Talk:Ante Starčević/Archive 2

POV
This article is very POV. Come on, this guy must've done something good. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim as given above - is not substantiated. --BarryMar 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm? No, really, the current version makes it looks he was nothing - but a Serb-hater/anti-semitic. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremely POVy
This article is, say, 40% truth, 40 % semi-truth/lie & 20% shadowy "the rest". Unfortunately, I don't have the time to work on it (or any other text, for that matter), but in its current form it presents a gross distortion.


 * it gives more than 50% space to Starčević's alleged "racism". In fact, Starčević was a typical 19th century liberal, English-type, who mixed sympathies for idealized Islamic polity as exemplified in Turkey, dislike of all things Byzantine & Russian czarist and the nascent ideas of social Darwinism (which didn't play much role in his worldview, since his outlook has remained essentially pre-scienfic). His "racism"-to call it that- was a minor thing compared to Marx's and Engels's [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724 ]


 * presentation of his "Slavoserb" neologism is incorrect. Its implication is that a contemporary nation, Serbs, are an "entity" he attached this neologism to. In actuality, main "Slavoserbs" ("Slaves" plus "Serfs" (nor an exact translation- "Servus" is a servant, or someone with subservient mentality) were his political opponents- most notably archbishop Strossmayer, a Croat of half-German extraction. True, Starčević was fierce in his political/polemical attacks (anyway- is there such thing as equanimous polemic ?) & frequently harsh and one-sided. But-to proclaim him to be a "racist" is a complete nonsense.


 * a non-negligible part of the article is a lie. For instance, it claims that the top expert on Starčević, Croatian historian of Jewish origin, Mirjana Gross, has claimed that Starčević was an anti-Semite & racist. This is as far from the truth as possible. Whoever read Gross's monumental monograph on Starčević (ca. 800 pages)- and not distorted misquotations published in ideologized provincial papers, knows that such allegations are pure fiction.

I could go on and on, but this is enough. I don't have the time to waste, so I implore conscientious wikipedians to counter this Greater Serbian propaganda (after all, it boils down to it.)Mir Harven 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read all discussion preceeding to your claim. I do not see any reason that we have to discuss any of your claims that were already rejected and which were reiterated here or paraphrased here. The latest comparison of this provincial and Balkans politician to Marx and Engels, and the way it was done, does not make sense to me.


 * Your ignorance & bias are not the measuring stick here. The article will be changed, and significantly so. The text is a blatant example of undue weight.Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Using phrases like the presentation of his "Slavoserb" neologism is incorrect. Its implication is that a contemporary nation, Serbs, are an "entity" he attached this neologism to. you did not explain anything - except your opposition to the existing editorial work.


 * The relevant text (unfortunately, in Croatian only), will be presented here in the form of quotations of Starčević's admirers Antun Gustav Matoš and Miroslav Krleža, as well as encyclopedic entry on him from Yugoslav 1982. encyclopedia. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the discussion you've already had, looks like that you did not ever read the Mirjana Gross works. The phrase monumental monograph on Starčević (ca. 800 pages) you've used above is not proof that you did it.


 * I don't intend to argue with POV dogmatists. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

--BarryMar 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that, except meaningless phrases, sensless comparisons, and baseless claims - which deserves only ultimate rejection - I do not see anything that could be regarded as rational and a subject of any further discussion.


 * Rubbish. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CRoatian sources on Starčević's role
(It would be nice some enthusiast help translate the following text into English).

Opća enciklopedija, Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod, 1982.

STARČEVIĆ, Ante, političar i književnik; r. 23. V 1823. u Žitniku, u. 28. II 1896. u Zagrebu. Gimnaziju završio u Zagrebu; 1848. promoviran u Pešti za doktora filozofije. God. 1861. izabran je za velikog bilježnika Riječke županije, ali je 1862. suspendiran i kao protivnik režima osuđen na mjesec dana zatvora. Za nar. zastupnika Hrvatskog sabora biran je 1861, 1865, 1871. i od 1878. do kraja života. Pored polit. aktivnosti S. se bavio poviješću, filologijom, knjiž. kritikom, filozofijom, a pisao je i pjesme, drame i polit, satiru (Pisma magjarolacah). Osnivač je i ideolog Stranke prava. S. i njegova stranka od 1861 — protivno od svih ostalih građanskih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, unionističke, samostalne i narodno-liberalne (od kojih je prva bila apsolutno za Peštu, druga za Beč, a treća se kolebala između Beča i Pešte) — zastupaju politiku pune nacionalne slobode i nezavisnosti: ni pod Beč, ni pod Peštu, nego za slobodnu, samostalnu Hrvatsku. Od prvih svojih napisa iz 1861. do zadnjeg svog govora S. je punih 30 godina neumorno dokazivao da je glavna i najpreča stvar osloboditi se austrijskoga sužanjstva i da za hrv. narod nema života ni sretnije budućnosti »dok bude pod Austriom-Madjarijom«. Dosljedno je zauzimao krajnje neprijateljski stav prema »umišljotini koja se zove Austrija; u kojoj su se vlade i vladari... urotili protiv narodima«. Najvećim neprijateljem hrv. naroda i glavnim uzročnikom svih njegovih nedaća S. je smatrao habsburšku dinastiju. — Prije F. Supila i S. Radića S. je bio od strane klerikalaca najviše napadani hrv. političar. Godinama su ga oni žigosali i denuncirali kao »buntovnika, neznabožca, antikersta«, koji »ruši sve naredbe Boga, ljudi i crkve«. To dolazi otuda što u drugoj pol. XIX st. nitko nije tako oštro i tako argumentirano ustajao protiv negativne uloge klera u nacionalnom i polit, životu Hrvatske, kao što je to desetljećima činio S. Tri su glavna uzroka njegova antiklerikalizma: što je crkva kulturno unazađivala narod; što je služila tuđinskim ugnjetačima Hrvatske; što je različitost vjerske pripadnosti zloupotrebljavala za širenje nacionalnoga razdora u jedinstvenome narodu. Sjeme razdora u narod baciše »Isusovci i Austrija« {Djela III, 214). »A u puku zapadne crkve, gde potiče štogod dobra i poštena, to prečesto dolazi samo otuda, što on ne sluša i ne sledi popa« {Djela III, 216). — S. je u drugoj pol. XIX st. najuporniji i najdosljedniji pobornik demokr. narodnih prava i polit. sloboda, uvjeren da je narod potpuno sposoban da sam upravlja sobom i državom: »Moje tverdo osvedočenje stoji: da se sam puk najbolje upravlja« {Djela I, 188). — Vjerujući u nar. jedinstvo Južnih Slavena, S. je neko vrijeme smatrao da se to jedinstvo treba manifestirati i u jednom jedinstvenom, hrv. imenu, otklanjajući svako drugo ime, a naročito ime Serb kao nenarodno, pa i pogrdno. Ali kada su se pokazali negativni rezultati tog nastojanja da svi naši narodi prihvate hrv. ime, on je napustio svoje stajalište. U Slobodi od 23. marta 1883. S. je izrazio svoje shvaćanje da nije važno ime, nego zajednička borba za stvaranje slobodne i samostalne države: »Glavna je stvar, da svi rade za narod i za domovinu, a neka se zovu kako im drago... Naše cepanje, naša nesloga stoji samo zato, jer ih izvana uzdržavaju i ojačuju... mi ne verujemo, da je gladnu i na studeni na pr. Srbu drugačije, nego na pr. Hrvatu... Zato, makar se svi proglasili za Hotentote ili nas se svaki zvao posebnim imenom, samo da budemo svi slobodni i srećni!«

Antun Gustav Matoš

Antun Gustav Matoš: Strossmayerov spomenik (esej u knjizi «Vidici i putovi», 1907; prenesno iz A.G.M: Izbor iz djela, knjiga 2., str.31., PSHK, Zora-Matica hrvatska, 1967.)

... Pa ipak taj muž ne bijaše dugo samac. Ostao bi odista bez mjerila u baruštini Hrvatske Raucha i Hedervarvja, da ne dobi dostojnog savremenika u Antunu Starčeviću, blago nama!

Popunjavahu se, ali ne kao Schiller i Goethe, već kao suprotni karakteri i ekstremi koji se dodiruju. Starčević je bedemska planina, zatvorena, puna vuka i ličkog hajduka, Strossmaver je blaga i bogata slavonska ravnica. Stari ima znanje solidnije, Strossmaver opsežnije. Prvi je ekskluzivan, drugi tolerantan. Prvi je učitelj energije i mržnje (egzistencija žuči je opravdana), drugi profesor ljubavi i poezije. Stari je stoik i velik prijatelj Muhamedov. Biskup je fini kršćanski epikurejac, nježan kao sv. Ivan, najdraži Spasiteljev učenik. Strossmaver je svjetski čovjek sa ponašanjem opata i virtuoza Liszta, ljubimac dama; Starčević je plebejac »hiperdemokratskog nosa« (Kovačić), divlji ikonoklast s obličjem Silena i djevičanstvom pustinjaka. Ovaj diplomat, onaj doktrinar. Satirik i apologista. Puritanac i katolik. Pazarište i Osijek. Literat, boem — i velikaš hrvatski i grof rimski. Jedan dervišina narodne pjesme, drugi biskup V. Hugoa. Oportunist i radikal. Cinik i retor. Mrzilac plastike i njen obožavalac. Veliki književnik Starčević prezire dangubice književničke; Strossmayer, obožavalac beletristike, nije književnik. Demokrat i aristokrat. Starozavjetni moral u demagoškom civilu i galilejska tolerancija u katoličkoj uniformi. Dva pretendenta kao Rousseau i Voltaire, Tolstoj i Turgenjev. Dva tipa našeg narodnog karaktera i naše cerebralnosti, i odsele se ne može roditi inteligentan Hrvat bez sličnosti s njima. A obojica bijahu u mladosti klerici. Obojica su klasici svojim obrazovanjem i karakterom, zdravljem i umjerenošću, antikvarni legitimiste, lojalni i odviše vjerni, prijatelji francuske politike i kulture, energični do tvrdoglavosti, pomalo sektari, inadžije i nenavidnici, i kao Štroca što ne nađe svog Saint Simona, tako Stari nema hrvatskog Boswella. Jedan i drugi ljubljaše hrvatsku kapljicu. Bijahu ljubomorni, jer im je jedina ljubav bila ova naša nesrećna, nesrećna zemlja..... ...

Miroslav Krleža

Miroslav Krleža: Panorama pogleda, pojava i pojmova, 1.-4., Sarajevo, «Oslobođenje», 1975.

(str. 444- 446)

ANTE STARČEVIĆ

LUCIDNOST Koliko god to paradoksalno zvučalo, ipak je istina: najlucidnija naša glava, koja je našu stvarnost promatrala s najpreciznijom pronicljivošću i koja je o toj stvarnosti dala slike za čitavo jedno stoljeće književno i govornički najplastičnije, jeste glava Staroga Ante Starčevića. Bio je to čovjek, koji je jasno gledao bezizlaznu »krivuljaču« hrvatske politike i, braneći »žlicu našeg mora« i stopu gladnog našeg primorja od madžarske grofovske bagre, on je kroz nekoliko decenija pljuvao po našim pripuzima, šuftovima i huljama, po nitkovima i varalicama, krivokletnicima i opsjenarima, koji tjeraju našu »seljačku marvu« da brsti trnje pod tuđinskim, madžarskim i bečkim zastavama. U sveopćem bezglavlju i bezakonju devetnaestoga stoljeća, između bunjevačke dogmatike, krpa, zakrpa, prikrpa i sveopće kulturne »kerpljačine«, mučen ubitačnim slutnjama, Starčević je gledao madžarske pre predene "tate slobode", urotu naše gluposti, krštenu našu dijetenklasnu živinu, nakot, blago, marvu i prokletu pasminu našeg prošlog stoljeća u magnatskim sur kama, gdje prodaju narodne interese za bijedne peštanske stipendije, a kao Starčević tu našu stvarnost nije gledao tako jasno nijedan naš umjetnik onoga vremena. 1933

MRZITELJ AUSTRIJE Starčevića je anektirala ultramontana desnica, crno-žuta mafija, najperfidnija i najgluplja od svih u našoj novijoj političkoj historiji, a između tolikih drugih naših spomenika i Starčević očekuje svoje pranje. Starčević je zamrzio Austriju zbog jedne, po vojničkim oblastima nepravedno odsječene graničarske ruke, a ta odsječena graničarska ruka bila je pravoslavna, dakle srpska. Starčević je volio da se »utopi u slavjanskome moru« više nego da krepa pod kopitom »germanskoga kerda«. On se usprotivio uvođenju njemačkoga jezika u naše škole, on se usprotivio da se na Harmici podigne spomenik Jelačiću, koga je smatrao narodnom sramotom, mizerijom i sažaljenja dostojnom kreaturom. On je pozdravio hiljadugodišnjicu kijevske biskupije telegramom, koji je bio zaplijenjen, i u Skerlićevoj ocjeni toga čudaka ne bi trebalo mnogo mijenjati, čovjek, koga je formirala jedna nepravedno odsječena pravoslavna ruka, imao je više moralne fantazije nego sveukupna naša inteligencija sve do ruske revolucije i austrijskog sloma, a naročito pak ona, koja se isključivo time pak ona, koja se isključivo time i bavila da siječe ruke na temelju Starčevićeva programa. 1947

SNAGA JEZIČNOG IZRAZA

Sve je kod Starčevića ostalo verbalna pobuna državnopravnog, jednostranog ma nijakalnog saborskog govornika, ali da je on, promatran iz današnje retrospektive, jedini temperamenat i jedina glava, koja je umjela da se uzdigne do proročke snage jezičnog izraza, to je nesumljivo. U mračnom klupku samostalaca, praktičnika, domorodaca, rodoljuba, ilira, nazovipoštenjaka i narodnjaka, u sveopćem siromaštvu, pokvarenosti, žalosti, pijanstvu i bijedi madžarskog robovanja, pun gnušanja i gađenja nad tim trubilima, što črčkaju gluposti pod naoblačenim madžarskim nebom, zaglušen od govedarskog čavrljanja naših otimača i lopova u plemićkoj surci, on je gledao naše sive smrdljive dronjke stvarnosti jasno, i u tom "čehanju čunja" našega prošlostoljetnog politikantstva, on je prezirao sve povukodlačene fantome naše stvarnosti, i taj svoj prezir izražavao glasno i smiono decenijima. 1933 ....... To be continued, along with the comprehensive rewriting of a very stongly biased text. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be diligentltly on guard. This article got very high mark - and, moreover, we have to respect the other editors' work. You already tried to 'comprehensively rewrite' this article - and based on your announced intentions to repeate the already seen scenario - looks like there will be nothing to discuss.--BarryMar 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did You say my claim is unsubstantiated?
 * Are You saying that there is nothing good that Ante Starcevic did? How did he become Father of a Nation then??? --PaxEquilibrium 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

category
I removed category "Starčević's racism and its followers" because it does not seem to fit in a page that is supposed to be on starcevic. If we had sections about people and their "followers" then people like Vojislav Šešelj and Slobodan Milošević's page needs to be updated with all of their "followers" that used some of their ideas to promote their ideals, many of which are still in Serbia's politics today. I think many people here just want to sabotage his name, but bear in mind that the man created a legacy, and there is more to him than the unfortunate prejudices he had. There are squares and streets named after him in almost every major town in the country. Whatever prejudices he had were not the main point of the man, certainly not to earn enormous paragraphs of text. --Jesuislafete 06:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, read the discussion above, do not make false claims and false accusations, improper and meaningless comparisons. The article is not about Serbia and Serbia's politicians.--BarryMar 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I HAVE read the discussions above, and what I am doing is not vandalism, you have no right to say that. Why is so much text spent on every quote you can find? What am I doing that is vandalism? Can you elaborate on that? What don't you like what I am doing, and what do you have against Starcevic? And don't try to dodge the question like you did above. Are you telling me that Starcevic's prejudice quotes are more important than the Legacy section you deleted?? That there needs to be paragraphs after paragraphs repeating basically the same thing? There is a reason why he is called "father of the nation." Back yourself up better. --Jesuislafete 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. I double checked the vandalism page, and I found that "Excessive lengthening: Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page." is something that you seem to be doing. And just because I shortened the paragraphs (I did not delete the political idealogy section, so you cannot accuse me of purposely removing texts to hide information) does not mean I did it for no reason--it was incredibly repetitive. --Jesuislafete 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you, please, stop vandalizing this article? Your claim that you've read the discussion does not hold. If so, you'd learn that the editorial you are vandalizing was a consensus among few editors. Your claim above "Excessive lengthening: Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" is a slander. Otherwise, you have to prove what you've claimed!
 * Also, You have blanked out the whole paragraph, targeting just the text explaining in details Starcevic's racism and his followers' work.--BarryMar 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see BarryMar--you only come on wikipedia to edit Starčević's page, you've done very little else, and from what else I can see from your edits, only want to make Croatia and its people look as bad as possible. Does it make you sleep better at night knowing you insert the most lengthy quotes you can find? And you never answered my main point: the point of an encyclopedic article is to summarize and present facts in a way that's educational, not to throw in as many quotes as you can from whatever authors you find support your view. You seem super-excited every time you edit this page (and this one alone) which makes me question even more your motives. I regularly contribute to Wikipedia pages, on all sorts of pages, not just one.

However, if you chose to be mature about it, I will negotiate with you about the article, I am more than willing. My main focus against this article is that 1) the category --Starčević's racism and its followers-- is stupid and not true, taken completely out of context. I must go because the first part of the paragraph has NOTHING to do with Starčević--what does it matter when his book was published? Did you know many Croatian books were not allowed to be published under the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Does it now make more sense to you why it was published under NDH? And your claim against Veselica is pure rubbish and speculation taken out of context: "...president of the Croatian Democratic Party, expresses his enthusiasm that the author had given "relevant answers" at the highest intellectual level." Once again, did you know that there was more to Ante Starčević that his prejudices--like the facts that he advocated for Croatian independence and was a parlament member who wrote about many things, not just how much he disliked Serbs and Jews? Yes, I know that is hard for you to believe. That explains why he, and many others, thought Starčević gave 'relevent answers at the highest political level'. He was a politician! Do you know there is a square or named after him in almost every town for these reasons?

Furthermore, the paragraph and title alone say that the only contribution Starčević had was his racism, and his only followers were racist--that is extremely misleading and POV. Starčević is considered "the father of the nation" a title he did NOT recieve from the only reasons you seem interested in listing. Why don't you list the good he did to Croatian history and its people (don't answer, I already know why.)

Need I further remind you that the reason why quotes are discouraged is just because a person wrote a book, doesn't mean they are right. Many of your "quotes" are nothing more than people's opinions, many taken out of context. Moreover, excessive quoting is bad because it usually only focuses on one thing. The only thing you seem interested in is "more proof that Starčević was a racist" "ooooh, look, another quote I found that says Starčević hated Serbs! let's add that to wikipedia, along with the other 4 quotes I have from other books." And this sentence: "In his book, this famous and world-renowned historian even did not mention Starčević as a political figure." I'll tell you why BarryMar, because this man was interested only with what you are interested as well. And the fact that he devotes only several pages to Starčević further explains it.

Once again, I would like to remind you that quoting something from a book does not mean you are right. Esp. with biographies, many people choose to write from ceratin points of view and their own perspective. The fact that you chose to only focus on Starčević and his bad points rather than anything good he wrote and did shows that you do not care one bit about Wikipedia or its standards--you just write what you like, without regards to anything else. Negotiate with me the rest of what you love about this article. And need I say again, don't delete my legacy category.

Here, I'll end off by giving you a new person you can maybe focus on in wiki: Vojislav Šešelj. Since you like racist people, I suggest you read up on him, or even go to Youtube.com and watch what he had to say about the Bosnian and Croatian people while in the Hague. --Jesuislafete 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, I rewrote the earlier section summarizing some of the quotes in case of any copyright violations.....if anyone wants anything added, put it below to discuss, and hopefully a compromise can be reached:


 * For a while, Starčević thought that the South Slav peoples should all be called Croats. He refused any other name, "especially Serb as non-ethnic and offensive", and believed that Slovenes were "mountain Croats". Once he was faced with negative reactions, he gave up on that idea. He expressed his new attitude in Sloboda, issue of March 23, 1883: The main thing is this: everybody should work for the people and the homeland, and let them call themselves as they wish... We have disputes and dissensions only because they are supported and strengthened from the outside... We believe that hungry and cold Serbs and Croats feel the same... Therefore, everybody can assume the name of Hottentots, every person can choose their own name, as long as we are all free and happy!...


 * He wrote a whole tractate about the Jews in which he stated that they were "breed" without any morality or homeland, in which any participation in public life could be dangerous. His main enemy were the Serbs, whom he often called "Slavoserbs" (along with any other Croat who supported a union with the Habsburgs, Hungary or Serbia. Later, after years of imprisonment for his nationalist stance by Vienna, Starčević began using the term "Slavoserbs" as a separate etnic group, or "breed", ranked, as humans, lower than the Jews, who he claimed were less harmful. Some of his eccentric views provoked negative reactions even in his "Party of Rights". On that occasion, the Party member Erazmo Barčić (1894.) described Starčević's mockery and racism as "throwing mud at people and primitive cheeky invectives".

--Jesuislafete 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No one responded
No one has responded to any of my points in the talk. I am severly disappointed that you would just reverse without even reading what I wrote in the talk. The accusations that Giorgio Orsini has made against I have already explained why I did above. Apparently, you need to become more familiar with the official definition of Wikipedia vandalism: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The section I removed in no way compromised the integrity of Wikipedia. I have already explained why that section is faulty and redundant, not to mention it basically only mentions ONE person from the SDP party, and the fascists during ww2. And Giorgio Orsini removes every recent (after-ww2) figures I put there who were increasingly influence by Starcevic. By removing that relevent information, you are participating in vandalism. The reason why I removed the sectin I mentioned is explained. The reason why I shortened the other one is because it was basically repetitive and non-wikipedia like--too many redundant quotes when it is supposed to be a summary. I offered to negotiate with others on that section. If you wish to add more to it, by all means, add it to the talk page and I'm sure we can reach a compromise. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Jesuislafete 01:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already responded this way:

--Giorgio Orsini 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you blanked out two paragraphs - which documented clearly his racism and his racist' legacy
 * also you removed a number of references this way
 * "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." is a public slander. Please, avoid repeating it again.
 * I preserve a consensuated version which was a result of extensive work and apparent compromise!
 * your 'references'
 * 1) ^ Mark Biondich, Stjepan Radić; the Croat Peasant Party and the politics of Mass Mobilization 1904-1928, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2000.
 * 2) ^ Marcus Tanner, Croatia, Yale University Press, New Haven 1997.
 * 3) ^ Stipe Mesić, Kako je srušena Jugoslavija, Mislavpress, Zagreb 1994.
 * are marginal or irrelevant to this subject


 * Giorgio Orsini, excuse me for being frank, but you don't seem to care about anything except editing pages that make Croatians look bad, as I look at your edit pages. How am I top believe you are impartial? Are you from Croatia at all? Do you understand it's history? You take such a keen interest, and I would like to know why. Is it because I am involved with it and you are keeping track of my edits? I noticed you were never involved with this page until I came along. You have vandalized MY contributions. Answer this: do you know that Starcevic is called the father of the nation? You think what I am trying to do is force a "positive" POV on it (as opposed to your clear negative POV)? From what I can see, you removed my sections WITHOUT explaination, while accusing me of removing information that I have explained! Explain why you removed them, they are clearly sourced. You believe just because he was prejudiced against Serbs and Jews, he has NO RIGHT to have anything good about him on? The reason why many Croatians admired him is for his prejudiced views ONLY? Nothing else? And I'm not allowed to add in anything? You didn't even add those sections in--they were done well before you, and you don't even know what you are arguing for, for the way you avoid any compromise.


 * You know full well I left in the category documenting Starcevic's views towards Serbs and Jews, for they are an important part of him, but the way it was written violates wikipedia and encyclopedia standards. For one thing, it is EXTREMELY redundant; it basically repeats the same thing over and over again, not to mention, pushes on an opinion when it is not supposed to be--for example, on the wiki edit pages, it mentions that you are only to present FACTS, not opinions. They specefically say not to write "Hitler was an evil man" but to explain throughout the article what he did that was bad. The version you are pushing specifically says "Starcevic was a racist." I summarized the paragraph and left it for people to add on some things, but no, you just insist on reversing without talking about it.


 * As for your protestations over removing 2 paragraphs as vandalism take a clear look at Wikipedia's policies:


 * Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, uw-test1 or uw-delete1, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.


 * I removed the quotes from the Starcevic section because there were too many: I don't know if you went to college, but one of the cardinal rules of a college writing class is to avoid excessive quoting, and if you look at other wikipedia pages, none of them look even remotely similar to the Starcevic page. I summarized the rest of the quickly, thinking someone else might add in another paragraph of their own, or maybe one more quote, but no one even bothered any negotiation.


 * Here's another vandalism rule: Excessive lengthening--Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page. THAT is my explanation for the majority of the repetitiveness I have removed. The whole "important sections" you mention are extremely repetitive quotes that don't say anything new. Just because it was added there before, does not mean it has a golden place there


 * Once again, my main point in editing this page is to remove the blatant attacks against him, but I still want to keep in the other "bad" things about him because yes, it is important. But just because someone was prejudiced or racist, does not mean you have the right to repetativly blow up the page with rep. quotes. And you removing any references of his influence of good people is also vandalism from what I can see--you don't even look at it, you just reverse right away, and say that I am trying to make him look positive, which again, brings me to doubt you know even anything about him or his impact in Croatia, especially during the fall of communism and the war for independence. Do you at all acknowlege anything he did or any of the people he influenced to be called "father of the nation?" And your last comment: "I preserve a consensuated version which was a result of extensive work and apparent compromise!" just explains that you don't know Starcevic enough to make any of your own contributions--you are just reversinig to an earlier page without any knowledge.--Jesuislafete 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "are marginal or irrelevant to this subject" I cannot believe you would stoop that low, and not assume good faith and look past whatever personal feelings you have against me. What makes you think that they are irrelevent? Who are you to decide that?--Jesuislafete 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, this section is unsourced:
 * What thrilled him so was the consistently expressed racist hatred against the Serbs.--that is unfounded an POV-- It is sufficient to submit one quotation that explains the sense and content of this book, which far outdoes the current demonization of the Serbs--my god, if that isn't POV writing, I don't know what is--: " it was not without reason that I tried to show how the Serbs today are dangerous for their ideas and their racial composition, how a bent for conspiracies, revolutions and coups is in their blood."


 * and just read how absurd this sounds: "In his book, this famous and world-renowned historian...." And once again, it is 'vandalism' to remove quotes--just because a "historian" wrote a book, does not mean that he is writing NPOV and everything he writes should be in--he is not even referenced, and I googled him and can't find anything on this "famous and world-renowed historian." That is why that section goes--if you want to add more to the other section, than go ahead, but avoid excessive quoting. --Jesuislafete 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I googled his name wrong, but when I did it correctly, I found out he is extremely radical and controversial, many books are written against his 'controvesial' and 'radical' views.--Jesuislafete 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem???
Could you, please, stop writing these lengthy monologues in order to justify your cutting off hugge portion of this biography related to his racism??? Do not you see that, no matter how many times you are calling upon the Wikipedia rules, some rules you invented childishly - you cannot hide your bad faith edits???

How come that you even do not know exact reference title? Is your "Marcus Tanner, Croatia, Yale University Press, New Haven 1997" actually Croatia: A Nation Forged in War By MR Marcus Tanner, Published 1997 Yale University Press? What it has to do with Starcevic's life and work? Tanner was just a correspondent - not historian and how his writing might preceed those coming from the world renown historians as A.P.J. Taylor and Mirjana Gross about the very Starcevic hand his party?

If you ever had that book in your hands - please, tell us publicly on which pages Tanner mentioned Starcevic? On which page he metioned him second time and in what context? How it supports the text you wrote here as your 'contribution'?

--Giorgio Orsini 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini, I've had enough of you dodging my questions and observations, you didn't mention half of them. Let me say this to you in words you can understand: in regards to your insults to me, putting the word contribution in quotation marks, I wonder whether you know anything at all about Ante Starcevic, besides what you read on the Wiki page before. I have seen your past edits--you only edit on pages that make Croatia and it's people look bad. That saddens me deeply. What saddens me even more is that you follow my edits and reverse anything I try to do on this page on rude accusations of 'vandalism' and saying that I am trying to put a positive POV to this article. Yes, Giorgio Orsini, I am trying to put a more positive view on this article. You know why? Because in Croatia, Ante Starcevic is a popular and admired figure--he is called the father of the nation. ("Danas se često naziva ocem domovine"--from the website linked at the bottom.) Do you know why? I doubt it. But he did not become father of the nation through some unfortunate prejudice essays/articles he wrote against Serbs or Jews or basically anyone that he thought threatened Croatia. He influenced so much of our history, he was one of the first to rise up against the imperialism and unfairness of the Hapsburg Empire--"Najvećim neprijateljima hrvatskog naroda Starčević je smatrao Habsburšku dinastiju." He advocated for Croatian independence by modern means--meaning more democratic than monarchist--"Pod utjecajem ideja francuske revolucije borio se protiv ostataka feudalizma i zalagao se za demokratizaciju političkog života." He was an active participant in democracy, having founded his party of rights. He fought for Croatia all his life--this is the reason why he is so admired in the country, why there are streets, squares, buildings, schools, found in every major city.

Pertaining to your question above, yes, I have read that book Croatia, by Marcus Tanner. I actually never heard about it until I came onto Wikipedia. I saw it was referenced many times here on various pages, so I went to the library to read it, and I am very glad I did, for it was a very good book, and I learned a lot I didn't know myself. And the book is actually called 'Croatia' with the subtitle 'a Nation Forged in War', I didn't know whether I should add the rest of it in. It actually mentions Starcevic quite a lot, since he was very important to Croatian history and it's a book on the history of Croaita. and I'd like to thank you for calling my attention back to the edits, for I mistakenly put the reference on the wrong sentence, it is supposed to go on the one right before it.

Once again, I wonder why you take such an interest in a person you know nothing about, and a country you feverently dislike. I take from your posts and background that you know relatively little of the Croatian people, culture and history. I repeat once again, Ante Starcevic is known as the father of the nation for a reason. He appears on the 1000 Kuna currency--the very highest--for a reason. He has places and streets named after him for a reason. He was and still is an incredible figure among the Croats. You edit out everything I put in there, and never answer any of my explanations, have the nerve to tell me I invented Wikipedia rules and use bad faith, you never appeared on this page until I did, you revert back to edits that are poorly written and none which you yourself wrote, you never attempted to compromise or discuss anything rationally with me, you refuse to let me add anything good about Ante Starcevic, want to limit his page only on things that make him look negative, even though he is a large figure in Croatian history for the reasons I give, and influenced almost every Croatian politician in the 20th century. I explained my reasons for removing the last sections entirely--the first part is not even accurate--it blatantly accuses a politician of things that are not even sourced. Moreover, you never even read wikipedia's rules--it specifically says that articles are supposed to be encyclopedic and not accuse people, especially in biographies. I suggest you reread my posts and answer my questions and claims fully, instead of just reverting every single one of my edits. I have told you before I was willing to compromise on this page, and instead of reverting, you can add on what you thought were most important, but you never took me up on it, you just revert. From what I see, you leave small answers in the talk page because you don't have anything to say to back yourself up, you just revert, revert, revert. Answer this please: how do you know so much about Starcevic? And are you willing to help me make the page better, or will you just keep reverting?--Jesuislafete 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear to you--the only thing I cut out that "proved his racism" were the many of the quotes. I rewrote the rest of the section to summarize it. But it is still there, and apparently, bothers you that it is not over 5 paragraphs long. How long should it be then? One more paragraph? Add in another quote? What exactly?--Jesuislafete 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Starčević's racism
It's a lie. Ante Starčević was never be a racist or anti-semit. His deputy and successor as president of Croatian party of rights was Josip Frank, croatian Jew. --89.172.226.221 10:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Croat


 * Didn't Josip Frank convert to Catholicism, openly say that he's Croat and advice that Croatian Jews could/should get assimilated into Croats? --PaxEquilibrium 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First, this is the article about A.Starčević, not Josip Frank. Second, what does mean "converted to Catholicism"? Does that change anything? Giving advices means "racism"? What kind of joke is that? Kubura 08:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Frank was his closest associate. Yes it does change. Just like Josip Pančić is not a good example of Serbian Croats. There's no joke, and the mere point was referring to the anonymous user above.
 * How do you respond to some's advices that Croats should all convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and consider themselves Serbs? Would you say that's an advice? --PaxEquilibrium 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

He was such a racist, that Jewish organizations brought the flowers on his grave on the anniversary of his birth (few days ago). Kubura 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow...that sounds really bizarre. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Last two edits
Case I : Zmaj

As it can be seen here


 * 1) (cur) (last)  23:26, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,390 bytes) (Croatian, not provincial)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 23:25, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,401 bytes) (→Historical findings about his political ideology - let's not beat about the bush)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 23:24, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,425 bytes) (doesn't warrant a separate chapter)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 23:24, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,468 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - Wikipedia articles are not a place for irony)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 23:23, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,554 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - this rant has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Starčević)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 23:21, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,845 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - POV assumption of what a person thinks)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 23:20, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,930 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - what's this? extending one person's racism to an entire nation? shame on you!)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 23:15, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,939 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - why was this put here? it's completely irrelevant for the biography of Starčević; it could maybe be moved to the Karadžić article)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 23:05, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (23,424 bytes) (the photos are different, so don't remove them!)

user Zmaj, except a plain disqualification of the previous editorial work - as it can be seen above - did not support his changes by any valid and rational explanations or knowledge. Also, he throws incivil and rude accusation of the previous editors by saying ''what's this? extending one person's racism to an entire nation? shame on you!''

Case II : Spylab

His edits are summarized below


 * 1) (cur) (last)  13:46, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,190 bytes) (→Footnotes - corrected my typo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 13:45, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,191 bytes) (→Footnotes - added cleanup tag because some of the notes are way too long)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 13:17, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,155 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - corrected grammar & spelling in poorly-translated sentence)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 12:58, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,202 bytes) (added 2 tags because there are many problems that need to be corrected in this article)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 12:55, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,133 bytes) (deleted strange and unnecesssary adjective in intro)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 12:52, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,144 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - deleted totally POV sentence that also had horrible spelling & grammar)

Asked to elaborate the Edit summary inline notes here . No rational response was ever gotten to this request.--Giorgio Orsini 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm a "case" now, am I? FYI, the first three chapters of the article have been almost entirely written by me, in an objective and truthful manner. What valuable information did you contribute to the article? I've seen only trolling so far. You have brought more harm than good to Wikipedia. So, yes, shame on you! Shame on you for disrupting other people's hard work. --Zmaj 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Giorgio Orsini has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. This sock puppet list shows that a single person edited this article with at least three sock puppets (Purger, GiorgioOrsini, IP number), maybe more. It is obviously a maniac who keeps creating sock puppets to vandalize Croatian articles. There is no reason to suppose he or she will give up. --Zmaj 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he will not. Next to expect is user:Guivon to suddenly appear here. He has strikingly similar agenda to proved sockpuppets of user:Purger. See Special:Contributions/Guivon. Let's wait and see. --Ante Perkovic 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous version is a bit better
I see at least three things that do not make sense

- quoted text is marked by s??? - two photos of the same man in this article??? - Accusations and controversies is another frivolous change. Starčevic's racism is a well-known thing.

More evidence about his racism comes from his book: '''Pasmina slavoserbska po Hervatskoj by Ante Starčević, Tisak Lav. Hartmána i družbe, Zagreb 1876''' where he tried to 'scholarly' explain that the Serbs are not people - rather an animal breed. Here is an abundance of quotes from this book:

Page V Učenu je svetu poznano da ime Serb ili Serv starinom, ime Slav u srednjem veku biaše kod svih narodah obćenito za sužnja; da su se tomu imenu, tudju, Hervati i Poljaci vazda ugibali; i da ono na ove narode nesp'ada više nego n. p. na Engleze.

Page 25 Slavoserbi i ostali kojim je vera samo sredstvo koristiti se ludostju drugih, oni, gde bolje, tu duglje.

Page 28 Vlasi kao sužnji, kmeti, razlučeni od naroda. 4 Razumeva se da kmeti mogahu biti samo oni koji se udomaćiše. Smatrahu ih posebnom pasminom, s drugda se i sami zvahu Vlasi, ter pristajahu uz onoga, kod koga se najboljemu nadahu. 6 Kad se Stefan-Tomaš Ostoić podpisiva kralj Serbljem, Bosni 7 — tu je očit dokaz da Serblji biahu razlučeni od naroda kraljevine. Po Arbanskoj klatio se taj puk pod imenom Serbeljah.

Page 33 Oko 1440. zauze Turčin Smederevo, oko 1454. zarobiše Turci pasmine 50.000 komadah. Za tih skokovah prodavahu Turci za čizmu, opanke-li pod izbor Serbkinje devojke. Dakle, eto bežanjah, tretjega, četvertoga i petoga, pod Jurjem Brankovićem, i pod njegovimi sinovi Stefanom i Vukom. 3 Očito, nečisti puk onih zemaljah kroz tolika bežanja, klanja i zarobljenja, moradiaše već onda posve izginuti, pa da bude l plodnii nego li se kroz vekove pokazao. Ali primesa uzderžava pasminu.

Page 34 Tu se vidi cena i novca, i zaroba, i vrednost slavoserbske pasmine. ... Neznalice i herdjelji prenesoše znamenitost ovoga rata na kukavno Kosovo polje od 1389. koje možda imadiaše znamenitost samo po one koji na njemu poginuše. Biaše-li Turčin XIV. i XV. veka sbilja onako jak kako se u povestnicah i činom pokazao? Bi-li on bio uznapredovao kako jest, da nebude hervatska pasmina nečistom pasminom u Arbanskoj, u Rašii i u Serbii prevladana, vladana, u Bosni raztrovana?

Page 40 Za tih ratah i mešanjah, da vidimo ponašanje pasmine. Kacianerova vojska: „Vlasi, Cigani, Sajkaši, Nosadci (brodari po Dunaju), Martološi, t. j. serbski vojnici na granici, robe i kradu na zapoved Mahomedbega, konje i vole artilerie, odrezuju hranu i trativo, obkoljuju tako, da nitko neusudjuje pokazati se van zalega.

Page 48 O koristi Vlahah i njihova vodjenja zna se samo gde i o plenu Uskokah. U ono vreme nebiaše verstnih zemljo vidah, i pasmina se u nje nije razumela. Kako dakle odkuda-li, ako je živela udomljena, ona znadiaše pute i staze? Na ovo pitanje već odgovorismo. Nu proti javnim zakonom tko je pasminu amo vabio, tko joj je što obećivao, kakova je to javna vera, kako o tih stvarih, proti svojemu vladaru može govoriti jedan dostojanstvenik?

Page 55 Onaj sabiratelj zagovoren je svojom pasminom ili zanešenostju; drugomu nikomu nebi obraz podnio ni prispodabljati a kamo usporedjivati Hervate sa Serbi, primeravati ovu pasminu s narodom, koj je premnogo sagrešio proti drugim a najviše proti samu sebi; nu koj svoje ime uhadjanjem, neverom, izdajom, podlostju, nebiaše okaljao.

Page 76 Ukinutjem granice Tisa Maroške mnogi begunci i rodjaci im, možda i drugi, pod vodjami To'ko'lvem i Horvatom izseliše se u Rusiu, i u pokrajini Jekatarinoslav osnovaše „novu Serbiu." 5 Za čudo: u ovih stranah uzimahu svakakova imena osim onog Serba, kojega se još preko 50 godinah ovde stidiše i plašiše.

Page 88 Na uspeh Miloša Obrenovića u Serbii, pretvoriše se Iliri u Serbe, ter nakon probiranja imenah kroz vekove, pasmina uze ime, koje joj najbolje pristoji. Beč navalivši na ustav Hervatske i Ungarie, najde pomoćnike u onih Serbih i u hervatskih ??-ih, protivnike u samih Magjarih.

Page 94 U „Imenu Serb" videlo se kako se Tribali skitaju, kako se mešaju Rašia, Serbia, Tribalia, i kako su im medje neizvestne. U ovoj razpravi opazilo se kako se mešaju Iliri, Raci, Serbi, Tribali. Nedavajuć se uzaludu na bistrenje toga muteža u koj pristupi takodjer ime Bulgarie, napominjemo iz povestnikah:

Page 98 Lahko je razumeti da u iztočnih i iztočnosevernih krajih Hervatske, gde biaše slediteljah obiuh cerkvah, i nekerstjanah, i herpa Slavoserbah, nemogaše biti sloge ni snage za uzprotiviti se Turčinu.

Page 101 Vidimo da se pasmina prilično pohervatila u ovoj Hervatskoj. Kad Turčin prestao vojevali, pasmina, većinom ostade gde ju mir zatekao. U hervatskih pokrajinah Turske, ponešto natuca hervatski, drugde turski, bulgarski, rumunjski, gerčki. Ni u kneževini Serbii, ni po Ungarii, još se nije naučila pravo hervatski, nego itako jezik je njezin najsličnii hervatskomu. Da vidimo na koliko se kod nas prosvetlila i počovečila.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protection
Article protected for one month, per this ANI thread. EyeSerene talk 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A few questions
I see that this article marked as POV for a long while. All those who kept this mark over this article never explained what it is that's POV nor did do anything to improve the article content. I see that the users who initially provided the article content covered it by valid and verifiable sources. Reviewing just first half of the article and going through the counted sources I saw that the content is professionally written.

However, a number of users distorted the initial text and marked it arbitrarily as not sourced enough. Why such damage of the article is not considered as vandalism and the users who did it warned or even prevented in their bad faith intentions? If someone knows that the content is bad why it is not elaborated here on the talk pages?--Remind me never (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Literary and linguistic work?
Reading the first two paragraphs of this section, for a person educated in literature and linguistic, it is clear that Starcevic was an amateur. His books and works were self-published, which "values" never attracted a serious publisher then or later ever. Some accolades about his "linguistic" and "literary" work coming from his political (nacionalistic) supporters shall be differently addressed than it was done here. No one is linguist for just having some thoughts about language nor writer for writing and self-publishing two-tree books.

Te whole article must be reviewed and corrected by someone who is a historian by vocation and by academic background. Amateuric changes in the text based on I-do-not-like-what-I-removed eroded work of others here--Remind me never (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He might have been an amateur, but no bigger that Vuk Karadžić and his followers.--Kennechten (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

and certainly not bigger than some self-proclaimed anonymous experts on the internet.--Kennechten (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Parents
The sentence that he was born to a "Serb Orthodox mother" (as cited by Tanner) was changed to "Croatian orthodox mother" and a source in Croatian was cited. So obviously there's a contradiction. Per WP:RSUE, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". It would be good if someone can translate what that Croatian source says in English. Spellcast (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If, so then, I'll add english book.--Wustefuchs (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The existing source by Tanner says Serb Orthodox mother, but the book you've cited (also by Tanner) purports to say Croatian Orthodox mother. What is the page number and exact quote that Tanner said in the book you've cited? It would be good to clarify this because it's unusual for the same author to contradict this own work. Spellcast (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fogery
See

Croatia: a nation forged in war - Page 102 Marcus Tanner - 1998 - 350 pages - Preview Born on 23 May 1823 in the village of Zitnik, near Gospic, in the Lika region, to a Croat father and a mother from a Serb Orthodox family. Starcevic was just old enough to have become an adult by the time of the great events of 1 848. ... books.google.com - More editions - Add to My Library▼

See

Illyrianism and the Croation quest for statehood M Tanner - Daedalus, 1997 - questia.com ... Journal article by Marcus Tanner; Daedalus, Vol. 126, 1997. See below... Illyrianism and the Croation quest for statehood. by Marcus Tanner. ... Strossmayer had been a protege of the great Illyrian ban Jelacic; Starcevic was the son of a Serb Orthodox mother and a ... Cited by 4 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 4 versions

Tanner is consistent: in both of his works he claims the same: Starcevic was the son of a Serb Orthodox mother --166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what the book says (I couldn't respond earlier due to computer problems). I originally added the journal source from JSTOR but I couldn't access the book. Wustefuchs, deliberately misrepresenting sources is extremely dishonest, if not outright vandalism, and there won't be another warning on this. Spellcast (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mother
The question of nationality is disputed. Croatian historians claim she was Croat Orthodox, they are like Vatroslav Muran, so why we don't leave just Orthodox?--Wustefuchs (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, can you give the exact quote? If there really is a major dispute, surely there should be some English sources addressing this. However, all the sources presented here, whether from academic journals or Google books, consistently say a Croat Catholic father and Serb Orthodox mother. Obviously, you've selectively chosen sources that state his parents' religion but not both of their backgrounds in order to remove his mother's ancestry. The two sources you added both say he was born in a "mixed marriage", which is consistent with Tanner's work. Removing or distorting info to suit a nationalist narrative is the last thing anyone wants since Balkan topics are already plagued with nationalism. Spellcast (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

More bad text in the article
Here is an apologetic text added

''His attitudes regarding Jews, however, were more-less common in that period. (see Antisemitism in 19th and 20th century). Many famous politicians and writers over Europe had bad attitude towrds Jewish influence in their country's society. Dostoevski, Joseph Conrad[14] and Karl Marx[15][16] were just some of them. ''

Statement His attitudes regarding Jews, however, were more-less common in that period is a personal point of view, not supported by any reference. Putting in the same category (no matter for what reason) a petty provincial politician with the philosophers (Conrad, Marx) and insignificant writer who self-published his two books and some essays with the great Dostoevski is pointless and un-encyclopedic here.

Then this quote was removed from a previous version without serious explanation

The British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote (pages 188-189): ''The Croat Diet was dominated by the Party of Right, which continued to demand the "state rights" of Croatia and still lived in the dream world of medieval law from which the Hungarians had escaped. The Party of Right was clerical, conservative, and pro-Habsburg; its only concession to nationalism was hostility to the Serbs, ... When some members of the Party of Right hesitated to make conflict with the Serbs their only political activity, the majority of the party reasserted itself as the Party of the Pure Right - meaning pure of any trace of reality''.

Party of Right was established and led by Starcevic an he was spiritual and ideological leader of this party. So, the quoted text highlights Starcevic's political influence in Croatia.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Purger! it is you again??

You simply can not control yourself???! You just can not sustain to spit your poison on Croats. Kennechten (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... this user instead discussing and understanding what was written above keeps attacking, name calling, accusing. British historian A. J. P. Taylor did not find it reasonable even to mention existence of Starcevic in his History of Habsburg Monarchy. The key players on the political and cultural scene of that time in Croatia were Jelacic, Gaj, and Strossmayer and their influence and ideas were elaborated in this book. Looks like putting this man (Starcevic) where he belonged to, is spitting poison on Croats?! In the past I see that there were two who behaved exactly this way : Afrika paprika and Rjecina both banned from editing Wikiedia.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Purger!

For your information Croatina politics is not Sebocentric. Neither Starčević was. Starčević writtings against Serbs are just minor in his opus and do not deserve central position here.--Kennechten (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous Kennechten = Rjecina or Afrika paprika simply deletes what he does not like in order to claim a nonsense: the deleted text says

The British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote (pages 188-189):

''The Croat Diet was dominated by the Party of Right, which continued to demand the "state rights" of Croatia and still lived in the dream world of medieval law from which the Hungarians had escaped. The Party of Right was clerical, conservative, and pro-Habsburg; its only concession to nationalism was hostility to the Serbs, ... When some members of the Party of Right hesitated to make conflict with the Serbs their only political activity, the majority of the party reasserted itself as the Party of the Pure Right - meaning pure of any trace of reality. ''

So Starcevic was a racist, Serb-centric and Jew-centric racist, and most of his work is inside of this area. Whole book he wrote to support and justify his racist's attitude and several articles, too. His speeches in the Croatian Diet were marred by racism!--166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded information on reference
the ref Tanner, Marcus (2001) I cannot locate anywhere in his book stating that his father is Catholic Croat and Mother orthodox serb. All I can locate from his book regarding Ante Starcevic is quote " opposition to the Illyrians was led by Ante Starcevic and his Party of Rights. Starcevic and his followers took a stand on historic rights of the Croat Kingdom and looked to an idependent Croatia, not a joint Croat-Serb state." if you know in this book it states his mothers ethnicity can you please advise as the only place I can find his mothers supposed background is from servian site srpska mreza which everybody knows is unrealiable information.Dr. Pazaristanka (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user work
After reviewing the article I saw that the current version was mainly written by a banned user (Kennechten). Portions of previous version are removed without any discussion, inserted text not supported by references.

Famous quotes are not quoted by anyone, some of them are chauvinistic.

I took liberty to advise moving the article to the version before this banned user's intrusions, then improving it where it is necessary. Any objections?--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just compared the current version vs the last version before Kennechten from 2 November 2010 and I see no significant differences. Yes, a paragraph of two are missing now and a few sentences of questionable encyclopedic value have been added in the meantime (plus a new paragraph on his relationship with the Catholic church and a selection of quotes) but I wouldn't say that a full revert to the revision from 10 months ago is necessary. If you wish to improve the article you can do it inline and if there are specific issues you are concerned about you can discuss them here.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 13:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is a huge difference between these two versions. The banned user removed whole sections supported by valid references, distorted the existing text at many places which way made the references pointless here, added whole sections not supported, or poorly supported, by references. I can go form paragraph to paragraph, from sentence to sentence to illustrate huge deterioration of the previous version. To my best knowledge, a banned user's contributions shall be removed completely. --Eleven Nine (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific and point out the removed sections, distortions and additions you would like to clean up. Feel free to go "from paragraph to paragraph, from sentence to sentence" and list the issues here. That is what talk pages are for. Also, there is no policy which says banned users' contributions are to be obliterated. There are many reasons for bans and only some of them have to do with their contributions to article space.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 17:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice is to go back to the starting point. Here are tow paragraphs Starčević and Catholic church and Famous quotes where the first one contradicts to the removed paragraph from the starting version


 * The British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote (pages 188-189):


 * The Croat Diet was dominated by the Party of Right, which continued to demand the "state rights" of Croatia and still lived in the dream world of medieval law from which the Hungarians had escaped. The Party of Right was clerical, conservative, and pro-Habsburg; its only concession to nationalism was hostility to the Serbs, ... When some members of the Party of Right hesitated to make conflict with the Serbs their only political activity, the majority of the party reasserted itself as the Party of the Pure Right - meaning pure of any trace of reality.


 * Famous quotes?! Why they are famous? Who quoted him at all and when? The solution is to completely remove these two additions for being un-encyclopaedic, contradicting to a respectable reference (Taylor), and irrelevant (famous quotes).--Eleven Nine (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Famous quotes section after reviewing guidelines at WP:QUOTES and especially WP:LONGQUOTE (Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section.). They didn't add much to the article anyway, they were poorly translated from Croatian and they were not referenced, so it was an easy call. As far as the Starčević and Catholic Church is concerned, that section should be pruned of all pretentious wording unsupported by sources (I took a quick gander at sources referenced in line at it seems to me some of the things the source was talking about was badly rephrased in our article). If the section gets reduced significantly then it should be included in some of the preceding sections. As far as AJP's quote is concerned - the same WP:QUOTE guidelines apply - the gist of what AJP was saying should be worked into prose instead of just pasting blocks of excerpts what he said about Starčević.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Racist, for sure
This man was racist, per himself, i.e. per his political views and writings. There was no need for removing Taylor's quotes about Starcevic's party nor inserting a defensive text coming from anonymous Serb historian. English language and notable references are must here. Links like http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=87657 http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/starcevic.htm cannot be used as sources, for being no more than blogs.--Eleven Nine (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't examined things in detail, but I just saw your assertion that a link from hrcak.srce.hr is no more than a blog. That is patently false, because it's an article in a Croatian scientific magazine Journal of Contemporary History. You are free to elaborate your dismissal of this particular journal or this particular text on various grounds, but not as something akin to a blog. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Racist? Antisemit?
"According to Croatian historians M. Gross and I. Goldstein, Starčević was a racist and an anti-Semite.[14][15]"

There is no citation which proved that I. Goldstein stated that Starčević was a racist or antisemit! I personally joined a lesson of Prof. Ivo Goldstein and he spoke quite in respect of that man (taking into account that Prof. Ivo Goldstein is a jew himself!).

So maybe somebody should take I. Goldstein out of the sentence, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if Goldstein said in his lesson that Starčević was not an antisemite - my guess is that he didn't - taken from you or any other editor here, it is not a reliable information. GregorB (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that our reference [14] doesn't actually cite Goldstein's words from that article, so verification of the original statement is difficult. The link at Novi list's website confirms the existence of the article, but its text is available to subscribers only. It's not in English, so a translated citation would be preferred per WP:NOENG. In addition, mentions of Goldstein classify under WP:BLP. It wouldn't be unreasonable to to err on the side of caution there. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)