Talk:Božidar Purić

Picture and title in infobox

Do you guys want to settle? The larger picture is fine, it isn't too pixellated when cropped from the original (thanks D), and he was the 21st PM, wasn't he? If you have an alternative position in the list of Yugoslav PMs, T, please provide it here so it can be discussed. And stop editwarring. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Its alright, Peacemaker.. Timbouctou just gets the urge to "put me in my place" every now and again. Yes, smallimage is for really tiny images that cannot be used in the default resolution. Coming into office on 10 August 1943 (well before the second session of the AVNOJ), Puric was certainly the 21st PM and there's no question as to the order - it doesn't need to be especially "sourced". The order only gets a bit complicated after Puric, when Subasic and Tito held the office simultaneously for some months, and were both technically 21st PMs. -- Director (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

22nd? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Direktor has an unhealthy obsession with (unsourced) orderings of Yugoslav officeholders in infoboxes, and since this nitpicking constitutes a large part of his Wiki presence, he is quite passionate about. Be that as it may - let me ephasize this again - THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PUBLISHED SOURCE SUPPORTING ANY ORDERING CURRENTLY USED IN ANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON ANY YUGOSLAV OFFICEHOLDER. And the image is smaller than 200 px which makes it pixellated when resized. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Less of the shouting fella. The order of Yugoslav Prime Ministers would be candidate for a "sky is blue" assertion up the point where it got a bit confused during the war, wouldn't it? I mean, what is controversial about it, if I might ask? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The order gets a bit debatable after Puric. In the Partisan and Soviet view (i.e. in the view of the JNOF) Tito was the PM after November 1943 (Puric was PM since August 1943), as the Partisan movement considered the AVNOJ the only legitimate body representing Yugoslavia. From the point of view of the government-in-exile (likely the western Allies as a whole also not sure), Tito was not PM until the formation of the joint provisional government (i.e. after Subasic).

So in the "communist" view Tito is the 22nd PM and Subasic is nothing. In the "royalist" view, Subasic is the 22nd PM and Tito is 23rd. In the list we've got them both as "22nd". The debate doesn't touch Puric. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker: First of all I don't see a point in putting those numbers in at all. Nobody ever used them in any Yugoslav or non-Yugoslav source so why should we, nobody ever referred to Puric as the "21st Prime Minister" anywhere ever. Is there a manual somewhere saying we need orderings in front of office holders' titles at all? The featured List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom does not use them at all and I don't see a problem with it (nor did anyone reviewing the article at FAR it seems). For Direktor this is a highly politicised issue and that is why he absoultely insists on the orderings he devised and claims are WP:BLUE all the way from 1918 to the present-day. This is very problematic for lists with post-1990 officeholders and that issue has been raised already several times. In any case, show me a rule saying orderings are necessary. Oh and btw according to this website Puric held the title until 8 July 1944 (until 1 June 1944 Puric was simultaneously PM and FM, after that Subasic was made FM in Puric's cabinet, which lasted until 8 July when Subasic was made PM, i.e. Puric's successor). And after Subasic, Marusic was named in January 1945 as Subasic's successor. Now none of the lists we have on Wikipedia reflect this, and the orderings are all messed up. And again - why do we need them exactly? And the image is blurred when enlarged, this is fucking obvious and making me debate this is a pure example of WP:OWN on Direktor's part. We might as well just stretch it to 3000px and pretend all is fine. How wonderful. How informative. I'm sure readers will be flocking in droves and thanking us for the fantastic quality of this article which Direktor so usefully improved. It's a true triumph of editing skill. Timbouctou (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

seriously, every time a PM takes office in my country the media tells us he is the 28th or whatever. You don't think this is something an encyclopedia should do? I can't believe you seriously take that position. The pic looks fine to me, on both my screens. And less of the language, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well it is not the same in every country is it? Americans are obsessed with the orderings and their presidents even refer to themselves by numbers. This was never the case in the UK or in Yugoslavia or Croatia or Serbia, for good reasons (because the post evolved in the UK and because there were always overlaps and debates about it in Yugoslavia). Nobody ever referred to Tito as the "22nd Prime Minister" anywhere, and I think they had ample opportunities to do so. If you want to nitpick about it, communist Yugoslavia referred to itself as the "2nd Yugoslavia" and official historiography considered the chronology restarted in 1943. So what, everyone who ever published a book on UK or Yugoslav Prime Ministers is an idiot, and now Direktor is showing us the light? And the smallimage parameter is exactly for images smaller than 200px. That is what it was invented for. Oh and btw I stopped edit-warring. Direktor did not. Timbouctou (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to that policy, thanks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Right after you point me to the policy requiring (unsourced) orderings in officeholders' infoboxes. Timbouctou (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Genuine question. You say it's for pics that size, I say, "oh yeah, where does it say that?" My point about ordering PMs is that it is encyclopedic, ie people might want to know what number PM he was. You can dismiss it, I don't care, but if you claim there is a need to use the small pic, then tell me where it says that. If not, don't insist it has to be small one. Simple. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Were it not ridiculous to comment on what's "politicized" in articles about political offices and politicians, I might point out that only Timbouctou would dream-up a conspiracy theory behind mentioning the number in an uncontested succession of officeholders - as per infobox parameters found in the recommended default officeholder infobox template. Such absurdity might only be exceeded by demanding a source for something so WP:BLUE it makes one's eyes hurt. The puzzle is solved, though, once one figures out Timbouctou is obsessed with countering me personally and whatever I may do, and is so far off WP:AGF his hounding and obscene conduct caused an interaction ban to be implemented some time ago.-- Director (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your paranoid rants are really tiresome, and your own obsession with orderings, exemplified by your additions to every single article on every single Croatian officeholder in recent history - which are not only your original research but also in direct contradiction to official documents and published sources - have already been discussed several times at several venues by several other editors. But everything always ends with your self-obsessed rants and one of the million reports you make to WP:ANI. Same old same old. Timbouctou (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Drago Marusic is indeed missing. Thank you for pointing that out, Tim. I suppose you expect me to enter him there? since I wrote all these wikitables? Or maybe you intend to take a break from insulting/criticizing and make a contribution of your own to that article? The article where I did my best to depict conflicting historical perspectives in a neutral manner.

As regards the date of Subasic's appointment, I am probably in error there. I was puzzled because I knew he had a post in the government by the time of the Tito-Subasic Agreement (June 16). Thank you also for clearing that up. -- Director (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do my best to avoid everything you touch like a plague. I am sorry,but life is too short to do otherwise. I am only here because I created this article. I have no idea how reliable the website quoted is, but the guy who created Yugoslav government-in-exile used it, and we have no other better source that I know of which would trump it. I only found Tomasevich, who explicitly disagrees on some of the dates, but on the other hand does not give a complete picture of the government's chronology. And Marusic does not exist in the lists because he was dropped from communist chronology altogether. But I'm sure you and Peacemaker can work it out. It's WP:BLUE, right? Timbouctou (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The dates are probably ok, I'll have to figure something out re the post-WWII ordering. I'm glad you told me you created this thing - now I can go incinerate my monitor and other peripherals for having tainted themselves with the plague of your creation... or not. And yes, I'm sure writing page-long reply-essays would take up a huge section of my life as well.

I am not obsessed with orderings Tim, I'm just entering WP:BLUE information in its parameter per officeholder infobox recommendations, and using a perfectly standard (high-detail) wikitable for officeholder listing. After writing a dozen long and complex list wikitables - getting insulted on account of an error or two is just part of the job. -- Director (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)