Talk:Ante Pavelić/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unbeliveable and Laughable

In the current version of this article

In 1932 he started a newspaper named the "Ustaša – –Herald of Croatian Revolutionaries" (Ustaša – vijesnik hrvatskih revolucionaraca). From its very first publication, Pavelić announced that the Ustaša would use violence as a means of achieving their goals:

"The dagger, revolver, machine gun and bomb, those are the bells that will ring the dawn and the RESURRECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF CROATIA."’

There were no instances of antisemitism in the newspaper.’[36]

But in the reference

In the text signed by ‘Poglavnik’ [The Leader], the name used later for Pavelić, which appeared in the first issue of the Ustaša, he stated: ‘The dagger, revolver, machine gun and bomb, those are the bells that will ring the dawn and the RESURRECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF CROATIA.’ There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša –apparently for three reasons. First, the Ustashas had to confront a great enemy, the Belgrade regime, and they could and would not engage in other things. Secondly, at the beginning the Ustasha movement did not have the intellectual level to produce a wellrounded and consistent ideology: they knew only the basic tenets of Nazism and fascism. Nazi antisemitic argumentation demands a certain intellectual level that most of the Ustashas did not possess. Thirdly, one of the leading organisers of Ustasha cells was a Jew, named Vladimir Singer (his fellows, however, imprisoned him in 1941 and killed him). There were other Jews, too, who helped the Ustasha movement. However, in the following years Ustasha ideology grew more exclusive and the Jews came to be seen as second-rate citizens who should be killed en masse.

--68.98.165.98 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes... Goldstein is know to be subjective about the issue. His not a first class historian (one of the reasons he was disapproved to enter the Croatian Academy of Scinences and Arts) so his works can be used, though carefully. --Wüstenfuchs 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps his work should be attributed in-text as a minimum? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Wüstenfuchs 22:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have attributed his work in the article. I believe we should attempt to locate alternative sources for this information given Goldstein's perceived bias, and use them instead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the point being made here is that the lack of anti-Semitism in the newspaper was either not notable in and of itself, or that its mention without context is a misrepresentation of the reference. Dissing Goldstein certainly doesn't seem to be the point. Furthermore, bringing up his failed HAZU confirmation is also way beside the point, particularly because IIRC he was opposed at HAZU primarily by a right-wing non-historian; and because HAZU isn't really the end-all grouping of Croatian historians. Wustenfuchs, you're letting those right-wing talking points get the best of you again... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. How do you suggest we proceed then? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there other reliable sources discussion the notion of anti-Semitism in the early Ustaša movement? If so, then they should be consulted to see if the citation is appropriate or not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I would call HAZU a right-wing institution (as you claim majority of members are right wing). I'm not sure are you suggesting that right-wing people in Croatia are supportes of Ustaše and antisemitism... but anyway. I agree some other author should be consulted if possible. --Wüstenfuchs 12:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the much lauded Broszat? Anyone read German? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually say that, I'd say they're just a bunch of conservative old people. Their Department of Social Sciences actually nominated Goldstein, but Josip Pečarić initiated a right-wing disqualification at the hearing. [1] Which was hardly unexpected given that Pečarić has a well known public feud with Goldstein, who was the topic of one of the former's books (!). So all I'm saying is that it's not right to say "Goldstein sucks because HAZU didn't want him", because that actually doesn't convey the whole story even as far as HAZU is concerned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone check my edit [2] to see if I have placed this into proper context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no historians that suggest the contrary (that the Ustaša Herald had instances of anti-semitism) then there is no need for in-text attribution. An IP's vague frustrations are not enough to warrant it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

POV, unreliable sources, Ustashe blogging

Not much done to really get a seriously written article. There are passages completely un-encyclopaedic as this one:

In his speeches to the Yugoslav Parliament he opposed Serbian nationalism and spoke in favor of Croatian independence. He was active with the youth of the Croatian Party of Rights and began contributing to the Starčević and Kvaternik newspapers.[19][better source needed]

Serbian members of the Yugoslav Parliament disliked him and when a Serbian member said "Good night" to him in parliament, Pavelić responded:

"Gentleman, I will be euphoric when I will be able to say to you 'good night'. I will be happy when all Croats can say 'good night' and thank you, for this 'party' we had here with you. I think that you will all be happy when you don't have Croats here any more."[25]

In 1927, Pavelić became the vice-president of the party.[19][better source needed]

Then I still see authors which are not historians nor scholars

• Cohen
• Tanner
• Glenny
• Zerjavic
• Sedlar (entertaintment man!)

Then scholars which were/are not historians

• Tomasevich (Economy)
• Ramet (Political science)

Then, overwhelmingly cited, local, provincial authors like:

• Matkovic
• Baric
• Dizdar
• Jonjic

--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You have a very strange idea of what a scholarly source is, and no-one is going to take you seriously when you carry on like this. Tomasevich and Ramet are probably two of the top five scholars on Yugoslavia in WWII. I (and others) are working through this article, albeit slowly, removing material and replacing the more dubious sources in a methodical way. No doubt there are many unencyclopedic passages, even sections, and the article still needs a lot of work. It wouldn't even get close to MILHIST B-Class in its current form, but it is improving, the structure is better and questionable sources, photographs etc are being weeded out. Your "throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach won't get any traction, so give it up and think about actually contributing to the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you can see, for example, two encyclopaedias that are professionally and academically written: Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Especially the last one. Twenty eight world-renown scholars of the Editorial Board of Encyclopedia of the Holocaust did not include Tomasevich nor Ramet at all. They were not referenced in a single article! Not even in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia (2002).--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • WP is not just a copy of what is in other encyclopedias such as Brittanica, and the Holocaust one isn't going to cover a whole range of things relevant to Pavelic. For example, why would it cover his early life or politics issues related to Croatian nationalism except as it relates to anti-Semitism? This is a bio article, and an Early Life section is expected, as is one about his political career and exile before and after the war. That's just for starters. Also, the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust was originally published 22 years ago, 11 years before Tomasevich's second volume (which is closely focused on the NDH) was published, and the 2002 edition was only published one year after it. 2002 was before much of the work of several of the authors that are cited in this article. Ramet and Pavlowitch in particular have produced and edited a number of books and articles relating to the NDH since 2002. You really have got some strange ideas about what constitutes a reliable scholarly source on WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspected propaganda

There are several dubious sentences and paragraphs in this article that are either unsourced or appear to be straight-out Ustase propaganda. Most that are sourced come from the Sedlar film. I am very uncomfortable with anything of this nature, as everything will eventually need a citation and I fully intend to get this article promoted to FA in time. I'll start a subsection for each one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture and sport

"Pavelić and his government devoted great attention to culture.[citation needed] Although most literature was propaganda, many books did not have an ideological basis, which allowed Croatian culture to flourish. The Croatian National Theatre[disambiguation needed] received many world-famous actors as visitors. The major cultural milestone was the publication of the Croatian Encyclopedia, a work later forbidden under the Communist regime. Croatian sport also improved and in 1941 the Croatian Football Association joined FIFA.[18][need quotation to verify]"

• Here are some issues with this one.
  • lack of citations
  • "many world-famous actors"? From where? Germany?
  • Given the complete lack of security in the countryside throughout the NDH, it is very unlikely sport could have improved (except perhaps in Zagreb). How did the NDH join FIFA when there was a war on? Was FIFA even operating then (maybe it was based in Italy)? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say was FIFA active at the time, I believe it was... but [3] HNS entered FIFA in 1941. --Wüstenfuchs 20:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ok, but these sorts of things need to be in context, for example, of the 14 internationals (in four years), the only game Croatia played against a non-Axis country was against Switzerland. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Radiotelevision recently aired a new documentary describing the bizarre status of the Croatian National Theatre and similar art institutions in the NDH propaganda machine. It's a notable topic, but it's not covered properly, because IIRC the documentary made a peculiar point about how Pavelić did not actually attend a lot of that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comments

Meets B-Class criteria, see the assessment summary page link in the box at the top of this page for brief comments. GregorB (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Butcher of the Balkans"

The application of this title to Pavelić is anachronistic, that title has been used in the 1980s in reference to his subordinate Andrija Artuković instead. I looked at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22butcher+of+the+balkans%22+pavelic&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 and found a 2009 reference to Pavelić, 2009 ref to Pavelić, 2001 ref to Artuković, 2010 Pavelić, 2008 Pavelić, 2011 reference to Slobodan Milošević, 2007 ref that has no preview and the snippet is inconclusive, 2009 ref to Pavelić, 2003 ref to Pavelić, 2004 ref to Pavelić, 1990 ref to Artuković, 2002 ref to Pavelić, 2003 ref to Pavelić, 1986 ref to Artuković, 2000 ref to Milošević. That fewer than a dozen semi-random recent books started referring to Pavelić this way is really fishy WRT WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and this topic has had the same problem before, with the story about the bucket of eyes. Pavelić's story is quite clearly horrible enough without misplaced hyperbole. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Assassin

Knightserbia has added a name for APs assassin and two refs. I believe that all scholarly sources state he was shot by an unknown assassin. The two sources used are less than scholarly, I believe that we cannot state what they say and ignore what other sources say. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgery which cannot be part of serious article

This paragraph is a complete forgery of the facts.

"Because the Serbs revolted and acted against Croats and Muslims, Pavelić founded the Croatian Orthodox Church[94] with the aim of pacifying the Serbs.[95] However, the underlying ideology behind the creation of the Croatian Orthodox Church was connected to the ideas of Ante Starčević, who considered that Serbs were "Orthodox Croats",[94] and reflected a desire to create a Croatian state comprising three main religious groupings, Roman Catholic, Muslim and Croatian Orthodox.[95] There is some evidence that the status of Sarajevo Serbs improved after they joined the Croatian Orthodox Church in significant numbers.[96] Through both forcible and voluntary conversions between 1941 and 1945, 244,000 Serbs were re-baptised as Catholics.[31]"

1. The Serbs did not revolt and act against Croats and Muslims. They were pushed to the brink of physical extinction.

2. This is a sheer nonsense: "There is some evidence that the status of Sarajevo Serbs improved after they joined the Croatian Orthodox Church in significant numbers"

3. The introductory phrase: "Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was a Croatian fascist leader and politician". Pavelic was a politician only between 1923 and 1927. The rest of his life he was a criminal and an outlaw. The justice fugitive between 1929 and 1941 sentenced to death by two governments, the head of a murderous Nazi regime for four years, and again fugitive and outlaw to the end of his life. --Fight Forgery (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to contrast with those already in the article, be WP:BOLD and add them in the appropriate spots. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Velebit, is that you again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Several

Why does it say "several hundred thousand when offical estimates are around 300,000. Should be few hundred thousand.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several

"being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind"

Minimal but likely numbers: Regarding Serbs, official numbers are 200 000 civilian, 150 000 military killed by the Ustashe regime and participation in a further number of deaths that were officially done by the Nazis. Killings of deported population not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.117.96 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2015

add to category: Croatian Nazis Thejjjman (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see from the article that he was a Nazi himself. He may have been an ally/puppet of Nazi Germany, but that doesn't mean he subscribed to Nazi philosophy. Do you have a source which says he did? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This category is new, and is both inaccurate (the Ustase were fascists, not national socialists), and redundant (the category completely overlaps the Ustase category). This category has been added to a number of article inaccurately, and is currently at CfD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Duke of Aosta

Article says Prince Aimone refused the crown of Croatia. This is not the case, he accepted, possibly reluctantly, and took the name Tomislav II. He never went to Croatia and exercised little power and influence but he was technically king until he abdicated in 1943. This information is available in the wikipedia article on Aimone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.124.199 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

british spy

Smilja Avramov writes about this topic. Here is a source stating he was working for MI6 since 1926. So please add this reference to the sentence Although Pavelić reported himself to American intelligence, neither they nor their British counterparts arrested him. 212.200.65.113 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

POV

Is pure Serbian propaganha. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There were no "anti fascist Bosniaks" because they were Muslim Croats at the time. Serb fascists also killed Croats, Muslims and evemn Serbs who refused to join them. Don`t present chetnics like some antifascist guerilla.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.248.163 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 

True Pavelic

From Debórah Dwork, Robert Jan Pelt, Robert Jan Van Pelt: Holocaust: A history; Publisher W. W. Norton & Company, Sep 1, 2003 page 183

What Pavelic meant by "independence" he explained to German foreign minister Ribentrop's trusted troubleshooter for the southeast Europe, Anton Veesenmeyer. Pavelic had only two wishes, Veesenmayer reported to Berlin: first to obtain German recognition of Croatia; and second, an opportunity to thank Hitler in person and promise him "to live and die for the Fuehrer".--178.222.144.4 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Description of village Krivi Put

Krivi Put village is not situated in southern Lika, but in Western part. And even this can be discussed, because it is situated at border between Lika and Kvarner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deaths in the Velebit uprising

"Led by Andrija Artuković, the insurgency involved around 20 Ustaše members armed with Italian equipment. They attacked a police station and half an hour later pulled back to Velebit with no casualties." on the Velebit uprising page it says there was one casualty, but later on it repeats this statement. Should some fact-checking be done here? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ante Pavelić

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ante Pavelić's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JUSP":

• From Collaboration with the Axis Powers: "List of Individual Victims of Jasenovac Concentration Camp". Official website of the Jasenovac Memorial Site. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
• From The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia: Official website of the Jasenovac Memorial Site
• From Extermination camp: "Official Website of the Jasenovac Memorial Site".
• From Jasenovac concentration camp: Official website of the Jasenovac Memorial Site

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

His Nationality

Croatian nationality seems incorrect. The Independent State of Croatia was never recognized as legitimate by anyone else by Axis powers. He was born in Bosnia and died before 1991 when Croatia actually became independent instead of once again and German-Italian puppet lap dog. Seems straight forward. Bosnian Croat makes sense. Or Yugoslav Croat as he lived and gained notoriety in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. OyMosby (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain to me how does your request to label him a "Bosnian Croat" or "Yugoslav Croat" fall in line with your claim on several other articles that "ethnicity cannot be in the first sentence" and should be "in body"? [4] Didn't you and another user claim the exact opposite of this request? This brilliant theory on WP:ETHNICITY didn't go that well on the first article that has more than two watchers. Tzowu (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ETHNICITY Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Considering the fact that most of Pavelić's actions were because of his and other people's ethnicity - it is very notable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ETHNICITY states that ethnicity etc. should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability [my bolding]. In this specific case, his Croat ethnicity most certainly is relevant for Pavelić's notability. It should, however, not be mentioned instead of his Yugoslav nationality, but in addition to the nationality. The lede could say that he "was a Yugoslav Croatian lawyer", but the infobox cannot say that his nationality is Croatian. It will have to be "Nationality: Yugoslav". --T*U (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think in this case, ethnicity is part of his notability, so should be used in the first sentence along with Yugoslav, but the nationality in the infobox should be Yugoslav. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Croatian is a nationality, not an ethnicity (the ethnicity is Croat, something most native English-speakers get wrong), hence WP:ETHNICITY isn't applicable. Moreover, Pavelic left the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before it was officially renamed Yugoslavia. He returned to Croatia when it was called...the Independent State of Croatia. The sole reason Pavelic is even notable and discussed decades later is due to his staunch opposition to Yugoslavia's very existence (and the actions that subsequently arose from this opposition). Hence, calling him a Yugoslav anything is bizarre and incorrect. The opening sentence said "Croatian dictator/statesman" for years and no one complained. I don't see why we shouldn't revert to that state of affairs. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, It should be Yugoslavian Croat instead as Croatia was not a widely recognized country at the time. People from the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were officially referred to as Yugoslavians so nationality is correct. His own personal opinions don’t change where he lived. OyMosby (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Amanuensis Balkanicus. Having Yugoslav in the lead is pointless and doesn't serve much purpose in informing the reader. He spent a quarter of his life maybe living in what officially existed as Yugoslavia but his entire life was spent being an anti-Yugoslav. His Croatian identity, whether nationality or ethnicity, is the significant and prevailing piece of info. --Griboski (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

However ethnicity when written would be “Croat” not “Croatian”. Being anti-Yugoslavia doesn’t change he lived there. He became a lawyer and politician while living there. And being against the country you live in doesn’t change your nationality. When Yugoslavia dissolved, did everyone lose their previous nationality? The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, people from that Kingdom were still called Yugoslavs. Croatia existed only in puppet form and was not widely acknowledged as a legitimate country. Pavelić was a Yugoslavian Croat. Seems straightforward. OyMosby (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The adjective Yugoslav relates directly to the country of which he was a citizen, not where he lived. Relating this information in the first sentence is universal in biographies on Wikipedia. Yugoslav was also used while the country was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, so that is irrelevant, as is the fact that he was an exile for most of his life. It is my view that given the usual arrangements on Wikipedia regarding including nationality in the first sentence, those advocating including only his ethnicity (or his nationality for the short period in which there was a puppet Croatian state unrecognised outside the Axis) need to get a wider community consensus for this unique approach via a neutrally worded RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Relations with the Vatican

I think this should be expanded upon in the article. When I have time I will get to it. Help would be appreciated.Unibrow69420 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: and @OyMosby: the RfC has not been closed by an uninvolved editor, and multiple reverts are not the way to go. Also, AM, personal attacks are unacceptable. As a matter of fact, you too were once blocked as a "sockmaster", but that topic is not part of this content dispute, and as such should not be mentioned again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Being uncharitable is not a personal attack. Moreover, such insinuations are quite rich coming from an editor with a history of feisty edit summaries, such as yourself. As for the closure, you're right. Looks like the RfC hasn't been closed yet. I'll revert myself and let an uninvolved admin decide. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you clearly do not understand what kind of personal attack you made on another editor, and even do not use the term "feisty" properly, I placed a DS alert on your talk page. So if you make again such personal attacks in a content dispute, that can be discussed at AE. Thanks for understanding regarding the reverts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I will not be part of the reverting cycle, but the version that describes the subject as Croatian should stay, at least until the RfC is closed. That version is the stable one, unless a new consensus emerges. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Overtly threatening other users shouldn't be described as "feisty". It's far too flippant a word. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your naive template on my talk page shows you do not fully understand the rules imposed on Balkan articles. Stop talking in a clueless way about "threats", "sockmasters" etc, otherwise it all will go to AE. You are now alerted about the Balkan DS, and no more personal attacks will be tolerated. Referring to another editor as "sockmaster" in a content dispute is a good way of getting yourself sanctioned. Their history and your history have nothing to do with this article. Never do that again. If you have any concern about my behavior or OyMosby's, go to AE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the introduction describe Pavelić as a "Yugoslavian Croat", given that he never lived in the country while it was called Yugoslavia (and is notable largely due to his opposition to such a state) and "Croat" (as opposed to "Croatian") is an ethnic denomination, contrary to WP:ETHNICITY? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes As discussed above, the citizens of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were known as Yugoslavs or Yugoslavian, whether they liked their country or not. His Croat ethnicity is an exception as the rule states it is allowed if the person is notable for their ethnicity of which it played a roll in his actions. Croatian is a nationality and the NDH was not a legitimate widely recognized country. So not sure how “Croatian” would be an alternative. It was an German-Italian puppet state. He became a lawyer and politician as a Yugoslavian. Also saying “Croatian” would construe with Modern-Day Croatia which is a successor to the SR Croatia (Formed in 1943 and existed in parallel overlapping NDH in civil war) and not a successor to NDH or its Government. Historians have made note of this. Would mislead readers. OyMosby (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No one here has presented any evidence that the terms "Yugoslav" or "Yugoslavian" was in contemporary usage to refer to citizens of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Even if it was, Pavelić only spent 11 years of his life in a country whose citizens may (or may not) have been referred to as such. He was a Hungarian subject between 1889 and 1918 (29 years). Moreover, he also had a Spanish diplomatic passport. [5] Yet, I don't see anyone claiming he was a "Hungarian-born Croat with Yugoslavian-Spanish citizenship". Furthermore, the fact that he was a Croat is not relevant to his notability, the fact that he led the Independent State of Croatia (whose subjects were referred to as Croatians) is. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

11 years would be longer than the time in which NDH, a puppet state not recognized outside the Axis powers, existed. The lead mentions him being leader of NDH already though. As for Yugoslav or Yugoslavian, what would be the nationality for someone from the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? I questioned myself this but looking up the Yugoslavian naming, people from that Kingdom are referenced by this term it seems. OyMosby (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:OyMosby has been indefinitely blocked for socking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not blocked anymore. Things cleared up with admin. Given that I was not manipulating same pages with multiple accounts and also will not be using them anymore on separate articles. OyMosby (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because the NDH was partially recognized doesn't mean its subjects cannot be described as Croatians. Kosovo, for example, is partially recognized as well and yet no one in their right mind would dispute calling Hashim Thaçi or Ramush Haradinaj Kosovars/Kosovans. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Kosovo comparable to NDH, a puppet state without anywhere near the recognition globally? Also I added to my Yes vote about the SR Croatia and legacy issue. I can see where you are coming from but not sure they can be directly compared this way. OyMosby (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes given that he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from birth then the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (after 1929), citizens of the former were known as Yugoslavs or Yugoslavians (see Vucinich, Wayne (1969) Contemporary Yugoslavia; twenty years of Socialist experiment page 3 and elsewhere), and his ethnicity is part of his notability given he led an ethno-fascist Croat organisation then an ethnic Croat puppet state for four years, and its inclusion is permitted on the basis of its relevance to his notability per WP:ETHNICITY. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes No. His Croatian identity is obviously very relevant to his notability and should certainly be mentioned in the lead. Leaving it out would be like Michael Davitt's article saying that he was British because he was a British subject. buidhe 09:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I think there's been some misunderstanding here. Peacemaker67 wants to keep the demonym "Yugoslav" in the introduction, which would be analogous to describing Michael Davitt as British. My proposal is to describe the subject simply as "Croatian". Peacemaker67 is against this. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether "Croatian" is a nationality or an ethnicity. Given that the subject led a Croatian state, I think it's fair to consider it a nationality for the purposes of this article, in the same way that Davitt and virtually all other Irish nationalists are described as "Irish" even if they lived under British rule. However, I do think it's most important to follow RS and if RS do describe him specifically as "Yugoslav", we should duplicate that usage. buidhe 20:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Croat is ethnicity and Croatian is nationality. This was why Yugoslavian Croat made sense. For Irish is that ethnicity or nationality? Croatia was not a country under Yugoslav rule but NDH was a puppet state installed by Germany and Italy. And not recognized outside the axis powers as legitimate. So not sure if it is the same circumstances. Perhaps RS could tell more. As for Wiki:Ethnicity, it states that if the ethnicity is relevant to the persons fame or notability it is valid so it seems applicable. Also those who lived in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were dubbed “Yugoslavian”. OyMosby (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• No He lived in Yugoslavia for one period of his life, but he also lived in other countries for a number of years. Callin' him Yugoslav/Yugoslavian will only bring out more vandals. Not to mention the well-know fact that he is best-known for his actions during NDH. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)
• No Per all of the points raised by Amanuensis Balkanicus. In this particular instance, having Yugoslavian doesn't add much encyclopedic value. --Griboski (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not necessarily My main concern in the above discussion was the infobox entry, which is now correctly changed to "Nationality: Yugoslavian". Regarding the lede sentence, I am not entirely opposed to mentioning "Yugoslavian Croat", but looking closer at the whole sentence, I really do not see the necessity. The essence is already covered in the continuation of the sentence, so I would be quite happy with ... was a lawyer, politician and dictator who founded and headed the fascist ultranationalist organization known as the Ustaše in 1929 and governed the Independent State of Croatia, a fascist puppet state built out of parts of occupied Yugoslavia ..., thus avoiding the eternal nationality/ethnicity bickering. --T*U (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree that his ethnicity is part of his notability. He is notable for being the leader of the NDH and the Ustashe movement, not because he was a Croat. There are very few examples where an ethnicity is notable for the lead, like that Obama was the first African-American president. So I oppose the inclusion of "Croat" in the lead. As for the rest, there is no consistency regarding MOS:ETHNICITY anyway, and the guideline page is self-contradictory (the example of Petrarca), so I don't know what is the best solution here. Tezwoo (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES for Yugoslav - I still stand by my comment regarding his ethnicity not being the notable part. Since the country which he was a national was Yugoslavia for most of his life, he should be labeled as a Yugoslav politician. Tezwoo (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tezwoo: How did living in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for 11 years (and in Austria-Hungary for 29 years) turn into "he was a national of Yugoslavia for most of his life"? Please enlighten me. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He was still a Yugoslav national during his stay in Italy and after 1945 when he fled to various countries. He became a known politican only after 1918, basically all of his actions for which he is known for were done during the existence of a Yugoslavia, when Croatia didn't have an autonomous status to the likes of the pre-1918 kingdom. Per MOS:ETHNICITY, as flawed as it is, the citizenship/nationality part goes in the lead. Tezwoo (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• YES - Per explanation of Peacemaker67. Based on this argument it is necessary to ammend introduction of articles about Momčilo Đujić, Pavle Đurišić, Dobroslav Jevđević, .... to also present this people as Yugoslavs.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• More WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Antid? You never stop, do you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: Please don't vote Yes just to make a WP:POINT. If you disagree with the current wording, vote No. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My vote is based on my honest opinion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: OK, fair enough. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes based on rationale given by User:Peacemaker67 and User:OyMosby. Regardless of whether he liked it or not, Yugoslav was his nationality. The RfC question should be neutrally worded rather than as written by AB. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• No this is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - the net result may be, just about, justified by sourcing, but isn't very informative. I would suggest opening with something like "was a Croatian nationalist lawyer etc..". This is explicitly defining him according to his politics - for which he is known - and only implicitly including his ethnicity, which is incidental. The other nuances of what state he was born in, was active in can be covered in subsequent text, using Kingdom of ... etc. rather than the bare adjective, which is ambiguous to those without a pre-existing knowledge of the history of the region. I arrived at this suggestion by looking at some Irish nationalist figures, such as Martin McGuinness, who - for those who don't know - was born, legally British, but is known entirely for his Irish republicianism, and for identifying as Irish. Alternatively, I would alternatively support TU-nor's suggestion above that the whole nationality/ethnicity issue be bypassed in the opening sentence, and instead focus on the actions that have made Pavelić known. I also endorse Peacemaker67's point in the prvious section, that 'Croatian', should not be used on its own in a way that implies nationality.Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: your example doesn't really work - McGuinness supposedly had Irish citizenship (he was a candidate in Irish elections). Notrium (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Late in life, McGuiness acquired the right to Irish citizenship - as did all NI citizens around 2000. He most importantly held political office in NI (legally UK). My main point however is that all of his life he identified as Irish Republican, despite legally being British for most of that time. It would be misleading in his case to give precedence to the legal citizenship over the clear identification of his politics - it would be almost equally misleading, or at least incomplete, to simply describe him as 'Irish'. Someone shouldn't need to understand the whole back-story of an individual and region in order to understand the opening sentence of an article IMO - even if that means deviating from standard practice of putting nationality (citizenship) first. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes User:Peacemaker67 and User:OyMosby explained everything and I think that their explanation should be accepted. Mikola22 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Per others" is not an argument. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

He lived and worked in his native state and an internationally recognized state Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I don't know what my conclusion should be? Formally I don't know if it is even possible to mention Croatian in addition to Yugoslav when that country NDH is not internationally recognized. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina is at that time part of the Croatia(NDH) I do not know whether notable people's who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time were also referred as Croatian? Mikola22 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes wikipedia is an excellent example of the postmodern world in which we live. IMO if this was post-historical debate about identification, I would say "Croat" should be the only term which should be used. But this is not about the way he identified in his personal life, so it doesn't really matter if he despised being called a "Yugoslav" (he definitely did). We shouldn't be discussing this issue in terms of identity politics, completely removed from historiography and the actual historical debates of his era. @Amanuensis Balkanicus: @Sadko: If we had this discussion in the 1950s, any Yugoslav Serb would vigorously say that Ante Pavelić is a "Yugoslav Croat" and almost all Croat emigres would refuse to be identified as "Yugoslav Croats". They would be doing that because the Yugoslav government was requesting from countries like Italy and the states of S. America to extradite them to Yugoslavia in order to be tried for war crimes. So, the Yugoslav government put forward the legitimate claim (in legal terms) that these people were Yugoslav citizens and the diplomatic requests of Yugoslavia for their extradition should be accepted, while the emigres put forward the equally legitimate claim (in legal terms) that they didn't recognize Yugoslavia as their home state so they weren't really Yugoslav citizens. This political, diplomatic and ultimately historical debate went on for about 45 years, we can't dismiss and replace it with a discussion about identity politics. Calling Pavelić a "Yugoslav Croat" isn't just correct in a legalistic manner, but correct and neutral in terms of how historical reality is represented in wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Born in Austro-Hungarian Empire, die at Spain. Few years in Yugoslavia, to support Germany and fight against Yugoslav army and people of Yugoslavia. --MareBG (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. It is absurd to describe someone who resorted to genocide to destroy Yugoslavia, as a "Yugoslav". As MareBG says, he only lived a few years in Yugoslavia. By this logic, anyone who lived in Yugoslavia should be described as a "Yugoslav X"? This seems like case of WP:JDL. Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Per Khirurg and MareBG; especially Khirurg's view seems profitable that remarked: "It is absurd to describe someone who resorted to genocide to destroy Yugoslavia, as a "Yugoslav". As MareBG says, he only lived a few years in Yugoslavia. By this logic, anyone who lived in Yugoslavia should be described as a "Yugoslav X"?"; and so forth. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly fighting against a country doesn’t erase one’s history with said country. Also by the logical of “only lived a few years in Yugoslavia” he spent even less time living in a puppet state not even legitimately deemed a country. So there is even less of a case to label his nationality “Croatian” using the logic of the three editors above. Doesn’t make sense. OyMosby (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reasons that he can't be a Yugoslav because he fought against Yugoslavia I don't think that those votes should be taken into account because that reason is meaningless. Otherwise I don't know if anyone can say that reason without joking. Mikola22 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: The subject of this article was not born in a country called Yugoslavia, he did not live in a country called Yugoslavia and he did not die in a country called Yugoslavia. He is notable for being the leader of a Croatian nationalist movement whose primary goal was to bring about Yugoslavia's destruction, resorting to the genocide of hundreds of thousands of civilians to do so, and was the dictator of an Axis satellite state known as the Independent State of Croatia, whose subjects were referred to as Croatians (Croats refers to the ethnic group). No reliable sources describe him as a "Yugoslav [xyz]...", owing to the details of his biography, which I've outlined above. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He did live part of his life in Yugoslavia so that is not true. He became a lawyer and got into politics during the time. Firstly fighting against a country doesn’t erase one’s history with said country. Also by the logical of “only lived a few years in Yugoslavia” he spent even less time living in a puppet state not even legitimately deemed a country. So there is even less of a case to label his nationality “Croatian” using the logic of the three editors above. Doesn’t make sense. Please stop trying to influence the admins. They can read all the arguments put forth for themselves. If you feel confident in your arguments to begin with that is. So far it seems like 8 vs 8 in terms of RfC votes. OyMosby (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AB, no-one was called a "Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" citizen during the period the country was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1918 to 1929. They were known as Yugoslavs, even before it became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. Pavelić was a citizen of that country, lived in it from 1918 to 1929, and was therefore a Yugoslav national or citizen. He might have rejected the very existence of the country of which he was a citizen (so did Stjepan Radić, for that matter), but that really isn't relevant to what his nationality was. Even while he was leader of the NDH he was in what was in the international legal sense "occupied Yugoslavia", and was still a Yugoslav (as well as a Croatian citizen of the illegitimate NDH). Even after the dissolution of the NDH, he remained a Yugoslav national until his death in 1959, as I am unaware of him obtaining any other citizenship. We put nationality (in the sense of citizenship) in the first sentence per MOS:OPENPARABIO, so I'd be happy with "[[Kingdom of Yugoslavia|Yugoslav]] and [[Independent State of Croatia|Croatian]]", but not just "Croatian". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No one here has provided any conclusive proof that subjects of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were commonly referred to by the demonym Yugoslavs. You referenced page 3 of Vucinich's Contemporary Yugoslavia, which anachronistically references the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as Yugoslavia from 1 December 1918 onward, when a country with such a name only formally came into existence in 1929 (Pavelic left the country in January 1929 and it was renamed Yugoslavia in October 1929). Pavelic was a Hungarian national between 1889 and 1918 (a period of 29 years). Moreover, he had a Spanish passport under a pseudonym (although this doesn't necessarily prove citizenship). I challenge anyone to find a WP:RS that describes Pavelic as a Yugoslav first and foremost. The arguments presented so far in favour of describing him as a Yugoslav are frankly underwhelming and unconvincing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The main issue to me is whether having "Yugoslavian" there adds any significant encyclopedic value for this particular individual. It's not solely based on the fact that he briefly lived in Yugoslavia or that he hated it, ruled the Independent State of Croatia, etc. It's a combination of his life, activities, notability and allegiances. This is a unique case. A user above put it well by saying that it's like "trying to fit a square peg into a round hole". For a long time, the lead was "Ante Pavelić was a Croatian.." until its removal necessitated this RfC in the first place. --Griboski (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, in principle (as per Peacemaker67), but I have to agree with TU-nor that there may be a third way. Notrium (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• No He is widely known as a Croat and not as a Yugoslav (It's the Independent state of Croatia, not of Yugoslavia), he is known for his (brutal) opposition to the idea of a Yugoslav nation-state, pretty much all sources list him as a Croat only and not as a Yugoslav. This makes about as much sense as calling Lajos Batthyány an Austrian, or Michael Collins a Briton, in their respective articles. --Spafky (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spafky:You may want to read again as the question wasn’t his ethnicity as the article and this RfC states he is a Croat. The Question is if “Yugoslavian Croat” should be used. The question is nationality not ethnicity. Croatian is nationality and Croat ethnicity. NDH was not a recognized country. He was a Lawyer in Yugoslavia. Therefore Yugoslavian Croat. Please check again. Also side-note, hating the nation you are from doesn’t erase it from your history. One can be a Yugoslavian nationality and Croat ethnicity. OyMosby (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not call him an Argentine Croat or Spanish Croat while we're at it? He never lived in a country called Yugoslavia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re right AB. He was born in a black hole. Or time traveled and was born in the future in Croatia in 1991 and then went back in time! He was actually born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (a legitimate recognized country) of which people would be referred to as Yugoslavians. He became a lawyer and politician there during the time. Spafky only spoke of his ethnicity which is off topic as that is not what’s being discussed. No one on here denied his ethnicity as a Croat. Nationality was the topic to be debated. What Spafky claims, That’s like calling a Serb born in Croatia a Croat. When really they would be a Croatian Serb. Seems pretty straight forward. As you and I both know the difference between nationality ex Croatian/Serbian and ethnicity ex Croat/Serb. And I can hate being Russian Pole all I like, that does erase the Russian nationality.OyMosby (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ummm, he was born in Austria-Hungary. Not Yugoslavia. Or a black hole. He was the leader of the NDH, whose subjects (regardless of ethnicity) were called Croatians. It's the thing he was most notable for. But I've already said that earlier and it didn't seem to sway you then. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction he was a citizen of The Kingdom of Yugoslavia not born there. He is not notable for his birth so Austrian nationality is irrelevant, he is not notable for his death so Spain is irrelevant. And he wasn’t born in a black hole or time travel from the Kingdom of Croatia or Present day croatia. In which the leads mentions his prominence as a lawyer and politician before NDH existed. And it definitely wasn’t Austria-Hungary at the time. You know that. So no loopholes there. Despite that he was a genocidal maniac and leader of NDH, NDH was not a recognized country internationally so can’t say that was de facto Croatia or he was Croatian despite it being Croats carried out the genocide of Serbs and Jews. I have said this multiple times. @Peacemaker: among others did as well. And that hasn’t swayed you either. We remain firmly convinced of our own views. What I don’t get is for how long this RfC last? Until enough “No” votes are counted? I see we have editors from other Language Wikipedias joining in..... OyMosby (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post close comment

I got curious about what RS had to say on this question and did some searches on Google Scholar following the close, namely searching for "[Yugoslav/Yugoslavian/Croat/Croatian] Ante Pavelić" and "Ante Pavelić was a [Yugoslav/Yugoslavian/Croat/Croatian]. Yugoslav and Yugoslavian didn't return anything. The Croat and Croatian searches returned:

• [6] Ante Pavelić was a Croat from Bosnia-Herzegovina
• [7] showed up as a result for "Ante Pavelić was a Croatian", wasn't able to access the text
• [8] Croat nationalist Ante Pavelić, and later Ante Pavelićwas a Croatian nationalist
• [9] the exiled Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [10] ...among them the Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [11] Men like the Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [12] A somewhat similar adventure lived the Croatian Ante Pavelic
• [13]Among the better-known were the Croatian Ante Pavelic
• [14] the most infamous Hercegovin Croat, Ante Pavelic
• [15] such as the Croat Ante Pavelic
• [16] the Croat Ante Pavelic
• [17] were Croat Ante Pavelić
• [18] led by Croat Ante Pavelić

Consequently, while there may be room to quibble over whether "Croatian" or "Croat" is more appropriate, RS do not appear to refer to him as Yugoslavian. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing?

A small edit (revert), but I'd like to receive community feedback: [19].

My initial edit does not qualify as "editorializing", but as necessary distancing of Wikipedia from Pavelić' conviction that there the socialist Yugoslavia's regime was "promoting Serbian hegemony". Now if the source explicitly adopts the view of Pavelić that this was indeed true (which I have no way to verify, as no citation is provided and I do not own this book), then the statement should be properly attributed to the relevant source Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2008). Hitler's New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia. Columbia University Press.

It is a highly contentious statement. Other sources may (and indeed do) disagree with that. I do not agree with the current wording.

We shouldn't state a war criminal's personal views in Wikipedia's voice. This is one of the fundamental principles of NPOV editing practises.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are right. Pavelić's own statement should not be presented as true. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree, it should be changed. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that his quote should not be used as first hand citation however historians to back claims of anri-croatian policies and Serbian dominance. However, Tomasevich explains that the anti-Croatian policies of the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as, the shooting of the HSS deputies by Radić were largely responsible for the creation, growth and nature of Croatian nationalist forces. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Tomasevich pg 404. This was discussed on the Genocide of Serbs page once before. In fact this is an important piece of context that should be in the intro with the January 6th dictatorship and formation of ultranationalist terrorist organizations. (No it is not justifying genocide) @Peacemaker67: thoughts as you are typically experienced with these articles? OyMosby (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• The sentence is talking about what Pavelić published, not whether it was correct or not. Matković does not say that Pavelić published anything "supposedly". Using "supposedly" inserts an implied judgement (that the substance of his attacks were wrong in fact, ie the communist regime did not promote Serbian hegemony). Frankly, that is disputed, depends on the time period (the placement of the sentence implies in the early 1950s, but that needs to be checked), and is not clearly factually wrong in a general sense, as is clearly implied by the use of the word "supposedly" where it was inserted by Polska jest Najważniejsza. One only has to Google "serbian hegemony yugoslavia communist" to find multiple reliable sources that discuss this very issue. Ramet talks about it in detail in The Three Yugoslavia's. That is what I meant by "editorialising", it is implying a judgement not made by Matković (the cited source), and therefore cannot be verified by reference to the source. What should be done with such matters is couching them in terms of them being "claims", which does not imply a judgement about their veracity. More properly this sentence should read "Pavelić himself remained politically active, publishing various statements, articles, and speeches in which he claimed that the Yugoslav Communist regime promoted Serbian hegemony." It could then be placed in context by comparing and contrasting Pavelić's claims with what scholars (like the political scientists Dawa Norbu and Sabrina Ramet, and others) say about the issue of Serbian hegemony in communist Yugoslavia and the role of the regime in promoting it. I have implemented my suggested change. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm perfectly fine with Peacemaker67's edit he fixed exactly the issue that I had earlier tried to fix.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)