" 

 ==Xbox  leak== 

 Hello , I would like to answer in regarding to the topic Serbs of Croatia. If you look at this previous discussion you will see the very same pattern. Serbian orthodox church was established in 1920 and this user tried to push the edit that Tesla's father was Serbian orthodox priest, a non-existent term in the 19th century. Much in the same manner, he posted sources that simply bring the claim. That was finally resolved with a RfC so maybe that is the way to go here. I think your edit is right and that other's are pushing Serbian POV, not just POV but Serbian wartime propaganda. I suggest you gather your sources which reference the primary source and elaborate on the matter and open a RfC. There you can state that all of the sources that say otherwise do not bring any reference or any quote from the primary source. Also I think that another edit should state that although that claim was much publicized during wartime, it was never put before the Badinter's commission which was established just for that cases, to deal with legal questions. That clearly shows that this was nothing but a wartime propaganda. It only surprises that there are people still repeating it. I don't think you will be able to discuss in good faith with those people. I tried and you saw what happened to me. A discussion in good faith would be similar to the one I purposed. I don't know if you saw my last message, so I will repeat an argument I made which is pretty solid from the logical point of view: We have 2 identical terms from Yugoslav and from SRC constitution that specify who constituted a state (SFRY,SRC). Yugoslav constitution says: ""Yugoslav nations,..., along with nationalities...have created SFRY"" while SRC constitution says: ""Croatian nation, along with Serbian nationa and nationalities in Croatia...constituted SRFY"". The use of ""along with"" is a standard legal formulation to specify the subject, but not to neglect the ""others"". In my opinion this is the main point of interest. The sentence you are pointing out (national state of Croatians...) is just derived from that definition. However this is an interpretation of the source, and you could point this arguments if you had someone who discusses in good faith. There's not much point into mentioning this arguments when you are discussing with POV pushers. The best way is to open a RfC and briefly elaborate the issue that one group of sources say something but does not give any elaboration or any reference to the primary source and that another group of the sources says something opposite, and directly references the primary source. Also point out that Tuvixer is interpreting the source. The fact that does not bother FkpCascais while on the other hand he is heavily attacking you that you are the one interpreting. In fact, if you go to the beginning of the discussion, you will see that before FkpCascais had presented any source as the basis for his opinion he said: ""I share passion for law and I fully agree with Tuvixer in his interpretation."". He had no problem into accepting the ""interpretation"" of the primary source whilst he now has strong objections. At the point he posted his first comment your sources were the only one presented, and yet he disregarded them for an interpretation of the primary source, he even made his own interpretations. I mean what, if that does not point out that he is not discussing in good faith, what else? If you look at his past discussions you will see that he and the same group of people always appear and push Serbian POV while accusing the other side of POV pushing. At the end, if you don't back down, you turn out to be the pusher because it's simply more of them. In any case, I suggest you don't get involved too much since FkpCascais already started with the same pattern of accusations that you are a pusher. He writes them every now and then, so at the end it really seems like you are pushing. You will get blocked if you get too involved and that's what happened to several other people dealing with this group of editors who seem to be present of Croatian articles, pushing Serbian POV.    

 "