This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Argo Navis (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 7 June 2006 (→Reason for "POV check" tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also:

• Ustaše, Talk:Ustaše

Thompson again

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. --Joy 16:33, 16 May 2006 (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: HTV, Nova TV and RTL Televizija) on this guy. Anyone claiming opposite must be out of his mind or just not living in Croatia.

Look at this text Thompson - the most banned croatian singer], for example. --Ante Perkovic 10:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

SrbIzLike hiding the truth?

I invested quite an effort in finding the source of picture image:Lipadom.jpg and when I finally found out that it was taken in Austria.

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.

Now, SrbIzLike 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.

Now, I would kindly ask SrbIzLike to leave my caption because I believe that the additional information I provided is quite relevant for the subject!

--Ante Perkovic 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think picture should be deleted but I think caption should stay because it is very relevant to the subject. Jakiša Tomić 17:03, 23 May 2006 (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! SrbIzLike 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? SrbIzLike 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I added words "Picture taken in Bleiburg, Austria ()" 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. --Ante Perkovic 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 Bleiburg, Austria ()" 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 :)

Reason for NPOV & Verify tag

Point 1

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:

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.

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--Purger 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 --Purger 20:17, 4 June 2006 (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. croatian_quoll 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.--Purger 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all this is documented where it needs to be documented - Serbs of Croatia and linked from here. I think I resolved this bit. --Joy 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

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. croatian_quoll 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--Purger 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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. --Joy 11:25, 4 June 2006 (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 Serb Republic of Krajina page.

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.

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?

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 Milan Babic stubb. The ad nauseum reference to Ustasha is a red herring & consistant with the propaganda line from Belgrade during the 1990's Jugoslav wars. croatian_quoll 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.--Purger 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. --Joy 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. --Joy 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. croatian_quoll 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. --Joy 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 {{citation-needed}} tag. Whose idea is this reburial, does anyone know? --Joy 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.--Purger 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. croatian_quoll 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 Ustaše, and kept getting reintroduced by anonymous advocates. Let me try to squeeze out the gist of it only. --Joy 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. croatian_quoll 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 --Purger 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). croatian_quoll 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.--Purger 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. --Joy 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. croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

--croatian_quoll

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.--Purger 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? --Joy 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. :) --Joy

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

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. --Joy

*nod* --Joy

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

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. --Joy

croatian_quoll 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall, thank you for your patience in explaining point by point what needs to be done. --Joy 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purger (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Purger, you are interpreting this wrongly. The meaning is that the word "kuna" equals marten (which is true) and that this was a medieval currency (which is true). The Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom existed, and it was actually named Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen - for that matter, please feel free to acquaint yourself with the early Croatian history by reading the end of the article medieval Croatian state and the beginning of the article Croatia in the union with Hungary.

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 Post Hoc (NDH kuna occured prior to .hr kuna, therefore the NDH kuna is the cause of .hr kuna) and Composition (one particular kuna was used by fascists, therefore all other kunas are used by fascists).

--Joy 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.3.19 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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. croatian_quoll 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. --Joy 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? --Joy 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.--Purger 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.

Misplaced Pages:Vandalism clearly states:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute 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 WP:CON 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? --Ante Perkovic 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 {{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, MartinRe 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since You claim that many of the above points seem to be mostly settled, and since you wrote As you are aware from the above, placing tags when consensus has been reached... I can only conclude that You obviously didn't bother to look to history of this article. --Ante Perkovic 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)