Talk:Ivica Kostelić

message: Stop spreading lies!!!  That what's been said about Ivica Kostelic is highly exaggeration of one 
tabloid type magazine and BBC- media divoted to make picture about Croats as a nazis, ultranationalists, followers of Hitler etc...'''
One Croat
Loving youre homeland, doesn't make you nazi.
:Well what facts do you have to back your point of view up? Kostelić's denial of statements is already mentioned in the article. If you've got verifiable, sourced facts that show that the facts in the article are wrong or controversial, feel free to put them in the article. Blanking pages which say things you don't want to hear is unacceptable, however. --Aim Here 13:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC isn't one of the 'cheapest tabloids' by any stretch of the imagination, and the article mentions a statement Ivica made that was 'recorded'. Ivica doesn't appear to flat-out deny the allegations either, claiming his words were taken out of context. You can't dismiss a story out of hand just because it appears in a lousy newspaper when there's apparently some real evidence to back it up. Other than your dislike of the whole Croat-Nazi thing, which is understandable but irrelevant, do you have any specific factual issue with the article as it stands? --Aim Here 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither myself nor the article take the BBC article as fact. The Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell, reports that the BBC said something, and reports that Kostelić denied it. The article is neutral in tone. Have you got any pertinent facts that you can add to the article? I'm willing to accommodate the idea that Kostelić may have been misrepresented or taken out of context, but it has to be backed up with facts, not rant. And calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. --Aim Here 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what case the article is making. It's stating a bunch of facts and leaving the reader to judge. As for your interview, feel free use that to improve the article. Even citing it would be a help. --Aim Here 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put an NPOV tag on it since this is a dispute. Any more reversions will be dealt with under the 3-revert rule. Please feel free to try to edit the section relating to the allegations to something we can agree on. --Aim Here 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote the section to add more context and I included direct quotations of some of the controversial remarks and his responses to the allegations. I've kept all the original sources (I only replaced the Croatian version of the Nacional article with the English one, since it is readily available online) and I added some more. This Guardian article was particularly helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a full quotation instead of the partial quote and removed the statement that he spoke "favorably" about Hitler, as this is biased. This section has a lot of undue weight in the article but at least people can clearly see what he said without any need for wikipedia interpretations of his quotes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.156.224 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "full quotation" 979 words long is unnecessary per WP:UNDUE. You might as well copy the entire Nacional article in here. The controversy section was intended to give a summary of the said controvery, not give it a dedicated chapter in the article. Also, that he compared "favourably" Hitler vs. Stalin is exactly how BBC.co.uk phrased it. Timbouctou (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to copy the entire article than to include opinions. There is a difference in "Kostelic compared Hitler favourably with Stalin" which was put under a caption of a picture in the BBC article and stating that Kostelic "spoke favorablly about Hitler" as was in the Wikipedia article, which as written, implies that it was Nacional not the BBC who felt that Kostelic spoke favorable of Hitler. I can say that person A is bigger asshole than person B but this is not a favorable statment about person B, just a comparative one (person B is still an asshole). I edited the quote as well if you want to use the other quote than you should edit the entry to state that the BBC reported that "Kostelic compared Hitler favourably with Stalin" along with the quote:"However, Hitler didn’t kill his generals every day, he only killed off those conspiring against him. There is the big difference, and I would have done the same if I were some big dictator. While Stalin killed off his generals daily, including his friends.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.156.224 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If all he did was "give his opinion on the differences" between X and Y then why is the section titled "controversy" instead "Ivica's opinions about how one should select people to kill off"? Because some sections of he media portrayed it as he spoke about Hitler favourably - and that is where the so-called controversy originated from. So the section must say what the media thought he said in addition to what he actually said. So yeah, "including opinions" is basically the definition of reporting what the media had said about someone, whether the subject in question is Gadaffi, Obama or Ivica Kostelić. Timbouctou (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again there is a difference between "Kostelic compared Hitler favourably with Stalin" with Ivica "spoke favorably of Hitler". Do you not see how these two statements are different? See my example in the above post. Opinions can be controversial. The article does NOT say he spoke favorably about hitler! It says he compared one to the other and found one better, do you see a difference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.156.224 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That same article described his "opinions" and "comparisons" as "Nazi remarks". Also, your version is true but the wording is misleading - he was not asked by any reporter to compare Stalin or Hitler - the comparison through which he arrived to the conclusion that Adolf was better was his own invention. He could have compared Hitler with Churchill, or Gandhi with Mandela. But he didn't. He chose a comparison in which he made Hitler look better, and that is why there was this controversy in the first place. Nobody ever asked him to compare communism and national socialism. And your wording looks like he was answering a quiz about WWII. Timbouctou (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to put that his opinions came under fire as being Nazi remarks in the BBC then this is true as that is what the BBC wrote. None of the sources say he spoke favorably of Hitler, so the article should not imply such a serious statement especially when he directly says that the holocaust was the vision of an idiot (Hitler in this case). Is this somehow a favorable statement about Hitler? Why not include this quote in the article? I think my wording is fair actually, he gave his opinion, and some people found it controversial. Why he discussed these issues is unknown to me as I was not there. Lets not add our interpretation to what was reported or said. I would like to say that I think your effort to improve this article is more balanced that previous versions, but I think Wikipedia need to be careful about articles which imply (through improper wording) that a person thinks Hitler was wonderful and Nazi ideology was great. Public statements like these are a serious crime in some countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.156.224 (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ivica Kostelić. 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://www.webcitation.org/69QMK7N4O?url=http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/18165/ivica-kostelic-nazism-was-a-healthy-system to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/18165/ivica-kostelic-nazism-was-a-healthy-system
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified