Talk:Anti-Croat sentiment/Archive 1

First instances of Anti-Croat Sentiment
With the nation-building process in mid-19th century, first Croatian-Serbian tension appeared. Serbian minister Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije (1844) claimed lands that were inhabited by Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Hungarians and Croats were part of  Serbia. Garašanin's plan also includes methods of spreading Serbian influence in the claimed lands. He proposed ways to influence Croats, who Garašanin regarded as "Serbs of Catholic faith". This plan considered surrounding peoples to be devoid of national consciousness. Vuk Karadžić in the 1850s then denied the existence of Croatians and Croatian language, counting them as "Catholic Serbs". Croatia was at the time a kingdom in Habsburg Monarchy, with Dalmatia and Istria being separate Habsburg Crown lands. Ante Starčević, head of the Croatian Party of Rights, proved that Croats and Croatia do exist and reciprocated, denying Serbia. After Austro-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 and Serbia gained its independence from Ottoman Empire, Croatian and Serbian relations deteriorated as both sides had pretensions on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1902 there was a reprinted article written by Serb Nikola Stojanović that was published in the publication of the Serbian Independent Party from Zagreb titled Do istrage vaše ili naše (Till the Investigation, ours or yours) in which denying of the existence of Croat nation as well as forecasting the result of the "inevitable" Serbian-Croatian conflict occurred. "That combat has to be led till the destruction, either ours or yours. One side must succumb. That side will be Croatians, due to their minority, geographical position, mingling with Serbs and because the process of evolution means Serbhood is equal to progress."

- Nikola Stojanović, Srbobran, 10.08.1902.


 * Proper English translation of the title of N. Stojanović's article "Do istrage vaše ili naše" (printed in Zagreb 1902., as an open insult to Croats, as a "looser nation" that will perish) is NOT Till the Investigation, ours or yours. In his time, in Serbian language the word "istraga" meant - annihilation, destruction (for investigation, Serbs used the term "isleđivanje"). Therefore: Till the Destruction, ours or yours. N. Stojanović did not favour literal annihilation of Croats, but for their inclusion in Serbian nation (the same fate was intended for Macedonians, Montenegrins and Bosniaks).RadioElectrico (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is even worse. As I said, this should be included. And I hope there are other who will continue to work on this wiki page. Missing a lot. And doesn't due the victims of Anti-Croat sentiment enough justice.

Some remarks...
...in no particular order.

Saying that anti-Croat sentiment is present among some Serbs is definitely plausible, of course, but should not rely on a Croatian government source. I'd propose e.g. this (see pp. 34-59), which is not only more neutral but provides much more information backed with hard data.

Instances of anti-Croat sentiment described in the first section aren't really "first historical instances of anti-Croat sentiment". Since the article already mentions the infamous saying ("Save us, oh Lord, from the plague and Croats!"), it should properly attribute it (see Thirty Years' War and, in particular, Croats (military unit)). Now that might be the first ever instance of anti-Croat sentiment - but I still would not claim such a thing without a source that says so.

The Dubrovnik flyer is a very bad example of anti-Croat sentiment: it invites Croats to "cooperate with the YPA in the common struggle". (That is not something Chetniks would have ever done.) I'd remove it.

Šešelj is given prominent mention. I don't see why his views would be especially important, particularly without investigating how widespread they are in Serbia (now that would be much more relevant!).

The Bob Dylan example is weak and should be left out. Dylan merely named the Croats and the Serbs as archetypal adversaries; the rest of the "controversy" is due to people reading too much into this.

It is also unclear why the fact that an unnamed author ascribes "killer mentality" to the Croats would be of any importance.

The article is "well, OK" generally but could be made much tighter by eliminating irrelevant examples and focusing more on general sentiment rather than isolated incidents. For example, the fact that, according to the source I mentioned above, only 43% of Serbs would accept a Croat as a neighbor, is much more important in this aspect than what some random guy wrote in a book. GregorB (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, I haven't read the prior discussion in this talk page so I have no comments in that regard - the above is just a review. GregorB (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Dylan merely named the Croats and the Serbs as archetypal adversaries". But he didn't. His words specifically liken Croats to slave masters and Nazis as a whole while pacifying Serbs as a whole as victims. Nowhere hinting they are both rivals or both guilty of violent past behaviors. Seeming purposefully done. Or out of ignorance. As for the rest of what you say, I pretty much agree. The article needs much work. Hoping there are those out there who can contribute. There don't seem to be much users well versed in Croat historics or current events sadly. Split84 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , actually you're quite right. I misread the quote, conflating it with the one from the Croatian media, which either seemed to be badly translated or I failed to remember it correctly - either way, yes: Croats were clearly likened to the Nazis in that quote, without any qualification (these Croats or that Croats, just "Croats"), so this might legitimately be seen as anti-Croat sentiment. Therefore I've crossed out my remark above as erroneous, but please note I've removed an unsourced interpretation of the quote from the article. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me also add that equating Croats with Nazis en masse is actually a rather common theme of anti-Croat sentiment. It would be really good if the article found a way to discuss this theme, rather than isolated incidents (such as Dylan's quote). GregorB (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OR
I do not contest that some people in Italy might have anti-Croat sentiments (as well some people in Croatia might have an an anti-Italian one), but an article should be written based on sources, reliable and relevant. For what I can see, there is in the lead a strong statement about current anti-Croat sentiments in Italy. This statement is "based" in the lead on two sources: one stating that in the XIX century (yes about 150 years ago) this sentiment existed in Italy and the second on an article edited by an obscure extreme right-wing Italian group. Clearly, this is not sufficient to say that today there are in Italy anti-Croat sentiments (indeed, it's not true). Silvio1973 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, can we see sources or do I have to remove the unsourced section from the article? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about such sentiment in Italy. If there are no sources to back it up it should be be marked as source needed or perhaps removed. Split84 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good call to me (without prejudice against reinstating the content should adequate sources be found). GregorB (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I see no evidence of general anti-Croat sentiment in Italy. Only during the 19th century and during WWII. Stariradio (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Croat Sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040430144947/http://www.vjesnik.hr/html/2004/03/28/Clanak.asp?r=unu&c=6 to http://www.vjesnik.hr/Html/2004/03/28/Clanak.asp?r=unu&c=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anti-Croat sentiment
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 Anti-Croat sentiment'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 "auto": From Pregnancy discrimination:  From Same-sex marriage:  From Transphobia:  From Chetnik war crimes in World War II:  From Ottoman Empire: "In 1363 the Ottoman capital moved from Bursa to Edirne, although Bursa retained its spiritual and economic importance." Ottoman Capital Bursa. Official website of Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey. Retrieved 26 June 2013. From Sexism: Sayare, S. (2012) 'Mademoiselle' exits official France. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/world/europe/france-drops-mademoiselle-from-official-use.html?_r=0 From Gender pay gap:  From Serbs: </li> <li>From Xenophobia: Guido Bolaffi. Dictionary of race, ethnicity and culture. SAGE Publications Ltd., 2003. Pp. 332.</li> <li>From Hate crime: </li> <li>From Serbia: </li> <li>From Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy: </li> </ul>

Reference named "auto1":<ul> <li>From Ottoman Empire: </li> <li>From Xenophobia: </li> <li>From Chetnik war crimes in World War II: Z. Dizdar i M. Sobolevski, Prešućeni četnički zločini u. Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini 1941-1945. godine, Zagreb, 1999</li> <li>From Sexism: </li> <li>From Same-sex marriage: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Cresciani_ClashOfCivilisations":<ul> <li>From Julian March: Cresciani, Gianfranco (2004) "Clash of civilisations", Italian Historical Society Journal, Vol.12, No.2, p.4</li> <li>From Slovenes: Cresciani, Gianfranco (2004) Clash of civilisations, Italian Historical Society Journal, Vol.12, No.2, p.4</li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?
Where this project is going? Instead of improving the existing articles, more and more "unconventional" (this is certainly one of those) articles are getting added. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt an article like this would find room in a traditional encyclopedia. It is biased, full of OR, breaching core policies and honestly does not rend any service except to a small group of users willing for some reason the article to exist. Even the title of the article is actually OR. I do not discuss the actual materiality of some facts listed in the article, but from this to have an article on its own there is a long jump. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This indeed isn't an article one could find in a traditional encyclopedia, but generally speaking that's not necessarily a bad thing. (Even crazy stuff can be good: one of my personal favorites is Toilet paper orientation.)
 * Still, your argument is quite sound: whatever the topic of the article is, it must not be original, but rather it should correspond to a topic already covered as such, and in some depth by secondary sources. If you take a look at my brief review of the article posted above, its major problem is that it amounts to a collection of largely irrelevant and loosely connected examples, and an encyclopedia is not a collection of all true facts. Also, if you take a look at previous deletion discussions, this is something others have objected about too, although these objections, of course, may not necessarily be pertinent to the current version of the article. GregorB (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave a look to the archives and my understanding is that most of the users who participated to the discussion where in favor of the deletion. However, my concerns is that the facts (and just the facts) presents in this article should be allocated elsewhere, because a collection of facts does not make an article. Otherwise where do we stop? ″Why not editing an article named "Anti-Gabonese sentiment"? I can provide sources saying that some people in Cameroon do not like the Gabonese. Concerning crazy stuff on WP, what about Whale penis? It had been an article on its own for a few years and the crazy thing is that a first discussion to delete is was unsuccessful. Or what about Republic of Molossia? Where do we stop? Every item which can be referenced has not necessarily its place on Wikipedia, otherwise in twenty years this project will become a mirror of Google (or the opposite).Silvio1973 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be deleted necessarily, just all the WP:OR has to be removed as quickly as possible. 23 editor (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case it would be wholesale blanketed. OR and misrepresented sources build up 90% of the article... Silvio1973 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, but I don't have the time to re-write the whole thing. If you or anyone else do, then feel free. 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't remove 90% of an article in one shot. This would be vandalism. This process has to be done progressively starting from the most obvious stuff. I started removing the section "Other mentions", which is pure OR. What do you think? Silvio1973 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured to leave the "other mentions" for now. Would there be no place of actual events or occurrences in an article? Stariradio (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, most of the blatant original research needs to go. I think if anyone wants to write an article about the subject, a good place to start is David Bruce Macdonald's Balkan Holocausts. In fact, much of the article should probably rely on it. Another good one is Lampe and Mazower's Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-Century Southeastern Europe. Taking random news reports or primary sources, bunching them together and claiming a pattern of anti-Croat sentiment is undoubtedly original research, however. 23 editor (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The most recent deletions go a bit further than what I'd easily agree with, but it's not a bad start either. Whoever disagrees, will hopefully say so here.
 * One problem with the list-of-random-examples approach is that it tends to attract even more random examples, so it's usually better to dispose of them right away. GregorB (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to correct, because the article has not an actual structure. I have a question. Is this quote from Nikola Stojanović relevant enough? Does it represent a sentiment sufficiently shared in Serbia to justify the inclusion in the article? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Croatian sources often cite the Stojanović quote with relish. I've always thought that it's been given too much importance. The problem with it, in this context, is that it would have been difficult to interpret it as an indicator of a widely spread sentiment: in order to do that, one would need to produce other similar statements and views. Where are they? Where is the evidence that other Serbs shared Stojanović's views, or that his views had any impact? And, if there is none, why are Stojanović's words of particular importance? These are rhetorical questions, of course, but I feel that whoever wants to retain this content should be able to answer them. GregorB (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the sense of my question. Should we leave the quote? It is not overemphasis? You can always find some extremists supported by a restricted "posse". But do they represent the general sentiment of a country? I don't think it is the case here but I am not a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ante Starcevic is often cited for Anti-Serbian sentiment, despite lacking evidence that all Croats shared his views. Stariradio (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, all Croats sharing his views puts the bar a little too high, wouldn't you agree? Also, it's hard to compare the two: while Stojanović is a virtually anonymous politician, Starčević is the "Father of the Homeland", no less, so it is reasonable to assume his views were generally accepted by many. GregorB (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost every "anti-____ sentiment" article is very much OR and POV. There is some content here which might fit in the topic: Tzowu (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, let me give a look to these sources. However, such kind of articles should be removed and whatever can be saved arranged elsewhere. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can read in the first source: "The Second World War reinvigorated the anti-Croat sentiment in Britain. The grotesque nature of the Pavelić regime confirmed long-held stereotypes.". Well, people everywhere in the world had anti-Italian sentiments during the Fascism. The point here is to assess if there is today an anti-Croat sentiments as a result of past and present events. It is obvious that during the NDH, Croatia was not particularly popular in some countries (and certainly not in Serbia). The same could be say of Italy and Germany. Sources are required to affirm that in Serbia people have anti-Croat sentiments. I have not seen any, so far. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, this is a topic titled "Anti-Croat sentiment", not "Anti-Croat sentiment in modern day Serbia". Anti-German sentiment article also covers World War II. Tzowu (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fare, Anti-German article discusses the negative view of Germans during WWI and WWII. Stariradio (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, IMHO it's a mistake. If we follow this logic, hundreds (thousands?) of articles of this kind could be written. Each country or ethnic group has been at some point of its history the object of an "anti-sentiment". Is this one of the objective of this project? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are other Anti-Blank Sentiment articles on wiki that should be removed if going by that view. Unless we merge such articles by region. Stariradio (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But what exactly are you suggesting? Should we get rid of all articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment? Or just some of them? According to which criteria? GregorB (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The issues here are multiple.
 * 1) The prejudice against a country or an ethnic group should be an article per se, only if it is notable enough. The notability is obviously a function of the amount of secondary sources available.
 * 2) This article says: "Anti-Croat sentiment (Croatophobia) is discrimination or prejudice towards Croats as an ethnic group, and towards Croatia as a country. Anti-Croat sentiment was – and still is – especially present among some Serbs, starting in 19th Century, due to the rivalry between Serbs and Croats had for the same territories.". Well, if it's an historical discrimination it has to be presented in the article as a fact of history. If it's a current and actual prejudice, secondary sources must be provided (secondary sources, not just news or websites).
 * 3) Whenever possible, new material should be added to existing articles and only when justified a new article should be created. The issue here is that this article was on its own from the start. Now, it is very easy to create an article but very difficult (and tedious) to get it removed. Also, when the article is new, no-one is patrolling it so the risk that the article grows without meeting WP standards is higher. Well, here we are with this article. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood about the article still needing more secondary sources and to be better written. There has also been occasion of vandalism where IP address users delete parts or more of the article with explanation. Stariradio (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that we largely agree then: the article does have deficiencies and will have to work harder towards establishing the encyclopedic legitimacy of the topic. But, that being said, in my view it still does pass the threshold for inclusion. GregorB (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am trying to correct the subsection "Derogatory terms for Croats". Is it written in English?? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article, although still very rough, has enough reason to exist. It still needs great refinement and inclusion of more secondary sources as you mentioned. I stated example articles that reassure such views. Also sorry for not checking the talk page before doing editing few days ago. But I disagree with this article being "garbage" but it is far from perfect, I agree.Stariradio (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Stariradio, whatever posted must be written in proper English. Other users need, at least, to understand what is the actual meaning of the posted section. Otherwise they are just unable to correct or amend it. In its current state the section "Derogatory terms for Croats" does not mean anything. I have removed it, feel free to reinstate it but correct it. I would have corrected it, if I had at least understood what the section was meant saying. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973, Firstly, sorry for the long response, I have not been on in a while and missed a lot of the talks ;). I agree, the page needs much work and have made sure parts are written properly. As for the specific example you mentioned, I do not remember if I posted that, but will make sure future edits are done grammatically correct. As for whether the page should be deleted, I disagree. The page needs work yes, but there is enough reason to keep it. I feel though, that this page is being looked at through an oddly strict lens compared to the other Anti "blank" Sentiment pages. Anti-Sentiment due to historical events is not a valid criteria? The Anti-German pages makes it quite clear that Nazism was a main fact in anti German sentiment. The Anti-Serbian sentiment page discusses Serbians as an ethnic group are demonized for WWII Chetniks and the Yugoslav Wars of the 90's. (There is even a list of "Alleged Serbophobes" on the wiki page?) Why are these among many other examples not being held to the same standard? Personally I think those pages are in the right to be as such. Say what you will about the grammar and need for sources, but as for should this page exist? Definitively should. Such a topic and amalgamation of information would not fit in any other article but its own. To call it "garbage" is dismissive.
 * As an editor posted before, books such as these:

David Bruce Macdonald's Balkan Holocausts
 * These seem to contain plenty of material pointing to the existence of Anti-Croat Sentiment. For example the quote you pulled from the first book, "The Second World War reinvigorated the anti-Croat sentiment in Britain. The grotesque nature of the Pavelić regime confirmed long-held stereotypes.", you said that it is not a good argument since many other groups faced hatred for what they had done historically. Thing is firstly there were more Croats in the Partisan brigades than the Ustasa army. But Croats as a whole were demonized for the actions done in their name regardless. That is a criteria of Anti "blank" Sentiment. The wiki Anti-Italian Sentiment makes a section out of Italians as a whole being demonized due to the Fascists movement in Italy. Secondly, the quotes states "reinvigorated" and "confirmed long-held stereotypes" , which means before WWII, there was already Anti-Croatian Sentiment present in British Nation. And that is just one quote. These books alone contain much more. Here is another more recent one: "The assumption that 1990s Croatian nationalists were just lineal successors of the Ustasha collaborators and therefore as morally repulsive was commonplace in the British political and media establishment. " or " the Guardian’s columnist Edward Pearce, “Indeed so much has the slashing of neck arteries been the historic way of the Croats that one wonders if our version of the native name should not be pronounced with a dipthong to rhyme with throat.” or "In November, 1991, President François Mitterrand announced, “Croatia belonged to the Nazi bloc, not Serbia.”. British media Anti-Croat examples. Calling modern Croats Nazis and saying Croat should be synonymous with throat cutting, seems anti-Croat, as the secondary source also confirms, not just my interpretation. I'm struggling to understand why they still fail to prove that the page is worth saving? I understand fixing grammar and retrieving secondary sources, but your other criteria seem to oddly only apply to this page. Why not the other Anti-Sentiment pages? (I say this as a question, I don't want the other pages I mentioned to actually get deleted!) I hope you don't take my response the wrong way, I'm not expecting everyone to know about this stuff, hence why the page needs to exist. Everyone here agrees. Also, thanks for taking the time to talk about this, it is important to maintain standards and the image of Wikipedia as a trustworthy site. Stariradio (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Stariradio, let's try to move this thing forward. I do not contest in the slightest the actual legitimacy of the facts listed in the article, but the legitimacy of the article. Let's see if I can make myself clear. You cannot compare Anti-Croat sentiment with Anti-Semitism. There is a clear issue of mutual antipathy between Serbia and Croatia. This is a fact. But it's a very, very local fact and does not encompass anything of global. This page was even describing that today Italians discriminate Croats because of Irredentism. Stariradio, do you realize that 90% of Italians do not have any idea that Zadar was Italian between the last two wars? However, if you want this page to exist, at least try to take care of it. Other users cannot do this job. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you have issue with items listed in the article and then go on to say you have no issues with what is listed int he article. The article has reason to exist. I never compared Anti-Croat sentiment to Anti-Semitism. Neither has anyone here. Not sure where you read that. Also, in historic terms, there were instances of Anti-Croat sentiment in Italy (WWII example). Never said present day. I pointed out that Anti-Croat sentiment existed historically in Britain as another example, showing it is not just local. And other Anti-blank articles (Italian, Serbian {which mainly focuses on local affairs}, German) existing show, as I have repeatedly mentioned, that this article deserves a place. Aside from that, we are ultimately in agreement that the article has much reason to exist. This page needs work, there is evidence showing that Anti-Croat sentiment exists outside just "local" region. I will do my best to work on it with my limited time. I see GreggorB has begun some edits. I believe our discussion has come to a full understanding and closing. Thank you, cheers.Stariradio (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The article should be deleted. It is pure propaganda Fabricedeldongo (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent example of why this page needs to exist. The more unaware people are the more such bigotry grows. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)