Misplaced Pages

Talk:Far-right politics in Croatia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:06, 7 June 2006 editMartinRe (talk | contribs)3,207 edits →Reason for "POV check" tag: +reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:18, 16 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,091 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(293 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
See also:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
* ], ]
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


{{archives |search=yes |collapsible=yes |collapsed=yes |index=Talk:Far-right politics in Croatia/Archive index}}
== Thompson again ==


== butcher shop picture ==
TheFEARgod, Thompson is not ''the most popular '''mainstream''''' singer in Croatia, not by a long shot, nor does the HRT often play his songs. He is popular among a certain kind of crowd, which is theoretically in the plurality, never in the majority, and at the same time mostly detested by the rest. --]] 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


] does not depict a far-right idea as far as I can see, it's just a trivial bit of ]. --] (]) 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know which TV station those people watch, but I'm sure it's none of major croatian TV stations. There is '''silent embargo''' (on 3 major TV-stations: ], ] and ]) on this guy. Anyone claiming opposite must be out of his mind or just not living in Croatia.


I've also noticed a tendentious factual error in the picture description and removed it . This is a ] issue at best. --] (]) 13:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Look at this text ], for example. --] 10:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:The IPs insistence is blatantly tendentious. "Podrijetlo" and "porijeklo" are pretty much used interchangeably in Croatia, and although "meso" could mean "meat" as well as "flesh", nobody Croatian would mistake it for the latter in the given context. Also, "domaće" is not translated as "domestic" - this is a common example of a ]. The actual meaning is "home-made". So the sign properly translated reads "Home made meat of Croatian origin" (i.e. Croatian-grown meat) and has nothing to do with the topic of this article. ] (]) 13:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


== Page move ==
== ] hiding the truth? ==


{{u|Charles Essie}}, could you explain why this article was moved from "Far right in Croatia" to "Far-right politics in Croatia"? As far as I can tell, the move wasn't discussed; while being bold is fine, you gave no reason for the move either. The problem with the new title is that is unnecessarily narrows down the topic: e.g. "Graffiti", "Defacement of monuments", "Popular culture", "Sports" and "Misplaced Pages" (to name some of the prominent sections) ''aren't really politics'', yet are absolutely relevant. ] (]) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I invested quite an effort in finding the source of picture ] and when I finally found out that it was taken in ].
:Oh, I'm sorry, ] (]) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Well, {{u|Charles Essie|Charles}}, no harm done at any rate, and I'm sorry too if my complaint sounded a bit harsh. Would you generally agree with my point about the article's scope vs its title? Are there arguments in favor of the current title? ] (]) 20:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, my thinking was that it matches other existing articles (such as ]). ] (]) 20:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
::::True, but some of the articles have since been renamed to "Far-right politics in Fooland" - so yes, it matches ''now'', but the names were not always uniform. Frankly, I'm not sure what to do now: if the names are uniform at the moment and there are no complaints (other than mine), let's keep it. But I'd still say titles should be dictated by ''content'', and content - in this particular case - is determined by the peculiarities of each country. In Croatia, I'd say that far-right ''politics'' per se is of fairly limited scope and power, but the ''far right'' in a general sense has significant impact. So, let's just make a note of this for the time being; if, on the other hand, anyone wants to be bold and move, they might as well do it as far as I'm concerned... ] (]) 13:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: No, I think you should be absolutely free to move it back yourself. This was not a previously-discussed move, so there can be no prejudice against moving it back. The title "Far right in Croatia" may not be perfectly consistent with others, but it is no less generally consistent with reality, recognizable, natural, concise and precise per ]. ] has always pointed to the same place as "far-right politics", and there isn't even a hatnote disambiguating the term now, so no readers should be confused by the difference. --] (]) 16:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for the input - I definitely ''feel'' free to move it, it's just that I don't ''feel like it'' at the moment... ] (]) 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
I could even delete it from this article because it was not taken in Croatia, but, as a compromise, I decided to just update the caption.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Now, ] seams to have the problem with me providing the proof that people on the picture were not under jurisdiction of Croatian police, whick kind of undermines the point hat he is trying to make.


I have just modified {{plural:10|one external link|10 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Now, I would kindly ask ] to leave my caption because I believe that the additional information I provided is quite relevant for the subject!
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312014257/http://www.novilist.hr:80/2009/12/07/tudman-je--ocuh-drzave.aspx to http://www.novilist.hr/2009/12/07/tudman-je--ocuh-drzave.aspx
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.vjesnik.hr/html/2004/03/17/Clanak.asp?r=unu&c=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/11721/hrvatski-sudovi-nisu-sposobni-procesuirati-ratne-zlocine-i-zato-to-mora-uciniti-haag
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201064414/http://www.jutarnji.hr:80/kraj-krajnje-desnice-/7250 to http://www.jutarnji.hr/kraj-krajnje-desnice-/7250/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109093800/http://www.novilist.hr:80/default.asp?WCI=Pretrazivac&WCU=285A28582863285D2863285A28582858285E2863286328632859285A28592860285A286028632863286328592863R to http://www.novilist.hr/default.asp?WCI=Pretrazivac&WCU=285A28582863285D2863285A28582858285E2863286328632859285A28592860285A286028632863286328592863R
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212359/http://www.jutarnji.hr/sanader-cestitao-dan-antifasizma/224225/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/sanader-cestitao-dan-antifasizma/224225/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220085953/http://www.novilist.hr:80/2009/11/26/zagrebacki-mjesni-odbor-nosi-ime.aspx to http://www.novilist.hr/2009/11/26/zagrebacki-mjesni-odbor-nosi-ime.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080818063153/http://www.bljesak.info:80/content/view/12187/159/ to http://www.bljesak.info/content/view/12187/159/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/47685/zuroff-mesicu-osudite-organizatore-sakicevog-sprovoda
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427085842/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525901351&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525901351&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729020612/http://www.jutarnji.hr/imotski-nogometasi-nose-na-dresovima-ustasko-znakovlje/274078/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/imotski-nogometasi-nose-na-dresovima-ustasko-znakovlje/274078/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
--] 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}
:I don't think picture should be deleted but I think caption should stay because it is very relevant to the subject. ] 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:As I said on my talk page, the caption here is illustrating a specific point. The point illustrated is that children are rised in this way, and not that partisans killed Ustashi. So, I believe replacing of caption is an attempt to sidetrack the issue of rising children this way. The fact that it is in Bleiburg (if so) can be mentioned, but not on the cost of main point! ] 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:Also, I find the personal attack ("hiding the truth") quite insulting, especially given that some Croat editors keep removing content that is unpleasant to them, and even this very picture is currently proposed to be deleted as "slander". Who is trying to hide the truth here? ] 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
I added words "Picture taken in ], ] ()" because, otherwise, people might think that croatian police tolerates this, since the article title contains words '''in Croatia'''. Now, that would be sneaky, wouldn't it? So, please, do not delete this. --] 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:I was seeking information about neo-nazism and I am from India, which effectively means that I don't know anything pre-handedly. To me, the picture is not making ANY point, because it is completely caption less. The caption: "Picture taken in ], ] ()" are quite useless, as there is no comment on the link either. I would request to add some information too. PS: The people there seem to be a happy couple :)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
=Reason for NPOV & Verify tag=


I have just modified 9 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
==Point 1==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116083050/http://iwpr.net/report-news/croatias-willingness-tolerate-fascist-legacy-worries-many to http://iwpr.net/report-news/croatias-willingness-tolerate-fascist-legacy-worries-many
The following is contradicted by UHCR article which attributes poor economic conditions in hinterland, integration in current community & property rights issues as the main obstacle to the return of Serb refugees. It also attributes motives to the Croatian government which are unsourced, represent opinion & are difficult to substantiate:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novilist.hr/2009/12/07/tudman-je--ocuh-drzave.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/11721/hrvatski-sudovi-nisu-sposobni-procesuirati-ratne-zlocine-i-zato-to-mora-uciniti-haag
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jutarnji.hr/kraj-krajnje-desnice-/7250/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novilist.hr/default.asp?WCI=Pretrazivac&WCU=285A28582863285D2863285A28582858285E2863286328632859285A28592860285A286028632863286328592863R
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novilist.hr/2009/11/26/zagrebacki-mjesni-odbor-nosi-ime.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bljesak.info/content/view/12187/159/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/articles/view/47685/2/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525901351&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
''The effort to return Serbian refugees to their homes in Croatia has also been hampered by Ustaša-related issues - the fear of harassment and/or retribution at the hand of the "Ustaše" persists, and it (among other things) has prevented the majority of Serbs from returning, a situation that the Croatian government is attempting to rectify. However, it has been also hampered by the subtle ways that government avoids a good faith effort to return the expelled - threats with war crime accusations (many people who were deliberately chosen as obviously innocent - for instance, those who were children in the 90s, have been arrested and mistreated in order to deter Serbs from returning), reparation offers for only a small fraction of the property value etc. Most Serbs only come to get some reparation and do not continue to live in Croatia, but the state nevertheless claims that they have returned in order to win favor from EU and further its efforts to join the union, that imposes conditions on Croatia not to mistreat Serbs, presumably in good faith.''


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:The above UHCR artice is just a complementary information - not a contradicting one
::I agree. This UHCR report is just written to excuse the Croatian government to a great extent. If you read Amnesty International reports for a number of subsequent years - you'll get a bit better insight into hidden racism agains the Serbs that rules minds of many in today's Croatia--] 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The UNHCR report is written to document facts on the ground - not to excuse any government. The above political opinion neglects the fact that it was the UNHCR that was first to criticise the Croatian army for allowing the mass exodus of Croatian Serbs. It also neglects the facts in that article stating that it is issues over property rights & economic conditions that are the main barriers to refugee return anywhere. For example alot of Croats have not returned to Vukovar b/c they have well paid jobs on the Dalmatian coast - alot of Bosnians have not returned from abroad b/c of the better economic conditions.
::::Far from being a truth that 'the UNHCR report is written to document facts on the ground'. The document of such kind is always written using so-called 'diplomatic language' due to the fact that it has to be accepted by all aides in the conflict. Claiming truthfullness this way and taking this document as superimposed to other documents and testimonise is utter nonsense --] 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
:::From my recollection of the HRW articles, they talk about harrasment & beuracratic impediments of the Serb minroity. They don't mention Ustasha as the source. The attempt to make any harrasement of Serbs as synonymous with Ustasha/Ustasha related is a propaganda exercise & has no place in an encyclaepedia. Hence the NPOV tag. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::There are numerous other documents and facts that might be found in the Croatian newspapers and foreign media about upsurge of Ustaheizm in Croatia and just in the areas which were populated by the Serbs before the last war. So, this document is not the only one nor the most truthful one at all.--] 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
All in all this is documented where it needs to be documented - ] and linked from here. I think I resolved this bit. --]] 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==Point 2==
The following, whether intentionally or unintentionally, blurrs the distinction of Croat nationalist & Ustashi. Despite the attempted definition of Ustashi dijaspora, it still resonates as Serb propaganda that trys to equate Croat national feeling with fascims/nazism. The comment is also unsourced & makes no attempt to substantiate what percentage of funds came from those with Ustahsa sympathies etc & those of the rest of the dijapora. Again, comments that are difficult to substantiate but are repeated ad nauseum in media campaigns of the various protaganists in pushing this line.


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
''The Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ) and its president Franjo Tuđman have had the financial support of the so-called Ustaša diaspora during the late 1980s and 1990s when they became the ruling political party in Croatia.''
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070618061028/http://www.net.hr/sport/page/2007/11/06/0623006.html to http://www.net.hr/sport/page/2007/11/06/0623006.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:A lot of truth is here - do not see any propaganda
:: It is propaganda because it does not contain substantiated facts with a relevant context.
:: The logic it trys too drum in is Ustahsa dijaspora funds govt-->govt an Ustasha govt The logic also implies that Croat nationalist = Ustasha. It ignores that the bulk of the dijaspora are not connected with Ustasha (whatever that means), but may be nationalist & that they financially supported the Republic of Croatia.
:: It needs a source, or the very east to quantify what the influence of Ustasha sympathisers was - if 5 or 10% of supporters were Ustasha sympathisers, then it should state that. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Firstly, to be taken seriously, you have to drop your habit of marking somebody's contribution as propaganda. Your implications are meaningless. Following the same racist ideology developed by Ustashe does not excuse the Croatian nationalists not to be seen as the neo-Ustashe--] 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I have rephrased the sentence to be less murky, and provided one example of a rightist politician that came from abroad and was influential. I think that this paragraph could use with more substantiation, but is no longer reason for dispute. --]] 11:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
==Point 3==
The following is Serb propaganda line that attempts to hoist the responsibility of the wars in the former Jugoslavia on Republic of Croatia via reference to a WWII fascist regime. As such it represent an apologist view of the Greater Serbia plan. The ICTY , through the trial of Milan Babic has established a criminal enterprise to occupy & annex Croatian territiry & depopulate it of non-Serbs. The disruption of relations has more to do with loss of privelage for the Serb minority (mass job losses in a reverse discrimination program) & propaganda from Belgrade. Refer to ICTY link on ] page.


== Coatracking and undue weight ==
''When Croatia started secession from SFRY in the 1990s, there was widespread and growing antagonism between the Croats and the Serbs. The disruption of decent relations towards the victims of WWII, particularly to the victims of Ustaša genocide, was particularly offensive to the Serbs, as memory of Ustaša genocide was still vivid, and it made them frightened of the new developments.''


It looks like this article suffers from coatracking events and placing ] ] on genocide denial. The sections can be streamlined and better separated. For example the Post Political era sections is entirely about genocide denial. The article seems to need much work. Thoughts {{ping|WEBDuB}}, {{ping|GregorB}} and {{ping|Joy}}? I ask you as you seem the last users involved. ] (]) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
: Mentioning ICTY is a nonsense here. ICTY is ok when it is against the Serbs, and not ok when it is against the Croats? A criminal enterprise was American secession 1864-65. So, where we are now?
:I agree that the section about genocide denial is too extensive and coatrack.--] (]) 19:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
:: The above comment does not make sense. The difference being one is a conviction where the evidence has been tested; the other is an accusation yet to be substantiated.
:: I repeat, based on this article the disruption of relations has to do with rival territorial claims, loss of privelage, deliberate propaganda from Belgrade to stoke fear & hatred (refer ICTY link on ] stubb. The ad nauseum reference to Ustasha is a red herring & consistant with the propaganda line from Belgrade during the 1990's Jugoslav wars. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Stop talking about propaganda. Your tone is too propagandic to be taken seriously. Which secession is a crime - that one commited by the Croats or the one commited by the Serbs? Who decided it and when? When calling upon the ICTY - please, give cear link or reference of the text you are talking about.--] 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also rewritten this paragraph to avoid the pitfall of ignoring the fact that what was a legitimate fear was noticably exaggerated. Please verify that the current phrasing is accurate and has enough context. --]] 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

==Point 4==
The following lack sources/citations:

''Ustaše, as they were able to victimize their side in the war, and could always point to the Partisans as being "equally evil", in an effort to partially exculpate the Ustaše''

Lacks source & attributes motive that is not substantiated.

: I disagree. While technically unsourced, this is a common theme in all rightist rants that I've ever seen. As soon as one mentions how the partisans were the Good Guys in WWII, the magic card of Bleiburg is pulled out of the rightist apologist's sleeve and the responsibility for the sum of all war crimes in WWII is shared. Which is okay, really. --]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Then it should belong to a page on the Partizans as it has to do with them as opposed to the Ustasha. Noone seriously believes that by referring to the Bleiburg massacre, that that will somehow diminish the crimes of the Ustasha. It has more to do with bragging rights & political jousting on moral supremacy between the right & the left on the Croatian political spectrum, with the communists & Ustasha representing the polarized extremes of the two.
:: It really needs to be sourced or go I'm afraid - although you have anecdotal expriences, if we allow undocumented anecdotal experiences in, then that creates a loophole open to abuse. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Okay, let me try to rephrase this again. Just because nobody in their right mind believes such a thing that doesn't make it go away. Remember that we are not talking about very rational people here. --]] 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

''The main controversy is the active role of president Tuđman and Croatian establishment in this.''

Lacks source.

: I agree. I also noted this with the {{tl|citation-needed}} tag. Whose idea is this reburial, does anyone know? --]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::There is no lack of resource. This man who claims it is a dishonest one. It is not difficult using google search (Tudjman Jasenovac rebury) to get , , . It happened not so long ago and was one of the events that revolted many people around the globe.--] 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Even though in a new paragraph, the quote carries on from the previous paragraph which talks about Bleighburg.
::: ''"In 1990, a cousin of Ante Pavelić claimed in Bleiburg that there were 10,000 killed there, and that they were Ustasha and Domobran soldiers. There are reports of claims of up to 100,000, and then 600,000 victims"'' These need sources & an explanatory note of it's relevance - have no problem with it staying provided it is sourced & it is easy to understand where it fits in the overall picture. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

''In 2004, in a telephone straw poll conducted during the "Nedjeljom u dva" talk show at the Croatian Radiotelevision, more than 17,000 calls, or 58% of callers, expressed positive attitude towards Ustashas and the ISC. Due to the nature of the poll, where each call was charged approx. half a euro and the system made no effort to remove duplicate callers, this result may not be indicative.''

Lacks source - the reference @ the end indicates poor research design. If the poll is not indicative, then it should not be included. I can design a loaded survey, present results in WIki, pointing out it is poorly designed - it carry's no wieght & adds nothing to the article. Needs to be deleted.

: This was added to the text back on ], and kept getting reintroduced by anonymous advocates. Let me try to squeeze out the gist of it only. --]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Planning rewrite of article - this will need to go. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a credible survey on this question. Can anyone provide a link. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

''There was no official connection between the Ustaše ideology and the politics of the new government that made Croatia independent from Yugoslavia, but numerous parallels were drawn between these two ideas by its detractors.''

::Still, people were talking about it --] 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Weasel words in that comment too - gossip & rumour are not facts; especially if they stem from the Belgrade propaganda line (again refer to ICTY documentation on the conviction of Milan Babic). ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: The "Nedeljom u dva" poll was conducted - wanted it or not. The results are as given. Please, stop labelling and start researching and discussing the things seriously.--] 20:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacks source - who are these detractors - represents weasel words.

: I don't think it should be made any more obvious than this. A detractor can easily show this sequence of events and actions and claim that it's all one big orchestrated effort to aid neo-Fascism - and in fact they often do. I don't agree with them, but I agree with the fact that they exist. --]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Are you able to provide informationon who these detractors are? - are they Serbian politicians/Belgrade/Serb apologists like Nora Beloff? I think it needs a qualifying statement - I could go a put a line in the page on Serbia & say that detractors draw parallels with the Milan Nedic fascist regime & Cetnik fascits collaborators - it would be true but it would be propaganda.
:: Also, b/c Tudjman was a Partizan general & alot of his Generals/ Security Service heads / ministers were former communists/UDBA, we could draw parallels between his government & the Partizans. A qualifying statement is required. ] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::: I agree that a qualifying statement would be most useful. I invite the said detractors to explicate themselves! :) --]]


Finally, I know of credible sources for Thomson reference - can someone please add (no not Pavelic Papers :))

--]

==new general points==

::Note. I do not see any serious points here written by this user. I do not see any justification of keeping these tags here imposed by one person whose intent is apparently not to improve the quality of the article - rather to prevent that the truth is said.--] 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add sources or I will delete entries.
NPOV/verify tag stays until issues resolved.
Pls discuss before removing NPOV/verify tag.

: I have fixed points 1, 2, 3 and much of point 4. Can we remove the tags now? --]] 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I think the NPOV tag has to stay b/c the oversll piece resonates as propaganda piece and is not an encyclaepedic entry.
:: It fails to answer basic questions with credible sources in a concise format such as:
::- Who are the Ustasha & what characterises them - are they different to the pre WWII Ustasha movement?;
::- political ideology?;

::: These valid points would be needed to bring the article to a higher quality status, but the lack of them doesn't detract all that much from the current article. The current article started by analysing events and trying to explain them - an inductive reasoning. This would contribute deductive reasoning (although some deduction has already been added by me). Neither is all too bad, but both would be best. :) --]]

::- make the distinction between Croat nationalist & Ustasha;

::: Agreed. I've been weeding out such generalizations for years now, you're most welcome to help. --]]

::- any associated political parties and their links with similar parties across Europe;

::: There are none which are openly neo-fascist, as far as I can tell, there are only extreme nationalist ones that can be branded as chauvinist, and the mainstream parties with issues. The former fact should be explained, yes. --]]

::- make the distinction between Ustasha supporters & those that use Ustasha symbols as a symbol of defiance or as a tool of intimidation/harrasment i.e. racist behaivour without actually having any concern with the political agenda of the Ustasha;

::: *nod* --]]

::- How large is there supporter base (i.e. what percentage of the electorate) & what is the geographical distribution;

::: These things are fairly impossible to assess in the present situation. I welcome your attempt, though. --]]

::- What influence if any do they have on the modern political scene;

::: There are explanations for this already in the article, although you could probably elaborate further. Then again, if we start talking about ''influence'', it can soon become a slippery slope because it's hard to quantify. --]]

::] 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Overall, thank you for your patience in explaining point by point what needs to be done. --]] 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Pseudo historical claims ==

: ''"However it is red herring because back in the Roman times, in provinces of upper and lower Pannonia (today Hungary and Slavonia) taxes were collected in the then highly valued marten skins. Hence the Croatian word 'marturina' or tax, derived from Latin word 'martus' (Croatian: 'kuna'). Between 1260 and 1380 the Croatian Viceroys were making a marten-adorned silver coin. However, the diminishing autonomy of Croatia within the Croatia-Hungarian Kingdom led to gradual disappearance of that currency. The marten currency, Kuna, reappeared in 1939 when the Banate Croatia, established within the Yugoslav Monarchy, considered issuing its own money"''

Removed. The Croatians weren't present on the Balkans in the Roman empire times. Croatia-Hungarian kingdom never ever existed. Croatian feudal state was conquered by Hungarians and the local feudal rulers were kept under full control. The story is here apparently given to whitewash the Independent State of Croatia past and has nothing to do with neo-Nazism in today's Croatia {{unsigned|Purger|23:13, 4 June 2006}}

: User:Purger, you are interpreting this wrongly. The meaning is that the word "kuna" equals ] (which is true) and that this was a medieval currency (which is true). The Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom existed, and it was actually named ] - for that matter, please feel free to acquaint yourself with the early Croatian history by reading the end of the article ] and the beginning of the article ].
: I've written it clearly in the article - whether the true intent of picking the name "kuna" was to recall NDH or to recall the Middle Ages - is pure speculation. We can accuse this government of picking the same as the fascists did all day long, but that doesn't by extension make that government fascist itself, that's not logical. This would fall under the logical fallacies of (NDH kuna occured prior to .hr kuna, therefore the NDH kuna is the cause of .hr kuna) and (one particular kuna was used by fascists, therefore all other kunas are used by fascists).
: --]] 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::User:Joy - please give us a number of valid historic references, especially those of the world renown historians of the medieval Europe - supporting your claims. The most interesting ones shall be those of the Hungarian lineage. The Misplaced Pages is not a valid resource at all - as none of the existing encyclopaedias. FYI, I found some Hungarian sources not even mentioning such a personal union you're talking about , - click the 1120 map, for example. Also, do not use buzzwords like ''fallacies, composition'', etc. when trying to substantiate your claims. {{unsigned|4.249.3.19|04:00, 5 June 2006}}

::: Please sign when you leave a comment. The document on the personal union is called Pacta Conventa. Here are some sources:
::: (German source)
::: (German source)
::: (Croatian source)
::: (Croatian source)
::: (Hungarian source)
::: (American source)
:::
::: Please note I have rewritten this whole section & needs to be reviewed. ] 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Marinko, it should be noted that we don't actually know whether ''Pacta Conventa'' was a written document because it was not preserved. It is instead the recorded history of the personal union which is assessed to be something other than a blunt annexation by all relevant historians. --]] 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Anonymous, this attempt of yours to ignore the obvious fallacies is quite feeble. It would help if you would actually ''read'' what I wrote in the parenthesis instead of claiming that these are buzzwords. Also - saying that Misplaced Pages and all other encyclopedias are not a valid resource makes me wonder what are you doing here in the first place? What possible interest could you have in this whole invalid resource? --]] 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::::User:Joy, in the strict scholar sense, not a single encyclopaedia is a primary historical source. It is, in the best case - just a secondary source of the most common information about some idea or event. Not a single encyclopeadia is ever listed - in any serious history textbook about anything - as a reference. Moreover, inventing stories about something by some people, then using these forgeries as valid historical sources (by others)- in order to edit an ecyclopaedic article is immoral. So, in the first place, I am here to enforce plain morality, or just expose some immoral activities.

:::I cannot wait on the response of the person who asked you to give valid references, but I clearly see that you give some web sources which no one serious historian can accept as valid. Also, I see that the two 'German' sources are actually Croatian sources. 'Pacta conventa' was born in the heads of some Croatian nationalists and there is no a single trace of such document in serious history textbooks.--] 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== Reason for "POV check" tag ==

For those unfamiliar with wikipedia rules:

The shear number of unresolved issues on this very talk page is more that enough to put "POV check" tag.

] clearly states:

;Improper use of dispute tags: ] tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow ] and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

So, I will repeat the important part here: '''Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled.''' Any questions? --] 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have one - what's the dispute you want checking that's not already being done? There seems to be plenty of discussion in progress, which is the intent of the {{tl|POV-check}} tag, so why insist on the tag remaining? Also, many of the above points seem to be mostly settled, so it would appear to be unnecessary. As you are aware from the above, placing tags when consensus has been reached on an article is improper, even if you personally disagree with the consensus outcome. Regards, ] 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:18, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Far-right politics in Croatia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCroatia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

butcher shop picture

File:Domestic_flesh_of_croat_origin.jpg does not depict a far-right idea as far as I can see, it's just a trivial bit of economic patriotism. --Joy (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed a tendentious factual error in the picture description and removed it . This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue at best. --Joy (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The IPs insistence is blatantly tendentious. "Podrijetlo" and "porijeklo" are pretty much used interchangeably in Croatia, and although "meso" could mean "meat" as well as "flesh", nobody Croatian would mistake it for the latter in the given context. Also, "domaće" is not translated as "domestic" - this is a common example of a false pair. The actual meaning is "home-made". So the sign properly translated reads "Home made meat of Croatian origin" (i.e. Croatian-grown meat) and has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Timbouctou (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Charles Essie, could you explain why this article was moved from "Far right in Croatia" to "Far-right politics in Croatia"? As far as I can tell, the move wasn't discussed; while being bold is fine, you gave no reason for the move either. The problem with the new title is that is unnecessarily narrows down the topic: e.g. "Graffiti", "Defacement of monuments", "Popular culture", "Sports" and "Misplaced Pages" (to name some of the prominent sections) aren't really politics, yet are absolutely relevant. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, Charles Essie (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Charles, no harm done at any rate, and I'm sorry too if my complaint sounded a bit harsh. Would you generally agree with my point about the article's scope vs its title? Are there arguments in favor of the current title? GregorB (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, my thinking was that it matches other existing articles (such as Far-right politics). Charles Essie (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but some of the articles have since been renamed to "Far-right politics in Fooland" - so yes, it matches now, but the names were not always uniform. Frankly, I'm not sure what to do now: if the names are uniform at the moment and there are no complaints (other than mine), let's keep it. But I'd still say titles should be dictated by content, and content - in this particular case - is determined by the peculiarities of each country. In Croatia, I'd say that far-right politics per se is of fairly limited scope and power, but the far right in a general sense has significant impact. So, let's just make a note of this for the time being; if, on the other hand, anyone wants to be bold and move, they might as well do it as far as I'm concerned... GregorB (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I think you should be absolutely free to move it back yourself. This was not a previously-discussed move, so there can be no prejudice against moving it back. The title "Far right in Croatia" may not be perfectly consistent with others, but it is no less generally consistent with reality, recognizable, natural, concise and precise per WP:NC. Far right has always pointed to the same place as "far-right politics", and there isn't even a hatnote disambiguating the term now, so no readers should be confused by the difference. --Joy (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input - I definitely feel free to move it, it's just that I don't feel like it at the moment... GregorB (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Far-right politics in Croatia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Far-right politics in Croatia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Far-right politics in Croatia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Coatracking and undue weight

It looks like this article suffers from coatracking events and placing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on genocide denial. The sections can be streamlined and better separated. For example the Post Political era sections is entirely about genocide denial. The article seems to need much work. Thoughts @WEBDuB:, @GregorB: and @Joy:? I ask you as you seem the last users involved. OyMosby (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section about genocide denial is too extensive and coatrack.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories: