Talk:Anti-Croat sentiment

Factual accuracy
"Though the Ustase were waging ethnic cleansing practices on Serbs as well", wow. Most of the article is a copy-paste from Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars.--Z oupan 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted copy-paste, hatnoted for further information.--Z oupan 15:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They were examples of Anti-Croatian sentiment. They have to do with the topic of this article. Also are Ustase not allowed to be mentioned? Split84 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrasing, Though the Ustase were waging ethnic cleansing practices on Serbs as well is very problematic.--Z oupan 06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "though" meaning that the Chetniks were no the only ones killing. Waging meaning carrying out. Could you explain what you mean? Split84 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not the only ones killing"; from which viewpoint is this made? That is terribly unneutral. If the Ustashe carried out actual ethnic cleansing, with policies, "One third of the Serbs were to be killed, one third expelled, one third Catholicised", Jasenovac concentration camp, etc., is the sentence appropriate?--Z oupan  18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The view point that that both existed? Both were ethnic cleansing. Are you saying the Chetniks did not do this? That is extremely unneutral.


 * A directive dated 20 December 1941, addressed to newly appointed commanders in Montenegro, Major Đorđije Lašić and Captain Pavle Đurišić, outlined, among other things, the cleansing of all non-Serb elements in order to create a Greater Serbia:


 * "#The struggle for the liberty of our whole nation under the scepter of His Majesty King Peter II;
 * 1) the creation of a Great Yugoslavia and within it of a Great Serbia which is to be ethnically pure and is to include Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srijem, the Banat, and Bačka;
 * 2) the struggle for the inclusion into Yugoslavia of all still unliberated Slovene territories under the Italians and Germans (Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, and Carinthia) as well as Bulgaria, and northern Albania with Skadar;
 * 3) the cleansing of the state territory of all national minorities and a-national elements;
 * 4) the creation of contiguous frontiers between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as between Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina."


 * "If the Ustashe carried out actual ethnic cleansing, with policies" Not "if", They did. Weird you would use the word 'actual". That sounds non neutral as well. Implying Chetniks didn't also do so. Both factions carried out ethnic cleansing policies, the Ustase to a greater extent. The details of both are not really covered considering this is an Anti-Croat article and not an Anti-Serbian or Anti-Bosnian article. How would you word the sentence? Or perhaps remove it all together?Split84 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. They did. Before Chetniks. That is what I'm saying since the beginning. Watch the wording.--Z oupan 23:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, I see what you are saying now. Yes I agree to a point. Though Chetniks established a desire for a Greater Serbia (1941) occurred more in reaction to Axis forces invading and destroying the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in general. Both Ustase and Chetniks cemented their ideologies in the year of 1941. BUT the brutalities of the Ustase did lead to many Chetnik groups committing brutalities against Croatian populations. While others viewed non-Fascists Croats as friendly and potential soldiers to serve under the Chetnik movement. But to say Ustase carried out ethnic cleansing before the Chetniks did I'm not sure, for they both started in 1941. The Chetniks become more brutal in reaction to Ustase killings. That I agree with. But saying one came before the other doesn't seem accurate. Both had the plan of ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Split84 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

They without a doubt did. See List of massacres in Yugoslavia.--Z oupan 11:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is a list of massacres, not ethnic cleansing in general. According to this list the Ustase hadn't murdered as many as they actually did. Ethnic cleansing does not only mean massacres also. This is a dubious source to use for our argument. Seems months from one another, same year at same time. not as if these were direct reactions or different eras. But it doesn't matter who actually began since it is not factually related to the sentence in question. Still fail to see how the original sentence is still in question. It states both of them were committing atrocities. Not that one is the cause of the other. Nor does it say one occurred after the other. Establishment of Greater Serbia regardless of Ustase activities. And for years both were committing these acts at the same time. At times collaborated against the partisans. The focus of the article is Anti-Croat sentiment by Chetniks. Ustase are mentioned to be fair in showing the other side did. Your reaction of the sentence being "wow" is most strange. "as well" means occurring during the same time not after the other. Look at your list of massacres. Chetnik massacres occur same time as Ustase ones. This conversation is becoming frivolous. Split84 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is dubious to claim that Ustashe did "as well". This is a very serious issue. You should read Neutral point of view before calling this frivolous.--Z oupan 09:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "As well" means "also". There is no neutrality being broken. It takes no side. You fail to explain how it is not neutral. "The Yugoslav monarchist, and Serbian nationalist Chetniks also advocated ethnic cleansing of Croats and Muslims; in 1941" Now you just did the same thing. Using the word "also" which according to what you say is not neutral. Also please don't make such bold edit while we are in the middle of a conversation. You edit places the focus on the Ustase instead of the articles main subject of Croatophobia. Ustase already have a wikipedia page. Your edit was not neutral whatsoever. It overshadows the topic of the Chetniks. Looking at the Anti-Serb wiki, look at your edits there, I don't see you so adamant about inserting an explanation of what Chetniks were committing during WWII. The Anti-German page doesn't even focus on the Nazis for the page is about subject victims. Nazi already have a page detailing them. I would assume the page is meant to focus on Serbian victims. As it should. I removed the sentence that seems to bother you so much for now. This could be considered borderline vandalism. I am questioning your neutrality. Writing the begining of a section focusing on Ustase lessening the seriousness of Chetnik actions is itself a very serious issue. Almost an afterthought. I had to scroll up to remind myself what wiki article I am on. If you continue to do this, I will have no problem bring in Wikipedia moderators. Pardon me if I am being overly protective, but this wiki article has been subjected to multiple cases of vandalism, revisionism and false calls for deletion. And as a fellow wiki editor I hope you have good intentions. You have made positive contributions here with formatting an such which I thank you for. Split84 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They started genocides within months from each other. Ustashe began in May and Chetniks months later the same year. And the Chetnik’s agenda was not entirely predicted on Ustashe atrocities as you claim which is the opposite of neutral Wiki terms. Tomasevich at most claimed that “to atleast an extent Chetnik crimes were a reaction to Ustashe crimes” however Bosniaks and Croats were to be cleansed regardless as per the 1941 Greater Serbia directives. To say it was just some reaction is incredibly problematic and not neutral. The desire for the greater Serbian state goes back before the Ustashe. Both declared a systemic genocidal method to make a single ethnic greater state. Chetnik massacres fed the increase of Ustashe massacres and vice versa. Just look at the list of massacres you point to. Though individual research and reasoning is not RS. Not to mention this page focuses on anti-Croat events. The large swaths of Croatian and Bosniak civilians mass murdered were innocent people who didn’t deserve what happened to them just because of guilt by association of being the same ethnicity. I would hope you agree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits (removal of complete sourced sections)
Users Sadko and his fellow Serbian editor Amanuensis Balkanicus in their struggle to whitewash Serbian war crimes in WWII and Yugoslav wars have now deleted most of the article. Their reasoning can only be described as cherrypicking or using loopholes in Wikipedia rules to promote their Greater Serbian agenda. Example: none of the sources describe these incidents as "anti-Croat sentiment", "Croatophobia" or "anti-Croatism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.189.95 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK are quite clear on this matter. A few of the paragraphs that were removed were completely unsourced. If you have references that explicitly refer to certain events as examples of anti-Croat sentiment, or even simply as events motivated by hatred of Croats, I encourage you to provide them. Otherwise, all we're doing is engaging in original research. The other "anti-xyz sentiment" articles have this issue to varying degrees as well. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. Leave your hate speech for RL, please. See Civility & No personal attacks.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Material that was well-cited and didn't violate the aforementioned guidelines was (and will be) left untouched. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let a non biased administrator (non Balkan) decide what will left untouched. It's disgraceful to allow the perpetrator of discrimination to moderate an article about the victim of discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.189.95 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming other people's ethnicity and/or nationality isn't an argument and won't get you anywhere. In any event, most administrators would agree with the removal of content that violates en.wiki's guidelines. Portions of these types of "anti-xyz sentiment" articles tend to violate WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:V, and in some cases, WP:BLP, and anyone who has been active on en.wiki for a long time (administrator or otherwise) is cognizant of that. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming what an unbiased editor or administrator would do isn't an argument since you're none of it. And stating tha anyone who has been active (and you are less than a year) is cognizant of that won't get you anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.189.95 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

To the IP editor stop insulting other editors. Provide citations instead. Before wiping parts of the article let issue be taken up here. Sources content was removed as well as unsourced content. MaloPoMalo (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The content that was removed rendered much of the article a WP:COATRACK. As per WP:BURDEN, those who favour reinstating it should present an argument as to why it should be reinstated, not those who favour removing it. And no, the source only describes the prisoner as an inmate of the Rab camp, not a Croat. And no, the Seselj passage wasn't deleted, it was moved to the Yugoslav Wars section. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

At least give a chance for citation to be put in. You removed content that was sourced to. Would the burden be on you to explain why existing content is to be removed? Please can we work together on this?MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear IP editor is not able to understand is that AB has done you a great service with cleaning up the article. I really see no counterarguments presented.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  17:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, Chetnik war crimes have been retained, Yugoslav Wars atrocities, Seselj's tirades, etc. From a manual of style perspective, the article is in far better shape than it was an hour ago. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the “great service” is to me as upon entering it the content was removed again. Unless you mean the IP. At least making attempts to find citation or first bringing up issues with the article on the talk page would be show Willing collaboration. I also provided a counter to the Rab Convention camp photo. MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do note that the authenticity of this particular document has been challenged by a number of Western historians (e.g. Karchmar, Pavlowitch, Malcolm and Yeomans) and for this reason it is more pertinent to the Pavle Đurišić, Chetniks and Chetnik war crimes in World War II articles, where the debate about its validity can be outlined in the text or in footnotes. As for the camp photo, the original caption underneath the image merely reads "Lakota na Rabu" (Hunger in Rab). There is no mention of the inmate being a Croat. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

On the Chetnik page they seem to be presented as accepted document. I still think it is valid to have it here as a prominent Historian widely used on these pages does validate the document.MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tomasevich is one of the historians that doesn't dispute the authenticity of the document. The historians I outlined above are some of those who do. Years ago there was a months-long dispute pertaining to this over at Talk:Pavle Đurišić and the consensus was basically to say "source x" says this, "source y" says this and "source z" says that. Again, pertinent to that article and the other two articles I mentioned above, but the dispute over its authenticity will inevitably lead to this article having an extensive passage or footnote explaining the dispute, leading to tangents, when this article should be about anti-Croat sentiment in general and not the fine nuances of WW2 Yugoslav history per se. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ll have to come back later when I have more time to look at the rest. However as for listing situations where Anti-Croat examples occur in the news or media or events needing to be sourced as Anti Croat directly, I see other pages simply list events that seem Anti-Insert Ethnicity. For example Bob Dylan comparing Croats as a group to slave drivers, Nazis, etc. Thoughts? MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But then we have the issue of WP:BLP. Bob Dylan is very much alive and unequivocally describing him as a "Croatophobe" (is that a word?) is something that en.wiki frowns upon. This is also an issue that popped up at anti-Serb sentiment, where individuals who have made questionable remarks about Serbs (such as Madeline Albright) have been removed from that article's WP:COATRACKy list of "alleged Serbophobes" (by yours truly) because it is, for lack of a better word, slanderous. Describing a convicted war criminal like Seselj as harbouring anti-Croat beliefs is another thing entirely. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have just removed everything you don't like. If you state that events described in section "Other mentions" weren't motivated by hatred of Croats or user Sadko claiming that chanting "Kill Croatian men, rape the women" is normal and isn't hate I pitty both of you.

AB I looked at the source for the Rab camp photo and you are right it doesn’t state the ethnicity of the subject, however it still seems like a relevant photo as Croats were placed in these camps. Rab being a Croatian island after all. What do you think? MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that you want the article to be as expansive as possible. That's commendable. Believe me, I do too. Croats (undoubtedly) were incarcerated at Rab, but don't forget WP:V also applies to images as well. What you could do is add a photo of multiple prisoners that were held there, since statistically a Croat is more likely to be among a group of those inmates rather than a photo depicting a single inmate that we nothing about. I hope that makes sense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the multi photo idea would work. The other editor seemed to think I should just be grateful, but I am glad you are willing to talk through this together. I’m sorry you have to deal with abusive people like IP editor. People like them shouldn’t always assume bad intentions but as you know Balkan articles are like landmines. Very sensitive topics. Sigh.....MaloPoMalo (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't control the actions of other users, but I assumed good faith on your part, and I'm glad you were open to discussing this as well. As I said, a lot of the material under the section "Other mentions" can go to the articles where it is appropriate. If, however, there is a reliable source that specifically characterizes the event/incident as being motivated by anti-Croat sentiment or hatred towards Croats, then it can be re-added to this article. That's always been the key issue. Otherwise, we as editors are inserting are own opinion as to what does and what doesn't constitute anti-xyz sentiment (WP:OR). If someone wants to do that they should start a WordPress instead. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Let them write on their blogs instead. I see what you mean about living persons and remarks. I noticed that some removed seems sourced and added it back. Please take a look. I see you liked and agreed with the 1997 sourcing. I don’t know why the 1977 sourcing was also previously included in the article as it predates the 90s wars, but you make have removed the 1997 source along with it accidentally. Thanks for helping to make the page more professional looking. MaloPoMalo (talk) < —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those 1975 and 1977 sources were real head-scratchers. Thanks for adding real ones that pass WP:V. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also line about first anti-Croat events by Serbs that 1997 source cited. Were they not validly sourced? They seem relevant. MaloPoMalo (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I must have confused 1997 with 1977. It look fine. Vis-a-vis the flyer, it could possibly go under the pejorative terms section. The Greater Serbia map is somewhat tangential to the topic. Wouldn't you agree it's more pertinent to the Greater Serbia, Serbian nationalism, Vojsialv Seselj and Serbian Radical Party articles? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Šešelj's little map is not needed or relevant enough for the article. I would be cool with having his picture with summary of his views/statements.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. That make's more sense. Also,, you wouldn't happen to have a source that some Australians refer to Croats as wogs? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe if we had a better map depicting the borders of Croatia with Seselj's vision overlayed on top of it? I'm still leaning towards a picture of Seselj. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the term “Wog” this is a term applied to many Eastern Europeans not specifically to Croats only. MaloPoMalo (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as the caption of the graffiti photo, reverted here, does your average reader really know what "Red Star champion" and "Usraše se Ustaše" refers to? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the Symbols pointed out there is a hyperlink for readers to further read. MaloPoMalo (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources
The total number of expelled Croats and other non-Serbs during the Croatian War of Independence ranges from 170,000 (ICTY), 250,000 (Human Rights Watch) or 500,000 (UNHCR).
 * Here are additional sources which could be part of the article Mikola22 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandwich
I am not quite sure that you have understood WP:SANDWICH. It is the current version by with the flyer picture on the left that is sandwiching the text. None of the two versions you complained about are in conflict with WP:SANDWICH. In this version it is true that it pushes the text towards left, but not anything different from what any other picture does. I will remove the sandwich and reinstate the version I think is best. --T*U (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand everything perfectly. Do not restore it. It's making a problem on big screens, as it is indeed sandwiching the text. Not just the text but the references section as well, which leaves empty space on the right and looks nasty. How were you able to check my claim, I wonder? We can make a gallery, that would work as well.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandwiching is defined as squeezing between two pictures. There is no way this picture can sandwich the text, since there is nothing to the left to squeeze against. The text may be squeezed, but it is not sandwiched.
 * After having tried it out on four different desktop computers with different screen size plus two mobile units (in desktop mode), adjusting window sizes and even changing my skin preference, I have been able to force the article to create something similar to what you describe, namely when the "Reference" section is forced down to one column because the last picture reaches down to the ref section. That creates empty space to the right of the single column ref list. I fail to see that this can be so offending or "nasty" that it can be a reason to remove the illustration. It is something that can always happen in one screen/window size or other when there are several pictures near the end of an article with many references. I have never before seen a similar layout argument used for removing a relevant illustration. You could, of course, try a gallery, if the current solution annoys you that much. --T*U (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yap, the same thing happens on 2 of my monitors. There is the the notion of having too much images as well. It does look nasty, and I don't think that's too harsh. Of course it's notable and relevant, that is not the issue here.
 * Here is the gallery which could be added after the section Yugoslav wars. I also think that we should not call it "A Serb flyer" considering that the content speaks about the Yugoslav army and the whole narrative is about Yugoslavia, not Serbia.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you! There was the matter of having the picture of Greater Serbia, three editors have agreed that it would be better to have the picture of Seselj himself with a short description of his chauvinistic views, what do you think?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the gallery option and space not being an issue, why not include both? Map seems to be still quite relevant. Also I see it was two editors that believe the picture of Šešelj would be a better fit. Having both would make sense. OyMosby (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay to have a gallery, but we should not give undue wait to one person and his or her standpoint and neither should we post 100 pictures in the gallery.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preferences, as my purpose here was just to avoid removing a relevant picture for reasons I found to be weak. Speaking generally, I think a map is more informative than a portrait. I would also say that three pictures has to be enough for this section. --T*U (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the gallery. Does anybody have any idea how to "properly" translate "Usraše se Ustaše" (considering that this is en.wiki)?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be changed to anti-Croatian sentiment?
Since it includes both sentiments against ethnic Croats and the country Croatia Sylvester Millner (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)