Talk:History of Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Content moved

Big parts of this talk page has been moved to the new Talk Pages of the History of Croatia-series articles. Refer to Talk:History of modern Croatia, Talk:Independent State of Croatia, Talk:Croatia in the second Yugoslavia and Talk:Medieval Croatian state to see them.

By the way, it would be nice, if this page could become even shorter now that the content got seperated into a number of own articles. Especially the Habsburg and modern time Croatia parts are still far too long (especially in regard to the other times). I tried to shorten them already, some more work in this direction would be great. --denny vrandečić 15:01, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think that it should all be cut out. There's not much reason for all the duplication, i.e. either have it all in one or all separate. --Shallot 17:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, don't cut it all out. There should be a short overview article like this one. And I think the differences in the texts of this page and the detail pages will grow bigger with time, and redundancy will decrease. --denny vrandečić 08:39, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
I've now condensed the content myself and I think it's okay. It could probably be condensed further. --Shallot 21:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Now it's about the size I hoped to achieve. --denny vrandečić 08:39, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics

149.101.1.130, please stop removing perfectly valid diacritical marks from the page! --Shallot 11:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


diacritical marks appear as "?" in the text--wouldn't it be better to fix these eyesores??
They only appear like that if you have an old web browser without support for Unicode. Reasonably new Internet Explorer and Mozilla will display them right, try that.
These people's names are really Radić, Račić and such, they're only transcribed without the diacritics when it's impossible to store them properly. For example in the page titles (that's why I use those pipe links), but not in the page contents itself. The words "Radić" and "Radic" have two different pronunciations in Croatian ("rah'dich" and "rah'ditz"), they're not equivalent. --Shallot 17:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
This is an English page. Just because you can display foreign languages doesn't mean your audience can read it. Would it make sense to you if I said something like "Emperor 裕仁 of Japan ascended the throne in 1926..."? Why not write in English and put the original non-English words & names in parenthesis like we do in pages such as sushi? Mdchachi 16:44, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
In principle, I have no objections to using native Japanese terms, but do observe several important practical differences -- readers of Latin alphabet in general are able to discern the non-diacritical versions of letters from what they see (the carons, acutes and bars only modify the basic letter), and the pipe links always point to a version without the diacritics for those few that don't have Unicode fonts which is equivalent to putting everything in parenthesis (and I think better than it, because it avoids taking up a lot of screen estate along the way). --Shallot 17:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

[edit] Mir Harven's comments

well, I visited "page history" for Cro history page. My, my,...what an obsessive-compulsive Cro-junkie Igor something is. Geez- this fella essentially does nothing except wanking (pardon my French) on Cro wiki (or Cro-related) pages. Get a life, freak.

M H

Looks like Cro-obsession is on rampage among SS (Serbian sickos). Wacko linx del'ed.

M H

[edit] too much 20th century

It occurs to me that we have four sections for the 20th century and four for everything before. We could probably group the latest four into a supra-section... --Joy [shallot] 17:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leave Igor alone, MH ... prat!

He is a smart guy, while you are a fool. Pardon my French!

"Serbian sickos"? Racist Dickhead!

Talk about "Cro-obsession", the Western media during the nineties was "Serb-junkie" -- though, I would personally use the term "Serb-Bashers". Some will look back and argue that the "Serb-junkies" of the nineties were obsessive-compulsive in their propaganda effort. These days, even now the media likes an occasional bash or two. But looking forward now!, you anti-Serbs will be seeing a decline in the near future! I promise you. ;)

PS: All those "killer" comments on Bosnia and Herzegovina's history you made, claiming they "disprove" Serbian claims to Bosnia, didn't even scratch! Indeed, some didn't even debunk, while others weren't even true.

Alan. --81.79.245.249 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavens forbid

I am a victim of the Ustashi war plans in 1991-1995. I don't know why you don't mention any of the ethnic cleansing activities that Croatia did to the Serb Borderlander population. You only mentioned "four years of bitter fighting against the Serbs" and "rebel territories". I lost my sister and several other siblings in the war, as well as my home and ALL material ownership. I am now forced to live in Serbia and Montenegro, struggling to survive (since I have no apartment, but have to rent a private one). A stranger now lives in my apartment, my two houses were ruthlessly burned to the ground and my estates destroyed. My grandfather's sheep were used as practise targets; and the area spanning my mother's parents, the place where my close family lived and my father's parents is huge, meaning that those actions were forced all over Croatia. I can't return to my homeland, since there is no more a place to return to. When we payed a visit to the man living in our apartmant, it was VERY rough... he threatened to call the police if we would ever return. You MUST add at least something more about it. I hate to see that unjustice will rule EVERYWHERE. I see it only fitting that the history part of 1991-1995 is SERIOUSLY rewritten from a neutral pont of view, because it was entirely pro-Croatian.

As I told you already at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina and Talk:Croatia... such particular information is not directly applicable, and in summaries we can't go at too much length about all the issues involved. I'll have a look at the text and see if it can be adjusted further. --Joy [shallot] 22:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I re-read this section here and I don't quite see the problem. This article doesn't talk briefly about the fighting and doesn't say anything about any rebellious nature of the territories. In fact, it says "Croatia started Operation Storm and quickly took most of Krajina, causing a mass exodus of the Serbian population" which looks like the thing you're aiming at. --Joy [shallot]

______________________________________________________________________________________

What have I read? Both ustase and cetnik collaborated with the nazis? Sorry but the Cetniks didn't collaborate with the nazi because they fought against them.

[edit] For the sake of our free encycopedia

For God's sake, what is wrong with you people??? This Mir Harven and the user 81.79.245.249 are acting like four-year-olds, which they probably are. "Get a life, freak?" "prat?" "Serbian sickos"??? There is no place for this kind of primitivsm in our... well, now... encyclopedia of low-IQ and the dishonorful. I am seriously thinking about a more-than-24-hour ban to halt this kind of rhethoric nonsence promoted by this primitive 81.79.245.249 and that maniacally depressed Mir Harven... HolyRomanEmperor 11:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article lacks mention of ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia... HolyRomanEmperor 15:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

HRE, what ethnic cleansing of Serbs? When and where did it happened? If you mean on big withdrawal in 1995., that is because rebel Serb leaders organized that withdrawal. Croatian authorities called local Serbs (on all radio and tv station), on every hour whole week (at least), to stay and not to leave Croatia, during liberation operations. Do you find that as an ethnic cleansing?

The only ethnic cleansing in Croatia was when rebelled Serbs from Croatia (together with Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) expelled domestic Croats and other non-Serbs (which remained loyal to Croatia even in such bad times) from areas which were under rebels control.Kubura 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I responded at your talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

Zmaj, I would if Jasenovac was bult explicitly for the Chetnik Corps, but it wasn't. The Bleiburg and other massacres were solely of members of the Ustasha forces and government as well as civilians connected to them (i. e. their children, neighbours, friends, etc.). It is well-known that the Ustashas' decendents never lived appropriately in SFRJ. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and justifying a massacre. I (or any Croatian, for that matter) have nothing to discuss with you. --Zmaj 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Justifying a massacre; in the heavens' name, isn't it obvious that that was an atrocity from my upper-mentioned post? (then that means that I have nothing to discuss to myself :) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Croatian state (until 1102)- It should be written Croats and Serbs or only Slavs. In that period of time nobody mentioned Croats. Serbs were mentioned by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. It is not accurate and not historically correct to mention only Croats. It is not article about Croats.

Even in this article where we have Croatia and Bosnia you write "Croats and other Slavs", You could not omit Serbs from here. See discussion about Croatia only.Here it is about Croatia+Bosnia, so it is not historically correct. Serbs were mentioned first by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. So at least should be Croats and Serbs.--Medule 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two small corrections

I removed the reference to the '"Montenegrin" deputy of the Serbian Radical...' because it may give the false impression that Punisa Racic was an ethnic Montenegrin; Montenegrin ethnicity didn't actually take root until after the Second World War and describing Racic as Montenegrin here makes as much sense as describing Slobodan Milošević as Montenegrin in the articles about wars in former Yugoslavia in the 1990's; it obscures the facts.

Also, the part about "Dubrovnik being included in Croatia for the first time in 1939" makes very little sense. The position of Dubrovnik was almost the same as that of other Dalmatian cities; they were at least nominally a part of the Croatian-Hungarian kingdom for a time in the 14th century before being conquered by Venice (the rest of Dalmatia) or becoming nominal Turkish vassals (Dubrovnik) and in the 19th century were joined in the Austrian province of Dalmatia which could be considered as "Croatian" by population as the kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia which was in the Hungarian part of the monarchy. --Elephantus 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

See also section should not be removed from wikipedia articles. People can use this as a quick reference to related articles, and the list is very helpful. Bzezen 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's helpful only if you don't select the "see also" articles in a biased way, which you are constantly and maliciously doing here. It's a near-vandalism case. When it turns into pure vandalism, I'll take care that an administrator comes knocking at your door. --Zmaj 10:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
All the links are related to Croatian history. If you somehow think that is biased, it just reveals your POV. Obviously, since you are apparently Croatian, it is a POV that does not like some of the links. But that does not make them vandalism, or anything like that. They are links of articles related to Croatian history adding context for those who want to learn more. If you have objections to the list, you can state your arguments, but you cannot blank the see also section. Indeed, blanking is a simple vandalism, and you should check what is what here on wikipedia. Please read the definition of vandalism - it is pretty clearly stated what vandalism is and what is not! Bzezen 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, you're right. But it seems you don't understand what the "See also" section is used for, so let me explain. This section should point out topics which have not been included in the article itself, but which are as important as this article and somehow related to it. For example, the "See also" section of the "History of England" has links to the histories of closely related neighboring countries (Scotland, Ireland etc.), the histories of important aspects of the state (constitution, society), and such general subjects as the English people and the Commonwealth.
According to these criteria, some links you put there can certainly stay: Austro-Hungary, NDH, History of Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Others do not deserve a special mention: Ustashe and Jasenovac (mentioned in the article itself and belonging to NDH anyway); Srbosjek and Danke Deutschland (irrelevant for a general history). So I'll return those four links. I'll add "History of Hungary", since it was a joint kingdom with Croatia for 800 years. I'll also add "Central Europe" and "History of the Mediterranean region", since Croatia is a part of those two regions along with the Balkans. I hope this has clarified the issue. --Zmaj 07:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Croatian state

Medieval Croatian state (until 1102)- It should be written Croats and Serbs or only Slavs. In that period of time nobody mentioned Croats. Serbs were mentioned by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. It is not accurate and not historically correct to mention only Croats. It is not article about Croats. Even in this article where we have Croatia and Bosnia you write "Croats and other Slavs", You could not omit Serbs from here. See discussion about Croatia only.Here it is about Croatia+Bosnia, so it is not historically correct. Serbs were mentioned first by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. So at least should be Croats and Serbs.--Medule 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs and Croats came in a second wave of migrations, in 620s, invited by Emperor Heraclius to drive the Avars from Dalmatia. That is according to Porfirogenet. According to Einchardt there are only Serbs and Slavs in that region of Croatia and Bosnia mentioned in disputed sentence. --Medule 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As we already explained to you in Talk:Croatia, a (possible) short stay of Serbs in that area is irrelevant. Many peoples went through the region during the great migrations of the 7th century, but the only people relevant for the history of Croatia is the one that stayed and organized the Dalmatian and Pannonian duchies, i.e. the Croats. --Zmaj 09:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're dealing with a vandal (with several aliases - Medule, Bzezen etc.) whose sole purpose is to mutilate any article that is related to Croatia. No amount of reason will succeed in convincing him to stop. In fact, concessions that have already been made will only further aggravate the situation. EurowikiJ 11:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. While his proposed content for the "See also" section was partly misdirected, it was also partly useful, as I've shown by making it appropriate. I won't revert anything if it has some useful part in it. On the other hand, the proposal to include Serbs in the early medieval history of Croatia is wholly misdirected because they did nothing relevant for the history of the country in that period.
Of course, Medule, that is not to say that another people cannot be mentioned in the history of Croatia. In fact, the Serbs played a significant role in the country's history when they came to the Military Frontier, stayed there for three centuries and eventually tried to create their own state. But that is duly mentioned in the article. --Zmaj 11:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll see. But something tells me that this vandal will not stop. EurowikiJ 12:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Eurowiki,first of all I never used alias Bzezen and please we could ask administrator to check such false allegation. Please stop calling me vandal or I will ask protection. Second in article about Croatia some users tried to tell me to change this article. Zmaj you could see sentence talking about somebody coming not only to Croatia, but to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 1. Serbs come at same time with Croats 2. In Pagania Serbs they formed long lived entities 3. First naming of Croats is from 850s and Serbs from 822 in region 4. There are more historical domunts naming Serbs than hist. document naming Croats in that very early perios.--Medule 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and ask for protection. So far your actions (ip 194.106.187.xxx) have resulted in a ban on further modifications on Croatia article. And we're slowly getting to the same situation here. EurowikiJ 13:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply on the Talk:Croatia page. We'll continue the discussion there, since the topic is the same. --Zmaj 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There is another problem. I have rv changed not only Serbs but also part of article about Tomislav map. Please discuss it if you have objections, Dont revert it.--Medule 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That map is widely accepted in Croatia. Of course, almost any topic has a couple of historians who disagree with the generally accepted facts, it's natural. But an encyclopedia includes only what is generally accepted as truth. No original research, remember? Until those opposing views are widely recognized, you can't put them here. You can include them in the talk page, though. --Zmaj 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Map is not widely accepted. You just deleted link that shows that best Croatian historian Nada Klaic shows possible Tomislav state.That is from well known textbook:Klaic, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975.: Hrvatska i Slavonija za Tomislava http://www.geocities.com/hrvatskapovijest/img/09.gif
Another well known mediviel historian Ivo Goldstein in his book "Hrvatski rani srednji vijek", pages 286-291 made conclusion that Croatia was not much larger during Tomislav period.--KHasek 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, those people are in the minority. What Ms. Klaić wrote is not a "textbook", as you call it. It's a book. Textbooks, i.e. what is used for learning history in schools, all have the Tomislav map from this article. So I see no reason why I shouldn't remove your addition. --Zmaj 08:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is sentence "Croatia and Bosnia". In Croatia and Bosnia together Serbs had not been in minor role. Serbs always existed in that region. Tomislav map is disputed as it is said before by important Croatian scientiscts (Nada Klaic and Ivo Goldstein). Nada Klaic book is still used for students of history as textbook.--Medule 11:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths--Medule 21:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Look there are 3 Croatian historians Nada Klaic, Ivo Goldstein and S.Koren that dispute that map.Croat historian I. Goldstein stated that Tomoslav never ruled Bosnia (Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, p. 286-291). Croat historian N. Klaic pointed out that Tomislav rule never extended beyond the river Una. Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths.

There are 2 Croatian historians that use maps but with 60-70% of Bosnia teritory.Tomislav Raukar said that Tomislav ruled over 65% of present BiH territory.Mladen Ancic has similar statement.Serbian historian mainly opposed the view about Tomislav presence in Bosnia.That is at least disputed fact if you look from neutral point of view.--Medule 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

Of all the countries that link to History of the Balkans page, only (History of) Croatia had a link to it right beneath the title. I moved all such links to See also section where they normaly are in other such pages. History of Croatia should be no exception to this rule.EurowikiJ 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your last version is the best, I agree. --Zmaj 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda parts

Let's see 2 sentences that are real examples of propaganda: "The conflict culminated with the so-called "log revolution", when the so-called Krajina Serbs blocked the roads to the tourist destinations in Dalmatia and started a mass ethnic cleansing of Croats and other non-Serb populations. " To analyze that part:-log revolution was in August 1990 and at that time was no ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing of Croats and Serbs started in June 1991.

"After the Croatian government had declared independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) launched an open aggression on Republic backed by the local Serb militia's." -In accordance to NPOV somebody will write that sentence like :YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs.--Medule 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Croats and Serbs. - Lie.
YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs. - JNA POV. --Zmaj 07:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Between 100.000 and 200.000 Serbs left big cities. UNHCR report said.

Big parts of western Slavonia, Serb populated parts in Otocac for example were burned and Serbs expelled.YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs." is better example than propaganda sentences in text about agression.--195.252.86.186 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Eminent historians"

Nada Klaić and Ivo Goldstein are not eminent historians. Theirs works got so many critics because of so many "holes" in them. Goldstein got his academic title by denying pillars of Croat history; that was his "some new contribution" to science, although these "contributions" were based on misexplained sources, or the sources with no ground. Nada Klaić's works are rejected in modern historiography. Her scientific status was being kept by her kissing up to pro-greaterserbianists who gave her orders and kept her on the job. Kubura 13:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths. That is third Croatian historian with same idea.--Medule 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Yugoslavia??

How can a communist state be democratic? That's oxymoron. I removed it - Tomy108 10th July '06

Of course. It was an oversight. --Zmaj 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't - SFRY was indeed called DFY at the time. It's not particularly pertinent, but it was accurate. --Joy [shallot] 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

-Wrong again, it was called Yugoslavija, 1943-1949/1950, Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia 1950-1963, and SFRY until the end. Tomy108

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Croatia_4aa3.html"