Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ustaši

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 was redirect to Ustaše without prejudice to User:Brkic recreating in user space for later review/RfC on the subject. Article history available upon polite request. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ustaši

Ustaši (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a WP:POVFORK, created by Brkic (talk · contribs), currently blocked for 58RR at Ustaše (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and incivility. The story goes like this:

• Brkic apparently tries to convey the message that Ustaše have noble origins of anti-Turkish insurgents from 17th century
• After revert-warring fails at that article, he creates this one.
• As the Ustaše article acknowledges in the lede, the origin of the name actually does come from "ustaš", an archaic word for "insurgent" or "upraiser"
• To prove that, he uses two sources from 1888 and 1900, which could plausibly use the word indeed, as at that time it did mean "insurgent". I'd call that quote mining. I can't find any other mention at GBooks and GScholar of the word other than the WWII context.
• The third source, "Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) p 51-374" is available online [1] and does not mention "ustaši" nor the events in question.
• Now, the rest of the information from the article probably has some basis: the persons mentioned do exist and they lived at that time. The events in question, however, are likely just part of the greater Habsburg-Ottoman war 1683-1699, supposedly the Great Turkish War. And they were just side events of the great battle.

In sum, I propose that the article is deleted and redirected to Ustaše; the few valuable pieces of information therein might find some place in History of Croatia, but those are just another skirmishes within a big war AFAICT, and it's really difficult to find a context to merge into. The rest is POV-pushing. Duja► 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect, per nom. Valuable information if any should be integrated into Uskoks--Victor falk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is completely misleading. First of all the word "Ustasha" was common for "uprisers", and common not only in Croatia but elsewhere in the Yugoslav lands. The reason why this fairly common word has been completely pushed out from the Serb-Croat vocabulary, is the actions of the Croatian Patriotic Ustashas during World War II and the bad connotations it automatically attracts. The point of this article seems to be in bad faith. Also, there is absolutely no necessity to create an independent article on such matter - there are corresponding ones that should contain the info: Uskoks, Ustashas, Serbian Uprising,... --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No, this is the story about the original Ustaša army of the 17th century We cannot delete this article because another army under the same name did this or that, and lost a war in the 20th century. As in the Military history of the United States many articles are needed to enlighten things. The two Croatian names Ustaši and Domobrani are not a 20th century invention. Both are found in the famous Military history of Croatia.

Domobrani or Imperial Croatian Home Guard are Croatian soldiars 1868 - 1918

Ustaši or Ustaše are Croatian soldiars 1683 - 1689

These are historic Croatian military names. That both where reused in the 20th century !

Now the sources mentioned so far.

The first two are ordinary old history books referenced to, in all works on the topic.

The third source, mention "the events in question"

On page 10 look for, "dragovoljacki odredi 1684" "volunteer squads 1684"

The book also list the Croatian soldiers of the time such as,

• Prince Marko Kovacevic page 189
• Prince Ivan Drakulic page 75
• Prince Orlovic page 265

• Castellan Milan Marinkovic page 155
• Castellan Petar Vrkljan page 255

• Kapitain Stojan Kovacevic son of Commander Dujan Kovacevic page 255
• Kapitain Ivan Mesic brother of Commander Marko Mesic page 163

• Corporal Miko Sertic page 164
• Corporal Jure Gaier page 164

The Croatian Ustaša soldiers were organised into the Croatian Military Frontier - Croatian Krajina in 1712

You fail to comment on their prior name Uskoks (Jumpers)

This name however was not reused by the Croatian soldiers in the 20th century Is that way ?

If you dont like President Bush you cannot dislike everyone named Bush or say it's a "archaic word" for a plant. That's disrespectful !

There is nothing to be done about this historical facts we must accept them.

In sum, this completly unbiased and comprehensive artical about the original Croatian Ustasa soliders 1683 - 1689 needs to be further upgraded and not mixed with or to be deleted and redirected to the serbian Ustaše article.

As you have vel understood, this "new" info vil reaper in many articles in many forms all around the net.

By the way here are som pictures of British and Croatian Commanders in the Crimean War (1853–1856)[2]

That's a long time ago, before NATO. Hope that doesnt bother you to ? --Brkic 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of contention here is the article title, and your behaviour to push it through by all means possible. Now, which 20th century source uses the term "ustaši" for the 17th century insurgents? There's no evidence whatsoever that they called themselves like that, or that they were collectively called like that at the time, or by 20th century historians. Like I said, the term is used for any insurgents (against Turks, in the context) in both Serbian and Croatian languages, as can be seen in this 1946 reprint: "Nevesinje (Herzegovinian rebellion) 1875... the Turkish squad went from Pišče to replace Bezuje squad. They were intercepted by ustaši: ... Mira Gagović". Or this 1929 paper: "Miloš Milutina Lakićevića, carpenter from Trpeza, ustaš of Toplica [uprising] from 1917".

The events described in the article are also described here, under B.3. No mentioning of "ustaši" either. A suitable place for the material might be e.g. under Military Krajina#After the Great Turkish War and Treaty of Karlowitz section. I still assert that the "ustaši" naming is only your construction and original research. No one here has a problem with describing valid historic events. We do have a problem with your insistence to name it as you wish and include it into inappriate places. Duja► 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• New Comment

I am not familiar with the serbian cyrillic letters in your links. The 20th century Yugoslav (serbian) historians had the same problem as you have, to distinguish between the events. They simply wrote another name Uskoks instead of Ustaši describing the 17th century events, referred to.

To understand why the names Ustaši and Domobrani were reused by some Croatians in the 20th century we need to know their historical use.

All Uskoks actives ended long before the Ustaša actives of the 17th century begun.

You your self now admit that terme is not a 20th century invention And yes it was used by the Montenegrians fighting the turks in 1711 [3] Your 20th century historians are quoted there.

You don't believe my 19th century historians because your 20th century historians are not clear on this. We cannot subscribe the 17th century events to the Uskoks, falsifying history out of Ustaša phobia

Why do you think the author of this[4] article uses a capital letter for the term Ustaši ? "Hercegovački ustanak 1875-1878"

It's because Ustaši is the name of the 1875 to 1878 squad he is describing.

Just like Ustaši is the name of the 1683 - 1689 squad historian Lopasić[5] is describing in 1888. This is NO exclusive 20th century name. The name was generally used by the anti turk movement and later reused in the 19th and 20th century.

You want it to be a exclusive 20th century movement.

In order to prevent me from writing an article about the Croatian anti Turkish movment of the 17th century

My unbiased article if you dont punk it up with your 20th century horror show will be a about the Croatian anti Turkish movement of the 17th century.

You already have your unhistorical article Ustaše. No offense, I would have done a better work.

Nicknames of British Army Units here[6]. I'll spare you for the American nicknames.

1054 ?

--Brkic 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to agree that "ustaši" is (one of) generic term(s) for 16-19th century insurgents (against Turks), regardless of the area. Now, according to our naming conventions, article titles should reflect the reader's expectations and be brought in proper context, specifically "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". For example, the vast majority of Google scholar search results uses "ustasi" in WWII context, suggesting it's a plausible search term for ustaše rather than for 1683 Lika rebellion. Now, can we amicably come to resolution that you put the said interesting material into one of Military Frontier, Croatian Krajina, Croatia in the Habsburg Empire, Great Turkish War, wherever is best, and where it could work better in a context? Our historic coverage of those events is fairly weak. The entire confrontation you encountered here was because your insistence on the term (rather than on contents) was perceived as trolling by other editors. We do have policies such as assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers which perhaps weren't followed by the fellow editors, but I must admit you weren't overly tactful either. Duja► 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with you at all.

It should be in the lede, a first sentences.

Like it is in this Slovenian version of Wikipedia [7].

Quotation:

Ustaši so bili južni Slovani, ki so se bojevali proti vdoru turkov od 14. do 16. stoletja.

Translation:

Ustaši where southern Slavs, that fought against the turks from 14th to 16th century.

Or as it also is in the Italian version of Wikipedia [8].

Quotation:

Il termine ùstascia già usato dagli slavi balcanici per indicare coloro che lottavano contro i turchi

Translation:

The term ustaši already used by the balkan slavs to indicate those who fought against the Turks

Those are unbiased and comprehensive ledes on the Ustasi subject.

It should be like that in the english lede to.

This version should be the most accurate one.

As it stands, it jumps right into the 20th century.

You deleted my lede, restore it !

Am I getting truog to you ?

--Brkic 19:30, 4 October 2007 (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.