rant, on the other hand, is sourced with an LGBT NGO and Balkan Inside. Really? Furthermore, your deeming my edits "homophobic" implies in some way that I am "homophobic", which I most absolutely am not. Such comments on your part violate the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Having said this, I must emphasize that "repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I suggest you revert yourself and have a civil discussion on the talk page before this goes to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard like it ought to. 23 editor (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, this non-sensical edit is not half-English. I must emphasize that this is the English Wikipedia. 23 editor (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Nay, you ARE homophobic and indeed very much so. I have been seeing your ilk for the 40 years of my life: those who pretend to be objective only to push a one-sided oppressive, offensive POV.

Moreover, judging by the way you edit to make them appear in the best of lights, you seem to be in the employ of the horrible individual about whom that article is.

Eventually, if you cannot read English, then your competence in language is obviously quite limited, which is not something I should be concerned about, so kindly abstain from including such off-side nonsense into the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks, clearly in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Are you just asking for sanctions? 23 editor (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

you are threatening other users. Are you asking for sanctions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems logical, seeing that from the very first to the very last issue on this Talk page it is always him/her warring with other editors.

Now some people can avoid COI in those situations, but this user does not seem to be capable to.

The article thus basically becomes a Public Relation stunt of Ivica Dačić through his PR person User:23 editor and loses all meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned by four different editors (User:Bobrayner, User:Jreferee,User:Favonian and myself). Yet, you've failed to stop and have a civil discussion. As a result, I've had you reported. I won't even bother to discuss any longer because it's clear that your level of immaturity (with personal attacks and baseless accusations of conflict of interest) is preventing you from having a normal conversation to solve this dispute. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you are incapable of a normal discussion. Do you or do you not work for the said Ivica Dačić? It should not be too difficult to ascertain that, regardless of your inability to follow more advanced English (of which you complained above).

It is a very normal question seeing the editing war you ahve been engaging in since the beginning of this talk page (see the very first subheading) to right now.

And indeed this rather hysteric reaction just assures me that you are indeed working for the said Ivica Dačić, because an objective editor without vested interest would not act this way. Anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as I've disclosed above (and will disclose again on the COI noticeboard), I work for Bell Pottinger and the Government of Serbia is my client. I have already recently suggested edits to the article for Aleksandar Vučić, and have also proposed edits and updates to National Assembly (Serbia) and the Accession of Serbia to the European Union.

I would like to propose some further edits to this article to reflect Dačić's activities as Interior Minister in the government of Boris Tadić, his role in the ongoing normalisation of relations with Kosovo, his efforts to promote reconciliation in the Balkans, and his commitment to Serbian accession to the EU.

Party leadership

Currently: "In 2008, the Socialists were back in power as partners of the Democrats in the For a European Serbia-electoral alliance, led by Boris Tadić, after the 2008 Serbian parliamentary election; the Democrats were the main party that had helped oust Milošević."

1. Propose putting 'For a European Serbia' in single quotation marks to avoid confusion – it's not clear that this was a pro-EU coalition.

2. Propose following the above sentence with: "As interior minister in Tadić’s government, Dačić launched a crackdown on organised crime and corruption, and drew criticism from hard-line nationalists for handing over war crimes suspects to The Hague."1 2

3. The subsequent sentence should then read: “Dačić also supported Serbia's EU ambitions.”

Status of Kosovo

The last sentence of this section is currently: "He is considered a traitor by many Serbs in North Kosovo who say he works for Kosovan independence and for the Albanians."

Propose qualifying that by starting the sentence: "Himself a Kosovo Serb, he is considered a traitor..." 3

Also propose finishing this section with: “In August 2013, Dačić and Thaçi continued negotiations in a further round of dialogue in Brussels, discussing telecommunications and energy as well as preparations for the local elections in Kosovo, planned for 3 November.” 4

Foreign Policy

Propose as a second sentence in this section: “Dačić has also said that while he believes Serbia has a legitimate interest in the position of Serbs living in Montenegro, he has stressed that Serbia respects the political choices made by Montenegrin citizens and that the misunderstandings of the past should be put aside.” 5

EU membership

Propose as a closing sentence to this section (after “...integral part of the government’s plan for boosting investment and employment.”): “Dačić has called on the business and financial community to work with the government to improve competitiveness in the Serbian economy in the interests of attracting foreign capital.” 6

If someone could review these proposals and offer feedback that would be greatly appreciated, many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with most of those changes. My only concern would be that"misunderstandings" is an extraordinary understatement. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the changes.

1. SPS was not partner of Democrats in the For a European Serbia-electoral alliance in 2008. SPS made coalition with this alliance after the elections.
2. The Democrats were not the main party that had helped oust Milošević. The source refers to Democrats of 2000 which included Koštunica (DSS not DS) who was the main party which helped oust Milošević. Anyway, Milošević is irrelevant in case of 2008 elections and coalition after it and I think that assertion about him should be removed.
3. "launched a crackdown on organized crime and corruption"(?!) - This is serious overstatement. The whole government in which Dačić was minister of internal affairs is accused for serious law violations and was connected with numerous affairs. Even its president is under investigation while some ministers and their assistants were arrested under serious charges. The popularity of the government was very low exactly because of the corruption and organized crime. The organized crime and corruption were so strong that old government was overthrown at elections while new government and Aleksandar Vučić received tremendous popularity mainly because they promised change of the direction and promoted serious struggle against corruption and crime. Conclusion: I propose to avoid glorification of Dačić because of his struggle against organized crime and corruption when he was minister of internal affairs or to present both sides of that story which also include many affairs which were connected with him (none of them are presented in this article). I.e. affair suitcase (link), affair banana (link), affair Darko Šarić (link), eavesdrop affair (link) ....
4. traitor assertion is completely unnecessary. The source does not even support it. It says "some" "Kosovan" Serbs. I don't think this traitor assertion deserves any weight. I am also uncertain if Dačić should be referred to as Kosovo Serb, nor the source connects traitor assertion with him living at Kosovo during first six months of his life.
5. I think Dačić's call "on the business and financial community" has no particular meaning and probably is just political propaganda which does not benefit to the article.
6. EU membership and alleged Government's plans to "boost investment and employment" (boost is probably another overstatement) refers only to year 2015 and after it. Until then the government announced blood, toil, tears, and sweat, meaning that thousands of people will actually lose their jobs. Some estimations go from 20,000 (link) as high as 100,000 (link). About 600,000 people already lost their job in Serbia in period when Dačić and his party were in the government of Serbia (link). Again, either both reduction and boosting of employment assertions should be presented to the article or none.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Antidiskriminator, thanks for getting back and sorry for the long delay. Looking at your comments point-by-point:

1 & 2 concern what's in the article currently – I never said the Democrats were the main force in the ousting of Milošević.

3. Accept your points here.

4. Agree – I was merely trying to qualify the existing sentence with some explanation of why some Serbs in northern Kosovo would call him a traitor.

You have not made any comment on my proposed sentence on continued talks in Brussels – obviously the local elections have now taken place and were overshadowed of course by incidents in a few polling station, but in fact as this article in the Economist, for example, points out, the elections passed remarkably smoothly considering the tensions that still remain.

5. Fine, 'business and financial community' is perhaps a bit vague, but improving competitiveness is on the agenda and that word surely means something in the context of Serbia's struggling economy and its bid for EU membership.

6. '...boosting investment and employment' was actually a phrase you approved on 8 August (above). Your call.

bobrayner, you have a point about the word 'misunderstandings' – perhaps just something along the lines of 'the past should be put aside' would be more appropriate.

Let me know your thoughts, thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vivj2012. Thanks for your thoughts about the points I presented.

• Yes, "1 & 2 concern what's in the article currently" but, if I am not wrong, you proposed to keep it with only small change of the format and made it a part of your proposal.
• 5. I did not mind using the term "business and financial community". It is the call of PM to the "business and financial community" which I believe has no particular meaning and probably is just political propaganda which does not benefit to the article.
• 6. You are right that I approved "boosting" phrase. In August when it was what sources reported Dačić had said. That was completely the opposite from what his government did because in October details of its plans were revealed (check the links I provided above and their dates, all of them are from October). They actually projected further fall of the employment. It is now a matter of simple choice. To present both information to the readers (what D said and what D actually did) or to simply avoid both of them. I proposed the latter. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Antidiskriminator, yes, I must agree on all these points. I agree that that Milošević is irrelevant in the context of the 2008 elections, but just out of interest as I want to understand it better, am I right in thinking that this source refers to Koštunica's Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), which was the principal partner of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), which ousted Milošević in 2000, whereas the sentence we're discussing actually refers to the Democratic Party (DS), which was a partner in Tadić's For a European Serbia alliance, and had nothing to do with getting rid of Milošević? Plus after looking more closely at various sources I can see that you're right that SPS was not a member of For a European Serbia but went into coalition with it after the election. Thanks for the clarification – if you could let me know if this is right I'd really appreciate it! Thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong in case of this source. It actually does not refer to Democrats of 2000 nor to DSS, although they were the main party in the overthrown of Milosevic. It does refer to DS as " the main party that had helped oust Milošević". I believe it is obvious mistake because Milosevic was overthrown after Federal Republic of Yugoslavia presidential election, 2000 won by Kostunica with 48.96% of votes. It was Kostunica, supported by Democratic Opposition of Serbia, who was the main party of this event. The party of Kostunica (DSS) had equal number of seats with DS in parliament on the first post-Milosevic elections in Serbia, held in December 2000. That is why I believe it is wrong to proclaim DS as "the main party". Only a party is ok.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do people keep pushing the images that they have uploaded? Please, stop using the image in which he looks cross-eyed. It is an ugly picture, and we have pictures that are ten times better. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ivica Dačić. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20141026054938/http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Politika/335292/Skolski-drugovi-o-Ivici-Dacicu-Prasko-je-bio-izuzetno-dete to http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Politika/335292/Skolski-drugovi-o-Ivici-Dacicu-Prasko-je-bio-izuzetno-dete
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027124816/http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/engleski/propisi_frames.htm to http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/engleski/propisi_frames.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804163536/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=08&dd=01&nav_id=68816 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=08&dd=01&nav_id=68816
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231033344/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=07&dd=16&nav_id=81289 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=07&dd=16&nav_id=81289
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628235230/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=06&dd=28&nav_id=80991 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=06&dd=28&nav_id=80991
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120809063710/http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/nations/serbia/2012/08/06/Serbia-Jorgovanka-Tabakovic-new-National-Bank-governor_7303186.html to http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/nations/serbia/2012/08/06/Serbia-Jorgovanka-Tabakovic-new-National-Bank-governor_7303186.html/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ivica Dačić. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120901133044/http://sps.org.rs/en/president/ to http://sps.org.rs/en/president
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720112120/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=07&dd=18&nav_id=81326 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=07&dd=18&nav_id=81326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808221126/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=08&dd=06&nav_id=81646 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=08&dd=06&nav_id=81646
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=08&dd=06&nav_id=81641
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516154348/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=05&dd=15&nav_id=74342 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=05&dd=15&nav_id=74342

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivica Dačić. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100807010647/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16012.pdf?PHPSESSID=fd67c1c1a61d2a99cf11356e050236bb to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16012.pdf?PHPSESSID=b0b24a6135eaf2347d5b0a0badec77ff

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)