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.--Zoupan 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted copy-paste, hatnoted for further information.--Zoupan 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.--Zoupan 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 Ustashe... as well appropriate?--Zoupan 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.
   — Directive of 20 December 1941

"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.--Zoupan 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.--Zoupan 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before calling this frivolous.--Zoupan 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)

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)

Split84, 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.[1] 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)

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:

• Almond, Mark (December 2003). "Expert Testimony". Journal of Contemporary History. 36 (1). Zagreb, Croatia: Croatian Institute of History: 177–209. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Almond, Mark (1994). Europe's backyard war: the war in the Balkans. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-00003-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

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:

• Almond, Mark (December 2003). "Expert Testimony". Journal of Contemporary History. 36 (1). Zagreb, Croatia: Croatian Institute of History: 177–209. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Almond, Mark (1994). Europe's backyard war: the war in the Balkans. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-00003-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

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)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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: "Pregnancy Act Hong Kong". Retrieved 7 July 2014.
• From Same-sex marriage: "State lacks authority to redefine marriage, says bishop". Catholic News Agency. CNA. 7 June 2013. Retrieved 20 December 2013.
• From Transphobia: "Transgender Bullying: A National Epidemic". nobullying.com. Retrieved 2016-02-22.
• From Chetnik war crimes in World War II: "Četnički zločini nad Hrvatima i Muslimanima u Bosni i Hercegovini tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata (1941.-1945.)".
• 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: "Gender Pay Gap". Women.govt. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
• From Serbs: "Community Profile: Serb Community" (Document). ECMI Kosovo. 2013. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |archivedate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archiveurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
• From Xenophobia: Guido Bolaffi. Dictionary of race, ethnicity and culture. SAGE Publications Ltd., 2003. Pp. 332.
• From Hate crime: Meyer, Doug (2014). "Resisting Hate Crime Discourse: Queer and Intersectional Challenges to Neoliberal Hate Crime Laws". Critical Criminology. 22: 113. doi:10.1007/s10612-013-9228-x.
• From Serbia: "Official population projection for Serbia (2016)". Republic of Serbia Statistical Bureau. Archived from the original on 2 February 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy: "Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and sex workers". BBC News. 23 July 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Ottoman Empire: Rogan, Eugene (2011). The Arabs: A History. Penguin. p. 106.
• From Xenophobia: "Xenophobic violence in democratic South Africa". South Africa History Online. Retrieved 29 June 2016.
• 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
• From Sexism: "Mexico advises workers on sexist language - BBC News". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
• From Same-sex marriage: Will Rabbe (18 July 2013). "Redefining marriage, one dictionary at a time". MSNBC. Retrieved 20 December 2013.

Reference named "Cresciani_ClashOfCivilisations":

• From Julian March: Cresciani, Gianfranco (2004) "Clash of civilisations", Italian Historical Society Journal, Vol.12, No.2, p.4
• From Slovenes: Cresciani, Gianfranco (2004) Clash of civilisations, Italian Historical Society Journal, Vol.12, No.2, p.4

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)

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 Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia: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)

:::::::Before wiping parts of the page let a discussion happen here. 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)

::::::::::I was in the middle of adding sources and was interrupted upon you reverting. 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)

::::::::::::: I found sources for the Chetnik section that was removed. 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)

:::::::::::::::Tomasevich is source I found for those directives. 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)

:::::::::::::::::I see your point. 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.

::::::::::::::Enough with interrupting with personal attacks. 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)

::::::::::::::::Thank you for the motivational words and for taking time to edit and talk. 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)

::::::::::::::::::Haha absolutely. 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)

::::::::::::::::::::: The removal of Šešelj’s greater Serbia map and the flyer. 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, MaloPoMalo, 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)

:::::::Wouldn’t the map make sense since it illustrates his objective of annexing land in part of his ethnic cleansing ambitions stated in the article?MaloPoMalo (talk) 18:58, 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)

:::::::::I see no issue with having both. 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)

:::::::::: I had reverted as it had translations for the graffitis. 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 [2] [3]Mikola22 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandwich

@Sadko: I am not quite sure that you have understood WP:SANDWICH. It is the current version by OyMosby 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)

@TU-nor: 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)

@Sadko: 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)

• 
  The borders of Great Serbia as propagated by Radical politician Vojislav Šešelj in 1992.
• 
  A Serb flyer used during the Yugoslav Wars, calling upon all citizens of Dubrovnik to cooperate with the JNA against the Croats' "vampired fascism and Ustašism"
• 
  Croatian home in Republika Srpska defaced with graffiti which includes the Serbian cross, "Red Star champion", "Usraše se Ustaše" and "God protects Serbs"

The gallery could be made a bit more compact in height by forcing larger width and shortening the captions. --T*U (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• 
  The borders of Great Serbia as propagated by Radical politician Vojislav Šešelj in 1992.
• 
  A flyer calling upon citizens of Dubrovnik to cooperate with the JNA against the Croats' "vampired fascism and Ustašism"
• 
  House defaced with graffiti: Serbian cross, "Red Star champion", "Usraše se Ustaše" and "God protects Serbs"

References