Talk:Croatian affairs in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Should be merged into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Why is Croatia(Not a separate nation at the time) placed as a separate Wikipedia article from Kingdom of Yugoslavia? There is information here that should be in the main Kingdom of Yugoslavia article. There is also information here that is not cited and written in a matter that seems the person has an agenda. Does not look NPOV very much. For example describing the Ustase as a " radical revolutionary movement for an independent Croatia" seems off. Revolutionary seems like a positive undertone. Again, the information needs to be verified and then merged into the main article so as the make the information more readily available. The title alone of this article seems strange. Was it meant, Croats of Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Maxforige77 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The title came about as History of Croatia became too large and was split into sub-articles. The unsourced POV parts came about as random people edited, that's how Wikipedia works. Please feel free to copyedit the biased parts out.

The specific example is moot, though - I don't think that description of the Ustaše was really off for the 1920s - that's how they started, did they not? It's certainly not appropriate in the 1940s, but that's not the topic of this article. Please rephrase and add the appropriate context to clarify this to the readers.

In general, please feel free to copy whatever is pertinent to the Kingdom article, and use the {{copied}} tag as appropriate.

I'm not completely discarding the idea of merging everything, but I doubt every detail would be appropriate in the more general article. This article is meant to put the Kingdom of SCS/Yugoslavia in the wider context of Croatian history, with focus on Croatian-specific events at the time. There's currently not enough Croatian-specific detail, but that doesn't mean there's no WP:POTENTIAL, this is a topic that has a lot of coverage in historiography (and not just the soapbox kind). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it should be "Croatian affairs in the KoY" or "Croats in the KoY", the current title is misleading. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to rename, that's not contentious. The last, and in fact the only, move of this article happened in 2008. In retrospect I actually think that was a bad move, because "Croatia in the first Yugoslavia" was more clearly a lax, descriptive title, whereas this one looks more formal, as if it was describing a country subdivision, which it is not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Croatia in the first Yugoslavia might be an appropriate title. (There's still a little bit of a subdivision implication, but in an amount so small it can be ignored.) History of Croatian affairs in the first Yugoslavia is most precise, but not the most concise. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Would "Treatment of Croats in KoY" make more sense then considering what the intro discusses (police brutality, intimidation, vote rigging etc)? What do you think? I asked Peacemaker, but he may be busy with other tasks, or had enough of this discussion, hehe. Maxforige77 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had another look and I see that this latest problem came about with the new intro added in March 2015 by a newbie User:Sdessa2. They were fixing the problem of a missing lead section, but badly - the paragraph went from KoY-was-bad to Ustase-happened to then-there-were-the-1990s, which is, well, shockingly incoherent. I've dropped that part because it's misleading. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see from article history of Kingdom of Yugoslavia that some edit warring has already occurred with regard to some of these topics (Šufflay, Einstein/Mann letter, ...). I suppose it's clear from that how there's place for this article - one that can go into a bit more detail on the effects of the dictatorship on Croatian areas of the kingdom without appearing overly focused on those affairs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While agree there may be a basis for this article as part of a spinoff from the KoY article, I disagree with your comments on the title, the more precise one is the right one, the other is so imprecise as to be misleading. Croatia did not exist during the KoY, except for (arguably) the short Banovina period 1939–41. That title implies that it did. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct with regard to an administrative subdivision called Croatia not existing 1918-1939. But the country of Croatia, in its conventional meaning, did not disappear into thin air during these two decades. In fact, the removal of such an administrative subdivision was a political talking point that actually strengthened Croatian nationalism during this time. That's why it's not inappropriate to talk of "Croatia" during the times of the Kingdom. Historiography often discusses the so-called "Croatian question", it's covered in a myriad of books. Given the benefit of hindsight (think WWII), it's hardly an insignificant topic for the modern-day encyclopedia not to devote a page to. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I really think it should be "Croatian affairs in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia", using the term "Croatia" rather than "Croatian" implies the existence of a "Croatia" when none existed. Peacemaker67

(crack... thump) 10:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Should it not just be "Croats in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" or "Treatment of Croats in Kingdom of Yugoslavia"? Affairs comes off a bit as if simple politics is all that is being discussed. Maxforige77 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is wider than just "Croats", it includes political and religious matters pertaining to Croats as well. I think it is fine at the current title. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But would "Treatment of Croats in KoY" make more sense then considering what the intro discusses (police brutality, intimidation, vote rigging etc)? Maxforige77 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Using ethnicity seems too narrow (and might actually seem more POV to readers), basing this more on geography is the more conventional choice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I mean the article does center around the Croatian ethnic group, discussing discontent and treatment by the gov, towards them. Impact on other ethnicities is not present. That's why I suggested a different name. "Affairs" seems like an odd way to put it. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not currently present, but there's no reason for it not to be. The term is common in European politics, what with all the internal affairs and foreign affairs ministries, and also specifically the Minister of Croatian Affairs of Hungary that existed 1868-1918, just prior to this state. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about current. This article seems more than just about politics. Seeing the title "Croatian Affairs" on a artucle discussing police brutality and assassinations right in the intro seems strange. Minister of Croatian affairs in Hungary does not. I'm not sure you are seeing my point. Maxforige77 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the problem is in the content, not the title (even if the title is perhaps not ideal). Please don't go down the POV road of making the article a listing of the examples of police brutality and such. Instead of repeating myself, let me just point to what I've said earlier. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say to change anything in the article. Where did I make the POV to add anything to the article? I spoke of title only. I was the one that pointed out possible Croatian bias on this page... The discussion you linked to is about a different article and matter, of which we both agreed about.Maxforige77 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry and I apologize if I misunderstood your position on the article. Let me also clarify my position further: I'm slightly concerned that the article might come (or already is coming) across as "hapless Croats ruthlessly oppressed in Yugoslavia". This would be misleading because the power balance in the KoY, which was a seriously flawed democracy and later even an outright dictatorship, meant that pretty much everybody was oppressed to a degree. The current intro grossly oversimplifies the entire issue. GregorB (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I was having issue with the title not properly matching the article at hand. I loath POV pushers. Yes it is coming across as "hapless Croats ruthlessly oppressed in Yugoslavia". That was why I questioned article's integrity as well. I don't know enough historically about this era to know what is true and what is propaganda. But based on the article is why I came to the conclusion of "Treatment of Croats in KoY" as apposed to the current. As for everyone being oppressed during the dictatorship (assumed 1929 and onwards) this article and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article fails to talk about the impacts on the different ethnic populations and requires work. Maxforige77 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be carefully crafted so it doesn't become a WP:COATRACK of complaints about the treatment of Croats, I agree. There are enough of those sorts of Balkan articles on en WP already. Most begin "Persecution of...". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who you are refurring to about coatracking. Don't see anyone here doing so. I never in this talk page said anything about adding to this article. All I said is that the article seems to have a bit of a Croatian bias. I strongly agree that the article should be a summary of the issues not listing every event that transpired. " Persecution of" would be grossly POV based on what the article is saying. But I don't know enough about the era to know if there was a hostility by the 1929 dictatorship against the Croats, or if this article is being over sensational. I based my concern of the title based on what I saw in the article. Hence why I said that "Treatment of" would be fair to it. This article, which, as I stated at the begining of this talk page, seems at times written with an un neutral tone. Maxforige77 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the WP:TITLE and that there is sufficient notability of the subject. IMO "Croatian affairs" is the right way to describe it, and the subject certainly is notable. Whether someone actually writes some useful content is another matter. I'm not going to watchlist this article, as it is outside my area of interest, so this will be it from me on this topic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you believe the Title to be true to the article's overall content, and the article content to have merit and significance, then I will trust your judgement. Thank you for helping out. I know you're probably quite busey on Wiki. So it is much appreciated. All the best. Maxforige77 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatian affairs in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130407180451/http://www.hss.hr/files/Povijest_HSS.pdf to http://www.hss.hr/files/Povijest_HSS.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)