Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in April 2004

---

This refers to the article Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy.

Summary: 5 votes to keep, 7 votes to delete, 2 fairly negative comments

And it looks as if it might be copied from somewhere. Exploding Boy 11:40, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

• (Added by Pfortuny). Notice that the original poster was user:GeneralPatton as can be seen here. His vote is delete.
• Keep. A worthy subject. VfD is not for accuracy disputes. Smerdis of Tlön 11:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: important topic. If it's a copyvio, deal with it on copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no point in including non-referenced unverifiable opinionated content in the Wikipedia. The actual content is compeltely arbitrary/unsourced. Do not charge anyone with any crime unless you show enough proof of it (and one book is not enough). Pfortuny 13:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs cleanup, though. Cribcage 05:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• It could be salvaged by turning it into an article about the links between the Catholic clergy and the Ustashi—when, how, and why the two groups collaborated—which would be easier to document, and much more informative, than the current list. Until then, what Pfortuny said. —No-One Jones 05:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • P.S. this has been deleted before, so it's technically a speedy-delete candidate. —No-One Jones 06:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • This is what I recalled but I wasn't sure... my fault for not checking the deletion log. Mirv is right but then the title ought to be changed, also. Pfortuny 07:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - a big list of unverifiable accusations, that has been deleted before. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:25, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I've commented about it on the old talk page and on the RFC page for the user who posted it already. --Shallot 09:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm unhappy about the lack of sourcing, and I'm not sure what value is served by the article. Should we also have a list of priests who collaborated with the Nazis? Or imams who collaborated with Saddam Hussein? Or, for that matter, any professionals who collaborated with any reviled dictatorship? -- ChrisO 14:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely. Everyking 17:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Igor apparently isn't on Wikipedia ATM but I'm certain that he could clarify the source if that is the problem (and add one Keep vote for him, he would surely vote that way). Nikola
  08:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • a) well, the problem is with the page, not with the source. It does not matter who adds the page to VfD, we vote for its content, not for its history-editors-skin colour-hobbies... Pfortuny 09:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • b) obviously, I take your "vote for him" as a joke. Pfortuny 09:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • a) You said that the problem is the page being "non-referenced unverifiable opinionated". It doesn't matter anymore? What are your objections now?
    • b) Fine, I've emailed him to come and vote. It wouldbe the easiest for me, you and him if you have simply accepted "my vote for him", but as you haven't...
• Keep, next time you can count Nikola's vote on similar issues as mine as well. Never am one to support the deletion of my pages on worked on, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time on them, right? I had some unfortunate problems with my password, but that is fixed now. The list is from different sources and is not even complete yet. Thanks for reminding me of having to do that guys. A lot of the names can be found in Viktor Novak's (a Croat Catholic by birth BTW) book 'Magnum Crimen' (Zagreb, 1948) which writes about Croat clericalism in the first half of the 20th century.
  • Well, I gathered from infancy that in true democracy you cannot "count another person's vote" as my own. Things may have changed. Pfortuny 12:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how it works in other countries, but in Serbia and Montenegro a person who can't vote on its own (blind, disabled, illiterate...) can bring another person at an election place to vote instead of him or her.
    • Add to that the fact that Igor isn't active on it at the moment and that the author would always defend the article he wrote. I suspect that previous deletion was also done when someone noticed that both me and him are absent. Nikola
      07:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can read about Ustashi and Catholic clergy links further on this site: Pavelic Papers The Vatican's Holocaust or just go into Google and type in a search for "Ustashi+Catholic" and see for yourself how many hits you get. Igor.

• Well, Ustasi+catholic+clergy gives some 420 and Ustashi+catholic+priest even less. Pfortuny 12:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • What does that has to do with anything????Nikola
    07:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article has no source, no references. I already deleted it once before (aroud 3 to 6 months ago I guess). As it stands now it's just an accusation. It's like saying here's a list of people the Clinton administration had murdered. (It might be true, and it might be of cricial importance, but without historical backup it's a groundless claim.)

Here are my suggestions:

• Research the matter, and provide 3 or more online links and a couple of print sources.
• Insert the word ALLEGED in the intro paragraph until then.

--Uncle Ed 18:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much that the allegations are unsupported IRL, it's that it's written in a completely !NPOV manner. One could probably dig out references to various sources for at least a few of those names, and many of the names are there for a reason (though just a cursory glance reveals that "active Ustaša" is the keyword of the article, and that could mean just about anything), but that's not the point of this encyclopedia, or any other one for that matter... --Shallot 19:12, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Preserved for the record, please do not edit.