Talk:Nikola Jorgić

serbia strong section

Hi i came here to research the accordion player in the serbia strong video. This page helpfully informs me that this is not the guy but that another guy was in that video.

And the link for another guy goes to the page i'm already on, wtf. Fix this shit please. Was he the guy or not. If not, give that guy his own page and link it, i'm here for him

Copyright violation

I think you're over reacting. The duplication report doesn't show any serious copyright violation that requires blocking the whole article, in fact I don't see any copyright violation at all; using phrases such as "of the geneva conventions" and "the international criminal" can't be avoided and thus this isn't even close paraphrasing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

When the text was originally inserted it was much closer; as the article has been edited over the years the two versions have diverged, though there are still some problematic phrases. (Keep in mind that the duplication detector shows only exact matches, not close paraphrases where only a word here and there has been substituted or deleted.) If you can isolate them feel free to reposition the template so that it covers only them. The copyright clerks and OTRS agents need to do a more thorough investigation (and revdel if warranted). —Psychonaut (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see any close paraphrasing in the duplication report. Could point out the lines which you think are closely paraphrased that justifies blocking the whole article instead of just a tag on top of it? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some line-by-line examples comparing the source text (top) and the current article text (bottom). As you can see, it's mostly a case of changes to letter case and punctuation, reordering words or phrases ("later, Jorgic" to "Jorgic later"), and trivial synonym substitutions (e.g., "from" to "of", "among them" to "including", "had to" to "were forced to"); there are also some rather obvious POV edits to remove the original author's expressions of doubt over malfeasance (e.g., removal of "reportedly" and "allegedly").

Jorgic arrested Muslims  and put them in prison camps where they were allegedly tortured
Jorgic arrested Bosniaks and put them in prison camps where they were           tortured.

in June 1992, he took part in the execution of 22 inhabitants of Grabska (among them disabled and elderly people) who had gathered in the open in order to escape fighting.
In June 1992  he took part in the execution of 22 inhabitants of Grabska (including  disabled and elderly people) who had gathered in the open in order to escape fighting.

Three other Muslims  had         to carry the dead to a mass grave.
      Other Bosniaks were forced to carry the dead to a mass grave.

A few days later, Jorgic reportedly ordered the expulsion of     their village 
Jorgic     later                    ordered the expulsion of all the   village's inhabitants.

                        and the brutal ill-treatment of 40-50 inhabitants from Sevarlije
He was also responsible for the brutal ill-treatment of 40-50 inhabitants of   Sevarlije

In September 1992, Jorgic reportedly put a tin bucket on the head of a prisoner in the central prison of Doboj and hit it with such force that the victim   died       as a consequence of the blow.
In September 1992  Jorgic            put a tin bucket on the head of a prisoner in the Central Prison in Doboj and hit it with such force that the prisoner was killed by                  the blow.

As I mentioned before, the duplication detector will not show such paraphrasings or trivial substitutions made to avoid detection of plagiarism. You need to actually read the source and plagiarized texts yourself. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing. Now the tool is working fine and I can see where your concerns are coming from; 36 matching phrases, the longest being 15 words, 84 characters long. Anyway, I'm done here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, this isn't plagiarism if it's attributed. Copyright violation doesn't equal plagiarism. You can read about a relevant discussion explaining the difference here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Response: The point of my addition remaining close to the wording of the TRIAL text was that TRIAL was an English language source reporting the findings of the the Düsseldorf Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court). This was reporting of fact, hence anything other than minimal creative rewording was inappropriate. I'm happy to do an original translation of relevant parts of the text of the Court judgment myself but the TRIAL text provides a convenient English-language reliable source for English-speakers who want to check out the reference. Up to you. Opbeith (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A "minimal creative rewording" of a non-free copyrighted text is never appropriate. This is known as "close paraphrasing" and is permitted under neither copyright law nor Wikipedia's policies on reusing third-party content. You're free to use the TRIAL text as a source of facts, but please put these facts into your own words. Please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for further details.

Please do not translate the original court judgment either, unless you are sure that the court has released it into the public domain or under a free content licence compatible with Wikipedia's. Not every jurisdiction mandates that government works are automatically released into the public domain, and translating is essentially creating a derivative work. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The "facts" in this instance are not the original events but the court's findings. Hence the danger of rewording the TRIAL text and in in the process creating "artifacts" instead of retelling what the court decided. Better to junk the text than garble it. Opbeith (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you should be so concerned with preserving the findings related by the source, and the "dangers" of rewording them, when you apparently had no compunctions modifying them to suit your own beliefs about what transpired. Specifically, the original text refers to reports and allegations of certain activities, which you have transmuted into unqualified statements that these activities actually took place. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Opbeith, who introduced the material under contention, wishes to reproduce the source material in full here for the purposes of comparison. On his talk page I advised him that this would only exacerbate the problem, as full reproduction (verbatim or via close paraphrasing) in the article was the reason the copyvio issue was raised in the first place. I think the five sentences or sentence fragments I posted above are sufficient to show interested parties the nature of the alleged violation. We invite the copyright clerks and administrators to review the matter and to indicate whether posting of the full text here is warranted and permitted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused the material under contention was introduced in 2007 by user:Bosniak who was blocked indefinitely, what is User:Opbeith's connection with that? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The material under discussion was introduced by User:Opbeith on 26 April 2007 in this edit. This predates the 6 May 2007 revision by User:Bosniak which you linked to. User:Bosniak did not modify any of the text inserted by User:Opbeith and is, so far as I can tell, entirely innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I was confused between pages in the edit history. Thank you. -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See open and close at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 September 1 -- PBS (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling: the majority of the English language sources in this article use the spelling "Nikola Jorgic" unless it can be shown that this is not so, it is my intention to revert the changes made recently to spell the name "Nikola Jorgić". -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nikola in viral video "Remove kekbab"

Has anyone noticed that nikola was the guy who played the accordion on the famous remove kebab video? link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocW3fBqPQkU (this is WCLL HK but I forgot my password) 42.2.40.148 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Novislav Đajić is the accordion player, not Nikola Lordsunkel (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nikola Jorgić. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071013164400/http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/maksim_sokolovic_139.html to http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/maksim_sokolovic_139.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012141813/http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/novislav_djajic_135.html to http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/novislav_djajic_135.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Serbia Strong Video

The article mentions his participation in the video "Serbia Strong" but doesn't cite a source other than the video itself. I couldn't find any reliable source that claims Jorgic as a participant. Should this be removed? Karachishu (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it should be removed their is no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.24.42 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe he was the man being interviewed in the film at the beginning of the video. I feel like it could look like him but the film quality is very low and I don't have a photo of him in the early 90's when the music was made to compare to, so I couldn't say for certain. 100.7.69.169 (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)