Talk:Croatisation

Propaganda

I don't know, but this article has a very propagandistic feel to it. It's a compilation of assumptions or daring statements, which are not backed up by any kind of source or information. It wouldn't surprise me, if the author of this article wrote it with the purpose of legitimating greater-serbian theories.

Put tag up because:

• Subject itself is POV;
• Written by unknown person;
• Quotes site reporting on testimony given by biased source;
• Requires more sources;
• Makes unquantifiable and unverifiable claims re Serbs trader coverting - indeed it claims were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism, a claim if verifiable, does not constitute change in ethnicity. Nor is forced the right term because it did not constitute a campaign to change ethnicities in territories outside it's control, but rather a condition of citizenship of it's state.

In the Croatian context it would cove I think a different style of article article linked to the Croatia or Demographics of Croatia and titled Demographic History and Social Integration of Croatia. It would cover the tendency of minority groups to adopt aspects of the mainstream (as covered generally in Social integration. In the Croatian context it would cover Hungarian, Austrian, Vlach, Serb and one notable Polish-Slovak Slavoljub Penkala & Brazilian Eduardo da Silva immigrant that adopted the Croat national identity and Vlach immigrants that adopted the Serb identity.

It could also cover the experience of integration of Croat immigrants in their new homeland - USA, Canda, South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

I don't know about that. The problem here is that this term is rather modern and negative one, it mainly refers to aggressive attempts of assimilation of other ethnic groups, namely Serbs during the 'World War 2'. As such this article should reflect that and I have made some changes about it. When we speak about peaceful and voluntary assimilation and social integration of various ethnic groups such as Germans, Slovaks, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. some other articles other than this should be used. --Factanista 08:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands, I'll have nominated it for deletion because it clearly is POV, represents propaganda and WP:POINT. iruka 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Full support. --PaxEquilibrium 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This text is completely - missing the point.
"Croatization", in Croatian, has positive meanings. E.g., like croatizing of foreign words, just like the French do with anglisms.
If you look at this from the point of assimilation of persons, neither from that side, this term that has negative conotations. Assimilation could mean that the majority in some community has accepted minority as part of themselves.
But this article is purposely written. Ordinary anti-Croat propaganda, and as such, it should be deleted. Kubura 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding croatisation

Croatisation is a useful article. I expanded it a lot, adding the Illyrian Movement, but it should be expanded even further to include the recent croatisation of several sportsmen. I'm not well-versed in sports, but names like Da Silva or Peshalov come to mind. I'll write that chapter if nobody else wants to.

I deleted the paragraph called "Croatisization (sic!) against Italians", since it had only one sentence which had nothing to do with the title. This is how it went: The Italian communities of Istria and Dalmatia are today reduced to a minimum part of their original size. The most of Italian left the present day Croatia during the Istrian exodus, after World War II. This is an article about croatisation, not the Italian exodus. If any Italians were croatised, the appropriate chapter should be added, of course.

I also removed inappropriate links under "See also". Ustasha are quite relevant for croatisation, so I left them. But Jasenovac (an extermination camp) and Operation Storm (a military operation) have nothing to do with croatisation. --Zmaj 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags

After the last edits of user:Zmaj, the article is totally deprived of neutrality, with a lot of censure aganist some Croatian 'responabilities'; such as the Italian exodus from Croatia. I will work on it ASA, providing valid sources, according to my habit.--Giovanni Giove 15:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be unfair, Giovanni. I sympathize with the plight of the Italians who had to leave Croatia after WWII. And I'm appalled by foibe, it was a terrible crime. But this is not the right article - it's not about exoduses or massacres, it's about croatisation. Regarding the Italian exodus, I don't think the right article exists yet. You could start a new one, something like Esuli, for example. I'll help you if I can. --Zmaj 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will not vandalize again the article, deleting my edits as pure disturbing action. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VAN, Giovanni. You have wrong notions about vandalism. --Zmaj 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to report your destructive behaviour.--Giovanni Giove 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means do so. It will teach you a thing or two about Wikipedia. --Zmaj 10:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

be carfully, you wrote that you wished to start a personal attack against me, after this you starte with massive reverts without to provide logic arguments, be carefully.--Giovanni Giove 10:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, Giovanni, you can't put an NPOV tag just like that. You must explain on the talk page what parts of the article are POV and why. And you didn't do that. Look at my comment on this page, under the title Expanding croatisation. That's how you should explain your actions. I'd honestly like to know why you think that the current article needs the NPOV tag. Just don't start again with meaningless phrases like "you're not neutral", "you're censuring" etc. Tell me precisely what's the problem. OK? I'll leave your tag for a couple of days, but if you don't provide any sensible arguments, I'll remove it. I think that's fair. --Zmaj 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Three days have passed, and still no explanation for the NPOV tag. I'm removing the tag. --Zmaj 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag is returned because of this reasons:

• Part of article under name 1800s. Illyrian Movement is Croatisation ???

Rječina, why are you doing this? The chapter says that Illyrian Movement was a national revival. There was voluntary Croatisation within the movement. The chapter provides concrete examples of such Croatisation. Where's the problem? Did you even read the chapter? This is starting to get on my nerves... --Zmaj 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Part of article Italians. Can somebody tell me please from where is data assimilation of Italians between 1850 - 1914 ? Maybe from somebody fantasy ?
• Part of article 1990s . Initiators of Yugoslav wars ?? Serbian fantasy ?? --Rjecina 15:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK now article is better but there is still questions. First is that Italians have disappeared between 1850 and 1918. Sorry but there is no census data for 1850. From where is this data ?? Census data which we have is on this discussion page. Second thing under question is that Croatisation of television is one of initiators of Yugoslav wars ?! --Rjecina 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful assimilation

Small minorities assimilate into the majority or into ruling country's nation.
It's normal process everywhere in the world.
Croatia wasn't independent in 19th century.
In fact, todays Croatia was dismembered in the 19th century between Austrian and Hungarian part of the Monarchy. And, as worse, the official language in littoral provinces was Italian. And still, many of those Italians that came to live in Croatian Littoral assimilated into Croats, some of them before Napoleon's and Habsburg rule.
And already, in 19th century, many of them were the local leaders or important personalities of Croatian Risorgimento, Croat national renaissance (hrvatski narodni preporod), some of them even croatising their name and surname. Kubura 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Age of Croatian national renaissance (that happened at the same time as in the rest of Europe), many Italians have already croatized, although there was no independent nationalist Croatia to impose such rules.
I'll list you here the names of deputies in Dalmatian Diet, when Croat-reunionist party Narodna stranka (National party) won the majority. Narodna stranka was by local pro-italianist party called partito croato (not "partito serbo-croato", not "partito iugoslavo").
Among those deputates, six or seven of them had Italian-sounding surnames.
That doesn't have to mean that all of them were of Italian origin; it could be the case that some of their ancestors were Croats that italianized their surname. Also stays for the other case, with Croat surname. There's a possibility of previous croatization of Italian surname.
Here're some names:
Lovro Monti. In this scientific article by Šime Peričić “O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća” (“Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century”), Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija), it says that he was of Italian origin. Abstract in English.
Juraj Biankini.
A case of Croat Rafo Arneri. A scientific article Doprinos Rafe Arnerija hrvatskom narodnom preporodu u Dalmaciji (Contribution of Rafo Arneri to Croatian national renaissance in Dalmatia). Work by Šime Peričić, Rad. Zavoda povij. znan. HAZU Zadru, sv. 47/2005., str. 325–340, UDK 949.75:929 R. Arneri. Arneri was a family from Korčula, with origins from Bosnia. Still, at the beginning, Rafo was raised in Italian spirit, so he knew Italian better than Croatian. In order to help Croat cause and Croat reunionist mission, he had to improve the knowledge of his Croatian. Kubura 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a list of 26 deputates of Narodna stranka (partito croato) from 1870. in Dalmatian Diet. On this link, it mentions the "team" on the photo: party leader Miho Klaić, then following trio Miho Pavlinović, dr. Rafo Pucić and Edvard Tacconi; in a chain around central part: Ivan Danilo, dr. Lovro Monti, dr. Petar Čingrija, dr. Antun Bersa, dr. Josip Antonietti, dr. Konstantin Vojnović, Ivan Desković, Gjorgje Vojnović, Petar Budmani, Josip Kažimir Ljubić, Ivan Vranković, dr. Josip Paštrović, Antun Šupuk, Josip Raimondi, Stefan Ljubiša, dr. Frane Lanza, Krsto Kulišić and dr. Ante Tripalo. At the bottom are Rafo Arneri, Jerotej Kovačević and Vicko Luković, and completely at the bottom, Frane Fontana. Kubura 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatisation of Italians in Dalmatia

Statement about assimilation of Italians in Dalmatia between 1850 and 1914/18 is under very good question. Census data from article Kingdom of Dalmatia for year 1880 are:

• 371,565 Croats
• 78,714 Serbs
• 27,305 Italians

It is if nothing else misleading speak that when school has started to use Croatian language and not Italian is assimilation. Croats have been 77 % of population and it is normal that in school and other public places language is Croatian and not Italian because they are only 5-6 % of population. Be good to answer this question with argument. If there is no answer today tag will be returned.--Rjecina 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Austrian empire has started to make census data only in 1880. Data for Italians between 1880 and 1910 are:

• 1880 27305
• 1890 16000
• 1990 15279
• 1910 18028 +2500 persons which are having Italian passport.--Rjecina 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Source please

There are no sources that refer to the departure of Italians from Istria or Zadar as "Croatization". Such extreme POV accusations need at least ONE source referring to those events as "Croatization". (When I say "source", I naturally mean a published, scholarly work.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You call it "censorship" (LoL), I call it unsourced POV. Theirrulez, get a source or stop inserting the nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? A new-negationist? Be serious. First, I din't add anything, I never edited on this article, written by Kubura and friends (by the way I suppose). Second, whatever source you mean I don't care: what you did is unfair and not neutral because it's clear you desagree with the section you deliberately removed (or better you prefer not to read it). So kindly restore the text where it was since now, than add an appropriate template to require sourced needed. - Theirrulez (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Its simple - this article is about "Croatisation". Before you call something "Croatisation" you need at least one guy with a degree out there that calls it "Croatisation". These are serious issues and I am not prepared to have unsourced nonsense in there. "If its not sourced - it does not exist." Unsourced gibberish can be removed at any time, without discussion, without templates or any discretion - and particularly if its controversial, offensive, and deals with Balkans ethnic conflicts.

The text is not erased from time and space, its still in the history. Get a source and I'll restore it myself. If you don't have a source - tough meat, some guy's thoughts, feelings and opinions should certainly not be in there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

her below the text must be canceeled because it requires a source:

Croatisation of Italy's Julian March and Zadar after WWII

After World War II most of the Italians left Istria and the cities of Italian Dalmatia in the Istrian exodus. The remaining Italians were assimilated culturally and even linguistically during Tito's rule of communist Yugoslavia.

Of course in this case " " shouldn't have worked... - Theirrulez (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The source MUST explicitly state that these events are "Croatisation", i.e. it must use this term. This article is about Croatisation, not general bad things that happened to Italians. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't have to state what you prefer (absurd you can't understand it) sources just have to explain what is shown in text. Theirrulez (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not "what I prefer". Look, all I'm saying is find someone out there, someone, anyone, that says that is Croatisation. That's all. All else is heavy POV. You can't say something is this or that without at least some kind of source. I think you too can see this is perfectly reasonable. (Why is the title red...?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No instrumental requests please, and no revisionism. --Theirrulez (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anything other than a source. Your edits will be continuously reverted as unsourced POV up to the point when you can say "this historian says its Croatisation". If you wish to edit-war, its on you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I avoid edit war, but if you and Koven like to edit war no problem to report you both.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want we can have the same approach on your beloved articles, like chetniks and draza mihailovich, tito, yugoslav front etc: if sources don't mention the word in the title we will erase entire sections ok? --Theirrulez (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Real smart, edit-war and then then report me. I'm sure Koven and I will be only ones who would be blocked... lol. Theirrulez, are you actually "threatening" me above with conflicts on other articles? :) You know I always love a good "brawl", bring it. ;)

Anyway concerning this particular case, I really am asking for the bare minimum of sources. I know what "Croatisation" is, its a term used for Serbs & Bosniaks, primarily. All I'm asking is that you show me that the term applies to these events with Italians as well. Its the bare minimum. Get me anything, anything at all. ONE source.

Theirrulez, as always, if you don't believe me that this is the bare minimum for an NPOV article, you can always ask someone. Remember that was Yugoslavia (could it be "Yugoslavisation", partially "Slovenisation"?)! You can't just use a term because you yourself interpret things that way. You need to find someone with a degree that thinks so too. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's this censorship? I saw more than decent sources above. Why did you erase them, Direktor? The guy is an IP, he doesn't seem a sock, or, if he is a sock we don't know it yet. So leave there the sources he posted, it's not nice to do what you did. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the checkuser-confirmed IP sock of User:Luigi 28, you will be instantly reported should you restore it again. Feel free to post the source or any relevant information yourself, just don't restore the banned user's post.

• Both of the sources you linked are clearly falsely quoted. The first refers to the 1990s. The second does not mention Italians.
• The source posted by the sock is not readable. All we can see is that it uses the term "croatizzazione" in some way. From what I can read the author refers to the "specter of 'croatisation'" in the liberal-nationalist media of Dalmatia. I can find no indication of any reference to the Istrian exodus or the foibe or anything. I don't even know if he's talking about the 19th century or the 1990s...

Let me be perfectly clear: only verifiable information can be entered into the article. Sourced information about Croatisation, only. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me more clear than what you could be: no historic negationism or revisionism will be accepted. If you want to challenge reliable sources, feel free to do it in this talk page. And please link me the report of the CU of that IP, until now I don't have any proof of that. Theirrulez (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] croatisation (in Italian "croatizzazione") of Fiume (Rijeka) after the WWII.Sources by historians Claudio Magris, Giovanni Miccoli and Roberto Finzi In this book you can obtain lots of informations about the croatisation of Istria after WWII. The auctor is prof. Raoul Pupo, also cited several times in the article about the foibe massacres. Pupo was one of the member of the Italian-Slovenian Commission of historian which made a detailed report on the Foibe, on the exodus and on the threatening of Italians following forced croatization during the cold war. This commission wrote the report "Slovene-Italian relations 1880-1956". There is also many sources about the croatisation of Dalmatia.Other sources: [2], [3]. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See also: Istrian-Dalmatian exodus

Hower this article, per WP:OWN, can't suffer your pressure for sources you don't agree, and can't be erased or mofified as you like. Anyway sincerely, if you consider any source as unreliable source, please feel free to take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Theirrulez (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your offensive posts anymore. The only thing that interests me are sources. I do not consider your sources "unreliable", I consider them falsely quoted.

• Both of the sources you linked are obviously falsely quoted. The first refers to the 1990s. The second does not mention Italians.
• The source posted by the sock is not readable. The book uses the term "croatizzazione" two times, but it does not support your claim that those events listed in the section are "Croatisation". From what I can read the author refers to the "specter of 'croatisation'" in the liberal-nationalist media of Dalmatia. I can find no indication of any reference to the Istrian exodus or the foibe or Rijeka or Zadar or any part of the gibberish that is included in the article section you're pushing. I don't even know if the source talking about the 19th century or the 1990s.

In short, I can see that you're desperate, but simply listing sources that use the word "Croatisation" does not really mean anything. You need sources that support the claims listed in your section, i.e. that the Istrian exodus, foibe, etc. were indeed "Croatisation" (not because I "demand" that, but because that's what you claim in the section). I for one can't see how people who are left the country and/or were killed had been "Croatised" in some way, but my opinions are irrelevant - as are yours.

I'm sorry you can't find a source, but ultimately, unsourced nonsense won't stay in the article no matter how much you edit-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This link [4] does indeed contain valuable information on the croatisation of Rijeka: "Nella Fiume del 1945 la "croatizzazione" è qualcosa di molto diverso da quella, in chiave liberale, del secolo precedente.", though here the term is applied to what in effect today we would call ethnic cleansing. The text being pushed by Ir is badly written at the very least, and I don't want to make a contribution while an edit war is going on.

The question is: is the article (or the term) about people being assimilated into Croatian society or about areas becoming part of the Croatian "mainstream" because the previous inhabitants of different ethnicity have left? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Its paradoxical. How can people be "Croatised" if they leave or get killed?

The source posted by the IP sock of User:Luigi 28 does indeed refer to Rijeka - but only to the departure of Italians from Rijeka - not the cultural assimilation of anyone. And I'll be tied down and run over by a tank before this article will sport some nonsense "ethnic cleansing" POV. :)

• Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffy, et al. Cultures of insecurity: states, communities, and the production of danger; University of Minnesota Press, 1999 ISBN 0816633088 [5]

"Despite the existence of some exiles who recognize the complicated intersections of ideological and ethnonational claims in motivating the exodus, since Yugoslavia's breakup [interesting note] the exile associations and their leaders had considerable success in Italy promoting the exodus as a unitary event following out of a premeditated plan to 'Slavicize' Istria. Such narratives may be linked to morality plays, as Malkki (1995) suggests for accounts told by Hutu refugees in Tanzania. In constructing the Istrian exodus as an act of 'ethnic cleansing' and casting it in fundamentally moral terms, exile narratives in Trieste silence competing voices. Conflating Istrian Italian culture/history with all Istrian culture/history, these accounts posit the exiles as the only authentic Istrians."

It is important to mention that the overt bias of Italian authors (and Italian society itself) towards these issues is well noted indeed within the scientific community (although I imagine Croatian authors are no better or even worse :). Furthermore, targeting Croats specifically and portraying these events as "Croatisation" alone is highly biased in that both Slovenes and Croats make up the ethnic composition of Istria. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I own both the sources. The first (from p. 699) is speaking about the croatisation of Fiume from 1945 to 1947: the union with Susak, the new borderline with the Istrian territory in the west-side, the imposition of Croatian in the Italian schools, the killing of the autonomists and so on. I can try to translate some passages, if you like. The Pupo's books widely speaks of "croatisation", in many pages. Also here I can try to translate some passages. Regards and... be happy!--79.48.206.54 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, I know that the article is not a very good one as it stands, but the lead says that croatisation applies to people and land. I think we can all agree that as people of other ethnicities left Croatia (regardless of who these people were) and were replaced by Croats, these areas were croatised.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course.--79.48.206.54 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Imposition of Croatian in Italian schools...??? Um, those schools were in Croatia ffs. Its the official language of the country.

All right, if its "people & lands" then well and good. But if the source talks about the events in Rijeka as "Croatisation" then lets mention that in the article, taking note that the source is Italian (e.g. "Italian sources such as this and that describe the events in Rijeka as 'Croatisation'. Those events were... etc."). This will not be an excuse to restore the entire section, including those parts which have not been sourced as describing "Croatisation". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know that between 1945 and 1947 Fiume was "Italian territory", assigned in administration to Yugoslavia. Only after the treaty of peace with Italy, those schools were in Croatia.--79.48.206.54 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The annexation of Rijeka and those parts of Istria outside the Free territory of Trieste was fully supported by all Allies and was never disputed at all. Least of all by Italy. I'm sorry you feel bitter about the fascists losing WWII... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your last statement seems to be really uncorrect, and very unfair, on this encyclopedia say someone to be a fascist is strictly considered a slur. Moreover the annexation of Rijeka and many parts of Istria was hardly disputed for years by all Allies and by Italian Governments. Kindly provides sources next time you will decide to write this kind of "creative-historical" statement, thanks. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Theirrulez, I will repeat (for the third time) that I do not really care about and/or need to hear your continued "comments" on my posts, please direct any complaints elsewhere. The response by the IP and, I admit, my response to his post are both completely off topic. Opposing them is not very productive and does not help you. Neither does your continuous sock-supported edit-war to insert unsourced gibberish into the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, are you trying to win the award for the most edit-warring and N-reverting editor of Wikipedia?? Theirrulez (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural assimilation and deliberate cancellations

• One thing is as much important as much politically significant: an article about a cultural assimilation (like croatization) doesn't give only a mere definition of what that assimilation is, if it's forced or not and when it took place, but, and above all it must shows historical implications of the issue, the primary and secondary effects on facts, peoples, communities, politics, cultures and everithing related to a social-historiographical consequences of a particular assimilation process. If the croatization actued directly (or indirectly) was one of the reason of a massive exodus, it must be said in the article. And nobody here deserves to be infamous called "fascist" (I consider that post above dirty and offensive, some apologies would be nicely accepted), just because boundaryor annexations matters or wars are all only a background, they are not the subject.

I suppose the cancellation of an entire paragraph, fully, partial or not supported by sources, it's not fair, and it can be interpreted as vandalism or at least as political POV cancellation: the same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago [6], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) [7]. Despite it was reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, (now expressed again by several users) the paragraph was cancelled for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when it could more simply to add the tag "{{citation needed}}". --Theirrulez (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please source events as "Croatisation". I'll be waiting for sources. Once the stuff is sourced, I'll have no problem with it. The "{{citation needed}}" tag is not for controversial and disputed text. Unsourced paragraphs can be removed without any tagging, esp these outrageous claims. This slow edit-war over your insertion of unsourced nationalist gibberish has lasted long enough.

As things currently stand, the events in Rijeka are sourced as "croatisation" by one (rather dubious) Italian source. As stated earlier, I agree to the inclusion of the statement "Italian author XY describes the events in Rijeka as 'Croatisation'. Those events were... etc." (or any variation thereof, of course). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason, but dubious pov, is VANDALISM. Your frivolous explanation for the removal can't absolutely be accepted after posts of other users above and considering that the rest of the article is quite completely unsurced. Thanks to stop your edit-warring. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason is lack of sources. It is not "frivolous", but very serious indeed. The issue here is not the rest of the article, but the dubious unsourced section (though you may naturally feel free to remove any unsourced text, preferably after explaining on the talkpage why you think that's necessary). In short: sources please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatisation or Croatization

Should Croatisation or Croatization be used as the article name? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are barely equivalent. This could be a case fitting google test. Why don't you try. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a "Naming convention" that said whether it should be in British English or American English. nvm -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be.--Theirrulez (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The more common spelling is "Croatization", both on Google [8][9] and Google books [10][11]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Theirrulez, 17 June 2010

EDIT REQUEST MOTIVATION {{editprotected}}

• This article has been protected as I requested, following the unusual and incessant blanking of a single section. The blankings were performed by an user, who asked more and more for sources, challenging everytime sources provided by me and other users. I suppose the cancellation of an entire paragraph, fully, partial or not supported by sources, it's not fair, and it can be interpreted as vandalism or at least as political POV cancellation: the same paragraph already existed in the article two years ago [12], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) [13]. Despite it was reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, (now expressed again by several users) the paragraph was cancelled for the first time just few days ago, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when it could more simply to add the tag "{{citation needed}}" One thing is as much important as much politically significant: an article about a cultural assimilation (like croatization) doesn't give only a mere definition of what that assimilation is, if it's forced or not and when it took place, but, and above all it must shows historical implications of the issue, the primary and secondary effects on facts, peoples, communities, politics, cultures and everithing related to a social-historiographical consequences of a particular assimilation process. If the croatization actued directly (or indirectly) was one of the reason of a massive exodus, it must be said in the article.

Anyways there's no actual dispute, but just a single user repetitive blankings. If this could be view as a dispute, to restore the disputed section in the article can help other users to judge it and to develop a wider consensus.

Here following the section to be restored for a deepeer and more conscious (I hope) discussion: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theirrulez (talk • contribs)

The section is completely unsourced (despite the weird hoard of falsely quoted refs). Find the sources and I'll restore the section myself. Discuss. In the meantime I recommend you cease pestering people about this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatisation of Italy's Julian March and Zadar since 19th century and after Croatian indipendence

Extended content

See also: Istrian-Dalmatian exodus Even with a predominant Slavic majority, Dalmatia retained large Italian communities in the coast (Italian majority in the cities and the islands, largest concentration in Istria). Most Dalmatian Italians gradually assimilated to the prevailing Croatian culture and language between the 1860s and World War I, although Italian language and culture remained present in Dalmatia. The community was granted minority rights in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; during the Italian occupation of Dalmatia in World War II, it was caught in the ethnic violence that followed the fascist repression: what remained of the community fled the area after World War II. The Italian community of Istria and Dalmatia were forced to change their names to Croats and Yugoslav, during Tito's Yugoslavia. The same happened - but with lower incidence - with Italians in Istria and Fiume who were the majority of the population in most of the coastal areas in the first half of the 19th century, while at the beginning of World War I they numbered less than 50%. After World War II most of the Italians left Istria and the cities of Italian Dalmatia in the Istrian-Dalmatian exodus. The remaining Italians were forced to be assimilated culturally and even linguistically during Tito's rule of communist Yugoslavia. Following the exodus, the areas were settled and hardly croatized with Yugoslav people. Economic insecurity, ethnic hatred and the international political context that eventually led to the Iron Curtain resulted in up to 350,000 people, mostly Italians, forced to leave the region. The London Memorandum (1954) gave the ethnic Italians the hard choice of either opting to leave (the so-called optants) or staying. These exiles would have been to be given compensation for their loss of property and other indemnity by the Italian state under the terms of the peace treaties.Who opted to stay, had to suffer a slow but forced croatisation. Some sporadic Croatization phenomena still took place in the last years of 20th century after Croatian Indipendency, despites many towns were declared bilingual by Croatian Law.

Note

Its important to note that these sources are, quite amazingly, ALL falsely quoted. They either 1) simply describe the events in question, but do not presume to label them "croatisation", or if they do actually address the subject of this article, 2) they are deliberately falsely quoted in that they do not refer to the events pushed as "croatization" in the disputed section (i.e. they have nothing to do with the text). Note for example the Sabrina Ramet ref: not only does the author use the term under parentheses in quoting a statement from a Croatian politician, but the source also refers to the 1990s, not the 1940s :P. The list is an appalling bit of sources manipulation, really, but alas too obvious: "lets list as many refs and links as we can, people won't check them so we can claim this is all sourced!"

The issue is quite controversial and very much disputed. Without an actual source there can be no real question as to the inclusion of such claims. As things stand now, there isn't a single solitary source in existence that presumes to describe the events referred to in the disputed section as Croatisation. Not even the (biased) Italian right-wing authors have done anything of the sort. Frankly I cannot believe there's an actual dispute here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

END OF EDIT REQUEST - PLEASE LEAVE ANY COMMENT UNDER THE LINE

---

Not done for now: Please continue to discuss this and reactivate the request when it supported by consensus on this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article wasn't protected as a result of anyone's request - rather an observed edit war, and done in leiu of an sanctions. Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on edit request

Its important to note that these sources are, quite amazingly, ALL falsely quoted. They either 1) simply describe the events in question, but do not presume to label them "croatisation", or if they do actually address the subject of this article, 2) they are deliberately falsely quoted in that they do not refer to the events pushed as "croatization" in the disputed section (i.e. they have nothing to do with the text). Note for example the Sabrina Ramet ref: not only does the author use the term under parentheses in quoting a statement from a Croatian politician, but the source also refers to the 1990s, not the 1940s :P. The list is an appalling bit of sources manipulation, really, but alas too obvious: "lets list as many refs and links as we can, people won't check them so we can claim this is all sourced!"

The issue is quite controversial and very much disputed. Without an actual source there can be no real question as to the inclusion of such claims. As things stand now, there isn't a single solitary source in existence that presumes to describe the events referred to in the disputed section as Croatisation. Not even the (biased) Italian right-wing authors have done anything of the sort. Frankly I cannot believe there's an actual dispute here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the italianized variant of the name should be removed; shows no particular relevance to the content whatsoever. Narrowing it down just to Croatian would be preferable instead. Or should we add Cyrillic and German as well? Er-vet-en (say) 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we could leave those translation in the language where the world earned a significant meaning for each national history. Italian translation croatizzazione is strongly present in Italian historiography, I don't think we can say the same for the Spanish or Dutch translation.- Theirrulez (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatization was much more present among Serbs in Croatia as the text asserts. Should've added Cyrillic script too, as opposed to just Italian translation. Er-vet-en (say) 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you do not move and refactor my edit again, User:Theirrulez. I cannot believe you've actually started revert-warring over that. :) Do not touch my talkpage posts. This is all I am prepared to say on the issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you do not overwrite my edit request, because it's really not polite and it can give confusion in readability, wrongly mixing content and motivation of the edit request with your comments. You can add every comment you want on it here, it's more correct and surely make this section not fuzzy. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@User:Er-vet-en. Exactly. "Croatisation" is a valid term, but it refers primarily, if not exclusively, to the ethnic cleansing and cultural assimilation of Serbs and Bosniaks (the two being extremely similar to Croats culturally in almost every way, and vice versa of course), e.g. that of the deeds of the genocidal Croatian Ustaše regime, or Operation Storm. Any other usage needs to be sourced.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, are you serious??
You don't know the difference between assimilation and ethnic cleansing.
"It refers primarily, if not exclusively...". That's a blatant lie.
Croatization can refer to assimilation of persons or to translation of foreign words into Croatian.
Assimilation can be violent and peaceful. People don't die, people don't leave their homes, but they change their ethnic identity, either peacefully (their own will), either violently (against their will).
Ethnic cleansing means killing or forceful removing of persons.

• "cultural assimilation of Serbs during Ustaše regime"??? Where did you get that idea?
  
• "ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks during Ustaše regime"??? How many Bosniaks, and how many Croats were Ustaše soldiers (e.g., in Crna legija, during the campaign in Eastern Bosnia, fighting against Četniks).
  

Equalizing the Ustaše regime and Operation Oluja is bad-intentional edit. Shame on you. How can you say something like that? That's mocking to the innocent victims of Ustaše regime.
Fact is that rebel Serbs' authorities have ordered and organized the evacuation of Serb civilians before Oluja started at all [14].
Have you forgotten your own words [15]? "How can people be "Croatised" if they leave or get killed?" Kubura (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

War in Bosnia

The whole Bosnian section has nothing to do with what this article is presumably about. The lede states that Croatisation is a "a process of cultural assimilation", which is in turn defined as a "socio-political response to demographic multi-ethnicity that supports or promotes the assimilation of ethnic minorities into the dominant culture". Whoever wrote the War in Bosnia section misunderstood the term and interpreted it as equivalent to ethnic cleansing. The section lists instances of oppression directed at Bosniaks and does not offer a single evidence of anything which could be described as "cultural assimilation". The Ustashe part is also only marginally related to the topic at hand the way it is currently written (it only states the ideas of the regime but does not say anything about the effects of the alleged cultural assimilation - like for example how many Serbs actually converted to Catholicism), but I suppose it could be expanded to say something about the Croatian Orthodox Church, which would be a prime example of an attempted assimilation. Assimilation is not synonymous with persecution - it is in fact quite the opposite as the former seeks to integrate minorities into society at large by erasing their identities while the latter seeks to simply get rid of them via ostracizing or extermination. Because of this I will remove the Bosnian War section unless anyone objects. Timbouctou (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't so clear cut. Some forcible attempts at croatisation involved the use of violence, and the use of this to enforce it is seen as ethnic cleansing by some. But then, if attempts to force cultural assimilation include the elimination of those who don't comply, it is legitimate to mention it. We could lose some of the section, but the detail on alleged attempts to introduce a Croatian curriculum in schools surely falls under the label of croatisation, however you look at it. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but what were the alternatives at the time? I suppose schools in the Republika Srpska introduced a Serbian curriculum and probably the schools in Sarajevo introduced a Bosnian curriculum (although I'm not sure that even existed at the time). And these were all introduced to replace the Yugoslav curriculum, which - in line with your reasoning - had then been a form of "Yugoslavisation"? This is very stretched. Virtually everything this section describes resembles what the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s - and yet nobody ever describes their policies as "Germanization" as it was not a program of assimilation at all. The section has six sentences:

• The first sentence talks about "ethnic cleansing", "persecution" and "discrimination" - no assimilation there.
• The second sentence says that "HVO took control of many municipal governments and services, removing or marginalising local Bosniak leaders" - no assimilation there.
• The third sentence says that "Herzeg-Bosnia authorities took control of the media and imposed Croatian ideas and propaganda" - where's the assimilation part, and what exactly are "Croatian ideas"?
• The fifth sentence says "Many Bosniaks were removed from positions in government and private business; humanitarian aid was managed and distributed to the Bosniaks' disadvantage; and Bosniaks in general were increasingly harassed" - where's the assimilation here?
• The sixth sentence says that "many of them were deported to concentration camps: Heliodrom, Dretelj, Gabela, Vojno, and Šunje" - hardly a form of assimilation is it?

Only the fourth (unreferenced) sentence which says that "Croatian symbols and currency were introduced, and Croatian curricula and the Croatian language were introduced in schools." could be understood to be a form of assimilation but this is debatable as it does not say anything about whether anyone was forced in any way to accept Croatian symbols or to start speaking Croatian language (which is btw very similar and 100% mutually intelligible with other languages spoken in Bosnia so it is hard to imagine someone not having access to jobs or health care for not speaking it). Was anyone ever arrested for refusing to accept "Croatian symbols"? Was anyone ever sacked from their job for not speaking Croatian? Was anyone ever forced to accept "Croatian ideas"? Is there anyone who had to change their name to something which sounds more Croatian? The paragraph does not offer any clue and merely lists examples of persecution of Bosniaks (simply because they were Bosniaks) and Croatian hegemony. None of it falls into the scope of cultural assimilation. Timbouctou (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Get your point. What's more, I've looked at the references given for the section, and they don't strike me as genuine, as they are all suspiciously linking to the ICTY front page. All I could find is this PDF that contains the same titles, but no mentions of croatisation or efforts at assimilation, or anything other than war crimes. I think it is OK to delete the section just on this point. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the verdict referenced [16][17]. The term "Croatisation" is specifically used:

In the face of the Muslim forces’ refusal to obey the ultimatum, Croatian forces embarked on a series of actions intended to implement the “Croatisation” of the territories by force. The Muslim community was subjected to of an increasing number of acts of aggression: ill treatment, plunder, confiscation, intrusion into private homes, beatings, thefts, arrests, torching of homes and murder of prominent Muslims. Hundreds of Muslims were arrested and many were imprisoned in Kaonik in the former JNA warehouses. Many were beaten. Most of them were forced to dig trenches, often in inhumane conditions, exposed to enemy fire, beaten or even killed, and sometimes serving as a human shield.

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's acceptable, but if you're going to use these references please make sure you mention the page number, as they are rather large documents. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but is it okay to use this quote as an example of Croatisation although the term as used in the document is different from its Wikipedia definition? The quote uses "Croatisation" as a synonym for ethnic cleansing (efforts to make the area more ethnically "pure") and nothing in it describes attempts of cultural assimilation. The first quote comes from two (probably laymen) witnesses who may or may not be familiar with the exact meaning of the term and the second one is a court finding (which is based on testimonies given by the same witnesses). Furthermore, the term is both times printed within quotation marks in the text, therefore signalling unusual usage. What the witnesses described is merely persecution and discrimination as part of ethnic cleansing. Nobody seems to have been assimilated here. Timbouctou (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the last word on anything. If a source says something about croatisation, then it has to be included. Notice how the definition of croatisation isn't supported by a reference in this article (i.e. made up by someone on this site). The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an odd Wikipedia definition of these terms, it's a legitimate pattern, compare Germanisation, Italianization, Magyarization, Francization, Anglicization... Anyway, this kind of campaign of persecution may have the elements of Croatisation, but to keep using such a relatively mild term for the entirety of these events is a clear understatement and likely even an overly benign mischaracterization of these events. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The source that the entire section holds on to is a testimony from two individuals who are probably not qualified to label it as Croatisation in the first place. They could have just as well called it "racism" but would it then qualify for inclusion in the racism article? Probably not as someone would point out that Bosniaks and Croats actually belong to the same race. What parts of the quoted section talk about is analogous to Aryanization (defined as "expulsion of the so-called non-Aryans") during WWII, which only accounts for a small part of the Germanisation article (defined as "spread of the German language, people and culture either by force or assimilation"). Timbouctou (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatisation. 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/20070927013702/http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/krapinac.html to http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/krapinac.html

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) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Croatisation of Uskoks

@Elserbio00: Please cite information's from sources and pages which are talk about Uskok Croatisation. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko: please expose the evidence for this section. Thanks in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for removing information's from the article

Serbs in the Roman Catholic Croatian Military Frontier were out of the jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć and in 1611, after demands from the community, the Pope establishes the Eparchy of Marča (Vratanija) with seat at the Serbian-built Marča Monastery and instates a Byzantine vicar as bishop sub-ordinate to the Roman Catholic bishop of Zagreb, working to bring Serbian Orthodox Christians into communion with Rome which caused struggle of power between the Catholics and the Serbs over the region. In 1695 Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of Lika-Krbava and Zrinopolje is established by metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević and certified by Emperor Josef I in 1707. In 1735 the Serbian Orthodox protested in the Marča Monastery and becomes part of the Serbian Orthodox Church until 1753 when the Pope restores the Roman Catholic clergy. On 17 June 1777 the Eparchy of Križevci is permanently established by Pope Pius VI with see at Križevci, near Zagreb, thus forming the Croatian Greek Catholic Church which would after World War I include other people; Rusyns and Ukrainians of Yugoslavia.

• This information's are not in any Croatisation context, also sources do not put religious history of Austro-Hungary in Croatisation context. For the stated reasons, I suggest removing this information which are irrelevant for this article. Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is. Claiming otherwise just means that you are not reading carefully. It is about the role religion played in Croatisation, which is undisputable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko: Then this information must be and part of article Magyarization, because this information's applies and to Hungarian territory ie under Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian political power(under which is and Croatia at that time). Mikola22 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit of John L. Booth sockpupet

We must have clean edit, it is also request of the administrator, (Closing. Also, does anyone want to clean up the sock's contributions?)[18] Mikola22 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1) Did you edit via your IP? 2) I have examined the material and consider it to be of great use to the article. Do you have any rule to quote or any real argument to present about this, rather than quoting "clean version" and evoking other editors? Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1) No. 2) Editor John L. Booth is sockpupet an he made lot of edit, we have to start from a clean state. This was also ordered by the administrator. You check all sources, pages and information's from the sources(without WP:OR) and gradually return them to the article. You have my permission, but you must guarantee that everything will be clean(without OR or other problems). Mikola22 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no real or big problems with the material. Just giving generic answers and presenting them as problems is not of benefit to this project. Everything is checked. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with this editing, a lot of it is not written in the source, but it is falsely written and a lot of it is without a source. I've reviewed briefly now.93.138.99.103 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit it properly and use the talk page. Please no vandalism from the sockpuppet. Thank you.93.138.99.103 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadko stop doing vandalism, use a talk page like Mikola22 to solve problems. Do not support vandalism from sockpuppet John L. Booth as before. Thank you93.138.99.103 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to rework the article for a bit by removing uncited claims and adding text and sources. Vacant0 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You must also check sources and information's from sources because there is a possibility of WP:OR editing, see section Croatisation of Uskoks [19]. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to look into the sources to see if they claim the statements above. Vacant0 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I filed a full protection request and it seems another uninvolved user has too. The IP edit wars is enough. I restored the page to it’s stable form before the sock account added pov content that needs to be better worded and sourced if factual. As looking at the socks talk page I worry there was not neutral editing on their part. Thank you Vacant0 for volunteering to sift through the mess! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vacant0 in the section Croatisation during the World War II "see also Ante Starčević " and "This thinking was previously developed in the 19th century by Ante Starčević and his Party of Rights." you have to have a source for it .93.138.99.103 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The page won't be uneditable for a week but I'll try to get an admin to add a source to that statement. Vacant0 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources for the This thinking was previously developed in the 19th century by Ante Starčević and his Party of Rights statement in the "Croatisation during the World War II" section.

• – For Starčević... Serbs were 'unclean race' ... Along with ... Eugen Kvaternik he believed that 'there could be no Slovene or Serb people in Croatia because their existence could only be expressed in the right to a separate political territory.'
• – O Vještačkoj Naciji Srba: Ime Serb I Pravoslavni Hrvati, a book about the origin and meaning of Serbs written by Ante Starčević himself
• – From Independence to Trialism: The Croatian Party of Right and the Project for a Liberal “Greater Croatia” within the Habsburg Empire, 1861–1914 ... a book about the project of Ante Starčević and Party of Right's vision about Greater Croatia

These are not the sources he talks about Croatianization and this topic , you have to state where he wants to assimilate other nations in the source 93.138.99.103 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: we should really eeac consensus on your before before editing. The stable version should stay mean time as a foundation. OyMosby (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I agree. Vacant0 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As a comment, I left these edits in place because they seemed reasonable and sourced, and I don’t hold wholesale reversions of socks if they have made useful contributions. Better to let the good stuff stand since that way they might learn how to better engage on wiki. He will be back later in the week after all. My actual concern on this was that it was better written than most of his edits and so was WP:COPYVIO from somewhere. Pipsally (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Again Uskoks

A large part of the Habsburg unit of Uskoks, who fought a guerilla war with the Ottoman Empire were ethnic Serbs (Serbian Orthodox Christian) who fled from Ottoman Turkish rule and settled in Bela Krajina and Zumberak, in modern-day Slovenia.

• We cannot have such a sentence because in this contex is presumed that large part of all Uskoks are ethnic Serbs. This is one-sided context. We could write that larg part of Uskoks from area of Bela Krajina and Zumberak was ethnic Serbs. Also we must have and NPOV informations about Uskoks Vlachs in Bela Krajina and Zumberak which are not ethnic Serbs, and they were "larg part of Uskoks". Mikola22 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)