Talk:Far-right politics in Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reversion on 23 Nov 06

Reverted to last version by 89.172.1.174 because previous modification reversed changes covered in Rewrite section above w/o explaining the changes. The previous change was conducted by an identified user. iruka 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Qualifiers and additional information

• Under History of Neo-Ustashism, you have a problem where many of the cited examples are quite subjective as to whether they represent neo-ustashism. Yet, under the said heading, one assumes a notion of definitiveness. To reflect the ambiguity that some examples represent, I have inserted the following qualifier at the start of the section: The following paragraphs cite examples purported to be expressions of neo-ustasha sentiment. Where applicable, it is also shown how the view can be subjective and open to interpretation.

• For the example citing the destruction of Partisan monuments during the War of Indpendence, you have a similar problem where the heading of the section implies that the actions were a result of neo-ustasha sentiment, a conclusion that is dubious. As such, I have added to that paragraph the following qualifier: It is difficult to assess if these acts reflect neo-ustasha sentiments, or just an expression of anti-communism.

• I have also expanded on the priorities that preoccupied the governments of the 1990's: defending the country in the Croatian War of Independence, catering for war refugees, then recovering from the after affects of the Yugoslav wars. Such criticism is countered by the official functions for anti-fascist groups, remembrance ceremonies at the site of former Ustasha camp Jasenovac, and presidential speeches and parliamentary legislation addressing the issue.

• Removed time reference in Thompson part in order to make more generic and better expression flow i.e. from A more recent example of neo-Fascism expression is from the pop/folk/rock singer Marko Perković and his band Thompson who nominally made a career for himself by singing patriotic tunes, but this to In the world of popular culture, the pop/folk/rock singer Marko Perković and his band Thompson nominally made a career for himself by singing patriotic tunes. But this

• Fixed broken link.

iruka 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also changed Croat state tradition to Croat's desire after centuries to regain their independence as this more accurately reflects the Presidents speech.

In absense of qualifiers acceptance, changed heading to History of alleged expressions of neo-Ustashism in order to better refect what is in the body of the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marinko (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Zdravko Bazdan

Some anonymous editor removed the paragraph about Zdravko Bazdan's thoughts. We have discussed this bit somewhat in the past, but didn't come to a good conclusion. It seems to me that we need to find out whether these statements reflect the opinion of just him, or his entire organization. Can someone find anything of the sort in statements by e.g. Žarko Puhovski? Then that would indicate a pattern. Otherwise, the statements could well be dismissed as an isolated opinion by a single person. --Joy [shallot] 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV (totallydisputed) tag

I've added this tag due to a few obvious facts:

Starting off with "obvious" facts here is not really conducive to a good discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. --Joy [shallot]

Please, discuss - do not tutor others!

Unfortunately, you have broken a number of rules and guidelines, so it looks to me that you need tutoring. --Joy [shallot] 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• the text as written is aimed to justify, relativize, or excuse everything related to the Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Please don't assume bad faith. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Joy [shallot] 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not point at generic rules - pay attention to the text of this article. Nothing shall be assumed - rather verify, read and understand the article text as it seen here, the history of the text changes, and the discussion above.

You have not explained where you saw bad faith, so it was still an assumption. --Joy [shallot]

• The De-Ustashification and neo-Ustashism are not notions coming from any dictionary of the contemporary English language nor any respectable historical source/reference

How would you phrase that, then? Please contribute. --Joy [shallot] 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Use valid historic notion of Neo-Nazism. Use valid references when editing an article in order to support your own contibution

Okay, so neo-Nazism and denazification? (We actually did use those terms in the article.) --Joy [shallot]

• a great number of references demostrating clearly Neonazism manifestations (human body 'swastika' in Italy, nazi-like legislation, etc) is removed along with the text supported by these references

Where is this great number? Please post links to the page history, it's hard to wade through it without a more exact reference. --Joy [shallot]

Please, browse the history of changes. It is not hard at all - as you claim. Here is just an example [1]. The references are at the end of this article and you can get full insight into the reference removal and who did it - within just a few minutes.

First of all, the onus is on the complainant to show his case. But thanks for the link - I see that there is a great number of links, but they are just links, not really properly formatted references. Assorted links are tolerated on Wikipedia, but once they turn into a large list of unexplained external links, the encyclopedic value is lost, and editors tend to remove them. They should be integrated, put in context, dated, attributed, not just listed at the bottom. Cf. Wikipedia:References. --Joy [shallot]

• menitioning Tudjman in the context 'He also published a controversial book "Horrors of War - historical reality and philosophy" (Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti) in which he "debunked the black myth of Jasenovac", making the case that Jasenovac victim figures were amplified manyfold in order to create the myth of the genocidal nature of Croatdom and thus by virtue of this "historical guilt" the Croats abdicated any right to a nation-state, in deference to a Greater Serbia.' is another nonsense which aim is to present him as a positive personality, educated, and progresive. Do not forget that this man was publicly despised by the world leaders who unanimously refused to atend his funeral.

Please explain why that paragraph is nonsense. It's not a trivial sentence, and it's also not a statement of fact but a quote and a paraphrase. Maybe this is done badly so the intent is not clear, but it doesn't help if you just call them nonsensical and stop there. --Joy [shallot] 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Current events

I just wanted to post this news article, we should encoproate into article:

• Croatian officials attend pro-Ustasha concert by B92

According to Croatian media, the concert turned into a mass display of fascism at which several thousand people chanted Ustasha slogans,” Center Director Efraim Zuroff said in a statement.

The statement also said that a large number of people there were wearing Ustasha uniforms and symbols, stressing that “the worst thing in the whole lot was that some Croatian lawmakers and even the minister of science, education and sport were in the crowd.”

As many as 60,000 people attended Marko Perković, a.k.a. Tompson’s concert in Zagreb yesterday.

// laughing man 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More references:

• Wiesenthal Center Expresses Outrage At Massive Outburst of Nostalgia for Croatian Fascism at Zagreb Rock Concert; Urges President Mesic to Take Immediate Action by Simon Wiesenthal Center
• Nazi hunter raps 'fascist' Croatian rock concert by The Jerusalem Post
• Nazi hunters slam Croatian singer's concert by European Jewish Press
• Zuroff Protests Because Of Ustasha Symbols by Javno

// laughing man 22:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed section

I put the {{disputed-section}} on the "De-Ustashification" section, because much of it makes no sense. AFAIK, Ustaša iconography and propaganda was never legal in Croatia. It was illegal in Yugoslavia, and Yugoslav laws continued to be valid in Croatia after 1991 unless they were explicitly abolished. So, either it was illegal all the time but tolerated, or it was legalized some time after 1990 and before 2003. In any case, the emphasis on 2003 as a starting date is misplaced. Zocky | picture popups 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Views of Franjo Tuđman

Currently, a chapter called Views of Franjo Tuđman contains information that has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism. Since I am going to remove it, I'll preserve its paragraphs here, with the explanation for the removal of each of them:

• President Tuđman, himself a Partisan general that had fought the Ustaša, had controversial views on the topic of World War II, claiming that the Ustaša state was indeed an expression of the desire of the Croats to regain their independence after centuries. Such a notion could be considered true in view of Croatia's long historical struggle for independence, but does not give enough consideration to the puppet status of the NDH.

This paragraph, the only one dealing with Tuđman's attitudes towards NDH, will be preserved in the beginning of the De-Ustashification chapter, complementing the existing information on Tuđman there.--Zmaj 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• He also published a controversial book "Horrors of War - historical reality and philosophy" (Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti) in which he "debunked the black myth of Jasenovac", making the case that Jasenovac victim figures were amplified manyfold in order to create the myth of the genocidal nature of Croatdom and thus by virtue of this "historical guilt" the Croats abdicated any right to a nation-state, in deference to a Greater Serbia. It should be noted that he also states that the victim figures as they are, are in themselves a tragedy.

This paragraph does not mention Neo-Nazism anywhere. The only reason why it was included, as far as I can see, is to insinuate that Tuđman was a Holocaust denier. In fact, as shown by the article Jasenovac concentration camp and its talk page, the number of victims is still being disputed, and the range of theories is huge. Tuđman just participated in a much wider dispute about the exact number of victims. Therefore, this paragraph has no place in this article.--Zmaj 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Franjo Tuđman also proposed to inter soldiers of the World War II Croatian Fascist regime alongside with their Serb, Jewish, Roma, and Croat victims, buried at the site of a former Jasenovac concentration camp as a sign of "national reconciliation" [2], [3], [4] - although it should be noted that Croatian partisans were only a very small proportion of casualties at Jasenovac. Croatian Serbs, whose relatives died in Jasenovac and other concentration camps in Croatia, found the proposal greatly insulting.

Again, this stuff has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism. While Tuđman's proposal was controversial, and even insulting to some people, it did not promote Nazism in any way, so nothing justifies its inclusion in this article.--Zmaj 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Since only the first paragraph bears closer scrutiny, it doesn't warrant an entire chapter, so I will merge it into the De-Ustashification chapter. I will delete the other two paragraphs for the reasons I stated. I know this is sensitive stuff, so I took pains to explain my changes. I expect the same from any editors who disagree with me.--Zmaj 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GUj.jpg

Image:GUj.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. However, "Neo-Fascism in Croatia" as suggested below could be a good alternative for a new proposal. Húsönd 05:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no, or very few, examples of Neo-Nazism in Croatia. The only one even present in this article is a t-shirt design which includes a Nazi logo, sans the distinctive swastika. This article can only logically be named Neo-Ustashism in Croatia or Neo-Fascism in Croatia. These terms may have fewer search results, but they are more accurate. The original Ustasha movement was not affiliated with the Nazi movement, although they did eventually collaborate. Today's Neo-Ustashe are unlikely to identify with Neo-Nazism, as they have their own separate symbols, history, etc. and Croatia has no far-right parties on any level of government who would show sympathy to Nazis.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• oppose Neo-nazism is a far more well known concept. Even if the most common name is "Neo-Ustashism," I think people would be more familiar with the concept at the current title. I highly doubt the current title is less accurate. Yahel Guhan 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support: Relisted to attempt consensus. The arguments presented for the move are IMO valid; There seems no justification for calling these movements neo-Nazi, and the one oppose vote seems to admit the possibility that the proposed new name is the most common name. Do many English speakers even know of the existence of this movement? If not, I am inclined to think that the current title is misleading at least, and arguably POV. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. But would weakly support "Neo-Fascism in Croatia", as "Neo-Fascism" is a blanket term for these groups. If "Neo-Ustashism" is a Croatian only group, then perhaps just call it Neo-Ustashism, which incidentally redirects to the current title of Neo-Nazism in Croatia. – Axman (☏) 07:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Along the same lines as AxSkov above. Neo-Fascism in Croatia might be a good idea. Neo-Nazism is, however, a pretty common misnomer so I'd have to see some sources either way I think. Narson (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The newest medium that is frequently used by people to openly express their neo-Nazi attitude is the Internet.

There are a number of Internet forums and blogs where people post various neo-fascist statements, pictures and other items; generally anonymously. Relatively few of them get an online ban, and there are no recorded cases of anyone being prosecuted by law for doing such a thing.

What a hell is this got to do with any logic??? There are numerous sites where Serbs want to kill Croats or where Bosniaks want to kille Serbs and Croats. This is ridiculess. Why don't we copy some pages from some retarded forums and print them all over encyclopedia???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)