Talk:Ante Starčević/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents


RfC summary

This is a summary for uninvolved editors who come here after reading the Request for Comment.

There have been discussions and edit wars about Starčević's racism. What follows in this chapter are the summarized views of the two opposing sides, which we may call side A and side B.

NOTE TO THE OPPOSING SIDES: The summary of each side should not be signed by individual contributors, but should concisely present the opinions supported by that side. The total text for each side should not exceed 200 words. Do not edit the other side's summary!

Summary for side A

In Croatia, Ante Starčević is revered as the "father of the nation", a major historical figure. His monument stands in the country's capital. Many schools and squares are named after him. He was also the major influence on the Croatian writers and publicists of the 19th and 20th centuries who mostly belonged to the liberal-democratic and socialist-communist ideologies.

We don't deny that Starčević had some racialist views. Those views should be included in a subsection of the article. But it needs to be done in an NPOV way, i.e. without giving undue weight to the issue, since it is quite secondary compared to his political and literary work.

The other side, however, is simply dumping texts about his alleged racism - which was in fact a form of underdeveloped racialism - into the article, blatantly breaching the official policy of undue weight. In our view, these efforts, exerted continually and exclusively by certain wikipedians known for defaming and demonizing the origins of contemporary Croatia and Croat identity in general, are not useful contributions to a wiki article.

Summary for side B

It has been proven that Ante was a racist, and his writings are the obvious evidence. His racist views were the main part of his political views and a basis of his activities. You are free to add paragraphs describing other aspects of his life and work. Starcevic's racism is described in the NPOV manner already. As to the undue weight - it does not hold. His importance as a writer or a philosopher is nill and as a racist - his major 'achievement'. As per A.J.P Taylor - the Party of Right and, therefore, Starcevic's only only political activity is to make conflict with the Serbs.

If a man is a "father of his nation", and he's a racist, should we just hide that fact? Local perceptions of somebody's importance are not the global ones. So, stronger reference (than those - main historical figure, etc) here are needed when writing about this man.

The problem is that today's Croatia revives and tolerates neo-nazism [[1]] and whitewashed her racist past in the history textbooks, media and everyday life. Therefore, Ante's views of Serbs and Jews as second class citizens don't go to Croatians advantage, and they attempt to hide that fact as much as possible.

Start of talk page

Purgers' addition

1. My contribution to this article was labelled as

deleted usual Serbian propagandist rubbish or rv, trolls with usual Serbian mis- & disquotation disease-

and subsequently deleted. This 'approach' and all others supporting this one will be ultimately counteracted by reverting to my version without a comment or discussion.

2. As it was explained by an anonymous user:

- their (Gross, Barisic, Goldstein) findings about Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism are not scholarly questioned by any serious scholar/historian

- to describe Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism these historians used Starcevic's own words - literally copied from the Starcevic's works and correctly interpreted

- these Starcevic's words are correctly translated into spoken English inside this article

- this racist and anti-semitic attitude of Starcevic is nurtured and maintained inside his Party of the Rights for more than 60 years - in order to explode, in the most villainous way, in the years 1941-45 annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent people of the wrong "breed".

The last conclusion is confirmed by the great British historian and the Oxford University professor - A.J.P. Taylor, too.

3. I am not interested in any other aspect of the Starcevic's life or work. Whoever wants to contibute about Starcevic as a writer, a philosopher, a historian - is free to do that provided not changing the findings about his racism and anti-Semitism. Any change of the existing contribution for better - is welcome provided that is really for better. --Purger 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Purger's edit hardly follows the NPOV principle. This edit makes about 75% of the article about Starčević's supposed anti-Semitism.

I am not familiar with Mirjana Gross, nor with this book, but I am sure it mostly deals with politics.

If you are not familiar - that's fine. But, then, avoid passing any judgement about her and her work.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While this anti-Semitism may have been real, it shouldn't constitute three quarters of an article about a hugely important Croatian politician. There is obviously some POV agenda, since nothing about his politics or lasting legacy was contributed from a source book about the Party of Rights' "Ideology, Agitation, Movement".

I am not interested in the matter mentioned above - his politics or lasting legacy. Leaving it to some other people.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We can work out a compromise, but this edit cannot stand as is. --Thewanderer 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add more text about him - not related to his racism and anti-semitism and make this text you are targeting to be a contribution say of 30% only. Also, I do not think that Starcevic is more than a provincial politician - from the European prospective and this is the English language Wikipedia edition.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Starcevic's anti-semitism and racism is described by his own words

As to the scholarly work of the three renown Zagreb University historians, M. Gross, I. Goldstein, and Pavo Barisic:

- their findings about Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism are not scholarly questioned by any serious scholar/historian

- to describe Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism these historians used Starcevic's own words - literally copied from the Starcevic's works and correctly interpreted

- these Starcevic's words are correctly translated into spoken English inside this article

- this racist and anti-semitic attitude of Starcevic is nurtured and maintained inside his Party of the Rights for more than 60 years - in order to explode, in the most villainous way, in the years 1941-45 annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent people of the wrong "breed".

Therefore, marking their findings about Starcevic as questionable - is frivolous and groundless and, in all subsequent edits of this article, shall be ignored. --64.18.16.251 13:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Come on, people, stop reverting this article!!! Lets discuss about the content first! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am very serious about discussing this, but I see noone wants to discuss it, because the people, who are constantly reverting the page to the short text that was written long ago, don't have good arguments for denying the fact that Ante hated Jews and Serbs, and wrote articles about it. What are you guys trying to hide?? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I made the article a little bit more in the style of "Historians claim he was... this and that...", so it's more neutral, and don't revert anymore. There is no reason for that, everything that is left is Historian's analysis and Ante's own quotes. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are being reverted because they are POV.--Adam (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV??? I just wrote what ANTE WROTE!!! Prove me wrong! Also, why do you think it's POV to write about the Historical findings about his political ideology? Do you even know anything about this guy?? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


It won't be continued

It was difficult for me to understand the reason of this person signed up as Mir Harven - to mercilessly delete somebody's artice contributions leaving only polit-commissary's labelling of the removed text as beginning of a major edit; deleted usual Serbian propagandist rubbish or rv, trolls with usual Serbian mis- & disquotation disease- to a reader. Even not noticing (or willing to notice) that the whole article contribution (Purger's) was exclusively based on the very Starcevic's works and findings of the Croatians scholars about this man!

I spotted this sentence in the latest Mir Harven change

Starčević's main influence in the area was that of a polemicist who first broke the silence about Greater Serbian ideology dressed up in the dialectological guise, as promulagated by Vuk Karadžić and his followers

What it shall be? Google searching "Mir Harven" I found a very interesting "talk" about the very nature of language this person had on sci.lang. I am quoting just two responses - for they are completely sufficient and reasonable - for this purpose:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/browse_frm/thread/af3c09f950ef084b/1314a27e1d160990?tvc=1&q=Mir+Harven#1314a27e1d160990

From: Brian M. Scott - view profile Date: Mon, Jun 18 2001 2:29 pm Email: s...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Groups: soc.culture.croatia, hr.sci.jezik, sci.lang, soc.culture.europe Followup-To: soc.culture.croatia,hr.sci.jezik,soc.culture.europe

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:08:45 GMT, mhar...@SoftHome.net (Mir Harven) wrote:

[...]

>I don't know about Afrikaans & Dutch, but couldn't help noticing that no one has answered MG's rational argumens on nationhood, statehood, ethnicity, language etc.

Possibly because this is sci.lang. Possibly because no one finds them articularly rational or interesting.

[...]

Note followups.

Brian M. Scott

From: Peter T. Daniels - view profile Date: Sat, Jun 16 2001 4:43 pm Email: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@att.net> Groups: soc.culture.croatia, hr.sci.jezik, sci.lang, soc.culture.europe

1. "The Story of English" is NOT a "great book."

2. Chauvinistic quibbling over "language" vs. "dialect" is not welcome at sci.lang.

3. If you're going to expect a reply from the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, you should keep your communication short, to the point, and grammatical.

Peter T. Daniels gramma...@worldnet.att.net

As to the Karadzic's work and his time, and for those who might not know anything about him, here is the Goethe's opinion, also:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_July/ai_5148917

In Vienna he met a Slovene scholar, Jernej Kopitar, who encouraged him and introduced him to such leading European writers and thinkers as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jacob Grimm, Leopold von Ranke and Friedrich Engels. Karadzic's first collection of epic poems, published in 1814, brought him to the attention of an educated readership. In addition to his many other activities, he devoted his life to the collection and publication of works from the Serbian oral literary tradition, notably in "Serbian Folk Tales' (1821), "Serbian Folk Sayings' (1836) and, above all, the multi-volume "Serbian Epic Poems' (1814-1866).

http://www.richardwolf.de/latein/goethe.htm

In dem Aufsatz "Serbische Lieder" findet sich auch eine Passage über Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic.

Alles dieses war jedoch von keiner Folge, wenn nicht ein tüchtiger Mann, namens Wuk Stephanowitsch Karadschitsch, geboren 1787 und erzogen an der Scheide von Serbien und Bosnien, mit seiner Muttersprache, die auf dem Lande weit reiner als in den Städten geredet wird, frühzeitig vertraut geworden wäre und ihre Volkspoesie liebgewonnen hätte. Er benahm sich mit dem größten Ernst in dieser Sache und gab im Jahre 1814 in Wien eine serbische Grammatik an den Tag und zugleich serbische Volkslieder, hundert an der Zahl. Gleich damals erhielt ich sie mit einer deutschen Übersetzung, auch jener »Trauergesang« fand sich nunmehr im Original; allein wie sehr ich auch die Gabe werthielt, wie sehr sie mich erfreute, so konnt ich doch zu jener Zeit noch zu keinem Überblick gelangen. In Westen hatten sich die Angelegenheiten verwirrt, und die Entwicklung schien auf neue Verwirrung zu deuten; ich hatte mich nach Osten geflüchtet und wohnte in glücklicher Abgeschiedenheit eine Zeitlang entfernt von Westen und Norden. Nun aber enthüllt sich diese langsam reifende Angelegenheit immer mehr und mehr. Herr Wuk begab sich nach Leipzig, wo er in der Breitkopf-Härtelischen Offizin drei Bände Lieder herausgab, von deren Gehalt oben gesprochen wurde, sodann Grammatik und Wörterbuch hinzufügte, wodurch denn dieses Feld dem Kenner und Liebhaber um vieles zugänglicher geworden. Auch brachte des werten Mannes Aufenthalt in Deutschland denselben in Berührung mit vorzüglichen Männern. Bibliothekar Grimm in Kassel ergriff mit der Gewandtheit eines Sprachgewaltigen auch das Serbische; er übersetzte die Wukische Grammatik und begabte sie mit einer Vorrede, die unsern obigen Mitteilungen zum Grunde liegt. Wir verdanken ihm bedeutende Übersetzungen, die in Sinn und Silbenmaß jenes Nationelle wiedergeben.

Am 20. Dezember 1823 schrieb er in einem Brief an Karadzic:

Ew. Wohlgeboren haben mir durch die Übersendung einer wörtlichen Übersetzung vorzüglich schöner serbischer Lieder sehr viel Freude gegeben, sodann aber solche durch Grammatik und Lexicon verdoppelt und verdreyfacht. Ihre bedeutende Sprache hat hiedurch sich auch bey uns den Weg gebahnt und unsern Forschern die Pflicht auferlegt, sich emsig damit zu beschäftigen.

In short, if we want to have a readers respect towards Wikipedia's articles we have to remove 'contibutions' like the one I am writing about.

--(Above WP:NPA disguised as reasoning by User:4.249.6.66 on 02:09, 13 April 2006)

Despite desperate Serbian trolls's efforts, the page will be continued

The "user" wants to tell you a few very simple things: a) do not act as a supreme power b) your knowledge about subject does not supersede the knowledge of other people about the same subject
It does, for the particular subjects. But, this is not an issue. The issue is a pathological Serbian Croatophobia, which is the chief cause of this continuous vandalism. Sebian chauvinists like you actually don't know much (or-anything) about Ante Starčević. You're just ignorant copy-pasters, obssessed with hatred.Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
c) what shall be selected as a reliable reference is not a matter of labelling those you do not like as "pan-Serbian way"
"Srpska mreza" (or, "pavelicpapers") are sites exuding mental illness. Moreover, there is not a quote on Starčević as such on these sites. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

d) the references used here to describe the Starcevic's racism and anti-Semitism are his own works and studies of renown Croatian scholars.--Purger 16:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No-they do not. The best authority on Starčević, Mirjana Gross, did not proclaim him any a "racist" of any sort. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop distorting the truth! See this in the Novi list article Ante Starčević - između liberalizma i rasizma or [2] No, ima gorih i od Židova. To su Slavosrbi. Kako to u svojoj monumentalnoj studiji opisuje Mirjana Gross u poglavlju o »slavorpskoj konstrukciji« kod Starcevica, pojam »Slavosrba« je najprije politicki: to su politicki protivnici, koji se »prodaju tudinskoj vlasti«. Zatim, to su svi oni koji s naklonošcu gledaju na ujedinjavanje Južnih Slavena, a da ih sve ne smatraju Hrvatima. Danas bi pravaši takve opisivali kao »unitariste« ili »jugonostalgicare«. No, i tu pocinje kljucni problem, Starcevic se s godinama sve više priklanja poimanju »Slavosrba« kao posebne etnicke skupine, i cak rase odnosno pasmine. »Židovi su manje škodljivi nego Slavosrbi. Jer Židovi gledaju samo za se i za svoje...a Slavosrbi su uvek samo za zlo: ako nemogu sebi pribaviti korist, oni gledaju da naškode dobroj ili pravednoj stvari, ili onim koji su za nju.« Sam Starcevic upada u proturjecja. Cas kao dobar liberal tvrdi kako je razlicitim »prokletim pasminama« cinjena nepravda, što je ove još više pokvarilo i ucinilo da su se dali »na osvetu proti svojim tlaciteljem«, cas kao pravi rasist naglašava kako »prokletim pasminama«, tj. nižim rasama nipošto nije trebalo dati ulogu u javnom životu. M. Gross spominje kako Starcevic pod stare dane poistovjecuje Srbe sa pasminom slavosrpskom, i ruga im se za njihove davne poraze. Ove je rasisticke ispade pravaš Erazmo Barcic godine 1894., kako navodi ista autorica, opisao kao »nabacivanje blatom i najprostijimi infamnimi pogrdami«. S pravom.--Purger 18:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
A classic of misrepresentation. Nenad Miščević is a well known pro-Yugoslav propagandist and vocal enemy of Croatian independence (good that we got such people to remind us, perpetually, what stench this Yugoslavia exuded). His words, in this article-pamphlet, are again an example of rather sloppy reasoning-a purpose is, I guess, easy to ascertain: Starčević had coined the terms Sclavus/slave and Servus/serf to designate slavish mentality of his political opponents. The main "Slavosrb" was bishop Strossmayer who, no doubt, could not have any ethnic link with anything Serbian in the modern sense of the word. Miščević's contention is simply a pamphleteer's generalization: shuffled at the end of the article, "corroborated" by the statement of a political and cultural non-entity no one has heard of. It is true that Starčević never accepted Serbian national affiliation of Orthodox Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia. It is also true that to call his "racist" for that is plain stupidity, since his mother belonged to the Orthodox Vlachs, so he would be, according to the Miščević's concoction, a self-hating "racist". Starčević was a fierce enemy of Serbian national idea in Croatia and Bosnia, there is no question about it. It can be argued that he was wrong about it. But, to associate quasi-racial tags to it is pure distortion of the past in order to change the future.Mir Harven 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, you won't be ashamed even if I offer photocopied pages of the M.Gross book as a proof. As of the nonsense claimed above accepted Serbian national affiliation of Orthodox Vlachs - learn the very first thing: national affiliation of each living man is a personal matter of that man - accepted or not by some 'notables'. Not a single Austro-Hungarian census of the 19. or 20. centuries (years 1869, 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910) ever mentioned any 'Orthodox Vlachs' Starcevic talked about and invented. --Purger 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Why you are vasting your time on this man? Are you really going to photocopy that book pages??? Go to see his stumbling across the notions of language, dialect, nation on the sci.lang. People whose profession and education is in the area of linguistics ridiculed him and refused him as an ignorant. He still kept resonding labelling one of them as 'trolitis acuta'. (Poor man, tried to impress his opponents hinting at his wouldbe knowledge of Latin language). Here he is not aware what he is talking about. Trying to prove as if Starcevic weren't a racist he claimed that Starcevic never accepted Serbian national affiliation of Orthodox Vlachs. What else is a man who denies peoples' identity (ethnic/national) if not a racist? At the end, this man keeps labelling his opponents in discussion as (Slavo)Serbs - the same way as his hero Starcevic - even not knowing a single thing about me, you, others.
What would you do ? Xerox pages of a book I, unlike you, read 2 years ago ? And which proves-what ? That in Starčević's political career the term "Slavosrb" was used exclusively for enemies (as he saw them) of Croatian independence ? The main "Slavosrbs" were Strossmayer, Germans, Hapsburg monarchy, and the so-called "Khuen Serbs"- the Serbs living in Croatia and affilliated with the hated political regime of oppression. How come that vast majority of political representatives of Serbs in Croatia, more than 98%, had been, during the most oppressive period in the 19th century, collaborators of Khuen regime ? Truly-these Serbs (or Orthodox Vlachs who nationally "awoke" as Serbs in mid- and 2nd half of the 19th century) had fully deserved the "Slavosrbs" tag in Starčević's lingo-unlike the descendandts of Orthodox Vlachs who were Starčević's followers (Stjepan Miletić, August Harambašić, Dušan Kotur, Dušan Vlaisavljević, Milan Ogrizović,..). No one can rationally deny anyone's ethnic affiliation, this is certain. The fact that Starčević did this to the descendands of the Orthodox Vlachs is not a sign of political wisdom, or even ordinary logic. But, it must be underscored that he reacted to the denial of Croatian ethnic affiliation promulgated by Vuk Karadžić's pan-Serbian ideology. And this must not be forgotten: who had begun with this game of denial ? Who wanted another people's extirpation ? Whose idenmtity was forged, among other things, upon cultural theft and misappropriations ? Who spoiled the well ? http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/ Mir Harven 22:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


In her monumental monograph there are no such passages. Even those writers not friendly with Starčević's ideas (and, biased, for that matter-the writer Mario Strecha admits that few will agree with his interpretation of Gross's book) do not presume this: http://www.zarez.hr/56/kritika2.htm. Strecha (not Gross) has failed to address the issue: how come that virtually all Croatian intellectuals, from Antun Gustav Matoš and Frano Supilo to Miroslav Krleža and Tomislav Ladan have been infatuated with Ante Starčević ? Are these people all idiots, racists or both ? And Croatia was in need of a certain Mario Strecha to lift a veil ? It is very, very obvious that this Serbian chauvinism has got one single goal: to defame the founder of modern Croatian ideology in order to show that racism, exclusivism and-why not, genocide- are the cornerstones of Croatian nation and contemporary Croatian state-hence, all Croats are, more or less, "genocidal", one way or another-from Ante Starčević to Franjo Tuđman, from Antun Gustav Matoš to Tomislav Ladan. The means is a selective misquotation "industry". Sorry, your edits are not motivated by spreading information. Nor do they stem from any knowledge- this is just a Greater Serbian crap polluting cyberspace for some time 8as can be seen on http://www.hic.hr/books/analysis/ or http://wap.macedonia.org/myth/. Sickos, as usual. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well-where is the answer to this ? What about Starčević's admirers, from Matoš to Krleža ?Mir Harven 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes! One thing more - here is more about Vuk Karadzic. I found it following the link given by the "user":
During his lifetime Karadzic achieved a European reputation. In 1823 he was the guest of Jacob Grimm in Kassel and of Goethe in Weimar; the same year he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jena. In 1824 he became a member of the Turin Society for Antiquities and, in 1825, of the Gottingen Learned Society. In 1842 he was awarded a gold medal for his scholarship and literary achievements by the Russian Academy of Sciences. He became a corresponding member of the Viennese Academy in 1848, the Berlin Academy in 1850 and the St. Petersburg Academy in 1851. He was also a corresponding member of the Paris-based African League for Combat Against Slavery.
It is apparent that European perception of the Karadzic's personality and work was above the one your hero Starcevic tried to sell. Looks as "pan-Serbian way", isn't it?--Purger 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This "user" would like to delete information about Ante Starčević and the formation of his ideological credo. In the typical pan-Serbian way, (s)he has delved into issues they actaully don't understand, and which do not belong to the article proper.

So, let's enumerate a few things (I'll use mainly English and German sources):

1. there is no way to distinguish between standard languages and dialects- something that has been addressed at sci.lang (strangely, this copy-paster has "ovelooked" the following exchange).

http://groups.google.hr/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/b8933bab0db8037/08fde40f422c5568?q=Mir+harven&rnum=1#08fde40f422c5568

Mir Harven - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 13:13 Email: mhar...@softhome.net (Mir Harven) Groups: sci.lang

Not yet rated Rating: pokaži opcije


On 25 Mar 2005 19:31:15 -0800, bppu...@hotmail.com wrote:

><rant>I have in my hand a piece of paper from Kaiser Permanente (a >large hospital chain), giving the numbers to call if I have questions >about my billing. They give a number for English, no number for >Spanish, surprisingly, given that I'm in Southern California, and a >number for "Chinese Dialects." Now, my question is, what language are >they referring to? Probably Mandarin, right? As far as I understand, >Mandarin and Cantonese aren't mutually intelligible, so how useful >would this really be? </rant>

>Scratching my head, >Kevin P. Miller

It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for anything ? I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". So, why is Chinese *one* language ? Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell. Period.

....

Od: Ruud Harmsen - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 16:26 Email: Ruud Harmsen <realemailseesit...@rudhar.com.invalid> Groups: sci.lang

Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: mhar...@softhome.net (Mir Harven): in sci.lang:

>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for >anything ? >I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually >intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". >So, why is Chinese *one* language ? >Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, >genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much larger extent than the spoken languages.

For the same reason (together with a religious one), Arabic is one language.

>Period.

Semicolon; ..........

Od: Mir Harven - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 23:50 Email: mhar...@softhome.net (Mir Harven) Groups: sci.lang

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:26:48 +0200, Ruud Harmsen

<realemailseesit...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote: >Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: mhar...@softhome.net (Mir Harven): in >sci.lang:

>>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for >>anything ? >>I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually >>intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". >>So, why is Chinese *one* language ? >>Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, >>genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

>Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much >larger extent than the spoken languages.

True, that's one of my fave arguments re Chinese. But- it somehow deals a blow to the sci status of linguistics. You can have one criterion for one kind of languages & a different one for another. Script is, we all know- not a linguistic essential (see Turkish after Kemal pasha reforms, or contemporary Latin script-drift of Turkic languages in former Soviet Union). But, in the case of Chinese, script is so intimately interwoven with language that usual marginal position ascribed to it (Turkish, German Gothic, double-script Serbian) doesnt hold water.

Anyway, it's always about emotionally charged question: what & which is a language ? Hindi ? Urdu ? Malay ? Indonesian ? High & Low German ?

In the case of northern German languages (Scandie-south), we got:

1. genetic criterion: 2 languages (High & Low German) 2. contact between idioms (dialects galore) 3. typological-structural criterion: 4 languages- Dutch, High & Low German, Yiddish

And, "non-scientific", but rational criterion: 3 languages: Dutch, German, Yiddish.

I guess a language is much more than basic grammar or intelligibility. ...........


Od: Peter T. Daniels - view profile Datum: Tues 29 Mar 2005 03:34 Email: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net> Groups: sci.lang

Mir Harven wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:26:48 +0200, Ruud Harmsen > <realemailseesit...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote:

> >Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: mhar...@softhome.net (Mir Harven): in > >sci.lang:

> >>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for > >>anything ? > >>I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually > >>intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". > >>So, why is Chinese *one* language ? > >>Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, > >>genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

> >Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much > >larger extent than the spoken languages.

> True, that's one of my fave arguments re Chinese. > But- it somehow deals a blow to the sci status of linguistics. > You can have one criterion for one kind of languages & a different one > for another. > Script is, we all know- not a linguistic essential (see Turkish after > Kemal pasha reforms, or contemporary Latin script-drift of Turkic > languages in former Soviet Union). > But, in the case of Chinese, script is so intimately interwoven with > language that usual marginal position ascribed to it (Turkish, German > Gothic, double-script Serbian) doesnt hold water.

> Anyway, it's always about emotionally charged question: what & which > is a language ? > Hindi ? Urdu ? Malay ? Indonesian ? High & Low German ?

> In the case of northern German languages (Scandie-south), we got:

> 1. genetic criterion: 2 languages (High & Low German) > 2. contact between idioms (dialects galore) > 3. typological-structural criterion: 4 languages- Dutch, High & Low > German, Yiddish

> And, "non-scientific", but rational criterion: 3 languages: Dutch, > German, Yiddish.

> I guess a language is much more than basic grammar or intelligibility.

The question of language vs. dialect is not a question of linguistics, it is a question of politics; it has nothing of "sci." about it. .......

Od: Brian M. Scott - view profile Datum: Tues 29 Mar 2005 03:52 Email: "Brian M. Scott" Groups: sci.lang

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:57 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:4248B0C1.7D7A@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:

[...]

> The question of language vs. dialect is not a question of linguistics, > it is a question of politics; it has nothing of "sci." about it.

Take it to sigh.lang?

Brian

........


So much for language.

Let's see the role of Vuk Karadžić:

Balkanic point of view - not even worth reading. Here is how that time Europe saw Karadzic
During his lifetime Karadzic achieved a European reputation. In 1823 he was the guest of Jacob Grimm in Kassel and of Goethe in Weimar; the same year he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jena. In 1824 he became a member of the Turin Society for Antiquities and, in 1825, of the Gottingen Learned Society. In 1842 he was awarded a gold medal for his scholarship and literary achievements by the Russian Academy of Sciences. He became a corresponding member of the Viennese Academy in 1848, the Berlin Academy in 1850 and the St. Petersburg Academy in 1851. He was also a corresponding member of the Paris-based African League for Combat Against Slavery.
It is apparent that European perception of the Karadzic's personality and work was above the one your hero Starcevic (and others you are calling upon) was trying to sell. Looks as "pan-Serbian way", isn't it? When editing an English Wikipedia article, we have to see the things outside Balkans blindness and hate, haven't we?--Purger 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/karadzic.htm

Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864) was a linguist and writer who travelled throughout the Balkan lands studying the various languages and dialects and collecting folk songs. He wrote widely on linguistic subjects and problems, and published many grammar books and a dictionary. He is rightfully considered the founder of modern Serbian language reform and Serbian culture in general.

One of the main themes of his work is that all speakers of the Stokavian dialect are Serbian (even though most Croatians speak a form of this dialect as well). This line of thinking is seen quite frequently in Karadzic's work, and influenced Serbian attitudes toward other Balkan nations. The article "Serbs All and Everywhere", first published in the book "Treasurebox for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths" in 1849, is a typical example of Karadzic's views on the language and ethnicity of Serbia's neighbors. He also tries to negate the existence of any significant number of Croats, distorting historic and linguistic facts to prove his arguments. At this time, the Croats, along with the Bulgarians, were seen as the biggest obstacle to Serbian dominance on the Balkans. In this way Karadzic, either consciously or unconsciously, fits into the scheme of Greater Serbian ideology quite well. ......

Other examinations of Vuk Karadžić's role van be found, for instance, on the following sites:

http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/magisterarbeit_grcevic.pdf

http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/izdavalastvo/FOLIA.pdf

Or, in Croatian:

http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik3.html Miro Kačić .........

POLITIKA U ZNANSTVENOJ SLAVISTICI ILITI POLITIČKO JEZIKOSLOVLJE

........

1. Nemali dio takozvane serbokroatistike temelji se na onome što je rekao, tj. napisao Vuk Stefanović Karadžić

Ideje J. Dobrovskoga i P. J. Šafaržika prihvaća Vuk Stefanović Karadžić i tako nastaje njegov članak Srbi svi i svuda. Već iz samoga naslova članka vidljive su političke namjere Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića. To je programski politički članak (11) u kojemu se htjelo uvjeriti svijet da su svi Srbi štokavci, kajkavci su Slovenci, a Hrvati su tek čakavci. Tim člankom koji tako napisan dovodi u sumnju sve što je Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (12) napisao, tim više što je on u kontradikciji s Vukom Stefanovićem(13) koji u predgovoru svoga rječnika u prvoj rečenici prvoga izdanja (1818. god.) piše: “Već ima blizu iljada godina kako Srblji imaju svoja slova i pismo, a do danas još ni u kakvoj knjizi nemaju pravoga svog jezika!” (Vuk 1818:111).

Zatim navodi: »Dva su velika uzroka ovoj nesreći našega jezika, i ovome (prije nečuvenom na ovom svijetu) pokoru našemu: prvo, što su naši spisatelji sve samouci u Srpskom jeziku: zašto mi nemamo još ni Bukvara Srpskoga, a kamo li što više« (Vuk 1818: V).

Dobro je poznato da je i rječnika i knjiga bilo koji su se na štokavskome temeljili. To je činjenica koje se treba svaki jezikoslovac držati. Jer kako reče A. Meillet: »La science ne vit pas de verites, elle vit de preuves (14)” (citirano prema Guillaume 1973: 50). Ili kako bi to rekao O. Guillaume: “La methode que je preconise en linguistique, et d’une maniere generale en toute matiere intellective, est 1’observation fine du concret rendue plus fine sans cesse par la reflexion profonde.” (Guillaume 1973: 50). A samo u svjetonazorima postoje “istine bez dokaza”, znanstvena se istina temelji na činjenicama i dokazima. Jasno je da Vuk Stefanović Karadžić nije mogao reći u vremenu kada je pisao rječnik da su knjige koje su do tada napisane bile srpske i da je jednostavno trebalo preuzeti, i to iz najmanje tri razloga:

a) tada se dobro znalo da su knjige (i rječnike) koje su već postojale pisali Hrvati,

b) naišao bi na još jači otpor svojim idejama unutar Srbije i među Srbima u Vojvodini, koji bi mu prigovarali da im nameće hrvatski ili barem hercegovački,

c) njegov rad onda ne bi bio “pionirski”.

Napisati to trideset godina poslije bilo je nešto sasvim drugo. Iz navedenoga slijedi da sve što je Vuk Stefanović Karadžić napisao treba dodatna proučavanja, i to posebnom metodologijom, kako bi se jasno razdvojilo što je u onome što on piše srpsko, a što nije. To nam potpuno zamagljuje znanstvenu istinu kojom bi nam bilo jasno što je srpski jezik u to doba uistinu bio. Tim više što se iz njegovih polemika i spisa jasno vidi da je malo tko osim njega znao onda srpski kakvim je on pisao. Put koji se nekritički temelji na Karadžićevim postavkama bio bi dakle politički odabir, jer je polazište Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića, poglavito u razdoblju poslije 1818. godine, ishodišno političko, a prije toga razdoblja njegovo je ishodište znanstveno nedovoljno jasno. Tim više što je sveukupni Vukov projekt pokrenuo Kopitar, a njegovi su motivi bili izrazito politički, što je u mnogim radovima pokazano. Da je u stvaranju samoga Rječnika sudjelovao i Kopitar jasno je iz navoda: “Što se tiče ovde Njemačkoga i Latinskoga jezika, o tom sam radio s G. Kopitarom, dvorskim bibliotekarom; ali opet ako se đe nađe, da su koje riječi rđavo prevedene, tome sam ja kriv, što mu nijesam znao pravo značenje kazati, a ne on, što ga nije znao Njemački ili Latinski istolkovati.” (Vuk 1918: VIII).

The page will be reverted & further elaborated upon. Mir Harven 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On chronic Croatomania afflicting not few Serbian wiki contributors

Let's see. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is a pattern is behavior of some Serbian wiki users (I think I could pick up Purger (whatta idiocy), Bmalagurski, Milant, Mylan, Esta..whatever, they all look the same to me. Not to be confused with Miloš, Duja etc.). Their "contribution" and activity consists mainly in spreading anti-Croat propaganda in the following ways:

  • put out a distorted translation of quotation from some Serbian propagandist site
  • insist on drumming upon of "negative" aspects of Croatian history & try to extend it, by projection, to the contemporary Croatian society and culture (main obsessions: Jasenovac, Ustaše, Homeland war,...). Avoid trying to explain why this right extremism had appeared at all, minimize Četnik atrocities, maximize (or, insist on absurd fihures) the Ustaše atrocities, keep silent about Croatian participation in WW2 partisan-Communist movement, ..
  • keep us posted on ICTY indictments against Croatian generals in the Croatian liberation war 1991-1995, while simultaneously whine about ICTY's partiality against Serbs. Looks like the ICTY is "right" when it indicts Croats, but wrong when it releases Kosovo Albanians
  • insist on the trait Slaven Letica has called "pathological Serbian possessiveness": try to appropriate to the Serbian cultural and historical heritage the bulk of Croatian literature, architecture, historiography, history,..mainly in regions like Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Slavonia, Bosnia, coastal Montenegro/Boka, Herzegovina
  • quote out of context, even misquote the sources. Find Croatian self-haters (for instance, journalists like Jelena Lovrić). Avoid quoting those who can be termed authorities in the field.
  • as regards the page on Starčević-it will be continued, don't worry. Without quotes from "srpska mreza" and similar "sources". It will be said that Starčević, along with other 19th century writers, shared racialist (not racist) worl-view that considered one ethnicity superior (in a more distant past, Shakespeare's English as a "happy race"), and others inferior or detestable. This was a world-view of Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Marx, Engels, Thackeray ("you are a French-beating animal"), Henley, Hegel, Schelling, Pushkin, Clausius, Nordau,...As for the alleged anti-Semitism: Starčević simply didn't care about Jews. He'd got a low opinion about them, as did virtually everyone in the Western world from the Ancient Greece on, which can be seen on the wiki page on anti-Semitism, or on linx that, although one-sided, give an array of not very favorable opinions on Jews (Voltaire, T.S. Eliot,..): https://www.tightrope.cc/jewquotes.htm, http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-gentile-whatotherssay.htm (never mind the biased nature of the site-the quotes are real), Such quotes may be found everywhere. So-what ? Where is Starčević different from others ? Mir Harven 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little shocked by what you've admitted. You said that the homeland war is a negative aspect of Croatian history. Do you realize what you have said? Also, you put quotation marks for the word "negative" when reffering to Jasenovac, Ustase... Why the quotation marks? Are you saying that it's a joke? --serbiana - talk 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, it was just a typo with brackets omitted (a frequent case with the longer sentences or those involving a few disparate concepts. Also: the quotation marks were intentional, because ustaše were not negative (nor positive): it was a historical reaction of the part of the Croatian nationalist movemnent to the years of the Serbian oppression. To define it as "negative" would be as absurd to define Soviet Communism, the most murderous regime on earth as "negative" or "positive". Those Croats and Bosnian Muslims who volunteered to take part in the Ustaška vojnica-more than 40.000 people in 1943.-cannot be labelled as war criminals, nor as traitors, as anti-Croat propaganda would have it in the Communist Yugoslavia period. The pathological murderers like Maks Luburić or totalitarian dictators like Ante Pavelić cannot cast the shadow on all the participants in the Ustaša military forces, any more than Joseph Mengele or Adolf Hitler can contaminate the memory of German soldiers, particularly Waffen SS who fought in the WW2. This is even more true about ordinary people or intellectuals who participated in the NDH regime (for instance, Adolfo Bratoljub Klaić, the author of famous dictionary of foreign words, or the sculptor Augustinčić, who made a bust of Pavelić, but later switched sides. Do I have to repeat ? The NDH was a quisling state. The vast majority of people involved with it and working for it were neither quislings nor criminals. And, this is just the NDH talk. Let's not forget that, as far as resistance movement goes, the Croats were the majority both in leadership and in fighting forces who were not forced to join the resistance (like the Serbs in the NDH), but did it out of ideals. And, in the percentage of participation, heavily outnumbering other nations in ex-Yugoslavia-except, pehaps, Montenegrins: http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/ww2.html Hmmm...I haven't seen anything that would refute the claim that Serbian propagandists are vandalizing not a few wikipedia pages, solely with the aim of spreading anti-Croat chauvinist hatred. Mir Harven 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just read the first few sentences where you said that the Ustashe were not negative, and it just makes me sick. My Grandfather was killed by the Ustashe, his head was cut off, and his guts were nailed to the roof of his office at work.

And ? Ustaše atrocities are not denied-as are Četnik or Communist ones. The above statement just corroborates what I've already said: your agenda is anti-Croat chauvinist one, since you claim (as far as I have read from the text) that all Ustaša soldiers were sadist murderers. Well, that would be ca. 40.000-70.000 people. Your statement reveals a sick state of mind. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm in a sick state of mind? Thats a personal attack. --serbiana - talk 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And this is just one, out of the hundreds of thousands of Ustashe murder stories.

There are hundreds and thousands of Četnik and Communist murder stories. http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=138257, http://nemacenzure.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3466 Also, these are investigated in scholarly works, like http://www.sveznadar.com/knjiga.aspx?knjiga=63983 Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

When asked about Croatian attrocities, Franjo Tudjman said that others comitted crimes too. The interviewer told him, that doesn't make the Croatian attrocities right. We're not talking about Chetniks here, and you can't make the Croat attrocities less bloody by stating Chetnik attrocities, which I condemn. Both the Chetniks and the Ustashe are primitive organizations, bent on killing. --serbiana - talk 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The sole purpose of the Ustashe was to exterminate the Serbs, unlike the Soviet Communism, which didn't have genocide as the goal of a nation.

The sole purpose of the Ustaše leadership was to establish a Croatian state, which they did first as Mussolini's, and then as Hitler's puppets. As for many thousand members of Ustaška vojnica-and, as I said, they numbered between 40.000 and 70.000, the central goal was to defend their ethnic areas from Četnik and Communist intrusions and massacres. Another members of the Ustaše-led bureaucracy, like Bratoljub Klaić, writer of the 1944. etymological orthography, or Zvonimir Remeta, one of the best Croatian novelists of the 20th century, did not participate in any bloodshed, nor did they plan any. And this is a good litmus of what the entire thing is all about: those Croats and Bosniaks who participated in the Ustaša movement, more than 100.000-150.000 in 4 years, are stigmatized as murderers and criminals by default, by Serbian chauvinists. Well-no sane mind will ever accept this.Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No sane mind will ever accept this. --serbiana - talk 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am half-Croatian, and I know that most Croats are very nice and intelligent people,

I doubt they are, but, this is not the point. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

but I can't say anything nice about the Ustashe, they killed innocent people, pardon, not just killed, tortured and then killed innocent people.

Members of the Ustaše movement, and the part which can easily be catalogued, did commit atrocities and war crimes. But-the bulk of ordinary members of the Ustaša military forces-as I said, ca. 50.000 fightrs-were not war criminals any more than ordinary members of Četnik royalist or partisan communist movemensts. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, you're saying that only a few members of the Ustashe comitted attrocities. How could a few people kill so many Serbs, Jews and Croats who didn't like the Ustashe? --serbiana - talk 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ustashe were not just Croats who were provoked by "Serb oppression", they were sick, deeply mentally sick fascists, and there is absolutely nothing positive about them.

This claim is, per se-sick. No wonder you guys spill your venom on wiki, or your "Armies" fled, whenever stumbling upon even slightly armed adversary during 1991-1995 wars- frightened by images of your own propaganda on diabolical, bloodthirsthy Croats in black shirts who enjoy licking blood of Serbian children and cut throats just for fun. You live entrapped in your own perverted mind. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack, two in one statement. Nice.

--serbiana - talk 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia valid criteria of knowledge?

Reading about Starcevic from the edits commited by Mir Harven, I would ask a simple question:

What kind of knowledge brings writing about an, unknown to the World, Balkans politician (Starcevic) point of view about a great man (Karadzic)? Of an inferior intellect (Starcevic) if compared to the Vuk's?

What is the criterion for "inferior intellect" ? Reading Starčević's polemics alongside Karadžić's, it is evident that Karadžić was inferior in any respect: erudition, knowledge of history, style,.. Mir Harven
As per your own words Starčević is a figure of minor importance. He didn't devote much energy to the field probably because he realized that he was neither a qualified scholar nor did he possess a temperament for painstaking analysis needed for such a career. Are you capable of grasping the fact that you already denied your own words while writing in the Discussion section of this article?
This is the last answer to this troll:don't twist my words. I didn't write anything about Strossmayer's invectives against Starčević, nor vice versa. Nor did I deny that Starčević was a superb polemicist, excellently versed in the knowledge of literary history. Just-he was not a scholar, nor did he bother to be. A brilliant polemicist should not be a scholar. In fact, the best polemicists have never been scholars. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, you say Still, his attempt to become a researcher with Zagreb University failed and Josip Juraj Strossmayer did not look favourably to the idea of Starčević becoming a member of the then Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts.
No, this is not my text. Actually, it will be deleted if not corroborated. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
About Karadzic as it was mentioned above During his lifetime Karadzic achieved a European reputation. In 1823 he was the guest of Jacob Grimm in Kassel and of Goethe in Weimar; the same year he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jena. In 1824 he became a member of the Turin Society for Antiquities and, in 1825, of the Gottingen Learned Society. In 1842 he was awarded a gold medal for his scholarship and literary achievements by the Russian Academy of Sciences. He became a corresponding member of the Viennese Academy in 1848, the Berlin Academy in 1850 and the St. Petersburg Academy in 1851. He was also a corresponding member of the Paris-based African League for Combat Against Slavery.
So what ? I did not deny Karadžić's numerous contributions, field work or his role in shaping the Serbian language. As for his membership of various academic institutions etc.-this doesn't bear on anything concerning the issue debated. Vatroslav Jagić was a member of much more academies, got more doctorates and whatever. Does it mean that he was automatically "better" than Karadžić in any possible debatable field ? What kind of "reasoning" is this, anyway ? Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Commenting Starcevic's thinking and speecehs, Strosmayer said that he (Starcevic) was a man with no sound mind who did not know what he was talking about.
As I said, Strossmayer's opinions are beside the point. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Answer these questions: a) Which European scholars or writers or politicians were ever attracted by Starcevic's works and thinknig?
The question would be: what kind of European scholars were ever attracted by Karadžić's pan-Serbian linguistic ideology ? The answer is-many, from Miklošič to Ausgust Leskien. And exactly this myth, which brought shame on Slavic philology amd its meanders, has been dismantled in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Karadžić's ideology of "dialectal" pan-Serbianism, which Starčević, Bogoslav Šulek and others had refuted, has fallen on deaf ears of their contemporaries. It was for this ideology Karadžić and his followers had been rightly debunked, not for his (Karadžić's) genuine contibutions to ethnography and philology. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Dismantled??? What ideology??? That one talked about in the Tudjman's "Wastelands"??? Who had that power of dismantling and how it was made offical - on the European scholars level? Tudjmanistan excluded.
b) Which European scholars society or academy of science granted him a membership
? This has been answered. Starčević was not a scholar, but a political fighter. The best answer is this: how many days did Vuk Karadžić spend in Austrian jail for political reasons ? Did he ever clash with Austrian authorities ?Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Karadzic was a noble and learned man - respected highly by the Austro-Hungarian state. Starcevic was a half-literate jail bird and troublemaker.
c) Which European university granted Starcevic honorary doctorate and when?
See above. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
d) As a philosopher, Starcevic wrote his monumental work under the title "How to walk on four". Right?
Did you ever read any of Starčević's writings ? Speeches ? The ones that captivated Matoš and Krleža ? Well-you'll get the chance at the end of this page. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of his writings I read and figured out that it was enough to read just a few. All the rest are repetitions of the same idiocies that can be extracted from just a few of them. Matos and Krleza? What they could see in the writings and speeches of that poor devil Starcevic?

Starčević spoke Latin, Greek, French, German, Hungarian, Russian, Italian-apart from his native Croatian where he was an expert in Kačić, Gundulić and older Croatian historiography. Karadžić was unable to complete his dictionaries without the help of Kopitar and Daničić. As for "unknown to the world Balkans politician"-then, why do Serbian trolls so obsess about such an insignificant figure ? Why is the page on Milan Babić overloaded with info ? Croatian contributors would, in all probability, write a modest page on Starčević, hadn't Serbian obsessesives begun with the smear-campaign. Mir Harven 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Google searching "Vuk Karadzic" I found the proof of a great interest in the works of Vuk Karadzic. Contrary to that, about Starcevic - we can see only some interest anomg Croats.

Google ? As a source of validity ? Sincerely-this must be a joke. Let's see the hits for some pertinent figures: Vuk Karadžić-97.000, Ante Starčević-52.200,Mir Harven
Lying again? Why? Do you really think that peple cannot check your idiotic claim? Results 1 - 10 of about 119,000 for "Vuk Karadzic". (0.42 seconds); Results 1 - 10 of about 39,300 for "Ante Starcevic". (0.36 seconds) Lying intentionally to increase rating of your hero?
Vatroslav Jagić-11.300, Đura Daničić-708, Eugen Kvaternik-23.400, ...So, the figues are rather bizarre: the most importan Serbian philologist Daničić gets virtually nothing.

In comparison with Starčević, Karadžić got ca. 2 times more hits-a commensurable number. Mir Harven 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So, here is about Vuk - a man whose books are printed and made available today by world-renown booksellers, whose works are part of educational curricula in Europe and America, whose collected songs are sang today, ...

As said before: Karadžić's works are the most important in the foundation of Serbian language, and, as such, it is understandable they are reprinted and written about. Starčević was a politician, and there are no much books on any 19th politician from "these parts"-be they Serbian or Croatian. Mir Harven 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~slavist/lauerlebenslauf.htm

Sprache, Literatur, Folklore bei Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic. Wiesbaden 1988.

http://www.cadenza.org/musicians/pages.cgi?id=5054

The Nightingale [Solovei] (C minor). Text by Aleksandr Pushkin, after Vuka Karadzic.

http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/publikacije/jis/lat1/042/45c04.htm

Npr. UN 73 ima pri evropski romantiki naslednje avtorje: Puskin, Heine, Byron, Scott; Karadzic', Njegos, Mazuranic'. Predvidene ure: 10.

Publisher Photo Songs of the Serbian People: From the Collections of Vuk Karadzic (Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies (Paperback)) Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (editor); Vuk Karadzic (editor); Vasa D. Mihailovich (editor); Milne Holton (translator)

Bookseller:Livrenoir(Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A.)

Serbische Volkslieder. Teile einer historischen Sammlung. Karadzic, Vuk Stefanovic (Gesammelt/Hgg.)

Bookseller: Antiquariat am Flughafen (Berlin, B, Germany)

The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, 1787-1864: Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia Wilson, Sir Duncan

Bookseller: RMB&G, The Library Store!(Little Rock, AR, U.S.A.)

Beiträge zur Feier seines 200. Geburtstages, Karadzic, Vuk Stefanovic -

Bookseller: Antiquariat Wolfgang Rüger (Frankfurt/Main, Hes, Germany)

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/balkan/mitglieder_pdf/neweklowsky.pdf

Vuks Serbische Volksmaerchen von 1853 im Computer. In: OOH, Sonderheft: Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic 1787-1987. Hg. W. Lukan und D. Medakovic. Wien 1987, 167-195

http://itantropologia.net/antropologia/Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87-%20Vuk%20S----1446.html

Karadžić, Vuk S... scrittore serbo (1787-1864), considerato l'iniziatore della moderna letteratura serba e il creatore dell'unità linguistica serbocroata. Canti popolari serbi, Grammatica serba (1814), Dizionario serbo (1819). Di rilievo la traduzione (1847) del Nuovo Testamento.

http://world.std.com/~shw/CdRomsEnglish.html

49914. Uther, Hans-Jörg, hrsg. Europäische Märchen und Sagen. Berlin: DirectMedia, 2004, cd-rom for pc's or mac, $59 Digitale Bibliothek 110. Massive compendium of European folk tales and fairy tales, texts in German, with additional biographical and bibliographical documentation. Over 30,000 screen pages including the most famous collections: Hahn, Karadzic, Gonzenbach, Asbojournsen, Calasanz, much more.

http://www.fgroetzner.de/heimat/halle1.htm

Immer schon genoß Halles Philologie großes Ansehen. Mag sein, daß Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic deshalb 1823/24 in Halle weilte (woran heute eine verwitterte Tafel an einem verwitterten Haus unweit der Elisabethkirche erinnert). Karadzic, ein Freund Jacob Grimms, bekannt mit Goethe und Ranke, ist der Begründer der modernen serbokroatischen Schriftsprache.

Do I have to repeat ?
Don't do that - rather ask somebody to translate the German text above to you.
1. Karadžić was/is esteemed as an ethnographer, reformer of Serbian langauge and culture, as well as folklorist.
2. Karadžić's work consisted, among other things, in misappropriation of Croatian cultural heritage 8the balald "Hasanaginica", first published by Fortis, has nothig to do with Serbs-or, Bosnian Muslims, for that matter. It is a purely croatian song which VK "sold" as a "Serbian song".) Also, his work in lexicography is unthinkable without Croatian heritage-for instance, in his 1847 translation of the New Testament, he explicitely stated he had coined ca. 300 new words. Later investigations http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~vbockho/vbockhopublikationen.htm have shown that Vuk has simply took more than 90% of his "new words" from Joakim Stulli's Croatian dictionary.Mir Harven
All the above is really laughable. So following your nonsense, I would claim that Merriam Webster English Dictionary took 95% of the 'new' words from the Oxford Dictionary? How a lexicographer at all could 'coin' new words? All I see you are inventing lies or propagating lies of other people, or simply - talking nonsense.
Mario Grčević: Hrvatski udjel u Karadžićevu prijevodu Novoga Zavjeta, Jezik, br.2, prosinac 1996, str.53-63. "..U prvoj skupini navodi 49 riječi za koje kaže da ih je preuzeo iz crkvenoslavenskog...Te se riječi..u narodu ne govore...Drugu skupinu od 47 riječi Kardžić označava kao posrbljenje crkvenoslavizme..Budući da V.S.Karadžić iza tih riječi navodi one koje je sam stvorio..može se zaključiti da ih je sam "posrbio", tj. prilagodio narodnom jeziku. U trećoj i najbrojnijoj skupini nalazi se 81 riječ.."Ima riječi 81 koje nijesam čuo u narodu da se govore već sam ih sam načinio"...U knjizi "Jezične koncepcije i njihovo ostvarenje u hrvatskoj i srpskoj leksokografiji" Volker je Bockholt usporedio riječi...s jedincama u Stullijevu "Rječosložju", najvećemu hrvatskom dopreporodnom rječniku....Od 49 riječi iz prve skupine u Stullija se nalazi 47....Polovica je Karadžićevih riječi iz prve skupine ...potvrđena hrvatskim "Glagoljskim brevijarom", a druga polovica nekolicinom djela hrvatskih pisaca ..a jedna riječ (smrtonosni) rusinskom Biblijom....Od Karadžićevih 47 riječi iz 2. skupine Stulić ne navodi njih osam...U tećoj skupini Stulić navodi više od polovive riječi......već je tvorbenim rješenjima Stulić donosio izbor današnjem hrvatskom (a i srpskom) standardu bliži nego što je pedesetak godina nakon njega činio Karadžić. Karadžić: grabljiv, kušač, mtvost, neposlušanje, prigotovljenje, vikač..Stulić: grabežljiv, kušalac, mrtvilo, pripravljanje, vikalac...Bockoltove spoznaje upućuju također da su mnoge riječi, koje nisu bile dio "narodnog jezika", već sastavnica hrvatskog književnog jezika, Karadžićevim posredstvom ušle u suvremeni srpski književni jezik...Karadžić skreće pozornost da Srbi s pisanjem na narodnom jeziku "nisu uranili prije druge polovine 18. vijeka, dok su braća zakona Rimskoga, osobito Dubrovčani i Dalmatinci, pisali u 16. vijeku u najveći jek !" Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You were already ridiculed and refised as an ignorant on the sci.lang.
Hmmm... I wasn't (as can be seen from the above posted above material), but-what's the motivation for such an ad hominem claim ? Let me guess: insecurity combined with ignorance ? Fear ? Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


What makes you so stubborn to repeat the same mistake again? Oh, yes - about Hasanaginica - you hero Starcevic also claimed that the Bosnian Muslims were Croats? True? And what it had to do who and when published Hasanaginica?
Is there some logical flaw here ? Fortis's publication of Hasanaginica and Karadžić's misappropriation are not connected with Starčević's ideology. This user has some grave problems with logic. Mir Harven 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
3. but, it's the ideology that matters. Starčević had completely unmasked Karadžić's myth on štokavians-Serbs. And this part of Karadžić's ideology is what even contemporary Croatian linguists find reprehensible: http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm, http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/138/tekstovi/06.htm Mir Harven 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Starčević as a polemicist

This text is in the Croatian, but I think it deserves to be here, just for info. Anyway, it can be deleted if necessary-it will, anyway, be available as Cro wikisource.

This Starcevic's scribling is just another proof of the Strossmayer's opinion about him - he does not know what he is talking about. It is really difficult to understand a person (Harven) why he decided to post this text - if he attempted to glorify Starcevic's writings and way of thinking.--Purger 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This poor soul, Mir Harven, tried to prove as if Starcevic weren't racist giving further evidence of Starcevic's racism. Now he tried to show Starcevic's wisdom and knowledge and exposed Starcevic's stupidity and ignorance. We are losing a lot of time just to keep those like Harven away from editing this article. There must be an efficient way that an encyclopaedia shall adopt - if wanted to achieve some quality of information intended to be offered to a reader.
Well, there is some knowledge in this Starcevic's rumbling against Serbs - but far more hate, forgery and primitive interpertations what he learned from the Constantine Porphyrogenites' book. Anyway - he was a hater and a racist
Where is hate, forgery and racism ? Actually, nothing "racist" appears in the Stačević polemic. Starčević's main claims, based on DAI and Croatian literary heritage were as folows:Mir Harven
Forgery - Gde je taj srbski jezik? Ja vas opet pitam! Kajkavština nije, čakavština nije, nebi li bila možda štokavština? Ali je to, kako vam rokh, čedo kajkavacah i čakavacah. Pokažite jedan glas, jednu formu što-kavacah, koju nebi čakavci ali kajkavci imali. I ja sam štokavac. Ko je taj štokavski jezik skovao? Hervatski narod gospodo, i stotine her-vatskih pisacah,
On the contatry-rebuttal of pan-Serbian misappropriations:Gde su pisci, gde su pisma toga naroda srbskoga? Gde je taj jezik? Pravo rekuč pisalo se s malom iznimkom — u kirilici do jučer jezikom cerkvenim, a gospodo Hervat je prie imao i svoju cerkvu i u njoj svoj jezik, nego li se za Srbe znalo. Sva pisma kraljah hervatskih pisana su, gospodo, jezikom hervatskim. Pod Krešimirom velikim pokazala je bila Latinština roge, te se i u njoj pisalo, ali je vazda ono isto bilo i hervatski pisano. Pogledajte u diplomu Krešimira velikoga, od god. 1067. (Lučio knj. 2. gl. 8) pa ćete videti, da je vladika Zadarski ono pismo morao napisati i „lingva rustica" — t. j. pučkim jezikom. — Gde je, gospodo, taj srbski jezik? Pogodite se o njemu barem vi sami, a nepišite kako sada. — Jer „Dnevnik" veli, da naša zmija iz Kotara ravna — Ante Kuzmanić nepiše srbski, a on piše onako, kako su pisala oba Kačića, oba Relkovića, Katančić, Došen, Margitić, i mnogi drugi hervatski pisci; — „novine" i ovaj jezik derže za srbski, a „srbin katolik iz Savonie" kaže, da je čakavština jezik hervatski. Načinite se gospodo medju se! Mir Harven 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Utter nonsense - the Serbs existed according to Starcevic, but their language did not exist!!! Racism again through denial of the Serbs identity!
This user does not possess elementary logic: there are no traces of Serbian vernacular language in the 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700,....We don't know how that people spoke, since there are no documents of Serbian language during a few hundred years-only petrified Church Slavic.
Really??? And that comes from the Starcevic's famous Selected works??? My God, it is hardly to believe that a man (Harven) could follow his own blindness and ignorance so fervently. For those who wanted to see more about medieval Serbian language (not Church Slavonic) see: Predrag. R. Dragić Kijuk: Anthology of Medieval and Renaissance Serbian Poetry and Culture, Belgrade, 1987,
Bwahahhah..."Dragić Kijuk" ? There is no Serbian Renaissance poetry. There is no Serbian vernacular literature until the mid-18th century. http://www.rastko.org.yu/isk/pivic-standard_language.html Your contentions are pure fiction & nonsense, originating from the Serbian pathological possessiveness Starčević so finely exposed. Mir Harven 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Btw-what has this got to do with "racism" ? Is this user capable of understanding meanings of the words  ? Or, we're dealing with ordinary Serbian troll ? Mir Harven 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Lie - imaju vosku na kopnu i moru, imaju tergovce, rečju Hervati su narod u deržavi; a kod Servah o tome ni glasa nj traga, samo je kad kad čuti ime ž u p a n i a, koje su od Hervatah primili, i poglavar s posve zameršenim zlamenovanjem
Truth: there was no Serbian statehood in the early middle-ages,ca. 800-900. Unlike Croatian case: Branimir_of_Croatia. This is written in stone, unlike Serbian myths. Where are there Serbian inscriptions during early medival period, ca. 800-1000 C.E. ? Something similar to those that can be found at http://www.mhas-split.hr/eng/omuzeju.htm ? Mir Harven 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Utter nonsense again - read G. Ostrogorsky, History of Byzantine State, Rutgers, NJ 1999
This history of Byzantine state is both obsolete and does not deal with the Serbian statehood in any way other than retelling the DAI.
Again utter nonsense. The latest English edition of this book is the 1999 edition. This book references a great number of historical resources and clearly descibes the Serbs and their role in the history of and relationship with the Byzantine Empire thorugh centuries. As to the value of this book - Long recognized as the basic history of the Byzantine Empire, this masterful work incorporates results of the vast expansion in Byzantine research in recent years - back cover of the book. History of Byzantine State contributes the canonical version of Byzantine history, superior to anything else in English - Choice. So, this guy (Harven) apparently is an ignorant not reading or knowing anything valuable he tried to explain.
Do not vaste your time on this ignorant! For those that might know nothing about this topic, in the cemeteries of the places where the Serbs lived, there is a great number of tombstones on which there are inscribed (often long) messages addressed in the name of dead - to his/her son or daughter or even messages not addressed to anybody - written in the spoken Serbian language of that time - timestamped by the dates of the birth and death of the buried person. These tombstones are spanning centuries. I saw, by my own eyes - somewhere in Bosnia, a tombstone with the inscription that reads like: 'Ovdje pociva Srbin pravoslavni ... koji izrodi sa zenom mu ... sedmero djece koji ga hranise kad uzmogose ... pogibe od groma dok njivu orase ... 1758 godine ...'
Also, the Turkish Empire had many public proclamations, as the ones what to do in the time of plague, written in the spoken Serbian language which can be found (many of them!) in the archives of the Empire - again, spanning the centuries.
I'll repeat: there is no value in any source, including Ostrogorsky, which relies heavily on the DAI. This book got all praise because there are virtually no newer investigations due to the lack of interest in English-language world. There are no new critical editions of the DAI, let alone critical histories of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. One can just look up to a few litmus-concepts like "Serbo-Croatian language", "Croatian literature", "Urdu language" etc in the newest edition of the Britannica and see these articles and reviews are obsolete-even when written in 2004. So-where are these proofs that some Serbian polity even existed in 800 or 900 or 1000 ? Where are material remnants ? Names ? Texts ? I'd really be interested to see anything that would fill the vacuum. Mir Harven 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I repeat: where are there Serbian documents-stone insciptions, legal parchments,...or documents from other sources, apart from fictions from DAI and Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, that would corroborate Serbian statehood (of sorts) in 800 or 900 ? Mir Harven 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again: answer this. Mir Harven 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Denial of peoples identity = racism - U novia vremena sjediniše Hervati u književnome razumku sve desnodunajske Slavjane pod imenom ilirskim kakono i stara Helas učini, ostavljajuć svakome puku svoju dogodjajnicu i ost.
etc.
There was no denial of anyone's identity in the Illyrian movement (btw-what this has to do with Starčević ?), but a failed attempt to unify South Slavic peoples under one, supra-national name: first Illyrians, then Yugoslavs. Again-Serbian falsifications. Mir Harven 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is his denial of peoples identity - sjediniše Hervati u književnome razumku sve desnodunajske Slavjane pod imenom ilirskim kakono i stara Helas učini - it is Starcevic's claim!!!
This is a simple truth: the Illyrian movement had done exactly this. There was no Serbian literary-cultural movement before, during and immediately after the Illyrian movement. Only Illyrians had integrated all literate South Slavic peoples in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, without any wish to erase old historic names: Croats, Slavonians, Bosniaks, Serbs, Dalmatians, ...The eventual failure of the Illyrian movement did not alter the fact that it was the only integrative cultural movement until 1850s west to the Danube-Drina line. Mir Harven 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
So-"racism" gone, eh ? Interesting..Mir Harven 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Croats had, according to the DAI, been a fighting folk who subdued Avars, repelled Franks and saved Serbs from Bulgarian captivity
2. Serbs were a docile folk who, essentially, didn't fight "their place under the sun". Their very name signified servitude of a sort, as evidenced by the DAI's etymology. They lost every battle with foreigners they ever fought, placed themselves under Byzantine suzerainty amd were saved from extinction by Croats who crushed Bulgarian aggression
3. there are historical documents galore, which testify about Croatian legal, parliamentary and cultural continuity: from the times of Trpimir and Krešimir to the later corpora.
4. Croatian language heritage in the vernacular is well attested in from the 13th century on (at least). They Croatian name is explicitly mentioned in various sources, both Čakavian and Štokavian, particularly in Dalmatia, Dubrovnik and Bosnia. Moreover, linguistic characteristics are the same as with contemporary (mid-19th century) Croatian language. On the other hand, Serbian written works, up until Dositej and Vuk (1780-1820), were written exclusively in Church Slavic language. Serbian literature until Vuk is, essentially, a variant of Church Slavic literature flourishing in Byzantium influenced area. Hence-Vuk's linguistic pan-Serbism, which tried to appropriate all štokavian vernacular literature is, evidently, a falsity and concoction.
5. early Slavic studies (Šarařik et al.) were deluded in ascribing parts of the Croatian literature to the Serbian heritage.
6. Serbian ethnic affiliation, in modern terms, is a relatively new phenomenon in Croatia. The major part of Eastern Orthodox inhabitants of Croatia, who actively participated in the Croatian cultural life (Illyrian movemont) have begun to show Serbian national allegiance only in recent (1850s) years.


Virtually all Starčević's claims are corroborated by historical sources available at his times. Whether the veracity of historical sources like the DAI can withstand the test of time-this is another question. But, from the vantage point of mid-19th century clash of Serbian and Croatian ideologies, Starčević polemic stands as an example of skilled, sometimes sardonic and always truthful debate-without distortions, lies or misappropriations. Sarcasm hurts-but, this is what the polemic is all about. Mir Harven 14:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr A(nte) Starčević ODGOVOR SRBSKOME DNEVNIKU I BEOGRADSKIM NOVINAM. Infandum, amice, jubes revelare pudorem!

Članak: ,,g. Ljudevit Gaj i Srbi" — izišavši u 92. broju ovogod. „Srbskih novinah" na toliko ima znamenitost, na koliko pokazuje značaj i stanje izobraženja pisacah od one strane naroda našega, koju oni za tako zvane Srbe derže. Onome, ko je proštio rečeni članak, ne-treba dokazivati istinitost ovih rečih. S toga nisam hteo ni jednu reč o njegovu sastavku progovoriti, nego sam čekao na „Srbski Dnevnik." Ovaj list zbilja očituje svoje mnenje, i, kako i „Srbske novine, napada na g. Ljudevita Gaja. Dakle za obranu nedužnosti u ovoj prepirki očitujem: da sam ja, kao tadašnji namestnik moga priatelja I. V., sudelo-vatelja kod „Narodnih Novinah," onaj članak napisao, i bez znanja g. Gaja dao tiskati, t. j. onaj članak od 18. kolovoza o. g., koi se piscu Srbskih novinah" nedopada, — i da je g. Gaj, saznavši za onaj moj članak već tiskan, nad njime svoje nezadovoljstvo očitovao; — izjavljujem takodjer, da sam dao i ovaj sastavak tiskati ne samo bez njegova znanja, nego tako, da on o njemu ništa i nebi mogao znati, jer se ni sada nenalazi u Zagrebu. Obćinstvo će dakle ovu prepirku samo meni podpisanom uračunati, a gg. pisci „srbskih" časopisah imati će odsele ne na g. Gaja, ali na koga drugoga, nego upravo na me svoje članke upravljati, kad ih nisu do sad upravljali na „Narodne Novine;" —jer još nisu tako daleko u publicistiki došli, da bi znali, da uredji-vatelji novinah nepišu sve ono, što u novinah stoji. Čini mi se, da dobro poznam gg. protivnike, ali ću im imena iz ljubavi prama siromašnima u duhu zamučati, te ću samo nešto odgovoriti na samu stvar, i to samo iz dogodjajnice. Uvrede ali svadju neka niko meni nepripisuje, to bo je ono, što ja nada sve merzim. Kako se dakle govori iz ljubavi i priateljstva, onako neka se uzme. Ovo je književna polemika, a ne narodni boj.

Gg. pisci pozivlju se na Šafafika, koi u 14. §. „narodopisa slovan-skoga" veli, da je ono srpski jezik, koi se govori po južnome delu negdašnje (!) Magjarske, po Slavonii, po delu Hervatske, Kranjske i Istrie, po Primorju negda magjarskom, po vojničkoj krajini, Dalmacii, kneževini Srbii, Bosni, Hercegovini, po staroj Srbii i po Cernojgori." Ali g. Šafafik ni najmanje nedokažuje ono, što veli, premda je deržanstvo svakoga pisca svoje reči dokazati; ja barem do golih rečih toliko deržim, koliko da ih i nije. Da bi ko o nami Hervatih tako beztemeljno pisao, mi bi ga najprie prosili, neka muči, ako li nebi hteo, mi bi njegovo delo preporučili za zamatanje papra, duhana, sira i sličnih stvarih. „Srbski Dnevnik" pristaje uz „Srbske novine," i veli, da ga tako dogodjajnica uči. Da vidimo dogodjajnicu ovih narodah samo u današnjoj njihovoj domovini.

Konstantin VII. (umrao 959.) u knjigi ,,o upravljanju carstva" na glavi 30. veli, da pet bratah Hervatah sa dvemi sestrami dojdoše u Dalma-ciu, ali da u njoj najdoše Avare. S njima dakle vojevaše nekoliko godinah, dok ih Hervati nadvladaju, i što poubijaju, što sebi podlože; da je jedna strana Hervatah iz Dalmacie izišla, i da je zauzela te takodjer i naselila Iliriu i Panoniu; on veli, da su Hervati dalmatinski proti Frankom sedam godinah vojevali, i da su ih nadjačali; on zapadnu stranu primorske Hervatske proteže od Cetine do Labina istrianskoga, a u širinu, veli, da se više Istrie pruža; on k onoj strani Hervatske broji 11 županiah, izvan toga Liku, Kerbavu i Gacku, dakle barem do Kapele daje širinu. O Hervatih u Bosni, u Slavonii i u Kupo-Dravju ništa nepiše. Gl. 31. veli, da Hervati terguju po svemu moru jadran-skome tia do Mletakah, da imaju jako veliku moć na kopnu i na moru, da moraju tu vojsku deržati zbogu čestoga naserćanja Frankah, Turakah (t. j. Magjarah) i Pacinecitah.

Što veli o „Srbih?"

Glav. 32. — „Jedan brat uze polovicu puka i zaprosi cara He-raklia, da bi mu dao pristanište; car ga primi i dade mu mesto kod Tesalonike, koje se od onda prozva Serbliom. A Serbli se rimskim jezikom zovu Servi (= sužnji, sluge) odtuda Serbula = sužanjska obuća; i Serbuljane zovemo one, koji su priprosto obuveni. Serbli se s toga tako zovu. što su rimskim carem služili. — Za nekoliko vremena svidi se Servom, da se povrate u staru svoju zemlju, i zbilja car ih odpusti. Ali kad preidoše preko Dunaja, pokajaše se, te kroz pretora bel-gradskoga prosiše cara, da bi im drugu zemlju za stan dao. I zbilja car im dade zemlju, koja se danas (949) zove Serblia, Pagania, zemlja Zahumacah, Terbunia i Kanalis. — Dalje piše Konstantin, da je Šimun Bogar sve Serve „od maloga do velikoga" odveo u Bugarsku, izvan onih nekoliko, koji su u Hervatsku utekli, te tako da im je ostala zemlja pusta. A kad Bugari s vojskom udariše u Hervatsku, sve su ih Hervati poubijali. — Nakon sedam godinah vrati se Sebeslav u Serviu, te najde u njoj 50 mužkaracah bez ženah i dece, koji živihu o lovu, itd., on veli, da su „Servi" vazda bili podložni caru rimskome, t. j. u novie vreme bizantinskome. — Dalje mi netreba iz Konstantina vaditi. Prispodobite, gospodo, i s g. Šafafikom, Hervate i Serble, ili Serve. Hervati bojnim mačem u junačkoj ruci vojuju proti strašnim Avarom, ukrote ih i načine si novu domovinu; a Servi prose Bizantinca za komad zemlje. Neusudjuju se bez dopusćenja ni koraciti iz opre-deljenog im mesta, prose i dobivaju po drugi put stan od Bizantinca. To je jedini puk srednjega veka, koi je bez kervi dobio komad zemlje.

Hervati imaju deržavu uredjenu, imaju svoje županie, koje su i Magjari od njih uzeli, imaju vosku na kopnu i moru, imaju tergovce, rečju Hervati su narod u deržavi; a kod Servah o tome ni glasa nj traga, samo je kad kad čuti ime ž u p a n i a, koje su od Hervatah primili, i poglavar s posve zameršenim zlamenovanjem. — Hervati nakon sedam godinah nadvladaše carstvo, koje Karlo veliki složi skoro iz celoga zapada; a šaka Bugarah na sedam godinah zasužnji puk ser-vianski onako, kakono Babilonci sa židovskim učiniše. — Papa rimski ište od Hervatah prisegu, da neće na nikoga s vojskom udarati, van da će se samo braniti.

Gospodo, nekome je moglo tesno biti, kad se je ova zakletva od samih Hervatah iskala. Hervati su se, gospodo, hervali, a nisu ro bovali, nisu prosili dronjke od Bizantinacah.Narod je her vatski, gospodo, staru Iliriu od Avarah oslobodiu, pa je uzeo u njoj mesto, koje je sam hteo, a ne koje su mu Bizantinci odredili; narodu hervatskome, gospodo, plaćala je mletačka republika morna- rinu (Dandulo kod Lucia knj 2. gl. 1.), narod hervatski upleten je jačje u dogodjajnicu Rima, Mletakah, Magjarah, Frankah, Bizantinacah —nego li Servianci u dogodjajnicu Servie. —

Ali gdje je stanovao taj narod hervatski? Da vidimo. Konstantin VII., kako vidismo, veli, da se je jedna strana njegova naselila u Iliriu 1 u Panoniu, ali do kuda, kako daleko, to on nekaže. Pogledajte, gospodo, darovnicu Terpimira, vojvode hervatsko-ga, od g. 838. (Lučio knj. 2. gl. 2.), pa ćete naći, da se nadbiskupstvo Solinsko proteže do obale Dunaja, ,,i skoro preko svega kraljevstva hervatskoga." Što je to? Upitajte g. Šafafika, neka vam kaže. Ja znam, da cerkva nije bila vazda razdieljena polag političkoga uredjenja deržavah, ali je cerkva hervatska služila se od početka i služi se i danas svojim hervatskim jezikom. Meni je za sada dosta, da je od mora jadranskoga do Dunaja bio narod, koi se je služio u cerkvi jezikom hervatskim.

Pogledajte, gospodo, u „Arkiv za jugoslavensku poviestnicu" knj. 2. razdel 1. str. 4., ali još ćete pametnie učiniti, ako pogledate u „Carrara, Archivo capitolare di Spalato" str. 67. — pa ćete naći, da je kod Her-vat ah bio običaj, da sedam banah narodu hervatskome kralja izabire. Gospodo, i ovu su deržavnu ustanovu Magjari od Hervatah pri-gerlili i dugo vremena deržali, a na skoro su ju i Nemci primiti do-stojali. Koji su to bani bili? Ban hervatski, bosanski, slavonski (Kupo-Dravski), požežki (iz današnje Slavonie), p od-r a niski (iz Bosne oko reke Drine), arbanaski i ramski (iz iztočno--južne Bosne). Odovuda učite se i s g. Šafarikom, kako treba razumiti reči Konstantinove, koi hoće — želeć prava Bizantinacah na Hervate protegnuti — da su Zahumci i ostali puci od Cetine prama Dubrovniku servianskoga kolena, a ona strana Dalmacie poznana je, gospodo, pod imenom Cerljene Hervatske. To vam s g. Šafarikom budi za sada dosta.

I zbilja, kako vi s g. Šafarikom tumačite Konstantina, kad veli na jednome mestu, a na drugom o pitanju ništa nezna — da je car bizantinski dopustio Hervatom Avare proterati. To ćete mi drugi put kazati. Kako razumite Konst. kad veli, da su se Servi naselili u cerljenu Hervatsku, t. j. od Cetine niz berdo, — u zemlju, koju su Hervati oteli i zauzeli? I to ćete drugi put kazati. — Razgledajte se sada po onome prostoru, u koi ste bili s g. Šafarikom nekakov Srbež razkopitili. —

Još mi ostaju dva extrema, t. j. Istria i Dubrovnik. Vi velite, da su Istrianci nekakvi Srbi; ali gospodo pogledajte u „istrianske razvode" od god. 1325. (Arkiv za jug pov. knji. 2. razdel 2. str. 232—268.) pa ćete videti gde Istrianac veli da piše jezikom hervatskim. Upitajte g. Šafafika što je to. — Vi velite, da je knjižtvo Dubrovačko serbsko knjižtvo, t. j. da su Dubrovčani plemena servianskoga, ali gospodo, Zlatarić veli, da Sofokleovu Elektru i Ljubomira Tasova prevodi na hervatski jezik. O poganac ga neprekinuo što to kaže! Čavčić Vetranić kaže da Hekubu prevodi na hervatski jezik. O gutunar ga neudavio što to veli! Pa kako pišu ti ljudi? Onako, kako i Lučić, i Ranjina. i Mažibradić, i Lukarević i Hektorević i mnogi drugi hervatski pisci iz Dalmacie. U ostalom ja deržim Dubrovčane za pohervatjene Latince. Kažite sve ovo i g. Šafafiku, pa ga upitajte za ovako staro domaće pismo o Rusih, Poljacih ali Česih, kao što je Terpimirova da-rovnica — Tako je kod Hervatah.

Kako stoje tako zvani „Srbi?" Gospodo to je jedini puk, koi nezna ni sam samcat kako mu je ime. Upitajte g. Šafafika, nebi li znao za još koi takov puk. Kažite mi, gospodo i s g. Šafafikom, ima li se govoriti: Srb, ali Srbin, ali Srbljin, ali Srbalj, ali Srbianac, ali Srbljanin itd. Ovako se danas taj puk sam zove, a to valjda znate i vi i g. Ša-fafik, da je ta zemlja, stara Mysia, i Dacia od sredine VII veka — do najnoviih vremenah poznana kod svih europejskih narodah pod imenom „Servie." — Ime Servus (sužanj, sluga), koje su oholi tudjinci davali jednoj strani naroda našega, nije nikada bilo ime narodno, nego ime tugje, kome su se svi pametni nanašinci vazda uklanjali, i uklanjaju mu se i danas. Slušajte dobro: neima ni pedeset godinah, što je taj preterani srbež nekoje ljude snašao. Otci i dedi onih, koji se danas za srbstvo nadimlju, nadimaše se za Ilirstvo.

Pogledajte gospodo kirilsko knjižtvo. Da vam samo nešto o srbstvu napomenem. Vaš „lietopis" od g. 1827. del II. str. 172. veli da ste se vi sami prozvali Srbi i Srbi i. — — Što ćete s onima pismi, iz kojih ste ne pred-a mnom samim — „narod ilirski" prepisali „narod srbski" — pa ste to tako i naštampali. U vaše „sedmice" broju 7. piše beogradski mitropolit god. 1735. da je on „iliriko-rascianskago (a ne srbskoga) naroda strojasčijasja itd. protektor."

Gde su pisci, gde su pisma toga naroda srbskoga? Gde je taj jezik? Pravo rekuč pisalo se s malom iznimkom — u kirilici do jučer jezikom cerkvenim, a gospodo Hervat je prie imao i svoju cerkvu i u njoj svoj jezik, nego li se za Srbe znalo. Sva pisma kraljah hervatskih pisana su, gospodo, jezikom hervatskim. Pod Krešimirom velikim pokazala je bila Latinština roge, te se i u njoj pisalo, ali je vazda ono isto bilo i hervatski pisano. Pogledajte u diplomu Krešimira velikoga, od god. 1067. (Lučio knj. 2. gl. 8) pa ćete videti, da je vladika Zadarski ono pismo morao napisati i „lingva rustica" — t. j. pučkim jezikom. — Gde je, gospodo, taj srbski jezik? Pogodite se o njemu barem vi sami, a nepišite kako sada. — Jer „Dnevnik" veli, da naša zmija iz Kotara ravna — Ante Kuzmanić nepiše srbski, a on piše onako, kako su pisala oba Kačića, oba Relkovića, Katančić, Došen, Margitić, i mnogi drugi hervatski pisci; — „novine" i ovaj jezik derže za srbski, a „srbin katolik iz Savonie" kaže, da je čakavština jezik hervatski. Načinite se gospodo medju se!

Pogledajte, gospodo, u hervatsku kroniku iz 12. ali najdalje iz 13. veka (Arkiv za jug. pov. knjiga 1. str. 4—37) pa vidite skupa s g. Šafafikom kako onaj kronista piše, i — čudite se, — veli, da piše jezikom hervatskim. — Hervati, gospodo, imaju i slova svoja, koja nije Graeculus iznašao, nego narod hervatski. Za ova slova upitajte i veliku Rusiu i izobraženu Česku, pa će vam znat kazati. — Sto još da vam kažem o jeziku? znate li, da su kroz belgradskoga praetora prosili Servi novi stan? Dakle je Belgrad stao, dok su se Servi u Tesalii gnjezdili, stao je i narod, koi ga je tako zvao. Jest gospodo, stanovao je tu puno prie narod panonski, narod slavjanski, pa su se Servi s onim narodom pomešali, kako i Hervati jedni s Avari, a drugi isto tako s Panonci. Servi Konstantinovi, to je temelj vaš. Možda ćete se vi i g. Šafafik nada time čuditi, ali se nečude istinu ljubeći ljudi. — Odkuda ima naš narod oko Beograda i po Sremu e u rečih n. p. dete, lepo, mleko itd.

Gospodo, kažite g. Šafafiku i g. Miklošiću da je to glas kajkavacah, kažite im, da je tamošnji jezik još i danas pun kajkavštine. Ja sam vidio, da nekoi Sremac piše otcu: „dragi otac!" To je gospodo,

Some Starčević's sources in his polemic agains Greater Serbian ideology

Ancient historiography: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Administrando_Imperio

On Croats .........

But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some vears, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar descent and are recognized as Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, white Croats, and have their own prince ; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks. From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of Illyricum and Pannonia ; they too had a sovereign prince, who used to maintain friendly contact, though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia. For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country ; but the Franks treated them with such brutality that they used to murder Croat infants at the breast and cast them to the dogs. The Croats, unable to endure such treatment from the Franks, revolted from them, and slew those of them whom they had for princes. On this, a large army from Francia marched against them, and after they had fought one another for seven years, at last the Croats managed to prevail and destroyed all the Franks with their leader, who was called Kotzilis. From that time they remained independent and autonomous,.... .................. These baptized Croats will not fight foreign countries outside the borders of their own ; for they received a kind of oracular response and promise from the pope of Rome who in the time of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, sent priests and baptized them. For after their baptism the Croats made a covenant, confirmed with their own hands and by oaths sure and binding in the name of St. Peter the apostle, that never would they go upon a foreign country and make war on it, but rather would live at peace with all who were willing to do so ; and they received from the same pope of Rome a benediction to this effect, that if any of the pagans should come against the country of these same Croats and bring war upon it, then might the God of the Croats fight for the Croats and protect them, and Peter the disciple of Christ give them victories. ............... Again, Symeon sent another army against prince Zacharias, under Kninos and Himnikos and Itzboklias, and together with them he sent also Tzeeslav. Then Zacharias took fright and fled to Croatia, and the Bulgarians sent a message to the 'zupans' that they should come to them and should receive Tzeeslav for their prince ; and, having tricked them by an oath and brought them out as far as the first village, they instantly bound them, and entered Serbia and took away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia ; and the country was left deserted. Now, at that time these same Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain by the Croats.


On Serbs ........

But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking a moiety of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. 'Serbs' in the tongue of the Romans is the word for 'slaves', whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes, and 'tzerboulianoi' for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans. Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then governing Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians ........... and there they were all slain by the Croats. Seven years afterwards Tzeeslav escaped from the Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia from Preslav, and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting. With these he took possession of the country and sent a message to the emperor of the Romans asking for his support and succour, and promising to serve him and be obedient to his command, as had been the princes before him. ...............

On the status of Croatian language, regarding quotes from Zlatarić and Vetranović (Vetranić-Čavčić)

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekli_su_o_hrvatskom_jeziku (in Croatian)

As is evident, every Starčević's claim is corroborated by older history and literature sources. The reliability of some history sources (DAI) has been questioned only in 1970s. Mir Harven 10:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Serbian vernacular literature & literacy in the 1400s , 1500s, 1600s, 1700s- what's this ? =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language#Serbian_literature

OK-where are the examples of the Serbian language during the era Starčević claimed it had not existed as a wriiten language ? Don't try to sell Serbian Slavic, since this language is as different from contemporary Serbian as is the Russian language. Well....I'm waiting....Houston, do you read me ? Mir Harven 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

=well karadžić claimed there is no croatian language at all, so stop bitching

Wow...

What the heck are you guys doing over here? You're arguing more than possible to follow. What's wrong with Ante Starcevic? Sure, he claimed that the Serbs (Darkness) will probably be consumed by the Croats (Light), but he was just an excentric. Not even slightly excentric than the Serbian claims that the Croatian nation is going to be melted into the Serbian through the Serb migrants from Ottoman invasions. I guess that the only real rhethoric nonsence that he endorsed was his historical POV-pushes regarding Red Croatia, and how the Nemanjic dynasty was Croatian, so that Croatia's historical borders must be restored by all costs (from Istria to Attica), lol... :) He considered Stefan Dusan to be a greater Croat overmaching Tomislav. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess some of the worst things that he did was the Zagreb incidents which made him so unpopular among the Serbs... And I guess there's the fact of him calling the Slovenes Alpine Croats.... heh, some people really cross the line. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that these Serbian POV-pushers that can be viewed if someone accesses the history of this article forget that Ante Starcevic's mother was a Serb. :)))) So much of the bad, bad Croats. Really, cool down (sorry ol' chump, Mir, but you gotta cool down too :) --HolyRomanEmperor 10:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what of your comment above should be taken seriously. One thing I do not like, whether serious or not, is labelling people (Serbian POV-pushers) - practiced by Harven, too. I was the main contributor about Starcevic's racism and anti-Semintism. My findings are exclusively based on the works of the Croatian historians - Gross, Barisic, and Goldstein and some verifications of these findings in the Starcevic's works in the Zagreb University library. Also, I did not delete anything from the previous versions of this article - even though I did not find some of them reasonable. Finding my contribution wiped out, labelled as Greater Serbia propaganda etc. - I could only restore the article to the previous version waiting on honest people who a) could contribute that part of Starcevic's biography not yet touched by others and that might be worthwhile reading b) discuss honestly the existing contributions. Once more, skip labelling people this or another way - not knowing about them anything.--Purger 13:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you acusing me of being Mir's sockpuppet? Please read WP:NPOV and WP:POV. Also please note that when you're writing about Ante S. you're writing about a Father of a Nation. Please also read Stalin, where a list has been made stating what was good and bad in his life. For instance, they confirmed that Mao Ze Dong did 30% and 70% good. Do you understand? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I really do not see what you wanted to say - due to the fact that your first sentence has no connection to the second one. Your third sentence does not make sense to me too - I am not writing about a Father of a Nation, nor I ever regarded him this way. As to the notions of good or bad - I wrote only about his racism and anti-Semitism - which cannot be neglected, even more, deleted under pretext of not following WP:NPOV and WP:POV. A man's biography is not a list of bad or good things he had done during his life - rather a collection of facts that shall be passed to a reader, worthwhile of reading in some way.--Purger 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that you should ease down. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascism tag

I suggest that anonymous stops inserting this higly controversial tag, especially due to the fact that according to that logic one can tag almost any nationalist of the romanticism era as a crypto-fascist. Infact, it's no secret that a lot of romantic nationalist were both racist and anti-semite, and not only nationalists for that matter, even socialists like Mikhail Bakunin, but I really don't think anyone in the right mind would call one of the fathers of modern anarchism a fascist... However, I do support the addition of a subsection in the main article explaining his position on racism and anti-semitism, but it needs to be done in a NPOV way with respectable, verifiable sources, and not the way it has been done in the previous version of the article, which was written from a Serb extremist point of view, and was infact nothing more than a propaganda pamphlet. Therefore, I'm removing the tag, and would ask those who truly wish to improve this article to do it the right way, without causing unnecessary controversy and flame wars. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my friend, Starcevic's racism and anti-Semitism is verifiable with the most respectable, verifiable sources - his own works as it was stated in my contribution. Also, the same racial tenet of his is correctly spotted and quoted by renown scholars and historians - P.Barisic, M.Gross, I.Goldstein, A.J.P. Taylor. So, when using somebody's (Starcevic's) work as is it is completely neutral way of saying something about him. But for you and a number of other people - everythong is POV whatever is not to your liking. Puting Bakhunin in this context does not make sense to me at all. Bakhunin had not entertained ever an idea describing people like an animal breed (pasmina) - which Starcevic does. Bakhunin never wrote or talked about people that had "just half of the human mind" and, for that reason, they "shall be governed by people of the human nature". It was just Starcevic. Bear in mind that Starcevic's racial tenet was part of Pavelic's program of extermination of those who had "just half of the human mind" - Jews, Serbs, Romas.--Purger 11:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, "my friend", two can play that game. If you tag Starcevic as fascist, I can tag almost any serbian nationalist from Vuk Karadjic to Vuk Draskovic as fascist too. And I'm sure you wouldn't like that. Why? Because it's biased POV, just as your POV here. And infact, even Bakunin DID talk about Jews in a similar manner - "this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, closely and intimately connected with another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well -- this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild... etc". In the historical context it is certainly not uncommon for 19th century Europe. Again, you could have made this abundantly clear in "your" version of the article, but instead chose to resort to drawing low propagandist punches. So, what will it be? Will you compromise or will we continue this rv war? --Dr.Gonzo 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You are free to put your tag whenever you want - I am not concerned about it, and it is not related to this article. As to the Bakhunin's writing - it is not still comparable to those of Starcevic's. My low propagandist punches are findings of the renown scholars and historians - P.Barisic, M.Gross, I.Goldstein, A.J.P. Taylor - presented as is. And also, do not try to relativize Starcevic's racism and anti-Semitism. It is only what shall be known about him - for an European reader. Philosopher? Writer? Historian? What else? Compared to Bakhunin - just an obscure little provincial politician - like it or not!--Purger 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Now listen here, you little vandal! This encyclopedia isn't your playground or the place to vent out your childish frustrations! Its objective is to be neutral and truthful, and to present as much relevant information as needed. Who the fvck are you to judge if this man was or wasn't a relevant philosopher, writer, historian or anything else?? He is certainly significant as far as Croatia is concerned, an in that sense everything relevant about his life and work needs to be presented! You have stepped over the line too many times for me to just let this slide. If you continue with your campaign of vandalization of Croatia-related articles I promise you I will make it my personal mission to see you and your vandal buddies Medule, Mostassa, Purrger, etc. banned from Wikipedia FOREVER. Again, I'm not saying anti-semitism and racism info about Starcevic shouldn't be included in the article, I'm saying it needs to be presented in a NPOV way. Every single administrator out there will support this. It's your choice, stop vandalizing or else. --Dr.Gonzo 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Enough...

I requested semiprotection. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ante_Star.C4.8Devi.C4.87_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Cwatch.29 --Asterion talk to me 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am having enough troubles as to try to mediate on this too. Is there any chance someone could reword the so-called POVed version(s) and merge them into an encyclopaedic style article? This is getting nowhere and I would be requesting full protection otherwise. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have upgraded my request to FULL PROTECTION. Please take it easy. --Asterion talk to me 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected. --Golbez 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection Status

The finality of the Protection Status is to stop edit wars and reach consensus, not to endorse any given version. As far as I see it, it seems no one cares on trying to establish some sort of dialogue?--Asterion talk to me 13:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the history of the changes, problems (actually vandalisms) started after my contribution to this article:
18:03, 22 March 2006 Croatian historian (rv POV vandalism)
18:01, 22 March 2006 64.18.16.251 (rv - see the discussion page)
17:37, 22 March 2006 Croatian historian
.....
21:00, 21 March 2006 Thewanderer (rv pov edits using questionable source.)
18:23, 21 March 2006 64.18.16.251 (rv to Purger's)
16:23, 21 March 2006 EurowikiJ (rv - this is rich coming from someone who vandalizes the user pages of those who disagree)
16:17, 21 March 2006 Purger (rv article vandalization commited by EurowikiJ - Would you, please, stop vandalizing this article?)
15:51, 21 March 2006 EurowikiJ (rv- it's purger's "discoveries" that are questionable)
04:21, 21 March 2006 AHrvojic (rv -- so you read one questionable book and decided to dump it into this article?)
19:27, 20 March 2006 64.18.16.251 (rv article vandalization commited by EurowikiJ)
20:46, 18 March 2006 EurowikiJ (removed a number of hateful remarks)
13:34, 17 March 2006 Purger m
Simply my contribution is labelled as a POV and subsequently deleted. The calls to discuss it - were unanswered. Later, the user
06:04, 28 March 2006 Bormalagurski (PLEASE discuss, do not keep reverting!!!!!)
reworded and reformated my text and called to discuss this addition to the existing text of Starcevic's biography. No answer, rather further labelling and further article vandalization
15:20, 3 April 2006 Estavisti
15:01, 3 April 2006 Estavisti (→External Links)
06:43, 29 March 2006 NatusRoma m (→Historical findings about his political ideology - Disambiguation link repair - You can help!)
04:09, 29 March 2006 Bormalagurski
04:07, 29 March 2006 Thewanderer (expanded)
03:32, 29 March 2006 Bormalagurski
03:32, 29 March 2006 Bormalagurski (that wasn't very nice, of you, I took so much time on trying to make it neutral)
03:32, 29 March 2006 Kungfuadam m (Reverted edits by Bormalagurski to last version by AHrvojic)
03:31, 29 March 2006 Bormalagurski (there, made it more neutral, didn't just revert it.)
03:15, 29 March 2006 AHrvojic (rv to orignal version. If you're serious about discussing this, then any major changes should wait until then.)
14:22, 28 March 2006 Purger (Added External links)
13:54, 28 March 2006 64.18.16.251 (rv vandalism)
11:33, 28 March 2006 62.128.179.2 (restore version not vandalized by Serb vandal Boris Malagurski)
Then came Mir Harven with his (her) additions preceeded by complete deletion of the existing contribution of the Starcevic's racism and anti-Semitism - labelling the deleted text as 'deleted usual Serbian propagandist rubbish' - not explaining how the sources that are completely non-Serbian (rather Croatian, and British) could ever be a 'Serbian propagandist rubbish'
18:25, 12 April 2006 Mir Harven (to be continued..)
14:24, 12 April 2006 Mir Harven (to be continued...)
13:59, 12 April 2006 Mir Harven (rv, trolls with usual Serbian mis- & disquotation disease)
13:57, 12 April 2006 Purger (rv to historical findings; ovewriting somebody's else work without discussing it can't be permitted)
13:48, 12 April 2006 83.131.22.106 (rv, unsupported reverts on a page in progress)
13:41, 12 April 2006 Purger (rv to historical finding and removed accolades about this provincial politician)
13:36, 12 April 2006 Mir Harven (to be continued...)
12:55, 12 April 2006 EurowikiJ (rv)
12:21, 12 April 2006 64.18.16.251 (rv vandalizm commited by Mir Harven)
08:33, 12 April 2006 161.53.70.109 (typos and minor corrections)
23:44, 11 April 2006 Mir Harven (Ladan added)
22:59, 11 April 2006 Mir Harven (wrong Burton; the explorer, not the alcoholic)
22:41, 11 April 2006 Mir Harven (→External Links - -qualified a "source")
22:25, 11 April 2006 Mir Harven (beginning of a major edit; deleted usual Serbian propagandist rubbish)
So, if you want any progress related to this article, then:
  • User 15:01, 26 April 2006 Elephantus (rv to more NPOV, this version is basically malicious pamphlet) is a proven falsifier and shall be blocked from the discussion and any contribution to this article. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivo_Andri%C4%87#McNeill_.E2.80.93_Lovett_F._Edwards_.E2.80.93_Andri.C4.87:_The_story_ends_:-.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivo_Andri%C4%87#About_Elephantus
  • User Mir Harven is a proven racist and anti-Semite whose racist's posts (against the Serbs and the Jews) can be found on the Usenet newsgroups in a great number. Also, in the discussion above, (s)he does not hide his (her) racist' bias against the Serbs trying to support his (her) point of view by referencing some historic resources. So, to make any progress here, this user shall be blocked in his (her) attempts to derail the editorial work on this article. A number of his (her) Wikipedia contributions are already marked as a POV.
  • all others' (AHrvojic, Kungfuadam, EurowikiJ, anonymous, etc.) deleting the submitted text without substantiating what is their idea of POV, questionable resources, trolling, Serbian propaganda, etc. shall be immediately blocked after their first page reversion or deletion.--Purger 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, about this page

...was a Croatian politician, philosopher, and writer. A philosopher? Very interesting. And, what was his monumental philosophical work? Maybe "How to crow like a rooster"?--4.249.6.18 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The user "Purger" (sometimes as "Purrger"-probably in order to avoid blockage) is spreading anti-Croat propaganda (one can easily check on their contrib page). Also, I won't deign to address his hysterical jabber about my anti-whatever intolerance and/or prejudice. Let's stick to the facts.

1. this user hasn't contributed anything that is not related to some dark sides of Croatian history (Ante Pavelić)- and to the pages he would like to "paint them black" (Starčević etc.). In short, all "contribution" of this user can be summed up thusly: Croats are Fascists/Nazis/demons/"bad". This is all what we can expect from this user. Well, he nicely fits in one of the categories described in the page on Croatophobia.

2. what about this page ? He's chopped out quotes from Ante Starčević, mainly posted on Greater Serbian sites for propaganda purposes & tries to recycle them endlessly, in a smear campaign aimed at the "father of the nation" (Starčević honorific title). Well-if the "father of the nation" is a racist, "fascist", bad, bad, bad,...then, I guess, are his national & ideological descendants who include virtually all Croatian people.Mir Harven 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Veeery interesting! Could you give us that ghastly Greater Serbia site where we could clearly see the quotes chopped out?--4.249.6.18 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone conversant with the texts of a polemical author (Starčević wrote numerous articles-his collected works are contained in a few books (I forgot how many), say, 4-5) knows that anyone who wrote more than 1,000 pages on politics can be accused on virtually anything. The user "Purger" did not-it is evident- read anything Starčević wrote. He's a complete ignoramus re Starčević's influence on major Croatian intellectual figures, most notably the best Croatian (and, btw, a Communist) writer of the 20th century Miroslav Krleža.Mir Harven 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


And could you quote in full at least one of the Starcevic's great ideas - which influenced major Croatian intellectual figures? Just for the readers' amusement!--4.249.6.18 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia. Today's the most ardent follower of Starcevic (a philosopher) is a well-known man, Anto Djapic. The named Anto is the head of today's Croatian Party of Rights - whose political views and programme are exactly the same as those of Starcevic's. Anto is a member of the Croatian Sabor (Parliament) for over the last 15 years. Anto entered the law graduate studies at University of Split and mastered his M.Sc. thesis using the omnipotent scientific method called 'copy and paste'. Naturally, he failed to earn the M.Sc. degree for being exposed and his scientific work, therefore, annulled. But he is still the MP and even once he was the presidential candidate. He even tried to be a member of the Croatian state government - which was resolutely prevented by some EU politicians. So, the Starcevic's legacy is alive - racism, criminal, lies, forgeries.--4.249.0.92 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He knows nothing what Mirjana Gross, a pre-eminent authority on Starčević (and, herself a Jewsess) has written in her magnum opus, a monumemtal monograph on Starčević "Izvorno pravaštvo". He doesn't know that this most thorough monograph is a monument to Starčević, not a defamation of any kind. He's just sliced a few nasty & one-sided propagandist pieces that purport to intepret Gross's book and glued them in an effort to throw mud on Starčević's person & image. What are his sources ? Serbian propaganda sites. What are his contentions ? Sentences that contain utter ignorance about history, language, literature (for instance, this user, or one of his clones, avers that there was a Serbian Renaissance literature. This ludicrous claim (no people belonging to the Eastern Orthodox cultural sphere did participate in the Renaissance) is aimed to discredit Starčević's contentions, expressed in a polemic against the proponents of pan-Sertbian followers of Vuk Karadžić who tried to appropriate Croatian cultural heritage). Why this arcane, actually utterly bizarre contentions ? Why bother with what some Croatian political & cultural writer said ca. 150 years ago ? Simply-Starčević had unmasked pan-Serbian ideology that had caused numerous wars in the next 100-150 years. And, this unmasking-hurts. Especially those who follow in the footsteps of Greater Serbian ideological fantasies on power, expansion & misappropriation.

3. what about Starčević's claims this user considers are of so vital importance that must constitute the bulk of the page ? A part of them that is true will (and, already is, albeit partially) be incorporated and explained, in the historical context, in the main body of the text, for the sake of giving the complete picture of Ante Starčević. That's all. For the rest, this walking example of Croatophobia should better seek a psychiatric treatment. Mir Harven 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for mediation

Will all the parties involved accept the friendly intervention of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? This edit war has been going on for too long. --Asterion talk to me 11:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to do it simpler. I started to read what to do & began to snore...Mir Harven 13:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I would do the boring work (i.e listing the page on the mediation request page). Asterion talk to me 13:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure this is material for mediation? The article is being attacked by anti-Croatian fanatics here, as Mir Harven clearly explained on this talk page. If the mediation is the only solution to make them stop, then OK, but maybe there are faster ways, like attracting the attention of an admin or burocrat. --Zmaj 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm also unsure that mediation would do much good here. Sadly, some people will accept nothing but a forceful restatement of their own views, no matter how outlandish these are. --Elephantus 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me - User Elephantus must be blocked indefinitely for being exposed as a falsifier. User Mir Harven is well-known racist whose many Wikipedia contibutions are marked as POV. I am not going to deal with people like these two.--Purger 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Exposed as what, where and by whom?? I'd recommend avoiding weasel terms when making these personal assaults. Or better yet, avoid them altogether? :-) --Elephantus 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation will obviously not work if the parties involved are not willing to give it a try. I believe at this point it is the only option. No admin or bureaucrat would get involved on what they would see as a "content dispute". Banning people is not a solution either as a new username can be created at any time. In any case, please reach an agreement and let me know if I should go ahead with the mediation request. Regards, Asterion talk to me 09:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You say 'Banning people is not a solution ...'. Yes, that's true. But if there is no way to follow some very basic criteria of knowledge and morality - then what is the point of writing an ecyclopaedia article?
Hmmm...as far as I can see, the user Purger is a sick Croatophobe. It has been explained in the text I've written above. Sure-anyone can comment & disagree with the claims set forth there, but they should use rational arguments: something I haven't seen they'd done. Now- is there a way to get rid of such "contributors", who are, let's be frank-just a nuisance ? This, and other similar users, only spills anti-Croat hatred, has not written a substantiated article on any subject whatsoever save mounting defamation crap on Croats & Croatia. So- where's the point in patting obsessives consumed with ethnic hatred ? Mir Harven 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I notified the administrator Jossi on his talk page that it was a terrible mistake to lock the article in its current version. --Zmaj 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adminstrators always get it wrong by protecting the wrong version. Please come to an agreement on how to proceed, and when you are ready to resume editing place a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you place a request for comment? That way uninvolved editors can come and comment. Place a request for comment here: WP:RFC (with a one line explaining the dispute, without asserting one or the other side), and as a courtesy to these editors, make a summary in this talk page under a section "RFC summary" in which each side can present their position. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will place the RfC request myself tonight. Regards, Asterion talk to me 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've put the RfC summary at the top of this page and presented our position (side A). --Zmaj 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I cannot see any reason for the very existence of this article. That man, Starcevic, is the one of small provincial European politicians of what kind we could find in great numbers. My proposal is to completely remove the article. The protected version - a story about small unsignificant man who was a racist; the unprotected version - not worth of reading at all - apparently aimed to whitewash political activities and life of somebody Europe and the rest of world was not and is not interested in at all. Template:69.199.0.50

Sandbox for requested changes

Please use the page Ante Starčević/Requested Changes (a copy of currently protected article) to work on a consensus version. Unless there are some actions, this page will stay protected for a long time. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 07:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC does not seem to be working. I agree we should all try to make a satisfactory version on the page Asterion created. --Zmaj 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please continue to make progress on a consensus version so unprotection can occur as soon as is feasible. 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll just go ahead and unprotect, there has been no discussion here for weeks and normally we don't leave pages protected for this long. Haukur 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice on sock puppets

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger. See here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for moving the page

I asked Haukurth, who unprotected the article, to help us move Ante Starčević/Requested Changes to Ante Starčević, because it should be tried (if possible) to preserve the history of the new version. --Zmaj 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. I must admit, though, that I had completely missed the existence of that page when I unprotected so I didn't factor that into my decision. I apologize for my clumsiness. But now that I've seen it it doesn't look like it's having an edit war so I'll gladly do what you ask and move it here. Moving the talk page is a bit more tricky, you might be best off just cutting and pasting the sections you want. Or we could archive everything here and move the new talk page over it. Haukur 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done the move. Contact me again if you need some admin action on the talk page. Haukur 09:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will cut and paste the talk page. --Zmaj 10:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussions moved from the temporary page

I have moved these discussions from Talk:Ante Starčević/Requested Changes, since that article has been moved to this one. --Zmaj 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done

This article was created after the edit war on the page Ante Starčević and the discussions on its talk page. Over the last weeks, I have greatly expanded it. Now that I have finished, there remain the controversial last two chapters. I have not deleted anything from them, since I know it would trigger an edit war again. So I will provide my thoughts here and hope some impartial user will change what needs to be changed.

The chapter "On Jews and Serbs" has NPOV content, but it is POV in the sense of undue weight. It should probably be shortened.

The entire chapter "Starcevic's racism and its followers" should be deleted, because it has nothing to do with Starčević. It is a collection of unrelated attacks. See Association fallacy.

--Zmaj 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated and meaningless

Removed:

When Starčević wrote, Anti-semitism had been quite popular for several centuries, stretching from Martin Luther to Richard Wagner.

Note: This is a pretty racist claim aimed to relativize Starcevic's racism

Also, the subtitle About Serbs and Jews is not appropriate at all. It is about his racist's views where the Arabs are mentioned, too. So, putting back Historical findings about his political ideology --Purger 20:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not intend to start an edit war. I have asked Asterion to read the last two chapters and make any changes as an impartial judge. --Zmaj 09:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Association fallacy

Zmaj, you again started to revert something with facts. "The Croatian fasist movement called Ustaše trace their ideological lineage back to the Croatian Party of Rights founded by Ante Starčević and his rasism against Serbs And Jews." In the article about that Party you will find facts about that link.--Medule 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Medule, don't pretend to be stupid. It would be like going to the "Muhammad" article and writing: "Islamist terrorists trace their lineage to this prophet." --Zmaj 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Croatian Party of Rights is founded by Ante Starčević. From same party fasist Ustase movement appeared. Same fascist Ustase movement called Starcevic father of Homeland.--Medule 13:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Medule, you have made a mistake which is quite common. It even has a name: Association fallacy. Read about it and try to be less emotional in the future. --Zmaj 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Reductio ad Hitlerum could also teach you a thing or two. --Zmaj 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but Pavelic rose politically in that party, in that ideology. That party was already extreme right party. Pavelic was member of that party for long period of time and inside party he found ideologicaly same people. So linkage from Starcevic is clear enough.--Medule 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, you are neither the first nor the last stubborn contributor who does not want to discuss things. Fortunately, there are other steps I can take. --Zmaj 12:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice written - and just of provincial level of importance

"His travelogue From Lika was published in Kušlan's magazine Slavenski Jug on 22 October 1848. He wrote four plays in the period 1851-52, but only the Village Prophet has been preserved. His translation of Anacreon from Ancient Greek was published in Danica in 1853. His critical review (1855) of Đurđević's Pjesni razlike was described by the Croatian literary historian Branko Vodnik as "our first genuine literary essay about older Dubrovnik literature". His opus shows an affinity with practical philosophy, which he calls "the science of life". As Josip Horvat said: His literary work from 1849 to the end of 1853 made Ante Starčević the most prolific and original Croatian writer along with Mirko Bogović."

There is nothing to add to these accolades - except that all these 'achievements' are not of European level of that time nor his work ever atracted anyone in Europe of that time - nor today.

I do not know how a reader might find it educative or interesting to learn about 'four plays written - and only one preserved' or about 'critical review of Đurđević's Pjesni razlike'. Why not to have all above exclusively within the Croatian Wikipedia article about Starcevic only?

Yeah, almost had it forgotten! What where Starcevic's 'philosophical essays'? How to walk on four and How to crow like a rooster - maybe?

You really hate this man, don't you? --Zmaj 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, are you Purger or Medule? Just for curiosity's sake... --Zmaj 06:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It was my change in article, but not above change about Lika in Slavenski Jug . Last night I opened for long time that article. In meantime login timeout expired, so only my IP 212.102.135.* could be seen. But it was me. That above about Lika in Slavenski Jug is not me.--Medule 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hard to keep track of all your sock puppets? Maybe another CheckUser will help. --Zmaj 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the end of the discussions from Talk:Ante Starčević/Requested Changes (see above). --Zmaj 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the totally irrelevant chapter

I will remove a whole chapter, "Starcevic's racism and its followers", which consists of two large paragraphs. Here are the reasons:

First paragraph:

Starcevic's racism was further fully elaborated by Ivo Pilar [pseudonym L. V. Sudland], in his work Die Sudslawische Frage und der Weltkrieg, which was published in 1918. The topicality of this racist work is seen from the fact that it was reprinted in 1990. In the preface to this edition, Dr. Vladimir Veselica, president of the Croatian Democratic Party, expresses his enthusiasm that the author had given "relevant answers" at the highest intellectual level. What thrilled him so was the consistently expressed racist hatred against the Serbs. It is sufficient to submit one quotation that explains the sense and content of this book, which far outdoes the current demonization of the Serbs: " it was not without reason that I tried to show how the Serbs today are dangerous for their ideas and their racial composition, how a bent for conspiracies, revolutions and coups is in their blood. "
What has this got to do with Starčević??? Even if it was true (and I doubt it), it is totally unrelated to Ante Starčević. --Zmaj 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Strictly related to Starcevic. Pilar elaborated further Starcevic's racist tenet. This book (Die Sudslawische Frage und der Weltkrieg) strictly references Starcevic's works and ideas.

Second paragraph:

The Croatian racism on which Starcevic's Party of Rights was founded had its worthy heirs. The British historian A.P.J. Taylor wrote (pages 188-189)
The Croat Diet was dominated by the Party of Right, which continued to demand the "state rights" of Croatia and still lived in the dream world of medieval law from which the Hungarians had escaped. The Party of Right was clerical, conservative, and pro-Habsburg; its only concession to nationalism was hostility to the Serbs, ... When some members of the Party of Right hesitated to make conflict with the Serbs their only political activity, the majority of the party reasserted itself as the Party of the Pure Right - meaning pure of any trace of reality.
In his book, this famous and world renown historian even did not mention Starcevic as a political figure - paying a fair amount of his attention to the ideas and work of Starcevic's worst enemy - Strossmayer (pages 189-191, 193).
Again, nothing to do with Starčević. The Croatian Party of Rights has its own article, so this can (maybe) be moved over there. The user who added this paragraph even admitted that Taylor says nothing about Starčević, so why is this here??? I would like to assume good faith, but it seems this entire chapter was added with the intention to smear Starčević. --Zmaj 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Starcevic's racist tenet was a foundation of the Party of Rights. Starcevic led this party for more than twenty years. Taylor did not mention Starcevic - rather his racism mirrored in the Party of Rights political activity. There was nothing wise nor necessary in his racism to be elaborated further in this great book. Starcevic was a dirty politician - so nothing to smear! His racism is the sound proof of his dirty political activity.
Are you Medule or Purger? Anyway, you need to provide some proof for your accusations. Until then, the chapter cannot stay. --Zmaj 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to prove to you. You are not an ultimate judge nor anything depends on you. So, start behaving civil and polite!
When an accusation is put forward, it must be proven. This does not depend on me. It is common practice. Unproven accusations will be deleted. --Zmaj 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are not Medule, you may have missed the discussion above. Even if you manage to prove your accusations, they are irrelevant for Starčević. It would be a logical mistake to include them. That mistake has a name: Association fallacy. --Zmaj 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source

There was a sentence in the article that went like this:

Starcevic said the following words: "self-determination of the Croatian people is only possible at the expense of denying and exterminating the Serbian people."

Even though there are many suspicious quotes in the article, this one really stood out. Ante Perkovic questioned its truthfulness, correctly pointing out that it was slander until proven true.

Yesterday Bormalagurski added the source of that quote: A Little More Truth, an open letter by Mr. Todorovic, Public Affairs Officer of SAVA, the organization of Americans of Serbian heritage.

As Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, a quote from the Internet means nothing by itself, since anyone can post anything on the web. Secondary sources are reliable if they are written by reputable scholars, people that can be trusted. I read the entire text by Mr. Todorovic and can say with absolute certainty that the man not only cannot be trusted, but is extremely biased and unreliable. This is what Mr. Todorovic says of the Croats:

I agree, there is a difference, when you compare the average Croatian coward to people like Vietnam War hero, Lance Sijan, a Serb.
However, I agree with you, there is a cultural difference between the Serbs and the Croats, our illiterates make most Croats appear stupid.

And this is what he says about modern Croatia:

How self-righteous of both of you to ignore the fact that since 1990, the Croatians have succeeded in cleansing 600,000 Serbs and nearly every Jew from Croatia, to fulfill their Nazi dream of a Greater Croatia.

Mr. Todorovic generously extends his disdain to Muslims too:

There is little doubt that after 500 years of Ottoman slavery, the Serbian people have a right to despise the Muslim Serbs who betrayed their faith and enslaved their own brothers.

No comment. Such displays of hatred are both ridiculous and sad. However, the use of such "sources" indicates that some contributors (and proven sock puppets) have a POV agenda and that every claim against Starčević needs to be thoroughly checked. Still, I am confident that we will eventually get rid of all the defamation and give Starčević the article he deserves. --Zmaj 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, trying to destroy the credibility of the link. Nice try. However, there are several books that prove he said it. Now, if you would get your ass off the computer and read something once in a while, maybe your comments would be less childish. --serbiana - talk 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL. Moreover, if there are several books that prove it, it is up to you to cite them, not me. It is you who must prove your accusations. Like anybody else, Starčević is innocent until proven guilty. --Zmaj 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Starcevic's frivolous fantasies and ignorance about language

In the Call for Subscriptions to the Croatian Grammar (December 8, 1851) he stated his opposition to the Vienna Language Agreement of 1850 and the linguistic concept of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. He would continually have disputes with the followers of Karadžić. Starčević already elaborated his linguistic ideas in 1850 in his foreword to Istarski razvod, a crucial Croatian document from 1325 which he transcribed from the Glagolitic alphabet to the Latin alphabet. His foreword points out that the mixture of all three Croatian dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian) and the Krajina dialect is called the Croatian language, which Starčević considers from the perspective of its six hundred years of history. Starčević accepted the etymological orthography and used the ekavian form for his entire life, considering it the heir of the old Kajkavian.

The whole paragraph is about a man's (Starcevic's) thinking about language - who (Starcevic) never was educated as a linguist nor he had any practical knowledge about the matter (language) he tried to elaborate. As a result - the whole Starcevic's writings about language did not attract any attention of the contemporary linguists that time, nor those writings have any value today.

I just wonder how this scribling about such man's ideas might benefit a reader of this article?

This gravely damages the Wikipedia integrity and credibility - compromising serious attempts to hold a respectable level of the encyclopaedia editorial policy.

Hatred is not an argument. --Zmaj 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither is stating what you just did. --serbiana - talk 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let us talk arguments then. The unknown user above (probably User:Purger) claims that the work of Starčević in the area of language is irrelevant because it was of no interest for the linguists of that time. Firstly, the man did some important work on "Istarski razvod", which nobody can deny. As--Zmaj
There is nothing to deny. I can't imagine that a serious and of sound mind person might claim that "Istarski razvod, a crucial Croatian document from 1325 which he transcribed from the Glagolitic alphabet to the Latin alphabet" is an important work at all.--4.249.0.77 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added more about his linguistic work and debates. You know, Purger, it is actually great that the English Wikipedia has someone who hates Starčević as much as you do, repeating your insults ad nauseam. It gives me motivation to turn it into a perfect article. If it were not for you, I would have not become interested in the topic. I am not being ironic. Honestly, thank you. --Zmaj 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
for the more general linguistic issues, he is far from unimportant. Even if he did not attract any attention from the linguists (but such accusations should be proven), his opinions on language are still very important, since language at that time was as much a political issue as it was a linguistic one, and he was a major political figure.
P.S. I am going on vacation, but I will continue the discussion in a week. --Zmaj 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Istarski Razvod was written by Josip Bratulic, not Starcevic. Secondly, I'm sure there are lots of people who "didn't make it" and "didn't get much attention from the big guys", tough luck. Besides, you have not provided sources, but I trust that you and many Croats consider him an important figure in the world of linguistics. Therefore, I propose a compromise: "Many Croats consider him.." and "Croats claim that...". I think thats fair, do you? --serbiana - talk 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Istarski Razvod was written by neither Bratulić nor Starčević. It is a medieval legal document, which was first published in modern times by Starčević in the 19th century and critically analyzed by Bratulić in the 20th century. I am not sure whether you are joking or just being ignorant. Either way, you should get more serious. --Zmaj 07:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are my sources - see where it says "Author" and who's name is there? I think that says "Josip Bratulic"... So, you're simply lying here, and even not answering my more important question. I am sorry, but I trust sources more than you. Sorry again. --serbiana - talk 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
serbiana should apologize for calling me a liar. To prevent anyone from being taken in by his "sources", here are some English texts about Istarski Razvod: [3], [4], [5]. As for the need to justify Starčević's importance in linguistics, I will take care of it in a couple of days. --Zmaj 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A few notes

I stumbled across this article accidentally - searching some references about the Austro-Hungarian empire. Reading this heated discussion above, I was prompted to check a few things:

- part of the Starcevic's racism and its followers based on and quoted from the A.P.J. Taylor's book is correct

- in this book - History of the Balkans (The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe Publication Series, No. 12) by Barbara Jelavich, Cambridge University Press 1983

I found another confirmation of the Starcevic's racist attitude:

page 66

Among the nationalists, the most popular was Ante Starcevic, the head of the Party of Rights, whose doctrine had strong anti-Serbian overtones.

Starcevic and those of similar views regarded the Serbs simply as second-rate Croats. They could be 'croatized' just as the Hungarians were attempting to magyarize their minorities.

page 67

He contiued to regard the Serbs as Orthodox Croats.

Also, there is no Starcevic's biography in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica - contary to the fact that there are entries about his political enemy Strossmayer and his language reform rival - Karadzic. Searching further (www.amazon.com) found a pitty fact: Starcevic's works and works about him are only in the Serbo-Croatian - zero availability, zero interest in those works.

Advice to the contributors - pay attention to the (linguistic, literary, political - if any) results of this man and not to his political activities, fightings or beliefs. Nobody is famous for his fightings or beliefs. Only clear results and valuable ideas that survived a man and passed the borders of his contemporary realm and the time in which he lived - are the things making that man famous. --Matt Parlow 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)