Talk:Croatisation

Propaganda

I don't know, but this article has a very propagandistic feel to it. It's a compilation of assumptions or daring statements, which are not backed up by any kind of source or information. It wouldn't surprise me, if the author of this article wrote it with the purpose of legitimating greater-serbian theories.

Put tag up because:

• Subject itself is POV;
• Written by unknown person;
• Quotes site reporting on testimony given by biased source;
• Requires more sources;
• Makes unquantifiable and unverifiable claims re Serbs trader coverting - indeed it claims were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism, a claim if verifiable, does not constitute change in ethnicity. Nor is forced the right term because it did not constitute a campaign to change ethnicities in territories outside it's control, but rather a condition of citizenship of it's state.

In the Croatian context it would cove I think a different style of article article linked to the Croatia or Demographics of Croatia and titled Demographic History and Social Integration of Croatia. It would cover the tendency of minority groups to adopt aspects of the mainstream (as covered generally in Social integration. In the Croatian context it would cover Hungarian, Austrian, Vlach, Serb and one notable Polish-Slovak Slavoljub Penkala & Brazilian Eduardo da Silva immigrant that adopted the Croat national identity and Vlach immigrants that adopted the Serb identity.

It could also cover the experience of integration of Croat immigrants in their new homeland - USA, Canda, South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

I don't know about that. The problem here is that this term is rather modern and negative one, it mainly refers to aggressive attempts of assimilation of other ethnic groups, namely Serbs during the 'World War 2'. As such this article should reflect that and I have made some changes about it. When we speak about peaceful and voluntary assimilation and social integration of various ethnic groups such as Germans, Slovaks, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. some other articles other than this should be used. --Factanista 08:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands, I'll have nominated it for deletion because it clearly is POV, represents propaganda and WP:POINT. iruka 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Full support. --PaxEquilibrium 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This text is completely - missing the point.
"Croatization", in Croatian, has positive meanings. E.g., like croatizing of foreign words, just like the French do with anglisms.
If you look at this from the point of assimilation of persons, neither from that side, this term that has negative conotations. Assimilation could mean that the majority in some community has accepted minority as part of themselves.
But this article is purposely written. Ordinary anti-Croat propaganda, and as such, it should be deleted. Kubura 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding croatisation

Croatisation is a useful article. I expanded it a lot, adding the Illyrian Movement, but it should be expanded even further to include the recent croatisation of several sportsmen. I'm not well-versed in sports, but names like Da Silva or Peshalov come to mind. I'll write that chapter if nobody else wants to.

I deleted the paragraph called "Croatisization (sic!) against Italians", since it had only one sentence which had nothing to do with the title. This is how it went: The Italian communities of Istria and Dalmatia are today reduced to a minimum part of their original size. The most of Italian left the present day Croatia during the Istrian exodus, after World War II. This is an article about croatisation, not the Italian exodus. If any Italians were croatised, the appropriate chapter should be added, of course.

I also removed inappropriate links under "See also". Ustasha are quite relevant for croatisation, so I left them. But Jasenovac (an extermination camp) and Operation Storm (a military operation) have nothing to do with croatisation. --Zmaj 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags

After the last edits of user:Zmaj, the article is totally deprived of neutrality, with a lot of censure aganist some Croatian 'responabilities'; such as the Italian exodus from Croatia. I will work on it ASA, providing valid sources, according to my habit.--Giovanni Giove 15:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be unfair, Giovanni. I sympathize with the plight of the Italians who had to leave Croatia after WWII. And I'm appalled by foibe, it was a terrible crime. But this is not the right article - it's not about exoduses or massacres, it's about croatisation. Regarding the Italian exodus, I don't think the right article exists yet. You could start a new one, something like Esuli, for example. I'll help you if I can. --Zmaj 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will not vandalize again the article, deleting my edits as pure disturbing action. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VAN, Giovanni. You have wrong notions about vandalism. --Zmaj 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to report your destructive behaviour.--Giovanni Giove 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means do so. It will teach you a thing or two about Wikipedia. --Zmaj 10:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

be carfully, you wrote that you wished to start a personal attack against me, after this you starte with massive reverts without to provide logic arguments, be carefully.--Giovanni Giove 10:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, Giovanni, you can't put an NPOV tag just like that. You must explain on the talk page what parts of the article are POV and why. And you didn't do that. Look at my comment on this page, under the title Expanding croatisation. That's how you should explain your actions. I'd honestly like to know why you think that the current article needs the NPOV tag. Just don't start again with meaningless phrases like "you're not neutral", "you're censuring" etc. Tell me precisely what's the problem. OK? I'll leave your tag for a couple of days, but if you don't provide any sensible arguments, I'll remove it. I think that's fair. --Zmaj 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Three days have passed, and still no explanation for the NPOV tag. I'm removing the tag. --Zmaj 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag is returned because of this reasons:

• Part of article under name 1800s. Illyrian Movement is Croatisation ???

Rječina, why are you doing this? The chapter says that Illyrian Movement was a national revival. There was voluntary Croatisation within the movement. The chapter provides concrete examples of such Croatisation. Where's the problem? Did you even read the chapter? This is starting to get on my nerves... --Zmaj 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Part of article Italians. Can somebody tell me please from where is data assimilation of Italians between 1850 - 1914 ? Maybe from somebody fantasy ?
• Part of article 1990s . Initiators of Yugoslav wars ?? Serbian fantasy ?? --Rjecina 15:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK now article is better but there is still questions. First is that Italians have disappeared between 1850 and 1918. Sorry but there is no census data for 1850. From where is this data ?? Census data which we have is on this discussion page. Second thing under question is that Croatisation of television is one of initiators of Yugoslav wars ?! --Rjecina 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful assimilation

Small minorities assimilate into the majority or into ruling country's nation.
It's normal process everywhere in the world.
Croatia wasn't independent in 19th century.
In fact, todays Croatia was dismembered in the 19th century between Austrian and Hungarian part of the Monarchy. And, as worse, the official language in littoral provinces was Italian. And still, many of those Italians that came to live in Croatian Littoral assimilated into Croats, some of them before Napoleon's and Habsburg rule.
And already, in 19th century, many of them were the local leaders or important personalities of Croatian Risorgimento, Croat national renaissance (hrvatski narodni preporod), some of them even croatising their name and surname. Kubura 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Age of Croatian national renaissance (that happened at the same time as in the rest of Europe), many Italians have already croatized, although there was no independent nationalist Croatia to impose such rules.
I'll list you here the names of deputies in Dalmatian Diet, when Croat-reunionist party Narodna stranka (National party) won the majority. Narodna stranka was by local pro-italianist party called partito croato (not "partito serbo-croato", not "partito iugoslavo").
Among those deputates, six or seven of them had Italian-sounding surnames.
That doesn't have to mean that all of them were of Italian origin; it could be the case that some of their ancestors were Croats that italianized their surname. Also stays for the other case, with Croat surname. There's a possibility of previous croatization of Italian surname.
Here're some names:
Lovro Monti. In this scientific article by Šime Peričić “O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća” (“Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century”), Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija), it says that he was of Italian origin. Abstract in English.
Juraj Biankini.
A case of Croat Rafo Arneri. A scientific article Doprinos Rafe Arnerija hrvatskom narodnom preporodu u Dalmaciji (Contribution of Rafo Arneri to Croatian national renaissance in Dalmatia). Work by Šime Peričić, Rad. Zavoda povij. znan. HAZU Zadru, sv. 47/2005., str. 325–340, UDK 949.75:929 R. Arneri. Arneri was a family from Korčula, with origins from Bosnia. Still, at the beginning, Rafo was raised in Italian spirit, so he knew Italian better than Croatian. In order to help Croat cause and Croat reunionist mission, he had to improve the knowledge of his Croatian. Kubura 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a list of 26 deputates of Narodna stranka (partito croato) from 1870. in Dalmatian Diet. On this link, it mentions the "team" on the photo: party leader Miho Klaić, then following trio Miho Pavlinović, dr. Rafo Pucić and Edvard Tacconi; in a chain around central part: Ivan Danilo, dr. Lovro Monti, dr. Petar Čingrija, dr. Antun Bersa, dr. Josip Antonietti, dr. Konstantin Vojnović, Ivan Desković, Gjorgje Vojnović, Petar Budmani, Josip Kažimir Ljubić, Ivan Vranković, dr. Josip Paštrović, Antun Šupuk, Josip Raimondi, Stefan Ljubiša, dr. Frane Lanza, Krsto Kulišić and dr. Ante Tripalo. At the bottom are Rafo Arneri, Jerotej Kovačević and Vicko Luković, and completely at the bottom, Frane Fontana. Kubura 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatisation of Italians in Dalmatia

Statement about assimilation of Italians in Dalmatia between 1850 and 1914/18 is under very good question. Census data from article Kingdom of Dalmatia for year 1880 are:

• 371,565 Croats
• 78,714 Serbs
• 27,305 Italians

It is if nothing else misleading speak that when school has started to use Croatian language and not Italian is assimilation. Croats have been 77 % of population and it is normal that in school and other public places language is Croatian and not Italian because they are only 5-6 % of population. Be good to answer this question with argument. If there is no answer today tag will be returned.--Rjecina 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Austrian empire has started to make census data only in 1880. Data for Italians between 1880 and 1910 are:

• 1880 27305
• 1890 16000
• 1990 15279
• 1910 18028 +2500 persons which are having Italian passport.--Rjecina 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Source please

There are no sources that refer to the departure of Italians from Istria or Zadar as "Croatization". Such extreme POV accusations need at least ONE source referring to those events as "Croatization". (When I say "source", I naturally mean a published, scholarly work.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You call it "censorship" (LoL), I call it unsourced POV. Theirrulez, get a source or stop inserting the nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? A new-negationist? Be serious. First, I din't add anything, I never edited on this article, written by Kubura and friends (by the way I suppose). Second, whatever source you mean I don't care: what you did is unfair and not neutral because it's clear you desagree with the section you deliberately removed (or better you prefer not to read it). So kindly restore the text where it was since now, than add an appropriate template to require sourced needed. - Theirrulez (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Its simple - this article is about "Croatisation". Before you call something "Croatisation" you need at least one guy with a degree out there that calls it "Croatisation". These are serious issues and I am not prepared to have unsourced nonsense in there. "If its not sourced - it does not exist." Unsourced gibberish can be removed at any time, without discussion, without templates or any discretion - and particularly if its controversial, offensive, and deals with Balkans ethnic conflicts.

The text is not erased from time and space, its still in the history. Get a source and I'll restore it myself. If you don't have a source - tough meat, some guy's thoughts, feelings and opinions should certainly not be in there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

her below the text must be canceeled because it requires a source:

Croatisation of Italy's Julian March and Zadar after WWII

After World War II most of the Italians left Istria and the cities of Italian Dalmatia in the Istrian exodus. The remaining Italians were assimilated culturally and even linguistically during Tito's rule of communist Yugoslavia.

Of course in this case " " shouldn't have worked... - Theirrulez (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The source MUST explicitly state that these events are "Croatisation", i.e. it must use this term. This article is about Croatisation, not general bad things that happened to Italians. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't have to state what you prefer (absurd you can't understand it) sources just have to explain what is shown in text. Theirrulez (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not "what I prefer". Look, all I'm saying is find someone out there, someone, anyone, that says that is Croatisation. That's all. All else is heavy POV. You can't say something is this or that without at least some kind of source. I think you too can see this is perfectly reasonable. (Why is the title red...?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No instrumental requests please, and no revisionism. --Theirrulez (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anything other than a source. Your edits will be continuously reverted as unsourced POV up to the point when you can say "this historian says its Croatisation". If you wish to edit-war, its on you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I avoid edit war, but if you and Koven like to edit war no problem to report you both.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want we can have the same approach on your beloved articles, like chetniks and draza mihailovich, tito, yugoslav front etc: if sources don't mention the word in the title we will erase entire sections ok? --Theirrulez (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Real smart, edit-war and then then report me. I'm sure Koven and I will be only ones who would be blocked... lol. Theirrulez, are you actually "threatening" me above with conflicts on other articles? :) You know I always love a good "brawl", bring it. ;)

Anyway concerning this particular case, I really am asking for the bare minimum of sources. I know what "Croatisation" is, its a term used for Serbs & Bosniaks, primarily. All I'm asking is that you show me that the term applies to these events with Italians as well. Its the bare minimum. Get me anything, anything at all. ONE source.

Theirrulez, as always, if you don't believe me that this is the bare minimum for an NPOV article, you can always ask someone. Remember that was Yugoslavia (could it be "Yugoslavisation", partially "Slovenisation"?)! You can't just use a term because you yourself interpret things that way. You need to find someone with a degree that thinks so too. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's this censorship? I saw more than decent sources above. Why did you erase them, Direktor? The guy is an IP, he doesn't seem a sock, or, if he is a sock we don't know it yet. So leave there the sources he posted, it's not nice to do what you did. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the checkuser-confirmed IP sock of User:Luigi 28, you will be instantly reported should you restore it again. Feel free to post the source or any relevant information yourself, just don't restore the banned user's post.

• Both of the sources you linked are clearly falsely quoted. The first refers to the 1990s. The second does not mention Italians.
• The source posted by the sock is not readable. All we can see is that it uses the term "croatizzazione" in some way. From what I can read the author refers to the "specter of 'croatisation'" in the liberal-nationalist media of Dalmatia. I can find no indication of any reference to the Istrian exodus or the foibe or anything. I don't even know if he's talking about the 19th century or the 1990s...

Let me be perfectly clear: only verifiable information can be entered into the article. Sourced information about Croatisation, only. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me more clear than what you could be: no historic negationism or revisionism will be accepted. If you want to challenge reliable sources, feel free to do it in this talk page. And please link me the report of the CU of that IP, until now I don't have any proof of that. Theirrulez (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] croatisation (in Italian "croatizzazione") of Fiume (Rijeka) after the WWII.Sources by historians Claudio Magris, Giovanni Miccoli and Roberto Finzi In this book you can obtain lots of informations about the croatisation of Istria after WWII. The auctor is prof. Raoul Pupo, also cited several times in the article about the foibe massacres. Pupo was one of the member of the Italian-Slovenian Commission of historian which made a detailed report on the Foibe, on the exodus and on the threatening of Italians following forced croatization during the cold war. This commission wrote the report "Slovene-Italian relations 1880-1956". There is also many sources about the croatisation of Dalmatia.Other sources: [2], [3]. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See also: Istrian-Dalmatian exodus

Hower this article, per WP:OWN, can't suffer your pressure for sources you don't agree, and can't be erased or mofified as you like. Anyway sincerely, if you consider any source as unreliable source, please feel free to take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Theirrulez (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your offensive posts anymore. The only thing that interests me are sources. I do not consider your sources "unreliable", I consider them falsely quoted.

• Both of the sources you linked are obviously falsely quoted. The first refers to the 1990s. The second does not mention Italians.
• The source posted by the sock is not readable. The book uses the term "croatizzazione" two times, but it does not support your claim that those events listed in the section are "Croatisation". From what I can read the author refers to the "specter of 'croatisation'" in the liberal-nationalist media of Dalmatia. I can find no indication of any reference to the Istrian exodus or the foibe or Rijeka or Zadar or any part of the gibberish that is included in the article section you're pushing. I don't even know if the source talking about the 19th century or the 1990s.

In short, I can see that you're desperate, but simply listing sources that use the word "Croatisation" does not really mean anything. You need sources that support the claims listed in your section, i.e. that the Istrian exodus, foibe, etc. were indeed "Croatisation" (not because I "demand" that, but because that's what you claim in the section). I for one can't see how people who are left the country and/or were killed had been "Croatised" in some way, but my opinions are irrelevant - as are yours.

I'm sorry you can't find a source, but ultimately, unsourced nonsense won't stay in the article no matter how much you edit-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This link [4] does indeed contain valuable information on the croatisation of Rijeka: "Nella Fiume del 1945 la "croatizzazione" è qualcosa di molto diverso da quella, in chiave liberale, del secolo precedente.", though here the term is applied to what in effect today we would call ethnic cleansing. The text being pushed by Ir is badly written at the very least, and I don't want to make a contribution while an edit war is going on.

The question is: is the article (or the term) about people being assimilated into Croatian society or about areas becoming part of the Croatian "mainstream" because the previous inhabitants of different ethnicity have left? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Its paradoxical. How can people be "Croatised" if they leave or get killed?

The source posted by the IP sock of User:Luigi 28 does indeed refer to Rijeka - but only to the departure of Italians from Rijeka - not the cultural assimilation of anyone. And I'll be tied down and run over by a tank before this article will sport some nonsense "ethnic cleansing" POV. :)

• Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffy, et al. Cultures of insecurity: states, communities, and the production of danger; University of Minnesota Press, 1999 ISBN 0816633088 [5]

"Despite the existence of some exiles who recognize the complicated intersections of ideological and ethnonational claims in motivating the exodus, since Yugoslavia's breakup [interesting note] the exile associations and their leaders had considerable success in Italy promoting the exodus as a unitary event following out of a premeditated plan to 'Slavicize' Istria. Such narratives may be linked to morality plays, as Malkki (1995) suggests for accounts told by Hutu refugees in Tanzania. In constructing the Istrian exodus as an act of 'ethnic cleansing' and casting it in fundamentally moral terms, exile narratives in Trieste silence competing voices. Conflating Istrian Italian culture/history with all Istrian culture/history, these accounts posit the exiles as the only authentic Istrians."

It is important to mention that the overt bias of Italian authors (and Italian society itself) towards these issues is well noted indeed within the scientific community (although I imagine Croatian authors are no better or even worse :). Furthermore, targeting Croats specifically and portraying these events as "Croatisation" alone is highly biased in that both Slovenes and Croats make up the ethnic composition of Istria. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I own both the sources. The first (from p. 699) is speaking about the croatisation of Fiume from 1945 to 1947: the union with Susak, the new borderline with the Istrian territory in the west-side, the imposition of Croatian in the Italian schools, the killing of the autonomists and so on. I can try to translate some passages, if you like. The Pupo's books widely speaks of "croatisation", in many pages. Also here I can try to translate some passages. Regards and... be happy!--79.48.206.54 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, I know that the article is not a very good one as it stands, but the lead says that croatisation applies to people and land. I think we can all agree that as people of other ethnicities left Croatia (regardless of who these people were) and were replaced by Croats, these areas were croatised.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course.--79.48.206.54 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)