Talk:Aloysius Stepinac/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New edits

• I removed "blessed" from the lead. I just thought if the Pope John Paul II article can do without it, so can an article about an alleged Nazi collaborator.
• I added the native language in the brackets and I used "Serbo-Croatian". I did this for 2 reasons. 1) The term Serbo-Croatian is more appropriate since he was a Yugoslav, and Serbo-Croatian was the Yugoslav official language. A standardized Croatian language did not even exist during his lifetime, and this person is part of teh history of the whole of (ex-)Yugoslavia, not just Croatia. 2) The term Serbo-Croatian language includes the modern Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian languages (al of the neo-shtokavian dialect).
• I replaced "Croatian cardinal" with "Yugoslav cardinal", as this person, like all Croats, was a Yugoslav during his lifetime. He was a Yugoslav Croat, or a Yugoslav of Croatian nationality - a citizen of Yugoslavia. He may not've necessarily liked it, but that's not our concern. He was a Yugoslav cardinal, much like Krleža was a Yugoslav writer etc. It is misleading to just call him a "Croatian cardinal".
• I also added a piece of text stating he presided over the Croatian Catholic Church during WWII.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pope John Paul II is not beatified. This "alledged[!] Nazi collaborator" is beatified by the Catholic Church, and as most (all?) other beatified and saint people on the wiki, deserves his title be mentioned in front of His name. This is how we do things around here, you know.
• The standardization of Croatian language traces its beginnings back to 1595 (dictionary), and 1604 (grammar). Further more, even though Stepinac was a citizen of Yugoslavia, I doubt that Cardinal Stepinac once signed his name in Cyrillic, so the Cyrillic form is unnecessary at best.
• Your "Yugoslav cardinal" have been reverted, I'm telling you once more, it is not a nationality, and citizenship hardly defines him. Also note that Stepinac was the archbishop of Zagreb in the time of NDH as well. Again, I ask you to not push your agenda by editing this article the way you want to, and instead try to make it objective.
  --Paxcoder (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably the one person who made the most WP:NPOV edits in this article. Please avoid vague accusations of "POV-pushing". My view on these issues is perfectly legitimate. The puppet Croatian NDH you mentioned is de jure a non-existent state. Aside of course from his childhood in Austria-Hungary, the cardinal lived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, and SFR Yugoslavia.

• Ok, agreed: I didn't remove it in the first place. [1] [2]
• The man was a Yugoslav citizen, he is a part of Yugoslav history. That means he's part of Slovene, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Macedonian history. The main language of Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian. I think User:Ivan Štambuk could help us out there, he knows a lot more about linguistics than I.
• I am fully aware that, while Yugoslavs are a nationality, Stepinac was, in fact, a Croat. My edit clearly reflects that. However, he was a cardinal within the state of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav Cardinal of Croatian ethnicity. As you say, stating someone's a "Yugoslav Cardinal" is like saying someone's an "Austro-Hungarian Cardinal" - perfectly logical if that person is a cardinal in Austria-Hungary.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if non-intentional, the sound of your edits is, in my opinion, colored with a certain ideology, and if you're trying to be objective you should avoid that.

• I see, you are right about the title "blessed", it wasn't you who removed it. But you are the one who gave priority to his latinized name. May I ask why?
• I'm sorry, I still do not see rationale behind spelling it in Cyrillic, even if you presume that the language was one at the same at that time, which is inaccurate (perhaps artificially, but Croatian and Serbian differ for a very long time). At times, various languages were enforced in various parts of Croatia. It doesn't mean we should write the names translated into the then preferred language. Unless, of course, the person him/herself preferred it that way (eg. changed name, or used another). While perhaps not entirely wrong in this case, it looks forced.
• Yugoslavia was a federation, with Croatia in it. And I still think "Croatian" is more descriptive of a person than "Yugoslavian" (what does it mean?).

Please also try to correctly indent your responses, if possible. Thanks for the discussion.
--Paxcoder (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're implying I'm some kind of "communist", rest assured you got the wrong impression. You should probably avoid viewing any edits opposing Croatian nationalism as "communist". You're jumping to conclusions.

• The name of the article is "Aloysius Stepinac", that (hopefully) means the most common English language name is "Aloysius". Seeing as how this is the Englsih Wikipedia, I switched emphasis to the English name for this guy.
• Here's the rationale: 1) The guy, whether he (or you) liked it or not, was a Yugoslav (just like every other Croat). 2) He is part of the history of the whole of Yugoslavia, being the leader of the catholic church in that country for twenty-three years. 3) The main official language of Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian, which uses both Latin and Cyrillic script. 4) I would list both Serbo-Croatian and Croatian in the lede ("Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:" ) but that would be kind of stupid, since in modern terms the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage includes the Croatian language (alongside Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin).
• (The adjective is "Yugoslav".) Yugoslavia was indeed a federation with Croatia within it, I should know since I lived there. The point is, the country Stepinac was from was Yugoslavia as far as the "world outside Yugoslavia" is concerned. I am simply following the objective view. The nationalist "idolatry" surrounding him aside, in general terms and in the historical context of his life he was a Yugoslav of Croatian nationality. The adjective "Yugoslav" refers to his country - Yugoslavia.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I confused you for someone else then.

• Nikola Tesla is not spelled Nicolas Tesla, I don't see a reason why the name should be translated and the translated name mentioned here. Not to mention that it is now the main title of the article. Do English historians use the anglonized name exclusively?
• Ok, let's do it your way: the microlanguage is enough. Do you go around adding serbo-croatian to Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia's articles? And even if it were justified to do so here (no, there is no need) there is certainly no need to respect the dual writing system of the old country.
• Yes, he was a citizen of Yugoslavia, we established that. He was also a citizen of Croatia (then a part of Yugoslavia), and a Croatian. Thus the latter, "Croatian" is more descriptive. Would you honestly write that someone was a SSSR bishop or would you rather say he was a Russia or a Estonian bishop? Don't you think that the article sufficiently explains the countries and borders important for the article?

What's up with the indentation?
--Paxcoder (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look its simple: in the English Wikipedia we use the most common English language term for everything. If Englsih speakers use "Nikola Tesla", then we use "Nikola Tesla", if the most common name in English is "Aloysius", we use "Aloysius".
• I do not care about the Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia. And no, the microlanguage is not "enough" as the matter concerned more than just SR Croatia, is that your whole argument here? The dual writing system of the old country is the dual writing system of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. I see your point of view, and I realize that this all may seem "unacceptable" to you. However, this is an article about Yugoslav history, try to see that you're not being 100% objective here. Professionally and objectively, the historical context of this person's life must be taken into consideration.
• This man was from Yugoslavia, his country was Yugoslavia. He was not a citizen of Croatia. There was no such thing as Croatian (or Bosnian, or Serbian,...) "secondary citizenship" in SFR Yugoslavia in 1960. He was a citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality. Yes, even Ante Pavelić was a "Yugoslav collaborator". Stepinac was a Yugoslav Cardinal of Croatian nationality. (Ah, it used to be "Austro-Hungarian" and after that fit ok we go to "Soviet"? :) How about we forget the silly "comparisons"?)

I believe that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you look. He was a Croatian, weather the old country liked it or not. And there was Croatia even in that time. He probably never used Cyrilic, let alone wrote his name in it. There is no objective reason why his name should be written in it, even if there is a reason to use the term "serbo-croatian", and you fail to say why a micro is not enough. All you do is keep repeating that he lived in Yugoslavia that used the above term, and both Cyrilic and Latin. How does this matter to this modern article?
The comparison with SSSR is in this case (without any pretend modesty) perfect. Look over it again. Try answering why it would be a "silly" comparison as you say, and I might just settle for it. Or, if you can't, see that i'm not being unreasonable, and try to question your own motives again. --Paxcoder (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to make it very simple, answer me this:

• Why is micro language enough on most other articles about Serbian or Croat people but not on this one?
• If a person of Estonian nationality who lived during the time of SSSR in Estonia is Estonian, and not SSSRian, then why is a person of Croatian nationality who lived during the time of Yugoslavia in Croatia not a Croat, but a Yugoslavian? --Paxcoder (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(The ethnonym is "a Croat", the adjective is "Croatian".) Since "the old country" actually established the modern Croatian state within it, I'd say it had no problem with Croats whatsoever. :) You don't really have an argument here. Let me illustrate:

• Languages. The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. (What script he may or may not've used to sign his name is completely irrelevant.)
• Cardinal. I repeat: I hold that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV.

The comparison between the USSR and Yugoslavia in this discussion is almost ridiculous, Austria-Hungary was actually a much better example. Russians were overwhelmingly favored and dominated the USSR, which was often informally called "Russia" and its people were colloquially known as "Russians" (since it was formed out of the Russian Empire, as you know). In ethnic discussions, the two are incomparable. (Was Yugoslavia sometimes referred to as "Serbia"? :) This is significant because the general disposition of English speakers towards the ethnicities within the two states is completely different. "Soviet" was increasingly synonymous with "Russian", and the two were almost used interchangeably. Either way, there is no real precedent on this and all "comparisons" are pretty meaningless - they are not arguments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• So you say you want "Yugoslav" in there to mean his citizenship only? I did not say I do not approve of simple "citizen of Yugoslavia" (the latter is unlike the former non-ambiguous). However "Yugoslavian of Croatian nationality" is old terminology and if we really *need* his citizenship in the lead (it's redundant because it's elsewhere), and it must not be Croatia, but instead the whole federation, then I suggest "Croatian citizen of Yugoslavia".
• Treatment of people inside a federation makes no difference to my case. Was Stjepan Radić an Austrio-Hungarian, and should his name be written in all the numerous official languages of that state? Or is he perhaps SHS-ian (since he was most active there) and should his name perhaps be written in "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" (because that's what wiki lists for an official language)?

Please stop flapping around with your NPOV --Paxcoder (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep the flapping down, if you insist. Forgive me if a flap or two escape me... :) You should try to remain civil and keep your frustration in check. Radić was unquestionably a Yugoslav politician. Krleža was unquestionably a Yugoslav author. Pavelić was unquestionably a Yugoslav collaborator. I refuse to indulge you in any more of your silly comparison games as you struggle to grasp the objective view any person outside of Croatia (and the Croatian Wikipedia) has about these sort issues.

• "Citizenship only"? Let me ask you a question, do you or do you not hold that Aloysius Stepinac was a Yugoslav? Simple as that. No "meanings" attached. Would this person, this person from Yugoslavia, be referred to as "a Yugoslav" in 1960? In other words, is he or is he not a Yugoslav? Of course he's a Yugoslav. I can tell you right now that you can forget about removing that adjective from the lead.
• "Treatment of people inside a federation makes no difference to my case"? Doesn't it now? That is the silliest thing I've heard yet. Let me repeat: The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly are Yugoslav and Croatian mutually exclusive? Why not mention both (like in many other articles for persons living during the time of Yugoslavia(s)?) As for the language in the title, IMHO Croatian could stay, it's not like we're invalidating the fact that Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin are 4 different names for one and the same thing - we're simply making concession to various national-specific articles to prefer their own ethnic designation. OTOH, when adding pronunciation in IPA transcription, Serbo-Croatian should be used ({{IPA-sh}}) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with both ("Yugoslav and Croatian Cardinal"), I'm opposing the total removal of "Yugoslav" from the lead. The same thing goes for the languages, I'm perfectly ok with "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Cyrillic: Алојзије Виктор Степинац)" or "(Serbo-Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Алојзије Виктор Степинац; Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac)". The problem is that User:Paxcoder will have no mention of "Yugoslav" or use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to write in Cyrillic. Croatian being a micro language of "Serbo-Croatian" or not, there is no reason to write Cyrillic version of a Croatian name. I left "Yugoslav", so you can now perhaps stop claiming without foundation that I "will have no mention of 'Yugoslav'". I still think that "Yugoslav" is ambiguous and that "Yugoslav citizenship" is better, but I see that disputing with you leads nowhere - you decided to claim this article and there's hardly anything I can do about it. I instead made a slight, hopefully helpful and resolving modification. There is no reason to write any Croatian's name from that period in Cyrillic, and we don't do this on wiki, there is absolutely no reason we should do it on this particular article. Again, please stop yelling POV (this time try harder, last time you failed miserably) because personally, you're projecting. --Paxcoder (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic is NOT Serbian. Cyrillic is not a language. It is an alphabet. An alphabet used by the contemporary language of Stepinac's lifetime - Serbo-Croatian. This has no more to do with the Serbian language than with Finnish. You can write-up words in the Croatian language in Cyrillic, its still Croatian, in fact, you can write French or Portuguese or German in Cyrillic it makes no difference. Writing someone's name in Cyrillic ≠ Writing someone's name in Serbian, ok?

I'm just going to repeat this since I still haven't gotten a proper reply:

The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Antony's name was "Marcus Antonius", so that argument is useless. Now without discussing weather you're right when you claim that Croatian and Serbian are two dialects or not, I will once again claim that there is no reason to write Serbian Cyrillic alphabet (or any other alphabet) if Croatian language is sufficient which I claim it is. I have already expressed why I feel it is sufficient (Ctrl+F "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and read the paragraph). Do you have some other reason why you feel this "information" (Stepinac's name in Cyrilic) is useful? --Paxcoder (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no language that Serbian and Croatian are dialects of - they're one and identical dialect called Neoštokavian, which is another name for Serbo-Croatian. (all of the Croatian linguists also agree that dialectologically modern standard B/C/S/M are one language, don't forget that). This is the biggest paradox of kroatistika nowadays, how can one and the same dialect be "different languages", and 3 completely different dialects, mutually unintelligible in some speeches (Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian), be "one language" :D

As for Serbo-Croato-Slovene - it was imaginary political constructions, which never had its grammars, orthographies, grammars etc. published. Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, had it, for 150 years no less. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim Serbian and Croatian are two dialect, you're putting words into my mouth. Serbian and Croatian are languages that are part of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. Here's the thing though: that's completely irrelevant right now.

The language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. You have no basis upon which to remove that language. "Sufficient"? So your "argument" is that you can remove the contemporary language Stepinac spoke on the basis that you personally estimate another similar language spoken today is "sufficient"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't claim these are one language, then I see absolutely no further reason why you would want any mention of Serbian language (and with it, the Cyrillic) in the lead as my argument about languages in other now-defunct states explains. It's a Croatian guy's Croatian name spelled in Croatian - what's the big deal, WHY do we want another language used at that time? Even translating names of organizations, parties, and other things in the article would make more sense than translating a person's name. This is just not common practice on the Wikipedia, and there is no reason to do this. (I'm puzzled, wayttd?) --Paxcoder (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You see absolutely no further reason why I would want any mention of Serbian language? Neither do I. What part of "Cyrillic is NOT Serbian" do you find unclear? Serbo-Croatian is not Serbian, any more than it is Croatian, or Bosnian. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the fact that Serbo-Croatian was used at the time, and that's why you want to exclude any mention of it from the lead.

• "WHY do we want another language used at that time?" because its a history article. Contemporary languages used at the time the historical figures lived and worked are historical information (that you are trying to exclude on the basis of arbitrary "feelings").
• "It's a Croatian guy's Croatian name spelled in Croatian - what's the big deal." Correction: Its a name of a Yugoslav Croatian guy who lived all his life in Yugoslavia and never ever spoke any language that was called "Croatian" (because Croatian did not exist at the time; Nazi views on the matter excluded). Its a guy who's language was known as Serbo-Croatian, whether he liked it or not.

I'll be brief: the language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. You have absolutely no basis upon which to remove it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we say Cyrillic is non-Serbian specific (even though you know as much as I do that Croatian isn't and wasn't written in it), then it doesn't need to be in the lead simply because "Serbo-Croatian" can also be spelled in Latin only. But let me try to put it differently: Serbo-Croatian is what they called two languages under the same umbrella in the time that this guy happened to live in. This is not A language at a time, this is a macrolanguage, or a common name for two languages used at the time, depending on who you ask. Alojzije is a Croatian name, and using Serbo-Croatian instead of Croatian (alone) is unnecessary. However, I still don't see why would you insist that this man's name be spelled in Serbo-Croatian, when it's not a Serbo-Croatian name, when nothing else in the article that is in "Serbo-Croatian" is spelled with Cyrilic letters (also), and again, because this is not common practice. All these things point to the fact that this is completely unnecessary regardless of what people in Yugoslavia declared their language to be or what letters they used. --Paxcoder (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to use a macrolanguage with all its alphabets for this person's because:

• For various institutions, "Serbo-Croatian" names in Latin are enough, why isn't it for the person's name? By any logic, it should be the other way around.
• Unlike what you say, historians claim Croatian has existed before, and not just after the split. You say Croatian language is a subset of "Serbio-Croatian". It is also distinct from Serbian. Therefore, there is no need to use a Cyrilic alphabet (common to Serbian only) alongside Latin alphabet common to Croatian. - Croatian is sufficient.
• For Stjepan Radić we don't use all 13 languages and various alphabets of the Austria-Hungary where he lived nor the "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" from SHS where he also lived, it's unnecessary, and we don't need to do it here - It's not common practice.

I think these are sound, non-POV arguments, and any further arguing would be redundant if you do not adress the above as-is (without merely repeating that "Serbo-Croatian" was declared a state language in Yugoslavia). --Paxcoder (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian was not classified as a macrolanguage or umbrella term back then, i.e. in the historical context of Aloysius Stepinac's life. It was simply an "ordinary" language (with variants). (I thought we had this clear...)

• This is an encyclopedia. If some choose not to use both scripts, its their choice. However, I "choose" to add this information into the article. It is valid, and relevant. Why shouldn't I?
• No language known as "Croatian" is classified to have existed between 1918 and 1991.
• Stjepan Radić should definitely have his name in both scripts of Serbo-Croatian (his article is kind of crappy too, if you'll pardon the expression). There is no "common practice" concerning this. Your comparisons are still not really arguments.

You're not giving me any real reason not to include this valid, relevant information into the article. I get the feeling like you just believe it is somehow "wrong" and are perpetuating this discussion without foundation. I do not much like nationalist anti-Serbian nonsense, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you don't want Serbo-Croatian to be mentioned because you feel its "too Serbian" for such a "Great Catholic Croat"?

The contemporary language of this Croatian person's lifetime was the Serbo-Croatian language, it is only proper to add this language into the lead of the article. I can't see a single proper reason why I should not add it. I'm sorry we can't reach an agreement, and I suppose we'll have to start the dispute resolution process if you still disagree. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to address your "answers":

• You think it's relevant, but give no arguments why. The fact that both scripts were equally used for government-related things back then is not one (argument). Again, why a person's name in a different script than what he preferred, and not organizations' names? (because, if anything organizations were spelled in both scripts, and names - almost never I would guess)
• Weather the government of that time recognized Croatian to be a distinct language or not is irrelevant, and not a reason to use Cyrilic script for a Croatian name. Please try to *understand* my arguments.
• Common practice is a practice that is common (as the phrase implies). Using every language/script used at a time of a now-defunct states for people's names is uncommon and unnecessary. My comparisons are just to give examples.

There is nothing Serbian about the man's name. There is no need to use a Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, instead of using plain Latin alone, commonly used for Croatian names. The name of the "language" as the state viewed it and what scripts they required official organizations be labeled in is, again, irrelevant - all Croatian names weren't magically transformed into "Serbo-Croatian" at the time of Yugoslavia and they do not require that we spell them in Cyrillic today (actually, this wasn't even required at that time). It makes no sense to have Cyrilic. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding...

• It is relevant because the language at that time (and throughout 67.22% of his lifetime) was Serbo-Croatian. Therefore that language should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Simple as that. I see no valid reason why to include it only partially.
• I agree: it is irrelevant. Croatian is relevant, and should be included in the lead (even though it did not legally exist). Serbo-Croatian is also relevant because it was the only language that did legally exist.
• There is no established "common practice" in these mostly crappy Balkans biographical articles. The whole thing is haphazard. Most English names are exactly like the Croatian or Serbo-Croatian names. There isn't a single GA-class Balkans bio article...

I agree yet again: there is absolutely nothing Serbian about the man's name, which is why I wouldn't suggest adding Serbian here in my wildest dreams. You're also right in that Croatian name in Latin (commonly used for Croatian names) should definitely be mentioned. You're just not telling me why Serbo-Croatian can't be used.
This is all because the Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian name for this guy are identical. This is why you imagined that writing his name in Cyrillic = writing his name in Serbian (LoL :)...

Shall we please agree on this? Mentioning both languages seems so damn unacceptable here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. This discussion was a failure. I give up. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav and/or Croatian

I removed a couple of "Yugoslavia"s from the lede; well OK, he was a citizen of Yugoslavia, but being a Croat is what defined his life and career. I think that application of "Yugoslav" and national labels should be decided case-by-case, and that this is not one of cases where it's applicable. I was about to say that Ante Pavelić article does not refer to Pavelić as a "Yugoslav" but found out that it was Direktor [3] who changed it, and it seems bizarre to me. I'm an anti-nationalist, but I think you're being too bold with this. Some of Yugoslav cultural and historic heritage is shared indeed, but I think that referring to all persons who lived between 1918 and 1990 as "Yugoslavs" is going overboard. Surely being a "Croat" and a "Yugoslav" is not mutually exclusive, but many of them – Stepinac being one – come from a clearly identifiable national milieu and in those cases should be labeled as such. Andrić, Bregović, Tito or Selimović would probably be another story, but please let's be reasonable. No such user (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree. Firstly, 1) its not up to us to establish some arbitrary "rule" on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" a person was. It is obvious that that is no way to write an encyclopedia. Secondly 2) a person's ideological disposition towards Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism is completely irrelevant in determining his country of origin. Thirdly, 3) we are here to convey correct information.

It is only in the Balkans, where our own little "ideological struggle" is so inextricably mixed with everything, that stating someone was from Yugoslavia is somehow "bold" and "inappropriate". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But, how do you determine the meaning of adjective Yugoslav DIREKTOR. Does it mean "originating from Yugoslavia" (whichever Yugoslavia), or "Yugoslav by provenience of one's work"? On German Wikipedia they use the term Yugoslav in such broader sense, which makes lots of nationalists angry (and gets them blocked :D), but should we really force it only upon individuals who have either openly accepted their Yugoslav provenience, or have strong Pan-Yugoslav context in their work, or alsoon everyone that happens to be born in a state called Yugoslavia, regardless of his ideological convictions? I'm sure that there are many proud Yugoslavs born in the period of NDH, and which your classification would exclude! Pavelić OTOH is an example of extreme right-wing Croatian nationalist and clearly doesn't fit into Yugoslavism by his belief or work. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. You are of course referring to the difference between an ethnonym and a demonym. "Yugoslav" should be used in the sense of a demonym ("a name for a resident of a locality which is derived from the name of the particular locality"), with the ethnonym following it:

• "XY was a Yugoslav Serbian baseball player" or "XY was a Serbian Yugoslav baseball player" (just like a "XY was a Serbian American joke of a governor" ;). Though... I'm not sure on whether we should reverse the two.

If the person is actually was actually a Yugoslav (and not a Serb/Croat/Slovene.. etc.) then we only mention "Yugoslav" in the sense of an ethnonym which is common practice with "ordinary" nations:

• "XY was a Yugoslav tapdancer..."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not inventing any "rule" -- on the contrary, I think you are enforcing a "rule" whereby a person's passport country must be stated first in the lead. A number of articles lived happily for quite a while with a "Croatian" ethnonym before you started implementing the "rule". I don't think that anybody thinks of them as "Yugoslav anything". I claim that there's no (or should not be) cut and dried "rule" which ethnonym/demonym to put in the lead. I don't know what ethnonym should be in the lead for various sportspeople, entertainers and other biographies, but for Pavelić or Stepinac I find it outright bizarre.
For (an imperfect) comparison, imagine that all 19th century Croatian people had "...was an Austro-Hungarian writer..." in the lead. Well, I would revert-war about this first. No such user (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, aptly put. ;) I could also argue that you are enforcing "The Rule" by which Users are not allowed to mention a person's demonym but only the ethnonym in the lead (when the two differ). Should we write "Josip Jelačić was a Croatian Austro-Hungarian"? I certainly see no reason why not (quote: "being a son of the (Croatian) nation, being the supporter of liberty, and being subject to Austria, I am faithfully committed to the constitutional Emperor of the Empire and its Kings, and I long for a great, free Austria.").

Perhaps "rule" was a wrong choice of words. Let me rephrase: its not up to us to decide on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" that person was. You are not suggesting a "rule", and I am not suggesting we implement a "rule" either. Quite simply, I argue that users should not be prevented from mentioning the actual country all these people were from, i.e. their demonym, in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, um, since there we agreed that there is no rule, then can we reach a WP:CONSENSUS that Stepinac and Pavelić were defined as Croatian politicians in the lead, just as they were before you intervened? I find that the phrasing of "Croatian Austro-Hungarian", or "Serb Yugoslav", and like, is plain ugly, and I doubt you will find a English-language publication using that sort of language.

I am not advocating that users be banned from mentioning the demonym, but I stress that there is no rule that the demonym must be mentioned either, especially in the cases where it's not pertaining to the person's career and is clear from the context. In shifting borders of the Balkans, some Bosnians were born in Ottoman Empire, raised in Austria-Hungary, and died in Yugoslavia -- what were they? I'm just asking for common sense to be applied, and I argue that "Aloysius Stepinac was a Yugoslav..." violates (my idea of) the common sense.

Now you did the same to Draža Mihailović [4]. Unfortunately, I don't have as much energy to spare to the issue as you do, but I want to put forth my disagreement with your editing style. No such user (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, articles change all the time, and I like to think its mostly for the better. We both agree (I hope) that Stepinac and Pavelić were ethnic Croats from Yugoslavia. That much is apparent. What we have here is an article lead that only states they were ethnic Croats, and omits any mention of the fact that they were from Yugoslavia (demonym). Now, you're saying that there is "no rule that the demonym must be mentioned". At this point I must draw attention to the fact that there is "no rule" that requires us to add almost anything in the lead. The lead, however, is there to include basic information on the subject. I believe that a person's country of origin falls in that category. I know you're not suggesting a "rule", but you'd actually need a "rule" (MoS) to justify removing that information.

Concerning Draža. He's an extremely controversial person, and his case is the perfect example of how unstable "arbitrary opinions" can make an article. I take it you believe we should state that he was a "Serbian general". Well, I could argue that he was a Yugoslav monarchist (Yugoslav monarchism = Yugoslav unitarianism), and therefore a typical monarchist unitarianist Yugoslav. Many would argue that way, especially his supporters. This example shows how easily all these debates can be avoided by simply mentioning both adjectives. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. I think you're overdoing it. Every single person above has reservations and objections with the nature of your edits, and I think you're acting against consensus. I don't want to impose a majority view, but when myself, Paxcoder, Thewanderer raise objections to those edits, and even Štambuk has serious reservations, and you're the only one who changes long-standing definitions I think it's time that you reconsider your approach. And I don't think that you can call my or Štambuk's POV "a nationalist".
Simply put: I think it's unnatural to classify a person as a "Yugoslav" when he had solely or mostly an anti-Yugoslav attitude, clearly belongs to one national culture, and has acted solely in affirmation of that culture. That is not to say that Yugoslavia must not be mentioned in the introduction, but there are a number of ways to phrase the same thing. Again, "Yugoslav Croatian" is bad English, as one does not accumulate two locative adjectives. "Yugoslav and Croatian" is grammatical, but redundant, because any reader with minimal knowledge would know that in "(1918-1990) Croatian < Yugoslav". Again, no person from Austro-Hungary was labeled "Austro-Hungarian", and no person from Ottoman Empire was labeled "Ottoman" unless they were statesmen. Yes, Yugoslavia was a different case than Austria-Hungary or Ottoman Empire, as many people have acted across the ethnic lines; it is highly inappropriate, however, to apply "Yugoslav" label so broadly as you are trying to do. No such user (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Again, Direktor, should every USSR citizen who lived between 1918 and 1990 have "Soviet" adjective in the lead, just because he had an USSR passport? I thought we established that the "Yugoslav" adjective is simply redundant here? No such user (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's futile, No such user. Direktor writes what Direktor sees fit (or otherwise wants to write). --Paxcoder (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

C'mon DIREKTOR, Yugoslav as a general national designation is way too compromised nowadays to be used that loosely. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that using the combination of adjectives "Yugoslav Croatian" is clumsy, and we've had this kind of language reverted on several Partisan biography pages. There is, however, merit in mentioning Yugoslavia earlier than it is currently done, because that was the defining environment of his archbishopric throughout his tenure. Mentioning NDH earlier than Yugoslavia gives that period undue weight over the other one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, be real. How can you call a Croatian bishop, a person of Croatian origins, a person who declared himself as a Croat to be something else? And all of your other post on this subject have strong POV. So please stop. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What was the name of his home country? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

US High School Named in Honor of Stepinac

In White Plains New York is a Catholic Boys High School that was named in honor of Cardinal Stepinac. One of the most noted graduates of the school was John Voight the movie star. He is today a staunch supporter of the school along with his two brothers who also attended the school. (I am a graduate of Stepinac High School) 71.94.251.83 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this article titled Aloysius Stepinac, when the man's name is Alojzije? Names should not be translated: The article for Pierre Trudeau would never be titled Peter Trudeau, for example. If this has to do with the name under which he was beatified, I would still insist that his legal name be kept in the title. 74.104.98.175 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove section?

I think this section:

"In 1984 a community of Croatians who had emigrated to Cleveland, Ohio, built a Croatian American Home named after Stepinac and placed a larger-than-life statue of Archbishop Stepinac in its hallway. The Croatian American Lodge is located in Eastlake, Ohio."

Is irrelevant. There are many statues of Stepinac (including one in my home town - a bust to be exact) and other depictions (ditto). I don't see why the above is encyclopedic material. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP. Now Direktor has posted on my talk page that it's no longer needed. Is there consensus that the content dispute is over and that protection can be lifted? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All I asked the user was to please show me that honorifics were included in the "name=" parameter of the template, because I know from experience they are usually not. As it turns out there is a specific parameter for honorific prefixes. Between starting an edit-war and calling me all sorts of names (and "standing by them"), the user has at last done the research and properly included the honorific. Therefore on my part the issue is resolved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem so, SlimVirgin. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've removed the protection. Happy editing. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Having finally done the relevant research myself now, I must regrettably admit that I do see a problem. As N419BH pointed out, WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion". I have also noticed that "Saint" does not fall under the term "honorific" since it is a religious spiritual rank, not a title of honour. Policy expressly contradicts the current state of the article, and "blessed" should be removed from the lead and the infobox where it is incorrectly inserted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about trying a WP:RFC, to see what's the take of the community on the issue? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCWC applies to *articles*, not names in absolutely every place imaginable. This and the honorific title are added on the grounds of John Henry Newman article (how many times do I need to say this?). Curiously, "DIREKTOR" doesn't have a problem of these being there, but when it comes to Aloysius - an force of resistance against communism, he's willing to start an edit war and even contact administrators to get his ways. Now that things blew over (and I'm still here), he tries it again. I am frankly tired of this. Should it be decided to expand the policy to other things, and that "saint" is not a honorific title, then a bot should replace any occurence of "saint" or "blessed" alongside a name across all articles mentioning saints or blesseds. Should it also be decided that saint and blessed are explicitly *not* honorific titles, those should be removed across Wikipedia as well. While there is no consensus, I am referring to the existing practice. --Paxcoder (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To be brief, naming conventions apply to article text as well, "Paxcoder". Read up on that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say this one last time: The above policy applies to titles of articles, and makes no "common sense" for it to be applied across whole articles, and wherever the saint's/blessed's name is mentioned. The latter part of this (my final) statement about this matter is supported by common practice, of which examples I am tired of giving. The former is supported by this line from the policy you mispresent: "This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about individual people.".

Next time you revert these edits, I'll give you the taste of your own medicine and contact the admin board - a thing which I have never done about anyone before, unlike you who tried to get me banned (as you've said) because you were "insulted" when I called you a vandal. No doubt you've done that in order for you to be able to edit in peace the way you want to, too bad for you it didn't work out. The difference will be that I have real and overwhelming evidence of your vandalism, your systematic attempts to add a POV color to this article (I don't know about other articles, but I'm sure your practices are pretty much the same elsewhere). I see you - and people like you as a threat to Wikipedia and its (for the most part) democratic nature: You are what they call an oppressive vocal minority with an agenda and obviously countless hours to spare on pushing it (copy paste this to the admin board, I'm sure you want to). Article squatters like you need to be stopped. If you continue doing this, be certain that I will make sure that you get banned (something I should've perhaps done a long time ago) even if it takes me being banned: There's not much point of me being here if I cannot contribute to the community by standing up to even one agenda-pusher. I refuse to be terrorized by you again for simply saying the truth about you (that you're a vandal), and people here are tired of your vandalisms and quasi-argumentation as well. Somebody needs to step up, and since nothing else works with you, I unfortunately need to be the one. --Luka Marčetić/Paxcoder (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name:

"Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick."

Aloysius Stepinac is obviously not known as "Blessed Aloysius".
Additionally, WP:NCWC most certainly does apply to article text. Please do not start listing irrelevant examples. This is an issue of policy now, which certainly supersedes any articles you may find that happen to support your POV. I can list an infinite number of articles about saints and beatified people that do not share your "catholic glorification" lead format. In short, I am not interested in precedents.

As for the infobox: "Venerable" is an honorific title. "Saint" is NOT an "honorific title". It is a spiritual rank granted by God himself. I am not religious but I imagine other Christians might very well even be offended by your equating Sainthood with e.g. the Order of the People's Hero. I imagine you are unaware of this, but your argument amounts to the claim that "Saint" is an "honorific title" granted by the Vatican, i.e. that saints do not exist. God does not grant "honorific titles". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS A STUB

Clearly, when someone doesnt know what to say, It speaks lies... a Lesson of History for you! Why stepinac was "Santified" by Pope Jonh Paul II??? In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... thats why Jonh Paul Beatificated him!!! Understand?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KIHV1402 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac is blessed and not saint

This article is not a stub, but maybe it is necessary a little more overview over it. I think, that it is too long to be "stub", isn't it?

Stepinac is family name and in all cultural languages must be written with great letter: also Stepinac and not stepinac.

Cardinal Stepinac was not "sanctified" by Pope John Paul II, but only "beatified". It is however one step before "sanctification" or "canonization". So must be transformed his Infobox: not only as cardinal (violet), but also as Saint (yellow).

User KIHV1402 wrote: »In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... that’s why John Paul beatified him.» Not only of this reason. He is beatified especially for that reason, because he personally lived as good Christian in ascetic, forgiveness and praying. He is nominated as martyr too, because he is poisoned. But he is great Catholic Christian too, because he remained faithful to Pope. Pope is proxy (substitute) of Christ in this world and so is Catholic Church true Church of Christ. The destiny of Alojzije Stepinac during dictator Tito was very simile as destiny of Saint Cardinal of Westminster John Fisher during dictator king Henry VIII. These dictators were cruel persecutors of Catholic Church. --Stebunik (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He was not accused of treason due to his "defiant resistance" to the formation of a separate Yugoslav church. That was a rather unrealistic proposal that was very quickly abandoned even by the communists themselves, and is frequently used for propaganda purposes aimed at persons unacquainted with the actual facts of the matter.

The actual facts are that he started very openly and aggressively to meddle in secular matters of state, with a clear agenda to maneuver himself and the church into a position where they could make demands of the Yugoslav government. He and the church started making proclamations aimed directly against the government, without a doubt in order to counter the exclusion of the church from state-run schools and the nationalization of its huge estates (along with everybody else's). Even with such open attacks and the blatant pushing of his own political agenda, Stepinac was given every opportunity to stop with his aggressive campaigning to galvanize Yugoslav catholics. He did not realize, as Josip Broz Tito did, that he really had no power to bargain with the Yugoslav leadership. Even after his conviction, he received preferential treatment in jail, and his sentence (already incredibly small for a charge of high treason) was quickly commuted.

The claims that he was "murdered" are nonsensical myths without any support in any evidence whatsoever. For one thing, if the government wanted to get rid of him, why did they commute his sentence? The man died of polycythaemia-induced thrombosis (a disorder harboring absolutely no symptomatic similarities with oleandrin poisoning). He was a politician first and foremost, and no martyr. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,comrade DIREKTOR! You are right! (LOL)

Oh no, I'm sure he was just an innocent holy guy, just minding his own holy business when, just for the kick of it, the satan sent the evil communists to imprison him for 5 years. Either that or he brought the church into politics, and got himself locked-up on trumped-up charges (yes, I am aware they were likely fake).

Unfortunately for your world view, I'm not a socialist. And yes - I am right. Unlike you, I educated myself about this person from non-Yugoslav historians and scholars, not my local priest. (Altering people's posts is not allowed on Wikipedia.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All your education on that is based on the official sources of SFRJ. No other POVs were allowed at that time! There was no independent investigation-it could not possibly beacause it was a dictatorship.So, your "education" are more-less theories! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.30.140 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. He certainly did bring the church into politics. And in a real country the church would be prevented from doing so (rather than issuing "proclamations" in support of Sanader and similar nonsense). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 about persecution of Serbs too

All men and all races are children of God; all without distinction. Those who are Gypsies, Black, European, or Aryan all have the same rights.... for this reason, the Catholic Church had always condemned, and continues to condemn, all injustice and all violence committed in the name of theories of class, race, or nationality. It is not permissible to persecute Gypsies or Jews because they are thought to be an inferior race. Here is original in Croatian. Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 in Zagreb about persecution of Serbs too. In first section Stepinac mentions Serbs and other nations in danger; in second part however he affirms, that all races are equal before God. (In original is written ie and not ije: uviek, riečima, srdce…). Let you translate it in English:

Jedni nas optužuju, da nismo pravodobno i da nismo kako bi trebalo ustali protiv zločina, koji su se zbivali po pojedinim krajevima naše domovine. Njima odgovaramo prije svega, da mi nismo niti želimo biti bilo čija politička trublja, koja prilagođuje svoj glas časovitim željama i potrebama pojedinih stranaka ili pojedinaca. Mi smo uvijek naglašavali u javnom životu principe vječnoga zakona Božjega bez obzira radi li se o Hrvatima, Srbima, Židovima, Ciganima, katolicima, muslimanima, pravoslavnima ili kome drugom. Ali mi ne možemo zvati na uzbunu niti fizički koga prisiliti, da te vječne Božje zakone vrši, jer svaki čovjek ima slobodnu volju i svaki će za svoja djela odgovarati prema riječima apostolovim, da će «svaki svoje breme nositi» (Gal 6,5). Zato ne možemo odgovarati ni za koju tu usijanu glavu u svećeničkim redovima.

Second passage speaks about races. They are equal, because God is Creator of all them:

Odgovorit ćemo konačno i onima, koji nas obtužuju, da smo pristaše rasizma, jer kako vidite, katolička je Crkva u nečijim glavama za sve kriva. Mi smo svoje stanovište prema rasizmu definirali otkad rasizam postoji, a ne možda danas. A to stanovište je kratko i jasno. Katolička Crkva ne pozna rasa, koje gospoduju i rasa koje robuju. Katolička Crkva pozna samo rase i narode kao tvorevine Božje, a ako koga više cijeni, to je onaj, koji ima plemenitije srdce, a ne jaču pesnicu. Za nju je čovjek jednako Crnac iz centralne Afrike kao i Evropejac. Za nju je kralj kao čovjek u kraljevskoj palači upravo tako čovjek kao zadnji siromah i ciganin pod šatorom. Ona među njima ne pozna bitne razlike kao čovjeka. Jedan i drugi imaju neumrlu dušu, jedan i drugi su istog kraljevskog porietla, vukući lozu od Boga Stvoritelja. To je rasna nauka katoličke Crkve, a sve drugo su obična podmetanja, za koja vrijede riječi – u laži su kratke noge!

--Stebunik (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Stebunik. Words are one thing, deeds (or lack of them) - entirely another. The catholic church in general, and especially that in Croatia, is well known to have had strong ties with fascist regimes (esp. Mussolini, Franco, Petain, and Pavelić, not so much the Nazis). Whole books were written about this stuff. The church has of course, quite unsurprisingly denied this vehemently, but the sources and evidence are there nevertheless (see sources in this article, exampli gratia [5]).

I will review the sources to see how much of his speech were just pretty words in contradiction with the facts and actions of others. However as far as I'm concerned please post the text in English, it is undoubtedly relevant and well sourced. However: please do not present this as a condemnation of the crimes against Serbs. Serbs were mentioned very marginally in the sermon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians?

"Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians." So was in time of Stepinac too. He rejects such accusations ih his sermon too. (Croatian: Katolička Crkva neka bi bila kriva za sve. To krivo gledanje spominje Stepinac i u svojoj propovijedi i odbacuje ga. I danas je nekima Crkva dežurni krivac za sve.) Today are many persons, that think: Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians, sinners, managers, capitalists and so on. Pedofilia is so only in Catholic Church? Between lay teachers, politicians, parents does not exist? Maybe more as between Catholic priests. Here are many prejudices. If you are interesting, dear user Direktor, let you read the books, which are written from Vojislav Šešelj against Catholic Church. There are not many true sources, but often lies. But he is not alone. Already the titles of his books are fool of hatred. Let you read the newspaper of Šešelj’s part „Velika Srbija” (Great Serbia) too. It is published now too. I do not know, that exists one newspaper with title „Velika Hrvatska” (Great Croatia).

I ask: When are forced Catholics to enter in Orthodoxy in Romania, Ukrayina, Russia - protested maybe at least one Orthodox-bishop or priest or believer? Or when king Henry VIII. forced all Catholics in Anglia in anglicanism, who protests today in Anglican Church against this injustice? But Stepinac protestes against persecutions of Serbs alredy during this events, here is his greaty! That fact was very dangerous during nazis!

We speak here but not about clergy in Croatia in general, but especially about part of Cardinal Stepinac. I think, that here is not only history, but propaganda against Catholic Church too. I felt much hatred in this matter already from other site. We must write „sine ira et studio”. I read now the book about Stepinac from Stella Alexander „The Triple Myth, A life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac” in Croatian ISBN 86-2673-001-6 – „Trostruki mit, Život zagrebačkog nadbiskupa Alojzija Stepinca”, Golia Zagreb 1990. I think it is one good book.

By Orthodoxes I do not know one simile sermon as this of Stepinac: never during the Second World War nor during this last War (1991-1999) in Former Yugoslavia. I admire Stepinac! He was not politician or commander in chief, but pastor of souls. In his vocation he was consequent. He said, that his power is little.

The facts are imporant, but the words too. That citation in article about Stepinac from his sermon on 31th October 1943 is not entirely faithful. I have original - diference is not great. The sense is the same. --Stebunik (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The letter from 31th October 1943 is not mentioned in article. That letter is not from this datum, therefore a difference. --Stebunik (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"The poor Catholic Church gets blamed"? Nonsense. The Church is well known to have been a political force indisputably responsible for the deaths of millions of people in history, and also for actively and directly participating in heinous crimes during the Yugoslav Front and the Spanish Civil War in modern days. A devout Catholic such as yourself is hardly an objective observer. Clergymen played direct roles in the mass "conversions" that ended with the massacre of the (now "purified") civilians involved - with absolutely NO reprimand by the Church.

The Church is a very powerful political and financial force cynically portraying itself as a benevolent "good shepherd". It continues to be the cause of mass suffering throughout the world. As a medical man I can say that I am paricularly appalled at the role the Church played in the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Africa, and that's just one example. We are talking about millions of real human lives, lost and ruined for the sake of pathetic mumbo-jumbo... But I digress, apologies. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed; you are intollerant!

Dear user Direktor: --Stebunik (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I am indeed very intolerant of all things harmful. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2011 to all!

Dear user Direktor! I am in contrary not angry. Be you peaceful and tolerant, lovely and with great soul too. You have so more fortune in life. God bless you!
I wish to you and to all users in Wikipedia happy and blessed New Year 2011!--91.148.64.186 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, have a good one yourself. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 may be of interess of editors of this article. All inputs are welcome. FkpCascais (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead changes

Kebeta, you may be surprised but I already have read WP:LEAD and I know what a lead is supposed to do. You did not expand the lead's scope in any way. Its still talks about the same things as before your edit. You did, however, rewrite sourced information. You removed sourced info. And you added your own unsourced claims (e.g. that Stepinac was released due to "international pressure"). Can you please list proposed changes here so that they can be discussed? You could also use my help in making sure the sources are not misrepresented. (No hard feelings, man, lets all keep it cool :))

• No, I just fixed lead which was only about one thing, this way the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects (per Wikipedia:Lead). I wasn't thinking of going into details, but you obviously are going to make me. I also tryed to be NPOV, which can't be said for your version of the lead which was only about one thing (Stepinac relation with Ustaše, and his trial because of that - seen from one perspective only). Firstly, I expanded the lead with information from Stepinac early period and left your shorter version of the trial (with minor changes). The changes that I have added into lead were all already in the article, but if you insist in having reference in the lead, I will provide them. Remember that I have asked you nicely on your talk page to rewrite your edits, but you have ignored that. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the infobox: quite simply biographical articles do not have two infoboxes, and this person is not known in sources (or generally) primarily as a saint (such as e.g. Saint Nicholas), but instead as a cardinal archbishop. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• As for the Infobox, I agree with you (biographical articles do not have two infoboxes), and I am OK with 'Infobox Cardinal' instead of 'Infobox saint'. Kebeta (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I preserved the info you insist on adding to the lead, Kebeta. However I also removed the nonsense from the ridiculous bunson "source", and restored the info that was removed, and, while I fully expect you to now claim that the lead is "too long", I will point out that my original lead was a lot shorter, and did not include irrelevant nonsense. I fully oppose any removal of info from the lead on such grounds. I affirm that the current length of the lead is necessary due to the controversial and complex nature of the most notable events in this person's life, i.e. to avoid any POV or ambiguity.

I will also have to revert any rewriting of sourced information, or the restoration of non-scholarly propaganda publications as "references". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You will have to explain to me why Josip Broz Tito's position as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia is being systematically removed from mention in this article? Simoultaneously with attameots to replace his actual post with the term "leader" (Fuhrer?), encyclopaedic wording? Please explain why "Yugoslav government" is being changed to "communist government" (as opposed to a "capitalist government"?). I should like to hear why statements drawn almost verbatim from published sources are being rewritten? Every conceivable effort is being made here to cicumvent the actual sources.

There is incontrovertible evidence, quoted in 1st rate secondary sources, that this person is guilty of treason during wartime in favour of the Axis. There are sources that describe the evidence against him as "both damning and accurate". Other sources describe his collaboration with the enemy in April 1941 specifically. Yet, a sourced statement to that effect, copied word by word from an TOP quality source, has been REMOVED? Or should I say "censored"? Any further alteration of sources, and I shall bring this whole Nazi love-fest we call an "article" to the attention of the admins. The Catholic Church does not own Wikipedia. Its high time this person, who (among other things) prayed time and time again to the Christian god to bestow "blessings" upon the greatest fascist mass murderer in our history, is portrayed as a collaborator - which he most certainly was.

I've had to revert the whole thing. Please, re-insert sourced statements, but do not alter other sourced statements. Do not change sourced wording to your personal preference. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And I am reverting it back from your original, pro-Titoist slant. And will continue to do so. "Do not change sourced wording to your personal preference" Do you even see the irony in that statement? Yeah, I've read your "Top quality sources"--one of them doesn't even reference your statement properly (e.g. trial was properly conducted with "no torture" does not equal a fair trial.) Please DO call the admins. Since I am not a practising Catholic or a Nazi, your name calling means nothing to me. Even moreso coming from someone who defends a anti-democratic, butcher like Tito. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Our Sunday Visitor"

"John Paul II's book of saints" is a book published and owned by the Roman Catholic Church, written by a family (Matthew, Margaret, and Stephen Bunson - Pappa Bear, Momma Bear, and Baby Bear :). I cannot believe the rubbish is quoted here as an actual "source". It is not a historiographical publication. It is not even a scholarly publication of any sort. It is NOT a reliable, NPOV reference. Its going. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bunson, Matthew and Margaret (1999). John Paul II's book of saints. Our Sunday Visitor Publishing. pp. 90–92. ISBN 0879739347, 9780879739348. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) is a realible source. The books co-autor is Pope John Paul II. --Kebeta (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. 1) Its a non-scholarly publication (written by some family!?). 2) As if that alone was not enough, its unverifiable (WP:V). 3) As if the former were not enough, the fact that its owned by the Roman Catholic Church renders it BIASED with regard to this issue (WP:NPOV). 4) Its contradicted by TOP-quality (scholarly, university-published, peer-review, verifaible) sources. Each one of these points alone renders it a joke, combined they leave the issue beyond discussion or dispute. I will not have some ridculous mom-and-pop church booklet stand in the article as a "source" contradicting world-class historians! That kind of stuff does not fly, this is not hrWiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that a book from Pope John Paul II is realible source. Anyway, you stated that the book contradicts 'Bernd Jürgen Fischer'. Can you point what are contradictions, so we can try to resolve them. BTW, I don't edit much on hrWiki, certainly nothing about Stepinac, so I am missing your point here. Can you explaind this further, please. --Kebeta (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here ares some aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac, if this is your problem with the book:

• Luxmoore, Jonathan (2000). The Vatican and the red flag: the struggle for the soul of Eastern Europe. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0225668831, 9780225668834. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Miller, Robert F. (1986). Religion and politics in communist states. Australian National University. ISBN 0225668831, 9780225668834. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Pope John Paul II (1999). A Pilgrim Pope: Messages for the World. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 0740700456, 9780740700453. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Butler, Alban (1995). Butler's Lives of the Saints. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0860122611, 9780860122616. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Obradovich, Dositey (1999). The South Slav journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle.
• Rychlak, Ronald J. (2005). Righteous gentiles: how Pius XII and the Catholic Church saved half a million Jews from the Nazis. Spence Pub. Co. ISBN 1890626600, 9781890626600. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

March 2011 (2)

Tito was a dictator--just stating the facts. The fact that he masquerades behind meaningless titles as "Prime Minister" or "President" is cute, but doesn't change the fact. Yet his biggest fans take offense to that. The Yugoslav government was a communist government--much like the Independent State of Croatia was a Nazi-backed puppet government--something Direktor loves to remind us every, single, sentence, I guess in case we forget. The truth will not stand for real criminals being glorified here--how you Direktor, could think Stepinac is a monster but TITO is not, is baffling beyond belief. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I would just like to add that I am curious at your level of hatred against a churchman who had little political authority during a 4 year period versus your love of a dictator who ruled for nearly 40 years. Whatever you may think of this cardinal--he didn't do enough to criticise the NDH government, he supported its creation, etc--is fine. There is plenty of opposition in the article (and rightfully so--Wikipedia after all presents both sides of a controversial view). Honestly, I do not mind that. What I do mind, is that you reverted all my research because you didn't like it by saying "LoL, obvious POV edits. Weasel words. Alteration of sourced facts". Tell me where this happened, then. Perhaps it would be best if we made a list of things that we did not like about the edits? Here we go:

1) Tito: what shall we call him? "Prime Minister" or "leader" or "dictator". Hmm, maybe we can reach a compromise on this.

2)However, the trial, well publicized at home and abroad by both sides, was "carried out with proper legal procedure". Not at all my friend. You sourced only one man who thinks that. I have found sources where others believe differently. It is unfair then, I think, to have only one and not the other?

3)You changed "and was given the choice of emigration" to "and was offered a choice of emigration". Okaaay...is this an example of my weasel wording? I had no idea this merrited a change.

4) You mention "Nazi puppet state" twice in two continuing sentences. We all know that NDH was a Nazi puppet state. Who is denying this? This is a classic example of weasel wording.

5) You changed On Sunday May 24, 1942 he condemned racial persecution in general terms, though he did not specifically mention Serbs. to On Sunday May 24 1942 he condemned racial persecution in general terms, though without bringing himself to mention Serbs. Once again, is there a problem with the previous wording? What are you implying with "without bringing himself"? This is like an implication of knowing what is behind someone's motives, thoughts, or behaviors. To a native English speaker, it just doesn't sound right in that context.

6) You erased He also wrote directly to Pavelić, saying on 24 February 1943, "The Jasenovac camp itself is a shameful stain on the honor of the [Independent State of Croatia]." Why?

7) You changed "On June 4 Stepinac met with Tito" to "On June 4 he met with the Prime Minister". I think it makes more sense that we mention the name of the person he was meeting with.

8) You changed "On October 20 Stepinac published a letter in which he made the claim that "273 clergymen had been killed" since the Partisan take-over, "169 had been imprisoned", and another "89 were missing and presumed dead". Similar numbers were later published." which was referenced, to this statement, which is not: The claims were unsupported by any concrete evidence, however. And even if such figures were to be given credence, it is argued that the execution of clergymen had not at any point been ordered by the high command and was, for the most part, spontaneous retribution against pro-Nazi clerics by the people and isolated partisan groups which, thus, had little to do with the Yugoslav government.

a) I just supported it with evidence b) You are trying to imply something with "and even if...", "if is argued...". This is no time for speculation and Original Research--state the facts. In this earnest defense of Yugoslavia, I must regret to inform you that this type of reasoning could also be used in favor of Stepinac as well then (e.g. "Stepinac never ordered this, these killings were retribution against Kingdom of Jugoslavija by isolated clerics not under his command and had little to do with the archbishop and his influence.")

9) You changed In response to this letter Tito spoke out publicly against Stepinac for the first time by writing an editorial on 25 October in the communist party's newspaper Borba to In response to this letter Tito spoke out publicly against Stepinac for the first time by writing an editorial in a daily newspaper. Well, my sentence gives more information: it names a) the date of the editorial b) that is was the Party-owned newspaper c) it was called Borba. If you see something wrong with that, tell me.

10) The sentence "When founding a new republic out of the war-ravaged remnants and deep-seated bitternesses of the former kingdom, Tito " --what does this have to do with Stepinac's arrest/trial? It seems like bloated commentary.

11) Left "with little choice", and after continued refusal by both Stepinac and the Vatican to defuse the confrontation (as well as renewed condemnations on the part of himself and his bishops)--this is again speculation--what is with the quotes? This is again using words and the quotations to imply that one party is completely at fault for this situation. State only the facts, no "left with little choice" and the others refused to defuse the confrontation. What evidence is given that they did that?

12) You erased this sourced statement Milovan Đilas, a prominent leader in the Party, stated that Stepinac would never have been brought to trial "had he not continued to oppose the new Communist regime." . Why?

13) The prosecution, however, brought forth abundant evidence, a considerable amount of which was both condemning and accurate, and clearly demonstrated the archbishop's collaboration with the Ustaše regime. " was changed to "In accordance with the evidence presented, on October 11 1946, the court found Stepinac guilty of high treason and war crimes. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison (a mild sentence for a conviction of high treason during wartime and/or complicity in war crimes). He was to serve five years of the 16-year sentence with preferential treatment, to be later released into house arrest within his home village." After looking at countless cases on Wikipedia, I have yet to come across one that states "In accordance to the evidence presented". Why on earth would this be added--of course the verdict was done with evidence in mind! That is like implying "because of the evidence provided in the trial that he attended for 3 years, Bob Smith was found guilty of the charges that the prosecution brought forth against him in the trial". Every Wiki page states the outcome--without these weasel words attempting to make the Yugoslav court seem so innocent. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves?

18)In spite of the condemnations from leaders of the opposing Cold War camp, the trial, in this way well publicized at home and abroad by both sides, was carried out with proper legal procedure. There was no torture, and a great deal of evidence was brought before the judges, a considerable amount of which was both devastating and accurate, and clearly demonstrated the archbishop's collaboration with the Ustaše regime.

This is once again, pure speculation, and insertion of your own opinion, referencing the opinions of others. I would love the Wikipedia administrators see that statement. Especially since various evidence presented states that the archbishop certainly did NOT receive a fair trial: only 20 witnesses allowed, 14 were dismissed without explanation, the defense had only seven days to prepare a defense--how can you argue that is fair? Besides those facts, there is proof and speculation that the jury was not selected fairly, evidence was forged, and the prosecution given 40 hours total to speak to the judge while defense only received 22 minutes.

Okay....that is my list. By all means, I do look forward to working out a compromise. Hopefully, one with no more name calling. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The text I added was quoted verbatim from respectable sources. You removed sourced text, and you altered sourced text. You replaced this with local sources of laughable quality who's bias in this issue is beyond any discussion. In short, you butchered the article. There my be discussion on a number of issues, but there will be no "compromise" regarding your removal of text quoted verbatim from TOP-quality university publications. Rather I shall simply report your edits the next time you rewrite sourced facts to suit your preconceptions. To paraphrase your troll edit summaries: Alojzije Stepinac was a collaborator, get over it. It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"You replaced this with local sources of laughable quality who's bias in this issue is beyond any discussion"

--Like what? Give me examples here, we are supposed to be working on the article, not insulting one another!

"There my be discussion on a number of issues, but there will be no "compromise" regarding your removal of text quoted verbatim from TOP-quality university publications

--Once again, which ones are you referring to?

"Rather I shall simply report your edits the next time you rewrite sourced facts to suit your preconceptions."

--What is this supposed to mean, "next time"? Why not report now if this is what you truly feel? Stop with the hypocritical personal jabs re: "to suit your preconceptions." How do you know what preconceptions I have?

"To paraphrase your troll edit summaries"

--Again, stop with the attacks. I can call you a troll to, but what on earth would that accomplish?

It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources

--When you report me to the admins, do will you show them this sentence? That you are calling other seasoned Wikipedia users' edits "abhorrent", "fascistoid" and "Ustaše-praising"? Also, can you please point out to me all the "fascistoid" "Ustaše-praising"? You can put it on my talk page since apparently it was directed at me personally. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I want to respond to your statement: "your removal of text quoted verbatim from TOP-quality university publications"--I made a list of the sourced sentences that have been removed/edited due to reasons already stated (I hope I didn't miss any):

a)Richard West is a journalist for the Guardian. From what I could discern, there is nothing Top Class about him.

b)Stella Alexander--this is interesting; you quote her often, yet my skimming her books find her many times defending the cardinal, e.g.: "The trial, which was a show trial, roused great interest and concern in the West, and has remained a symbol for a great deal that was controversial in the treatment of the Churches by the Yugoslav communists." I will certainly use her in the future.

c)Bernd Jurgen Fischer--this source is actually a collection of essays, and the ones quoted come from a historian named John V. A. Fine, not B.J. Fischer. Most his sources "removed" were pertaining to how "fair" the trial was--which we have proven with multiple sources was not (what a historian).

d)Michael Phayer--Historian and professor. Here are some other interesting quotes from him:

--"...Stepinac told Pavelic that 'the Croatian government would have to bear full responsibility for the growth of the Communist partisan movement...because of severe and unlawful measures emplyed against Orthodox Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies, in imitation of German methods."

--"Both Croatian and German officials viewed Stepinac as Judenfreundlich--friendly toward Jews.

--"Archbishop A. Stepinac suspended a number of priests, among them Ivo Guberina and Zvonko Brekalo....Stepinac lacked authority to suspend priests outside of the diocese of Zagreb. He also lacked authority to suspend bishops who collaborated with the Ustasha, such as Ivan Šarić...Only the Holy See had the power to take such a step."

So, I will wait for a response.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You've essentially added only one source yourself (the work by Bernd J. Fischer). You've pointed to one source that is a non-scholarly work (the Bunson work), but we haven't referenced anything contentious from there anyway. We can certainly find alternative references to replace that work if you'd like. That's what compromise and collaboration is about. Other users are open to it, and you should be too. Other than that, you have done nothing but dole out wild and vague accusations.

Also, if you continue to denigrade other Wikipedia users with insulting and hateful comments, I think we will have to involve administrators here ("troll", "Nazi", "Ustasha" are unacceptable terms to refer to other users or their edits).--Thewanderer (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you people look at Ramet who is scarcely a pro-nationalist or pro-communist. She says "Communist acusations that the archbishop "collaborated" with the NDH go to far" and highlights various controversial actions of his. p 127. It was considerably more complicated than that and neither a pro-Tito or pro-catholic slant is likely to do justice to this article. She describes his trial as a "show trial" of one of a number of unco-operative prelates which was also symbolic in delegitimising Croatian nationalism. p165. Meanwhile - enough with the fascist insults.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I completely agree with you.--Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the silly "reprimands". I did not call anyone here a "fascist", nor do I have such an opinion. I was referring to the general tone of this article which "evolved" over a long period of years. That much is made perfectly clear, though I am suprised at the readiness certain users have displayed in accepting such a label as referring to themselves. And, for the record, I shall continue to use any and all adjectives I find suitable to describe the blatant POV of the article.

Ramet displays her opinion there, Fainites. That is not a verifiable statement of fact. In contrast, we have primary evidence quoted in secondary sources. Not only do said scholarly publications deal specifically with Stepinac (and do not make an off-hand statement of opinion such as the Ramet quote), but they also quote primary sources describing in detail Stepinac's activities, which, under any definition both then and now, constitute treason by way of collaboration with the enemy during wartime (and this is explicitly stated in the sources). The Ramet quote is effectively blown out of the water.

Fainites, I think you are viewing this matter in the wrong perspective. You see this as a conflict between the "pro-Tito" or "pro-catholic slants". Rather I reccommend, as I always do, a perspective and position based more carefully on available sources. In my experience admins (and uninvolved users in general) tend, more often than not, to simply take a position square in the middle between the two sides of the debate - regardless of what the sources have to say. Once again, I can only assure you my position here is based, as always and to the best of my abilities, on reliable references.

At this time I am unable to get into this matter properly (due to my work-load). I will be back, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested Ramet because she is generally accepted on these pages as a suitable source. I think, DIREKTOR, that she is sufficiently scholarly and well regarded for us to be able to assume that when she expresses an opinion, as all writers of history do, it is based on extensive knowledge and research and not just thrown together from a few quotes which she may happen to use to illustrate her point. If, as you say, your position is based on available sources, we cannot simply jettison a secondary source like Ramet. You have quoted what Fischer says about Stepinac (though he also says that "the case of Stepinac is a very complicated one....") but I don't see why a book on the theme of "strong men of South Eastern Europe" should carry more weight than Ramet. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you are contradicting yourself left and right. You say only you are using sources of "world class historians" as if everyone else is just using third-rate mulch. I have put a lot of effort in finding encyclopedic sources and have used data from respected historians as well. I live near some of the top universities and institutions in the world, which allows me to have access to world-class libraries and an unlimited database with millions of of books, journals, newspapers, magazines, documentaries, recordings, government/official documents, etc. And I have been using them. Also, the point of Wikipedia is for people to edit and continue expanding and enriching an article--to claim that an article has sat a certain way "for years" is not a valid excuse for editing.

Also, isn't it obvious now that there are essentially two different ways of looking at this article? Direktor has a general attitude towards the article while others have a different one. The fact of the matter is, ALL of us are able to find someone somewhere that has an opinion or point of view on the cardinal. Some hate him, others defend him. In this instance, we need to be reminded:

"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

I know people get heated during debates and I hope we can be civil, but I agree that throwing fascist insults around at people is unproductive--as well as claiming that everyone elses' sources are invalid while their own are top quality. I have made my own section detailing any removal/editing that I have deemed controversial, and have backed myself up on each point with a reason (one example, the fact that the trial was "fair"--I made it absolutely clear with various sources it was far from it--simple fact). --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When a figure is as genuinely controversial as Stepinac, a part of the interest in the article should be about his controversialness. This is infinitely more interesting than a bad-tempered edit war from various standpoints. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree Fainites. My own opinion is that various opinions/views are included as well (in the article there are various views in the 'legacy' section). I understand since there are accusations on this page, I am not an objective party, but I do wish someone will say what is specifically wrong with my sources and edits instead of vague complaints ('abhorent', 'Nazi', 'fascistoid editing'). I made 18 points at the beginning of the section; does anyone even have a response to them? I spent a long time creating that so people with a problem with my editing can respond to each one. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a brief response (I really am swamped). Fainites I have no doubt Ramet's opinion is indeed scholarly and may be based on research. My point was that it is unverifiable (what research?), as opposed to the statement that Stepinac did engage in treasonous activities. My position here is a defense of the simple fact that Stepinac was indeed guilty of the charges he was accused of. Opposition to that amounts to a contesting a murder trial finding with a source that says "he probably was not guilty [no reference]", against a source that says "he was guilty, it is public knowledge that he killed the guy, he published the fact himself [here is the reference]". And the latter source deals with Stepinac specifically and in great detail, while the former does not.

When sources contradict on a particular point, it is the easiest thing in the world to determine which supersedes the other: check the backing of the statement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No DIREKTOR. That is the very definition of WP:OR. We cannot analyse what research Ramet did. WP:V does not mean we wiki editors verify a scholars research. Nor can we analyse how good the trial was. We can only go on what the best quality secondary sources say on this matter. Ramnet is not saying he is "innocent" or "guilty". A show trial can be a show trial when someone is guilty. The point is that the situation with Stepinac is more complex than simply accepting the verdict of a trial run by a communist regime against a political enemy. That's not my view. That is a summary of Ramet's analysis. I would also like to point out that Ramet has a specific section on the trial of Stepinac on pages 166 to 167 where she covers the lead up, the motivations and the outcome in some detail. As for whether or not it was a "good" trial, he was arrested on 18th September and added to an already ongoing trial of 15 other people accused of war crimes and found guilty on 11th October. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets take it point by point and source by source. Many of the yugo articles read bizarrely as they contain contrasting cast iron assertions representing various conflicting viewpoints from third rate or cherry picked sources as a result of assorted past disputes. Lets get away from classifying everybody as either a goodie or a baddie and try and agree a set of acceptable sources and exclude unacceptable sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in unsigned random IP insults.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again: I'm not saying "lets conduct our own research", I'm saying that Ramet's research on this point is non-existent. She does not back-up her statement with anything. Its her professional opinion. Of course, that alone would not suffice to disregard it, but her statement (in addition to being unverifiable) is also contradicted by other verifiable statements. I mean this is common sense. In this case where we have Ramet vs. Fischer&Alexander we shall certainly not go with Ramet.

Stop saying Fischer's name when he did NOT write the article you are referring to. Fischer's name is the author of the text full of articles written by numerous people. The article all of your sources come was written by a man named Fine. You obviously have not read what I've been writing on this board.--Jesuislafete (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, when I went through the sources on this matter all I did was look for the FACTS. And the facts are that Stepinac did engage in treasonous activities. This is not my assessment or my own research - I am quoting secondary sources that list those same FACTS as primary sources in their assertion that Stepinac was indeed guilty of the charge of treason.

I am not saying the trial was or was not a "show trial", but the fact is that Fischer disagrees with that claim, and attributes such myths in the Western bloc to Vatican publicity. Both he and Alexander agree that the trial was done with "proper legal procedure", and that the evidence presented was "both devastating and accurate". And since the man was indeed guilty of treason, serving a sentence of five years with preferential treatment is in any context a slap on the wrist, and does not fit the "show trial" claim.

I'll just add that this case is in many ways similar to that of Draža Mihailović. Both Stepinac and Mihailović were convicted in trials which were criticized as "show trials" in the West, and again be that as it may, we now know they were both indeed guilty of the charges presented. Both were "rehabilitated" after the resurgence of nationalism in the 1990s, and both are now idolized by Croats and Serbs respectively. In this "frenzy of idolatry" the fact that they are both undeniably guilty of high treason (collaboration) is glossed over. Hence you have an article such as this: where the text itself lists treasonous activities (see World War II section) but an attempt to clearly state this in the lead is deleted as "distasteful". This is the typical form of Balkans Wiki distortion I usually try to amend. There is no "pro-Tito slant" involved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"we now know they were both indeed guilty of the charges presented" No, that is what YOU believe, and want everyone else to. And we have proven throughout the discussion that this is not true with Stepinac (Mihailović is not for this page); you are the only one that still helplessly clings to it. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, comparing "A martyr and beatified" with "Army general of the Chetnik movement" is the best way to solve the problem...:-) --Kebeta (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is accurate with regard to the distortion of facts (i.e. reality) due to popular sentiment, to which Wikipedia is unfortunately susceptible. I did not say the gravity of their crimes were equal. And, consequently, Stepinac served five years with preferential treatment, while Mihailović was executed by firing squad.

Also, for the record: I could not care less whether he was "beatified" or not. Next thing we'll hear how he's a saint and is therefore infallible or whatever.. REAL arguments please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR it is absurd to say Ramet research is non-existant and "we will not go with Ramet". Can we try and discuss sources dispassionately please.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed IP trolling. I won't be insulted or slandered any further here, will take this IP's behaviour to ANI. (This sort of response from random Balkans IPs shows exactly what I mean about pro-Stepinac public sentiment.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you can take the insults of "It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources" too when you're there. Thanks in advance. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response from Direktor to my 18 points, plus my response to Direktor's claims I removed Top Class World University Historians, and other evidence I gave. We are getting nowhere here. I want to know what is apparently "abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising" about my article which is apparently not done "in accordance with (proper) sources". --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I already said it, I'll spell it out: I attacked noone. I referred to the article. if you feel you are this "article", or are somehow related to this "article", then please report me for attacking you (or whomever), because I stick by it and will say it again if necessary. In the future, the second you think I've violated WP:NPA please report me immediately - don't waste time just go for it. I don't like it when people use fake claims of "insults" as tools in a debate. In contrast, I will not stand by and be insulted repeatedly by the IP - indeed his attacks may serve well to demonstrate to you what an actual PA is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on. I did not respond to your posts because (as I said several times) - I am busy. REAL busy. But for you, Jlf, its seems I'll have to find some time. :) Also note that I waited for your response for quite a while before you even deigned to post on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Now come on, don't tell me you don't understand the irony behind my statement; it was you after all who first mentioned going to the admins, and I told you to go ahead (I'm kinda bummed you didn't). And if you can find some time for me, I do appreciate it! And do forgive me for not posting earlier; I was very sick and away from computers, but I still should have tried. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had to slowly freeze a few rats to death - for science! :P I'll be able to talk tomorrow, JLF. Be there or be square :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to it!(p.s. anon, please don't erase this) --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article sucks

Rather on focusing on the encyclopediatric and historical view,the article looks like the ususal ex-yugoslav crap.This article is more about who said what and where,rather then focus on the Cardinal Stepinac himself.I as a Croatian Jew,have really greatest respect this man,but that's my personal opinion that has nothing to do with this article.About forced convertions,the great Cardinal Stepinac said that all the people should be converted if that may save their lives from the hands of the Ustashi fasist regime and all the people that were converted this way are to be allowed to return to their faith when the war ends.The forced convertions(not only of Serbs,but Jews as well) are the only fact used in the showtrial against him,so naturally the nationalist Serbs who were just as bad in WW2,)Belgrade being the first Judenferi(Free of Jews) city in Europe as early as 1942 and enforcing racist Nurnberg laws 6 months before the start of WW2) would use it in their slander campaign against everything Croatian for nationalist and geopolitical purpouses.Cardinal Stepinac really lived with his people,not only Croats but all people that lived in Croatia at that time.Dr.Esther Gitman just published a new book about saving of Jews in the Independent state of Croatia and Stepinac.Buy it,read it,you won't regret it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Few more things that are not mentioned in the article.Cardinal Stepinac spoke openly against the yellow(David star) ribbon laws and was personaly responsible for non-prosecution of halfbloods(people that were half-jewish) after Himmler visited Pavelic in 1943 and ordered him to do eliminate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And Amiel Shomrony (Emil Schwartz) volunteerd to testify in court during the Cardinal Stepinac trial on his behalf but was prohibited by the communists to apear in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to try and improve the article in accordance with the encyclopaedia's policies on sourcing. I will leave some links on your talkpage for you.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to,because every ex-yugoslav article needs to be read every week in order to protect it.It's a constant struggle by those who want to work on the article and those who use it for spreading hate propaganda (just like in Nazi Germany at the time).I don't want to read the same articles every 4-5 days in order to keep them objecitve and true.If you want to work on the article I'll provide you sources.Regards,Jakov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stepinac on forced conversions

From the pulpit of his Cathedral, Archbishop Stepiniac declared, in July 1941:
"We call God to witness that we have always ben opposed to any compulsory attachmet to the Catholic Church. We must declare that the Church has done all in her power to give aid and protection to the Orthodox".source

In December of the same year, he wrote to the head of the collaborationist government in the name of his colleagues:
""Only those could be received into the Church who, without having been subjected to force of any kind, might be converted of their own free will, after having become convinced in their own mind that the Catholic Church is the only true Church." source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domics (talk • contribs) 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Book of Saints"

I am contesting the use of John Paul II's book of saints by Mr. Matthew Bunson and Mrs. Margaret Bunson ("Our Sunday Visitor Publishing"), as a reliable source. There are several problems here, each of which is alone, in my view, sufficient cause to disregard this book. Firstly, this is an unprofessional, non-scholarly book - devoid of even th most basic system of primary references. Secondly, it is published by the Roman Catholic Church (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing), assuring that the work most likely (and in fact) displays a decidedly pro-Church bias in this highly controversial subject. And thirdly, the booklet harbours known falsehoods and myths, such as those on Stepinac's alleged "poisoning".

In that context, I would also like to address the issue of Stepinac's death. There is no question that the evidence on the alleged poisoning is non-existent, and there are no sources which claim outright that he had been poisoned. There is however evidence from independent experts, that the archbishop suffered from polycythemia (indeed, the Yugoslav authorities have offered to send him abroad for treatment, which he refused.) Actual scholarly sources can be provided, by the bushel-full, on Stepinac's very serious illness and its bitter end.
The actual facts of the matter are that the cause of death had been established as polcycythemia, and that some have expressed doubts as to whether that was in fact the cause of death. That is all. The poisoning "theory" is in fact a myth, an unsubstantiated opinion at best. Suffices to say that the "poisoning myth" also includes the tale of how the communists "wrenched his heart out and burned" it afterwards. For example:

• Michael W. Higgins, Stalking the holy: the pursuit of saint making, House of Anansi Press Inc, 2006, p.101
  • "The cardinal died from a rare blood disease, polycythemia,.."
• Stella Alexander, The triple myth: a life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, East European Monographs, 1987 p.199
  • "In 1953 Dr. Ludwig Heilmeyer, a well- known consultant from Freiburg in Breslau, diagnosed polycythemia, a rare blood disease ... The government let it be known that they would accede to a formal request from Stepinac to be moved;"
• Encyclopedia of world biography: 20th century supplement: Volume 1, Pennsylvania State University, 1987
  • "He [Stepinac] also refused to go abroad for treatment of a blood-clotting problem (polycythemia) from which he suffered after 1953."
• New Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomson/Gale, 2003 (University of Michigan)
  • "He died in 1960 of a rare blood disease (polycythemia rubra vera) from which he suffered acutely since 1953."
• The South Slav Journal, Dositey Obradovich Circle., 1981
  • "He [Stepinac] suffered from polycythemia, a rare blood disease which caused him a good deal of suffering and brought on attacks"
• Religious separation and political intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mitja Velikonja, Texas A&M University Press, 2003 p.276
  • "..there is no official proof that the Communists poisoned him."

P.S. Prof. Tomasevich, one of the foremost world authorities on Yugoslav history, wrote rather extenisvely on the subject of Stepinac, and will be an excellent source for a more balanced, less pro-Church version of Stepinac's latter years. Prof. Sabrina P. Ramet, also an expert on the subject, will have her say as well. I am currently studying these two sources and will get back to you on their position. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue was questioned by you before (see above in the talk page). You have abandoned this problem after my reply. Are you opening it again, and if so, why didn't you continue discussion in already existing section "Our Sunday Visitor"?--Kebeta (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose we start anew here, if thats allright with you. To be clear, my main concern is that this is not a scholarly publication, but I expect it will also be hard to argue a book published by the Roman Catholic Church does not carry a degree of pro-Church bias, esp. when contradicted by scholarly works, not published by the Roman Catholic Church. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I copy/paste some books from section above. These books are aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac. Is any of these books scholarly publication in your opinion?--Kebeta (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Luxmoore, Jonathan (2000). The Vatican and the red flag: the struggle for the soul of Eastern Europe. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0225668831, 9780225668834. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Miller, Robert F. (1986). Religion and politics in communist states. Australian National University. ISBN 0225668831, 9780225668834. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Pope John Paul II (1999). A Pilgrim Pope: Messages for the World. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 0740700456, 9780740700453. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Butler, Alban (1995). Butler's Lives of the Saints. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0860122611, 9780860122616. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Obradovich, Dositey (1999). The South Slav journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle.
• Rychlak, Ronald J. (2005). Righteous gentiles: how Pius XII and the Catholic Church saved half a million Jews from the Nazis. Spence Pub. Co. ISBN 1890626600, 9781890626600. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Or we can replace existing text "Stepinac died while still under confinement in his parish, almost certainly as the result of poisoning..." into "Stepinac died while still under confinement in his parish, possibly as the result of poisoning...". This way we can make a long story short? What do you think?--Kebeta (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

POISON

There is not much solid evidence that this guy was poisoned - I am going to change the article unless somebody can come up with better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)