Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creating deletion discussion page for Croatisation because

• the subject is goes beyond POV is inflammatory, and represents propoganda;
• represents WP:POINT
• Written by unknown person;
• Quotes site reporting on testimony given by biased source;
• Requires more sources;
• Makes unquantifiable and unverifiable claims.

I think a different style of article would best sit in an article linked to the Croatia or Demographics of Croatia and titled Demographic History and Social Integration of Croatia. It should the tendency of minority groups to adopt aspects of the mainstream (covered 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.

The Croatisation article on the other hand needs to be deleted. iruka 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I have expanded arguments as follows:

• Croatisation is a non-scientific term used almost exclusively by Serbian nationalists - hence the propaganda tag. It has negative connotations associated with it and implies force to a phenomena that may in fact be organic. Such terms often invented in the Balkans as part of propaganda line.
• The use of such a term is suggestive of an attempt to associate negativity with the term Croat and as a substitute for more accepted and NPOV terms in the fields of history, sociology and politics. The more generic term which is used by sociologists is 'integration into the mainstream' or 'forced integration' or 'assimilation'.
• The propaganda angle is the repetitive association of Croat (particularly the modern governments) with fascism & genocide. Such a fringe view is held by Marko Atlagic, whose testimony in support of Slobodan Milosevic is used as a source of the term.
• The focus of the article and it's inaccuracy suggest a propaganda motive. Take for example the section "...Medieval Republic of Dubrovnik only Roman Catholics could acquire Ragusan citizenship which forced many Orthodox Serbian merchants and traders from neighbouring Herzegovina to convert to Catholicism. The claim is unsourced; makes suggests that traders are forced as opposed to choosing to convert to acquire material benefits as mentioned for articles concerning Ottoman Turk expansion in Europe & associated conversions. Further it draws conclusions on the supposition that religious affiliation is synonymous with national identity, something a person of a nationalist mindset would think.
• The belief that the occupants of Dubrovnik were "really" catholic Serbs was a centrepiece of the platform of Vojislav Seselj (Serbian Radical Party leader) and the pretext for the miltary campaign against Dubrovnik. The relevance of this point is to demonstrate the association of this line and the term Croatisation by Serb nationalists.

The items covered:

• WWII Ustasha conversions are covered in the Ustasha article;
• Section on Dubrovnik, is flawed and has nothing to do with notions of assimilation and everything to do with a turf war between theocracies;
• Claim about recent president Croatising Krajina is unexplained, unsubstantiated and unsourced.

To me it is obvious the article is made with a propaganda angle and with WP:POINT in mind. A term that is not in common use is used in place of common terms such as assimilation and integration. If the author is serious about a discussion on the pulls of integration, demographic change and assimilation policies, then that can be covered in a stubb on Demographics of Croatia, while assimilation policies of the Ustasha belong on the stubb of the same name.

For these reasons the stubb should be deleted.

iruka 19:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)