Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnical cleansing in Croatia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No point in redirecting anywhere because this is a bad misspelling. No point in merging because what could be salvaged out of this article is already present in other articles. —Cleared as filed. 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnical cleansing in Croatia

Delete Propaganda, heavily biased, factually false statements, unsourced, redundant with all articles about the wars in Yugoslavia. Orzetto 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ethnic cleansing in general --Ruby 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ethnic cleansing. --Terence Ong 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since "ethnical" is not even a proper word so a redirect seems pointless, cheap tho they be. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. That's too horrendous a misspelling to be covered by a typo, so I don't even think it meets a criteria for a redirect.--み使い Mitsukai 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as embarrassment to intellect. Content is purely editorial too. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. rodii 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRAL. I am afraid the current votes are not sufficiently founded. This article is not, like, a hoax, or vanity page. One must seriously argue that the facts were distorted or events didn't take place. A more correct and neutral title could help. The redirect option is certainly misguided. You cannot redirect to an article that does not address the current content. Also, the absense of reputable references is a serious drawback. mikka (t) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Pending verification. Alexander 007 17:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The events clearly took place. If there is a problem with spelling, fix it. In 1900, Dalmatia had approximately equal number of Serbs, Croats and Italians. Now it is 85% Croat. Serbs were expelled (and killed in a genocide) in WWII and from 1991-1995. Italians in WWII, and expelled after it (it is an issue in Italy nowadays, Berlusconi asks Croatia to give back the property of expelled Italians, called enui). So, there is a lot of substance here, and the article has its place. If you think it is POV or has language errors, you can fix that as per Wikipedia policies. It is not wikipedia policy to remove the content because of language error (or even POV) as far as it is written on wiki policy pages. Mikiolo 08:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary in 1911

The article contains no useful information and is redundant with the very detailed History of Croatia series and with ethnic cleansing. It is written with POV content that borders on propaganda and cites no sources; its very title and introduction seem written to picture Croats as murderers ("Ethnical cleansing in Croatia is a method which was used by Croats several times to change the balance in national composition of Croatia in twentieth century"). Even if it were a good article, it would be in the wrong place, since there are tons of article on the history and wars of Croatia. When it comes to Italian presence in Istria and Dalmatia, this map of the ethnicity of Austria-Hungary comes in handy: it is from an English source in 1911 (times and authors are not immediately under suspicion of POV). Italians are a majority only in coastal areas of Istria, claiming that "Istria was always a part of Italy" (which did not even exist before 1861) does not look likely. --Orzetto 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

the map you have produced is completely consistent with the article. It says that majority in Dalmatia were Slavs (Serbs + Croats). But Croats were a minority, i.e. Serbs and Italians were also a majority. Both were purged in ethnical cleansing, in several waves and that is the point of the article. from around a third croats are now 85% majority in dalmatia!!! Also, being part of a country (like Venice, Ragusa which had Latin, Italian and Dalmatian as major and official languages) is something not shown on this map. I discuss it below Mikiolo 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:179600VZ.gif

Venice in 1796

Italy might have not existed, but Venice clearly did. Until Napoleon Conquest, Istria and Dalmatia were part of Republic of Venice. After that Ragusa and part of Venice were given to Austria, not to Croatia (which was in personal union with Hungary). So it should be changed to never been part of Croatia, since that is clearly true.

Istria, Fiume and Zara were never part of Croatia until 1945, and Dalmatia was never part of Croatia until 1939. Also, if information does appear on some other places, this aspect of Croatian policies ought to be separately discussed. Just because some things are discussed in various other articles are not a good reason to remove an article from wikipedia. Would you remove Holocaust article because of the overlaps with final solution, WWII, SS and Himmler articles?? Mikiolo 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that POV is a reason to delete an article. The article in its current state is clearly POV, but if it can be sourced, with citations etc., edited to a NPOV, it could be a good article. If it cannot be sourced -- even by its POV authors -- that fact alone may convince the community that the allegations made in the article are false. And by the way, after reviewing enough articles, citations to population changes over time prove nothing in and of themselves -- demographics may change for any number of reasons and genocide is merely one of many possible interpretations (POVs). Carlossuarez46 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.