Talk:Skull Tower

Vox

Tim Judah states that Vox is an "extremist" magazine; however Ivo Zanic points out in Flag on the Mountain: A Political Anthropology of War in Croatia and Bosnia, Saqi Books, London, 2007 (pp. 332-333) that "Even in cases that were pushed too hard or that were quite tasteless, Vox‘s constructions contained enough elements for anyone who approached them with minimal common sense to be able without difficulty to realise that this was satire, in other words, an imagined reality that criticised the real reality. Thus its many agendas and declarations are readable, undoubtedly witty, identifiable ironic commentaries on real agendas, actions and declarations by the political figures of the time, particularly Karadzic’s SDS of Bosnia-Herzegovina." Therefore it's akin to The Onion though I can see how this could be misinterpreted by a foreigner. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Zanic mention Skull Tower in his commentary? 23 editor (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not. Why? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was merely wondering if Vox's comments about the tower were intended to be satirical is all. 23 editor (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The magazine is wholly satirical. He goes on to point out "Vox regularly printed its price not only in legal Yugoslav dinars but also in the fictitious bukvas. The joke was clear to anyone with half a brain: it referred to the proposal that the currency in Slovenia be called the lipa, linden, because this tree in Slovenia had the status of national symbol, and bukva would be the Bosnian equivalent. This irony, or self-deprecation, for the word bukva in the South Slav lands metaphorically means thickhead, and there are versions such as bukvan, blockhead, and the very common colloquial phrase ‘thick as a bukva‘, implying someone rather slow, good-natured and harmless, a likeable fellow in fact, as well as a number of other phrases and proverbs." Again something that could be lost on people not from the area. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Vox was definitely NOT "wholly satirical" and drawing a parallel between Vox and The Onion is preposterous. Having actually seen Vox, Zanic's (whoever he is) dismissive statement about "the joke being clear to anyone with half a brain" is tendentious and misleading. I remember holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues. It was a classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance, garnered with a few juvenile bits here and there such as the above "bukva example". The fact that it occasionally threw in a joke or a wink, did nothing to negate its clearly fascist and anti-Serb overall tone. Since Vox didn't list an impressum, it would later be discovered that it was created and mostly written by Sead and Nihad Kreševljaković, sons of Muhamed Kreševljaković who was a high functionary of Alija Izetbegović's party SDA (in 1991, Kreševljaković was named to the post of Sarajevo's mayor). So it's clear where the funding and initial approval for Vox came from. It was basically the SDA's youth wing gazette, but they didn't want to state that outright. This was a period, 1990-1991, during which SDA wasn't as sweet on the "multiethnic Bosnia narrative", which they started trumping up much later when they saw that they simply don't have enough muscle and manpower to achieve their aims. This 1990-1991 period was a time of a lot more combative SDA and Vox is one of many examples that reflect this authentically. Their rhetoric was especially hardline in the lead-up to the December 1990 parliamentary elections. Afterwards, once they formed the ruling coalition with SDS and HDZ and it became clear SDA is behind Vox they put a stop to the magazine under pressure from their ruling coalition partners Serb SDS and Croat HDZ.Zvonko (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have your personal opinion, which Wikipedia policy is utterly disinterested in, against that of:

1. Ivo Zanic, a professor from the University of Zagreb, writing in a book published by Saqi, a publisher of academic works.
2. Marko Attila Hoare, a historian with numerous books published by Oxford University Press, making the Onion comparison and stating that the magazine was satirical. [1]
3. Mark Thompson, another historian, stating the same in a book published by Indiana University Press that deals specifically with the media's role in the Bosnian War. [2]

These sources, whose opinions Wikipedia is actually interested in, are clear on the matter. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrectly summarized.

As far as people whose opinions Wikipedia's disinterested in we have your own opinion (the fact that you never saw the magazine isn't stopping you from concluding that "Vox is wholly satirical" along with claiming that "Vox's satire could be lost on someone who's not from the Balkans" thereby suggesting Judah is a victim of this) against my opinion (a person who actually read two issues of the magazine) that Vox is SDA-sponsored fascist garbage garnered with sophomoric yucks.

In the people who matter group we have claims by three individuals you listed, expressed in passing while arguing entirely different points not directly related to Vox, that Vox is satirical, while on the other side we have a claim by Tim Judah, also expressed in passing, that Vox is extremist. We also have an opinion by Emir Kusturica, an internationally renowned, two time Palme d'Or winning film director, as expressed in his autobiography Death is an unverified rumour (Smrt je neprovjerena glasina, Novosti AD, 2010, ISBN 978-86-7446-159-4, pages 260, 261, 262, and 263):

"Vox was one manifestation of the Izetbegović's overall effort to discipline those individuals who were Muslim according to the first and last name. It was a way of hounding the wayward Muslim sons. Vox incessantly abused Abdulah Sidran, the screenplay writer on my first two films. Impaling Nobel prize winner Ivo Andrić on a pen (one of Vox's covers) was a clear message to Sidran that 'he'll end up the same way if he doesn't stop eating pork'. They tried the same treatment with me as well. In the end they managed to shut Sidran up. However, with me, similar success eluded them due to my hereditary weak character, and also the fact that I was already living outside of Bosnia. President Izetbegović even took photos holding this issue with impaled Andrić in his hands, smiling and commending the young men from Vox for their 'good humour'".

Also, I should point out the fact that during the time period in question, both Kusturica and Sidran were outspoken supporters of Ante Marković and his Union of Reform Forces (SRSJ) political party, appearing at campaign stops and giving affirmative mentions of Marković in their media appearances.

In summary, your side is leading 3-2 in the people who matter department. Congratulations. However, your slim lead doesn't give you the right to delete an entire paragraph on the assumption that the info contained in it is baseless.Zvonko (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm citing conclusions made from reliable academics stating that Vox "was satire, in other words, an imagined reality that criticised the real reality" (Zanic), "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye" (Hoare), and a "satirical monthly" (Thompson). You also have David Bruce MacDonald, writing for Manchester University Press, stating Vox is a "youth magazine" which happened to be alleged by Serb propaganda circles to somehow be evidence of an impending Nazi Muslim inspired genocide. [3] Something echoing of your own characterization that it's a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance" and "SDA-sponsored fascist garbage garnered with sophomoric yucks". That's four different academic authors stating it was a satirical and/or youth magazine. You are self-admittedly engaging in original research and, in case it isn't obvious, we are looking for academic opinions not yours or just anyone you manage to randomly scoop up on Google books. Glorify Kusturica all you want: his directorial credentials do not somehow qualify him as a reliable source and his autobiography is absolutely irrelevant. You are grasping at straws and it's akin to citing Michael Jackson on horticulture because he has an impressive amount of platinum records. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's go one by one here.

I'm citing conclusions made from reliable academics

You're offering your own opinions in addition to citing theirs. You're also attempting to tendentiously fill in what you perceive as blanks in the three sources you provided since their assessment of Vox is nothing more than a cursory one. You're trying to help them out by offering personal observations like "this is something that could be lost on people not from the area". Basically, you're being disingenuous, you're claiming neutrality and objectivity when you're clearly anything but.

You then accuse me of "grasping at straws" and of "randomly scooping up citations on Google books". And then you yourself produce a citation from Google Books that literally says nothing about Vox in terms of whether it's satirical or extremist. And if that's not bad enough, you then summarize the citation incorrectly, throwing in terminology that isn't even there in an attempt of padding your argument. In the link you provided, David Bruce MacDonald says the following:

"Similarly, the fear of a Moslem-inspired genocide was linked to the Bosnian youth magazine, Vox, which supposedly encouraged its readers to participate in an anti-Serbian game - to collect as many Serbian heads as possible"

Contrast this with how you presented his words:

"Vox is a "youth magazine" which happened to be alleged by Serb propaganda circles to somehow be evidence of an impending Nazi Muslim inspired genocide"

Putting aside for a second your propensity for inventing peacock terminology even when citing other people, and the fact you implicitly made a personal attack on me by implicitly accusing me of being a Serb propagandist, MacDonald says absolutely nothing about the nature of Vox other than that it's a youth magazine. He offers no opinion on whether Vox is satire or not.

Also the Hoare citation you provided is factually incorrect in that it presents the people behind Vox as "alternative youth movement". This simply isn't true. In what universe can two guys (Nihad and Sead Kresevljakovic) publishing a monthly mag funded by the Muslim political party SDA via their father Muhamed Kresevljakovic who's a member of the said party's main board, pass for an "alternative youth movement"?

As for your dismissal of Kusturica's opinion in regards to Vox, unlike Thompson, Hoare, Zanic, and Judah, his is the only opinion that deals with Vox itself. He's also an immediate witness and basically a protagonist of the events in question since during the said period 1990-1991 he was very much involved in the public life in Bosnia, and politics as well since he spoke at many of Markovic's campaign rallies. All the others talk about Vox curtly and in passing, en route to other arguments, not to mention a glaring factual error contained within Hoare's opinion.Zvonko (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If anything saying "this is something that could be lost on people not from the area", which is stated clearly separate from the source, is softening the blow when the Zanic source, which dedicates numerous paragraphs to Vox and is not simply "in passing", bluntly puts it that "Vox‘s constructions contained enough elements for anyone who approached them with minimal common sense to be able without difficulty to realise that this was satire" (something apparently lost on you) and "clear to anyone with half a brain". The majority of Hoare's piece is dedicated to debunking this myth, pushed by the likes of Carl Savich and you yourself, of it being a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance". Again he does so not in passing and even cites Zanic to illustrate his point. Thompson's source deals specifically with the media's role in the Bosnian War and clarifies its a "satire monthly" that actually ran out of money. How that fits in with your SDA funding and "SDA's youth wing gazette" nonsense, I don't know. As for your "implying implications" bit, MacDonald, whose work is dedicated to observing Serbian and Croatian propaganda, cites Vox as an example that's been used in a "general theme in propaganda circles" that "compare an exaggerated view of an Islamic conspiracy with the horrors of Nazi Germany [in which the] Serbs could confidently claim to be defending themselves against a Muslim inspired genocide." Pointing out the similarities between your arguments and that of propagandists is not a personal attack, but an accurate observation. If you are going to berate another user for presenting sources that only discuss Vox "in passing" then do bother reading the context. From Kusturica, who could've been Markovic's hunting partner for all we care, we can draw that he has a personal dislike of Vox and their humor, congratulations. He is not an academic scholar nor dealing with it as a historical subject matter (it's an autobiography ffs). As such the source won't be entertained. So enough of your poor attempts at further peacocking the source and pushing your personal theories in which nobody's interested. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@PRODUCER:, @Zvonko: Guys, I'm kind of in the middle of a GA review here. Please agree on something ASAP. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@PRODUCER

You bring up falsehood after falsehood. The majority of Hoare's blog spot is ABSOLUTELY NOT about what you termed "debunking the Vox myth". The majority of his blog post is about Handžar Division and Hoare's duel with Savich over that. Furthermore, Hoare's tangential references to Vox in the said post entirely rely on Zanic. The only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself ("Vox was published by an alternative youth movement") is blatantly false.

Also, there is another thing here that's problematic. What you consider a "legitimate source" is quite preposterous. You don't mind a blog post that only brings up Vox tangentially and whose topic is something else entirely, while even the little attention it does devote to Vox relies verbatim on another source (Zanic) that you ALREADY PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED AS A SEPARATE SOURCE!? So, a blog post containing a glaring factual error that otherwise completely duplicates another source is A-OK as a NEW reliable source for you, but when it comes to an autobiography by a protagonist of the events who devotes almost four pages to precisely Vox, you scoff at it, you dismiss it, and you throw the f-word around. Truly amazing!

Thompson says Vox is a "satire monthly" that actually ran out of money. How that fits in with your SDA funding and "SDA's youth wing gazette" nonsense, I don't know

Let me repeat it again for you then. As I already said, SDA stopped funding Vox sometime in late 1991 - early 1992, which was its downfall. Let me repeat the other facts one more time as well. The fact that the Vox mag was written by the two sons (Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic) of an individual (Muhamed Kresevljakovic) highly placed in the SDA hierarchy, the fact that the money for the publishing of Vox was provided by the SDA, and the fact that Alija Izetbegovic went around praising Vox, even taking photographs with it. To you this is nonsense? Not a big facts guy, I guess.

With the David Bruce MacDonald citation, you're again resorting to your earlier tactic of filling in the blanks and gaps where the facts simply don't support your argument. Let me repeat one more time what MacDonald EXPLICITLY said about Vox:

"Similarly, the fear of a Moslem-inspired genocide was linked to the Bosnian youth magazine, Vox, which supposedly encouraged its readers to participate in an anti-Serbian game - to collect as many Serbian heads as possible"

Since his exact quote doesn't at all serve your purposes, you first misrepresented his words, throwing in a bunch of peacock/weasel words in the process, and now because I called you on it, you're again reaching and stretching for the argument by implying and inducing that "just because MacDonald also talks about Serb propaganda in generally negative tone, he must also think that Vox is great" even though he never said any such thing about Vox. You're of course doing the same thing with me, trying to disqualify me by smearing me with the 'brainless and humourless Serb propagandist' tag, but that's your go-to device when you run out of facts.Zvonko (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenient timing 23 editor, but there is nothing to agree with Zvonko on. He simply continues to push his personal theories and that of a director against that of numerous academics. I find Hoare credible because he is an actual historian. He endorses Zanic's view that it's satire and Hoare himself makes the observation that it "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye", a parallel you personally deemed "preposterous". So this claim that "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" as being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" is utter rubbish. You've brought up your personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense up numerous times. It isn't supported by any reliable source and nobody is interested in your self-admitted original research so please keep it to yourself. As for MacDonald: what's that little keyword "similarly" doing being ignored? "Similarly" to what I wonder? What is that section discussing exactly? If you choose to push a position that sources have indicated lacks good judgement and is similar to those used by propagandists that's your prerogative, but don't cry foul when another editor simply points this out. Your attempts to dismiss the sources for discussing it "in passing" is all just a really poor guise for "I don't like it". Four sources written by academics have been presented: you have two sources that are directly assessing Vox in detail and in numerous paragraphs, a third specifically dealing with media in the Bosnian War, and a fourth showing your argument is similar to that of a "general theme" of propagandists. One must really be out of touch with Wikipedia's policies when they throw these sources out on a whim and believe what constitutes a reliable source is a "protagonist" director writing in an autobiographical context and bragging about their Palme d'Or awards and association with Markovic in the process. You're doing a perfectly good job "disqualifying" yourself by yourself, no need for me to do that for you. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, 23 editor, don't hold your breath for an agreement between me and PRODUCER. There's a slim chance of finding common ground with someone this deceitful and disingenuous. Someone's going to have to mediate here, provided they don't have a headache yet.

Since PRODUCER doesn't seem to be getting tired of repeating falsehoods and distortions, I'm certainly not going to get tired of repeating FACTS. So let's go at it again.

PRODUCER says: "Zvonko continues to push his personal theories and that of a director against that of numerous academics."

What PRODUCER fails to mention in his peacock distortionist grandeur is that by "numerous academics" he actually means 3 citations (Zanic's book Flag on the Mountain: A Political Anthropology of War in Croatia and Bosnia, Thompson's book, and Hoare's blog post), one of which (Hoare's blog post) is a verbatim copy of the previous source (Zanic's book) along with Hoare's two personal claims about Vox, one of which, that "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement", is factually false.

PRODUCER then says: "I find Hoare credible because he is an actual historian"

Yeah, except that in the blog post PRODUCER provided a link to, Hoare is NOT engaging in published or peer-reviewed historical research. Instead, Hoare is blogging on a completely different subject and only tangentially touches upon Vox through presenting someone else's data (Zanic's), which PRODUCER already used up as a source once. A duplicate of the EXACT SAME data can not be presented as 2 different sources.

In his dismissal of me as a 'humourless, brainless Serb propagandist', PRODUCER also chooses to ignore a source, Tim Judah's book where Judah refers to Vox as 'an extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo'. PRODUCER then dismisses an actual protagonist of the political events Vox covered, Emir Kusturica, who devoted almost four pages in his autobiography to Vox (some of it I translated above) talking about Vox's link to SDA and Izetbegovic.

PRODUCER also scoffs at the information about links between SDA and Vox, writing it off as "Zvonko's personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense that isn't supported by any reliable source and self-admitted original research nobody is interested in"

Leaving aside PRODUCER's complete peacock/weasel fabrications when it comes summarizing my posts (I never said anything about doing original research), let's lay out the facts again. Vox was written and published by Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic. Here's their own interviews [4] where the Kresevljakovic brothers THEMSELVES talk about creating Vox. Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic are sons of Muhamed Kresevljakovic who at the time of Vox's publishing was a high-ranking functionary of the SDA political party in Bosnia (and was in late 1990 appointed by SDA to the Sarajevo mayoral post once SDA gained power in Bosnia, including local power in Sarajevo). In the above link [5] brothers talk about their Sarajevo mayor father Muhamed, confirming their kin. Muhamed Kresevljakovic's affiliation with SDA is also well noted in published sources.[6][7] In several of its issues the mag even listed Senad "Šaja" Šahinpašić (well-known SDA member and organizer) as Vox's main financier.[8]

PRODUCER also lists a source by David Bruce Macdonald, which PRODUCER says supports a claim that Vox is satirical. Unfortunately, the source says nothing about Vox being satirical or not. The source actually says:

"Similarly, the fear of a Moslem-inspired genocide was linked to the Bosnian youth magazine, Vox, which supposedly encouraged its readers to participate in an anti-Serbian game - to collect as many Serbian heads as possible"

In his desperate attempt to induce or imply that the above paragraph somehow lists Vox as satire, PRODUCER first misrepresented Macdonald's words. Since simply quoting Macdonald did PRODUCER's argument no good, PRODUCER decided to incorrectly summarize Macdonald's words, throwing in a bunch of peacock/weasel words in the process.

"Vox is a "youth magazine" which happened to be alleged by Serb propaganda circles to somehow be evidence of an impending Nazi Muslim inspired genocide"

When that failed because I called him on it, PRODUCER further stretched for the argument by implying and inducing that just because MacDonald talks about Serb propaganda in generally negative tone, he therefore must also be saying that Vox is satirical even though Macdonald never said any such thing about Vox.

PRODUCER's latest attempt at including David Bruce Macdonald as a source for a claim that Vox is satire consists of pushing a falsehood that I ignored the passage referenced by the word "similarly" found at the beginning of Macdonald's paragraph about Vox. If he had bothered to look, PRODUCER would have found that the paragraph referenced by "similarly" talks about MacDonald's assessment of "Milorad Ekmečić's opus being focused on Bosnia-Herzegovina as the target of Eastern and Western expansionism". Nothing at all in that paragraph about Vox being satirical as claimed by PRODUCER. Finally, PRODUCER is really squeezing last drops by saying the Macdonald's source actually shows that "Zvonko's argument is similar to that of a 'general theme' of propagandists". I'm sorry, even if we assume for the sake of PRODUCER's argument that Zvonko is a 'Serb propagandist' (brainless and humourless one to boot), there's still nothing in that source that says Vox is satirical.Zvonko (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You brag about being "a person who actually read two issues of the magazine" and "remembering holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues" as a poor attempt to legitimize your personal opinion and your original research. That Vox is a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance" is not fact and that "SDA's youth wing gazette, but they didn't want to state that outright" is not a fact. It's your own personal nonsense and users are well within their right to dismiss it outright. You claim me to be "deceitful and disingenuous" while claiming "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" as being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" when in fact Hoare himself makes the observation that it "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye", a parallel you personally deemed "preposterous". At the same time claiming what Hoare says is "factually false" with nothing to be back up your claims but your own opinion.

I never misrepresented MacDonald who states Vox was "similarly" used in a "general theme in propaganda circles" that "compare an exaggerated view of an Islamic conspiracy with the horrors of Nazi Germany [in which the] Serbs could confidently claim to be defending themselves against a Muslim inspired genocide" and who claimed Vox was simply a "youth magazine". But this is besides the point had he claimed it was satirical, which I didn't say he did, you would find another reason to dismiss him as you have done with every single other source while flaunting the rant of an impeccable "protagonist" director's autobiography. Now that you finally provide sources for some of your claims, still failing to show Vox as extremist, we can see you proving my point of it being a "satirični časopis" (Mladina) and "satiricni prilog" (BH Dani). Add those two to the pile. I never claimed you to be a "'Serb propagandist' (brainless and humourless one to boot)" so please quit with the victimization and making this less and less about the issue at hand and more about you. To recap we now have six sources claim Vox was a satirical and/or youth magazine:

1. Ivo Zanic, a professor from the University of Zagreb, writing in Flag on the Mountain: A Political Anthropology of War in Croatia and Bosnia, a book published by Saqi (a publisher of academic works), stating "Vox‘s constructions contained enough elements for anyone who approached them with minimal common sense to be able without difficulty to realise that this was satire".
2. Marko Attila Hoare, a historian with numerous books published by Oxford University Press, endorses Zanic's view that it's satire and Hoare himself makes the observation that it "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye" [9]
3. Mark Thompson, another historian, stating its a "satirical monthly" in Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina published by Indiana University Press. [10]
4. David Bruce MacDonald, writing in Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian Victim-Centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia for Manchester University Press, stating Vox is a "youth magazine". [11]
5. Mladina, a Slovenian weekly current affairs magazine, stating its a "satirični časopis". [12]
6. BH Dani, a Bosnian weekly magazine, stating its a "satiricni prilog". [13]

But these will all be dismissed by you for being "in passing", containing "tangential references", or some other nonsense. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Continual distortions, but what else is new. Let's deal with them again, one by one.

PRODUCER says: You brag about being "a person who actually read two issues of the magazine" and "remembering holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues as a poor attempt to legitimize your personal opinion and your original research"

I've been found out. Though I must admit my tendency to brag is only outdone by my Serb propagandist leanings. And, yes I have an opinion about Vox, it's based on actually having read it, informing myself through trustworthy sources about who is behind it, and finally using my considerable cognitive capabilities to personally analyze that information. Oops, there I go bragging again. Damn, I just can't control it. Hope my other vice, the propensity for Serb propaganda, doesn't suddenly start acting up. On the other hand you're a shining example to us all. You feign neutrality and objectivity, you duplicate sources in an effort of padding your flimsy arguments, you provide 'sources' where you yourself fill in the gap (since the source isn't actually talking about the subject at hand) by inducing and implying your own opinion into the source, and finally you disqualify sources that I listed using the criteria which you conveniently do not apply to sources listed by yourself.

PRODUCER says: That Vox is a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance" is not fact

I never presented the statement "Vox is classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance" as fact. It is my opinion that I arrived at after FIRST READING THE MAGAZINE and THEN INFORMING MYSELF WHO IS BEHIND IT.

PRODUCER says: "Vox was "SDA's youth wing gazette, but they didn't want to state that outright" is not fact.

First of all, you misquoted something for the umpteenth time. This is what I actually said. "Vox was basically the SDA's youth wing gazette....". You purposely left out the word "basically". Let me give you a quick English lesson. You see, when used in reference to something, the word "basically" denotes the most essential respects of that something. Essential respects that are different from its outward form. Do you see the distinction?

Second of all, in reference to what Vox was, let's repeat the facts again.

Vox was written and published by Sead and Nihad Kreševljaković. FACT

Sead and Nihad Kreševljaković are Muhamed Kreševljaković's sons. FACT

Muhamed Kreševljaković was SDA's high-ranking member throughout Vox's run and was also SDA-appointed mayor of Sarajevo for the latter part of Vox's run. FACT

Senad "Šaja" Šahinpašić was listed in Vox as Vox's financier and owner. FACT

Senad "Šaja" Šahinpašić was a prominent SDA member and a close friend of the Izetbegovic family (SDA president Alija Izetbegović and his son Bakir) during Vox's run. FACT (sources [14][15][16][17])

Senad "Šaja" Šahinpašić was involved in all kinds of SDA-sponsored logistical and operational activities and later in the Bosnian Muslim Army once the Bosnian War began. FACT [18] [19]

Alija Izetbegović, SDA president, endorsed Vox by taking photos holding Vox issues publicly praised it. FACT

Senad "Šaja" Šahinpašić was involved in criminal activities during the war and after and finally even landed on the US-issued blackist of people from Bosnia whose assets it froze.FACT[20]

Based on the above FACTS, one can safely conclude with a high degree of certainty that a clear connection between Vox and SDA existed. Calling the above group an "alternative youth movement", as Hoare does, is factually incorrect.

Now, on top of everything I stated above Emir Kusturica (who during Vox's run was a prominent protagonist in Bosnian public life as a famous film director and politically active supporter & endorser of Ante Marković and SRSJ and had personal access to SDA president Izetbegović, meeting him privately at Izetbegovic's request in early 1992, a meeting Kusturica describes in his autobiography pages 276-280) explictly states in his autobiography a connection between Izetbegovic's SDA and Vox as I already quoted above.

Along similar lines we have author Tim Judah in his book, referring to Vox as an "extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo".[21]

Now, depending on the mood you're in on a given day, for you the PRODUCER, all of the above is nothing but "Zvonko's personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense" or "Zvonko's personal nonsense, which the users are well within their right to dismiss outright". By "users", you actually mean yourself. Ever the drama queen PRODUCER likes to use plural for added effect. A kind of royal we or majestic plural, if you will. Since you the great PRODUCER label me Zvonko to be a "conspiracy theory-prone nonsense disseminator whose opinion on Vox is basically Serb propaganda" you the PRODUCER feel you have the moral high ground to outright reject sources presented by me, lowly Zvonko. Therefore, the PRODUCER rejects an obsevration on Vox made by internatinally renowned film director and writer who was a first hand witness and participant in the events in question, explaining this saying that an autobiography is not academic and official enough and that the director actually "ranted". At the same time, the PRODUCER has no problem citing a blog post as a source 99% of which is a duplicate of a previously included source. The PRODUCER also has no problem listing a source that doesn't even mention Vox in the context being discussed here (extremist mag or satiricla mag) - the great PRODUCER does this by implying and and inducing a meaning that's simply not there. Finally, the divine PRODUCER has no problem even listing an intro to a magazine interview with the subjects themsleves as a source that proves the subjects are what they say they are because that's 'clearly academic'. If we're now including non-academic, non-first hand protagonist sources, I got plenty of those at the end of this post.

PRODUCER says: You claim me to be "deceitful and disingenuous" while claiming "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" as being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" when in fact Hoare himself makes the observation that it "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye", a parallel you personally deemed "preposterous". At the same time claiming what Hoare says is "factually false" with nothing to be back up your claims but your own opinion.

Before we proceed may I first remind you again that you found the above in a 99% duplicated blog post. As for the meat of your argment I demonstrated to you with an abundance of links a clear connection between SDA and Vox. Calling Vox a product of an "alternative youth movement" when its logistics and finances are coming from the ruling political party is factually incorrect. Drawing a prallel between Vox and The Onion is no less erroneous. The contexts are completely different. It's like comparing RTV Pink and MTV. Vox and The Onion were both printed on paper, the similarities pretty much end there.

PRODUCER says:I never misrepresented MacDonald who states Vox was "similarly" used in a "general theme in propaganda circles" that "compare an exaggerated view of an Islamic conspiracy with the horrors of Nazi Germany [in which the] Serbs could confidently claim to be defending themselves against a Muslim inspired genocide" and who claimed Vox was simply a "youth magazine". But this is besides the point had he claimed it was satirical, which I didn't say he did.

You most defintely did misrepresnt him, and you're continuing to do so by errounesly connecting "similarly" with the "general theme in propaganda......" paragraph. The "similarly" clearly references the paragraph on Ekmecic and if nothing I must commend you how tirelessly you're trying to create something out of absolute thin air. Now you're saying you never claimed MacDonald said Vox is satirical. Then why did you include him as a source? This is what we're discussing here - wheteher Vox is satirical or extremist. Nobody is disputing that youths wrote and published Vox, unfortunatelly they were also espousing an extremist agenda while being financed by a political party.

But this is besides the point, you would find another reason to dismiss him as you have done with every single other source

No, you got two valid sources. Zanic and Thompson. Thompson is in passing, but it's a source. So yes, two valid sources.

As for using Mladina and BH Dani, the claims about Vox being satirical are made in intros/summaries to interviews with the Kresevljakovic brothers. The first one written by Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović and second one by Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin. If we're this inclusive we should also include Carl Kosta Savich's analysis,[22] Julia Gorin's writings,[23] and Republika Srpska's commision report mentioning Vox's issue with impaled Ivo Andric on the cover as laying the ground work for the destruction of Andric's monument in Visegrad.[24] in support of the other side.Zvonko (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of getting this article promoted, how about?: "Even prior to the dissolution, the tower held such significance in Serbian national consciousness that Vox, an satirical[5] Muslim magazine from Sarajevo, published suggestions for a Skull Tower-inspired board game that called for players to "use [their] talent, imagination, and architectural skills to show to the world what sort of builders the Turks were." The magazine went on to say: "You can play the game by yourself or with your Croatian friends. The idea is to place twenty (or more) Serbian heads in the tower, in alphabetical order as soon as possible."[6]"

huh? You just replaced "extremist" with "satirical"? It doesn't summarize the sources accurately. Referring to Vox simply and only as "satirical" ignores all the sources describing it as anything but.Zvonko (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable start. Though I have to ask regarding the initial version (the actual degree of difference between which Zvonko is blatantly unaware of), how one can cite Judah and say that the Tower held "such significance in Serbian national consciousness" that Vox "sought to provoke ethnic Serbs" when in fact Judah simply says it "helped the cause of Serbian propagandists"? The reliable academic sources corroborate the fact that Vox was satirical so that issue is taken care of. The observation that its "Serbian heads" bit was used by Serb propagandists is also corroborated by MacDonald. What do you think of this 23?:

"Vox, a Muslim satirical(Zanic 2007, pp. 332-333; Thompson 1999, p. 279; Hoare 2007, p. 115) youth(MacDonald 2002, p. 237; Hoare 2007, p. 115) magazine from Sarajevo, published suggestions for a Skull Tower-inspired board game where players "use [their] talent, imagination, and architectural skills to show to the world what sort of builders the Turks were. You can play the game by yourself or with your Croatian friends. The idea is to place twenty (or more) Serbian heads in the tower, in alphabetical order as soon as possible." (Judah 2000, p. 280) It was used in the agenda of Serb propagandists(Judah 2000, p. 280) who linked it as evidence of a Muslim inspired genocide (MacDonald 2002, p. 237)." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I'm reading this whole discussion about Vox I can't help but thinking "what does this all have to do with Skull Tower?" *Sigh* Only in the Balkans. 23 editor (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to PRODUCER's suggestion.

No good.

The sole use of the term "satirical" and "youth" ignores all the other characterizations. On the other hand including every single characterization burdens the article. As I said, avoiding any characterization, sticking to what's indisputable ("Muslim magazine from Sarajevo") and quoting what they actually wrote is what I support.

Also, PRODUCER is for the millionth time misrepresenting something. On the page 280 of Judah's The Serbs, it says "Even before the conflict started, Vox, an extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo, helped the cause of Serbian propagandists by publishing suggestions for a new board game.....". PRODUCER suggests to incorrectly summarize the above as "It was used in the agenda of Serb propagandists". This is misrepresentation of Judah's words.

My suggestion is:

"Vox, a Muslim magazine from Sarajevo, published suggestions for a Skull Tower-inspired board game where players "use [their] talent, imagination, and architectural skills to show to the world what sort of builders the Turks were. You can play the game by yourself or with your Croatian friends. The idea is to place twenty (or more) Serbian heads in the tower, in alphabetical order as soon as possible."

Everything else can be covered in the separate Vox (magazine) article.Zvonko (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Zvonko I am already aware of your stance and I've heard your opinion enough times to drive a patient man insane. I wish to know what 23's thoughts are. 23 can I get an answer to my question and your opinion on my proposal? You are after all the person who inserted the original. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought 23 said what he had.

:Do it if there are no objections. 23 editor (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Zvonko (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

At first I thought it possible to accurately characterize Vox on the Skull Tower page. However there are simply too many characterizations, many of them opposing each other and covering them all in the Skull Tower article would needlessly burden the article. My suggestion is to refer to Vox here as just "Muslim magazine from Sarajevo" and start a new page, Vox (magazine) or something, where all the different characterizations and value judgements of Vox would be covered in greater detail.Zvonko (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do it if there are no objections. 23 editor (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I object. The RSN discussion is still ongoing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove the bloody thing from the article all together. I was having thoughts of taking it out prior to the GAN anyway because I thought the reviewer would bring up its relevence. Either one of you can start an article on Vox (do whatever you want with it) and can add whatever you want to it (be it about Skull Tower or something else). 23 editor (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's helpful. Not.

Remove what? The entire paragraph or the characterization references to Vox? First you said the latter now you seem to want the former.Zvonko (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok so that's two editors (23 editor and I) that are for the removal of paragraph. Paul B at the RSN page has voiced his opinion that "It's pretty clear that sources which describe the magazine as satirical are far more reliable than those which simply treat the article in the disputed issue as though it was a serious incitement to massacre, or which label the magazine "extremist"" and that "Vox cannot be legitimately characterised as extremist in Wikipedia's voice, as that position is poorly supported by the sources, and is clearly disputed by serious writers on the topic." I will be removing the information accordingly. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skull Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
2nd reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: 23 editor

Partial review by LT910001

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will: Provide an assessment using WP:GARC If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement. Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these. Assessment Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Readable 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 2c. it contains no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. An issue of contention remains (see below). 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 7. Overall assessment. Commentary Small concerns; article can definitely make GA status within a reasonable time-frame. Notes: Small grammatical concerns (eg "ten(hyphen)foot")  Done Pronunciation transcription should use the international phonetic alphabet (WP:PRON)  Done imbedded-> embedded  Done Serbian translation of word for 'commander' is unnecessary and provided twice (lede, first section)  Done Suggest remove "English traveller Alexander W. Kinglake." from the lede as there is still no article so it appears a little... random  Done Serbian translation for skull tower doesn't need to be provided in section "Construction" as it's already provided in the lede and infobox.  Done "Even prior to the dissolution, the tower held such significance in Serbian national consciousness that Vox, an extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo, sought to provoke ethnic Serbs " is not very neutral; could be improved by rewording:  Not done "In [x], in the prelude to the Kosovowar (?), the extremist Muslim magazine Vox provocatively published suggestions..." This controversial statements needs another citation. This article is of good quality and can definitely be promoted to GA status once these small issues have been addressed. I will verify using the provided and other sources the information given over the next several days. LT910001 (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hi, thanks for picking up this review so quickly. I've addressed your comments with this edit The bit about Vox will (hopefully) be resolved by the two users on the talk page so this review can be wrapped up. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you. The issue with Vox is contentious and will need to be resolved before this article can be promoted. Have updated the assessment table, and with any luck this review will be finished soon. LT910001 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) I'm going on a Wikibreak for several months and won't be able to finish this review. I'm putting it on hold and have requested another reviewer to conclude this review. If I might be so bold, one possible solution to this issue may simply to say "Magazine Vox described..." and leave it at that, without characterising the magazine. I wish you well, LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC) To the continuing reviewer: I have been awaiting a NPOV of change to the "Vox" phrase as noted above. LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

I'm willing to take over the GAN review. The article has been stable for around 3 days now. I'll look it over in the next couple of days. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Quadell. I've been Wiki-ing a semi-quiescent state and although I'd like to complete these reviews, I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond in a reasonable time-frame. LT910001 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem, LT910001. Often, reviews benefit from a second pair of eyes anyway. Enjoy your wikibreak! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

• The stability concerns seem to have abated, thankfully. (I think it was wise to remove the section on the board game: it is guaranteed to provoke edit wars, it uses too much wording from the source, and besides, the magazine article is not very notable.)

• 2b The first cite in the "Construction" section is right after "ten-foot high". The previous two sentences about the tower's construction (mentioned in the previous bullet) need a source. (Judah, p. 279, would work.)

• 2b Is there a source for the claim that tens of thousands of Yugoslav children visited the monument?

• The Merrill source is only used to support one sentence, but if you wanted, it could be used to support much of the "Background" section as well.

• Something is unclear to me. The "Construction" section says that Hurshid Pasha ordered that the heads be sent to the sultan (presumably in Istanbul), and that "The Turks then built" the tower from the skulls. If the skulls were sent to Istanbul, what did they build the tower with? Does this mean the heads were sent without the skulls? (I see that one source, Judah, says Hurshid Pasha "had the heads ... skinned, stuffed and sent to the sultan. And then ... he [presumably Hurshid Pasha] built the Skull Tower." Another source, Merrill, doesn't mention the sent heads.)

• 1a Be very careful to avoid close paraphrasing. There are a three places (two minor and one more serious) that should be reworded in order to use as little of the source's wording as possible. Both use Judah's "The Serbs". I checked all other book sources, and found no other cases of close paraphrasing, besides the examples listed below.
  • Judah says "Turks swarmed into the Serbian trenches", and the article says "Turkish soldiers swarmed their trenches". "Swarmed" is arguably a POV word anyway, and should be rewritten to avoid close paraphrasing.
  • Judah says the tower "did become a place of pilgrimage." The article calls it "a place of pilgrimage for Serbs." That could be seen as the author's characteristic wording, so why not rephrase as a "pilgrimage site" or a "pilgrimage destination"?
  • Judah says "one other in a glass case reputed to be that of Sindelic himself". The article says "reputed to be that of Sindelic himself, enclosed in a glass case" (in the lead) and "in a glass case reputed to be that of Sindelic himself" (in the body). It is in a glass case, but you could also say "behind glass" or "in a glass container" or something if you choose. But more importantly, phrases like "reputed" and "Sindelic himself" are characteristic of the author, and should definitely be reworded in your own words.

• 1b More than half of the "Significance and portrayal in Balkan culture" section is was an extended quote by a French poet. It's pretty, but in my opinion, that's too much quoted material for such a short article. I removed a little of the narrative description to shorten it, and I removed the "Afterwards, Lamartine declared" sentence, since it's just one Frenchman's opinion. I think that solves the problem. If you don't like my solution, feel free to reworded it a different way... just so long as one poet's impression is not given undue weight.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   All issues have been resolved.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   No problems.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The end sections are great.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   All issues have been resolved.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No longer a problem.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I don't think it's a problem any longer.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are all legitimately free.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell. Thanks for picking up this review so quickly. I've addressed your comments with this this edit . All the best, 23 editor (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Delightful. It's been great working with you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)