Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Old copy&paste 2 Oliver Gehrke's comments 3 Spelling of the name 4 Shallot's comments 5 The page's improvement 6 semi-random personal attacks 7 WWII victim numbers 8 Tudjman's and HDZ's legacy 9 Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti 10 constitutional language 11 partisan in 1944; statement about Hitler 12 Not bad, not bad 13 Too much bias and anti-Serb sentiment 14 Infobox 15 About the "doctorate" 16 Historical accuracy 17 Edit wars, vandalism etc. 18 Reply 19 Vandalism & the page protection 20 Montenegro 21 Reply to Nationalism 22 Date of death 23 Curps wrong as usual 24 My position is clear AND NOT YOURS 25 Montenegrins? 26 Vandalism by MirHaven 27 Unprotecting 28 Get rid of the blatant nationalism on this page 29 Ciliga 30 The disputed quote 31 Ciliga 2 32 First or ninth 33 What was Tudjman convicted for? 34 War-related accusations and their refutation 35 On wiki citation policy 36 My latest edit 37 WP:3RR Warning 38 Creeping Serbian POVization 39 NPOV 40 Compromises 41 User 85.*** ... whatever edits 42 Can we please change this sentence 43 Can someone please delete and rewrite this article? 44 Unprotected 45 The article modifications 46 Opposition to disinterment 47 Revert 48 Franjo Tudjman a Great Man 49 Removed Reference 50 Tragedy in Tudjmans Family 51 The President 52 The book is irrelevant 53 Subjektive 54 Grammar 55 Context

[edit] Old copy&paste

The text below failed the google test, and comes from the first external link. What's the copyright policy of the Croatian government? (The US puts it all the public domain, UK keeps copyright, so we can't just assume that all governments do it the same way.)

If we can use this, it still needs a copyedit and wikification.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:15, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman is the first president of the independent and democratic Croatian state and the supreme commander of its armed forces. As head of state, he was the initiator of the organisation of the defence and the creation of the Croatian army, and the chief political and military strategist in the establishment of a sovereign Croatia and its international recognition, and defence and victory in the Homeland War. He became the first president of the Republic of Croatia after the first multiparty elections in 1990. Franjo Tudjman was born in Veliko Trgovisce, in the northern Croatian region of Zagorje, on 14 May 1922. He attended elementary school in his birthplace, and secondary school in Zagreb from 1934 to 1941. He graduated from a senior military academy in Belgrade in 1957, and earned a doctor's degree in political sciences at the University of Zagreb in 1965. During secondary school, Tudjman was part of a national democratic movement, for which he was imprisoned in 1940. He was a member of the anti-fascist movement since 1941. After the Second World War, he was employed at the Ministry of National Defence's Personnel Service, and Main Staff of the Yugoslav People's Army between 1945 and 1961. Despite being promoted to the rank of general in 1960, Tudjman left active military service in 1961, and in Zagreb he established the Institute for the History of the Labour Movement in Croatia, staying in the manager's office until 1967. As senior lecturer Tudjman taught "Socialist Revolution and Contemporary National History of Croatia" at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Zagreb until 1967. He was a representative in the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia from 1965 to 1969, sub-editor and assistant editor-in-chief for the Military Encyclopaedia, sub-editor for the Lexicography Institute Encyclopaedia, member of the editor's office at "Vojno Delo" magazine, editor-in-chief at "Putevi Revolucije" magazine, member of the board of directors at the cultural association Matica Hrvatska, and president of the Matica Hrvatska Commission for Croatian History since 1970. Tudjman has been a member of the Association of Croatian Writers since 1970 and of the Croatian PEN Centre since 1987. He has been a member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts since December 1992. Tudjman was imprisoned after the suppression of the "Croatian Spring" democracy movement in 1971. The communist authorities labelled him the chief culprit for allegedly suspicious connections with foreign factors and Croatian emigrants. Thanks to the intervention of Croatian writer Miroslav Krleza with Josip Broz Tito, Tudjman escaped long-term imprisonment. In 1972, he was sentenced to two years in prison. The sentence was subsequently reduced to nine months. Tudjman was sentenced again in February 1981 to three years in prison, and prohibited from public activity for five years on account of an interviews given to Swedish and German televisions and the French radio, in which he voiced his opinions on history and advocated pluralist democracy. He was imprisoned in Lepoglava between January 1982 and February 1983, when he was released for medical treatment. He was returned to prison in May 1984, but was paroled in September due to a deteriorating health condition. In 1987, when he was restituted his passport after 17 years, Tudjman travelled abroad, first to Canada and the United States of America, and then to European countries. He gave lectures to Croatian emigrants, promoting the notion of an all-round Croat reconciliation and advocating the creation of a Croatian state. In 1989, Tudjman established the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) political party, and became its president. Through the HDZ, he formulated a national political programme which led to the national and political mobilisation of the Croat people in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the emigration. This was the basis for national reconciliation and a strong resistance to the increasingly violent assaults of Serb chauvinism and encroachment on Croatian territories. Tudjman and the HDZ won the first free multiparty elections in 1990; he was elected President of the Republic, and formed the first democratic Croatian government. At presidential elections in 1992 and 1997, the Croatian people re-elected him President of the Republic to five-year terms. Due to the growing pressure of Serbian hegemonism and Yugoslav centralism after the first multiparty elections, Tudjman accelerated his activities on organising the state and securing its international recognition. Referring to the historical and cultural identity of the Croatian people, he encountered special understanding and continual support of Pope John Paul II. At the time of Yugoslavia's disintegration, Tudjman conducted a policy of negotiations on the state's confederal organisation or the peaceful split-up of its republics. Tudjman used the policy, which in Croatia also encountered disapproval, to lessen the intensity of the imminent aggression by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). When the aggression on Croatia started, he countered it also through international negotiations and an increasingly organised armed force. After the declaration of Croatia's independence in 1991 and the beginning of open aggression by Serbia and the JNA, it was Tudjman's policy, balancing between Croatia's potential and unfavourable international circumstances, that stopped the Serbian military offensive on Croatian territory and countered international factors which were extremely unfavourably disposed toward Croatia's independence. Following the declaration of Croatia's independence, Tudjman skilfully avoided traps in diplomatic games around Croatia and by 1995 he organised the army and police forces to the extent which enabled the country to on its own liberate the largest part of its territory in operations "Flash" (May 1995) and "Storm" (August 1995). The strength of the Croatian Army enabled the peaceful reintegration of the Croatian Danube River region in January 1998, completing the process of establishing sovereignty on the whole of Croatia's territory recognised by international law, under Tudjman's leadership. In regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tudjman conducted a policy which was aimed at protecting the interests of the Croat people. Relations between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina went through different phases under complex internal and international circumstances. Eventually, the victories of the Croatian Army and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) following the liberation of Croatia and a large part of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Serb aggressor led to the signing of the peace agreement and the establishment of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This created a foundation for securing an equal constitutional and legal position of the Croat people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Franjo Tudjman, a Croatian officer, historian and statesman, has written numerous books and papers (treatises) on topics from the fields of military doctrine, history, political science and the philosophy of history. His most important works are: Rat protiv rata (War Against War), Zagreb, 1957; Stvaranje socijalisticke Jugoslavije (The Establishment of the Socialist Yugoslavia), Zagreb, 1960; Okupacija i revolucija (Occupation and Revolution), Zagreb, 1963; Velike ideje i mali narodi (Great Ideas and Small Nations), Zagreb, 1969; Nacionalno pitanje u suvremenoj Evropi (The National Issue In Modern Europe), Munich-Bacelona, 1981; Dr?avnost nacija - kljuc mira Europe (The Statehood of Nations - The Key to Peace in Europe), Lidingo, 1982; O povijesti rje?avanja hrvatskog pitanja i samoodredenja naroda u svijetu (On the History of Resolving the Croatian Issue and the Self-Determination of World Nations), Toronto, 1987; Stjepan Radic u hrvatskoj povijesti (The Role of Stjepan Radic in Croatian History), Sudbury (Canada), 1988; Bespuca povijesne zbiljnosti. Rasprava o povijesti i filozofiji zlosilja, (Horrors of War. An Essay on the History and Philosophy of Violence), Zagreb, 1989; Hrvatska u monarhistickoj Jugoslaviji 1918 - 1941 (Croatia In the Yugoslav Monarchy), Zagreb, 1993; S vjerom u samostalnu Hrvatsku (Believing in Croatia's Independence), Zagreb, 1995; Povijesna sudba naroda. Izabrani tekstovi (The Historical Fate of the Nation. Selected Texts), Zagreb, 1996; Horrors of War, New York, 1996; Das historische Schicksal des Volkes, Bad Kissingen-Koeln, 1997. Due to illness Franjo Tudjman was hospitalised at Zagreb's "Dubrava" clinic. He died during the night between December 10 and 11, 1999 at the age of 77. Following the death of President Tudjman, presidential elections are won by Stjepan Mesic.

It wasn't me who copied it in the first place, however, I am reasonably sure that all .hr government documents are public domain, that there isn't enough copied&pasted information in the Wiki article to even make it a copyright violation, and that individual pieces of data are public knowledge anyhow :) --Shallot 17:47, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article is not a Croat Gov document but an article from the state HINA news agency [Dec 11 (Hina)]. I doubt that Hina would agree with you on their articles being freely copied, pasted.

--Igor 2:10, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, I missed that. Well, apparently that embassy copied and pasted it, giving credit. Under Croatian law it is enough simply to give the original news story credit (of this I am sure, it's normal journalism procedure here). If we still have anything on the page that is copy&paste from Hina, we should do that. Are there any such quotes? I'm too tired to go proofreading it again... --Shallot 18:04, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well Dubrovnik just erased all of the previous work and pasted the official Hina news article over it.

Someone should have reverted that, then. --Shallot 11:16, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Umm, just a correction. The above issue that Vicki raised is about a completely different commit done by user Stipe in August.

User Dubrovnik's commits happened in September and are from http://www.hrt.hr/tudjman/zivotopis_eng.html and http://www.hrt.hr/tudjman/povijest-eng.html, I'd say.

That's the Croatian Radio Television so we need to consider it either illegal (albeit I see no copyright notices on the site) or apply the same rule about fair use (add an acknowledgement). --Shallot 18:20, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What Croat law allows the use of copyrighted material? Besides, isn't Wikipedia about originality, what is the use of just pasting some unwikified news article over a biography that editors toil over for weeks?

Besides, normal journalism procedure does not allow for the copying of news articles without permission, that is why news articles pasted "illegally" on the net have that little remark USED WITHOUT PERMISSION, FOR FAIR USE ONLY.

--igor 6:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm positive that no permission is necessary for news story excerpts, only acknowledgement. Nevertheless, the reason stated above seems enough to re-do the article, even if it is belated. --Shallot 11:16, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Gehrke's comments

Reading the article (and then the discussion about its origin) leaves me a bit uneasy with the general attitude of the text. When describing a deep-rooted and knotted conflict like the one that has been stirring up the Balkans, where every party involved feels they're the real victims of the whole affair - the use of expressions such as the "liberation" of parts of a country is ... well, I think, unlucky somehow. At least in an encyclopedia that is supposed to take a neutral/balanced position. Driving across south-easten Europe, it'll be easy to find someone mourning the "occupation" of a piece of land that some other person celebrates as "liberated" and vice versa.
And while the following criticism is admittedly not very constructive, I would like to say: If I were to write the history of WWII in the Pacific, I wouldn't use a Japanese history book as my only source. And writing the history of the wars in former Yugoslavia, it wouldn't be an official source from any of its successor countries. Oliver Gehrke 22:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? :) If you find something wrong in the text, feel free to fix it and be done with it.

Mind you, the general "but the Balkans are so complex!" is often considered insulting by the people from the Balkans because it is usually used as an excuse for historic carelessness, relativization and revisionism.

--Shallot 11:16, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of the name

Delirium, it's not really an English spelling; it's just a traditional way of spelling the d with a stroke character when high-bit characters are unavailable. In English one could also spell it 'Tujman', it would be pronounced the same... So, surely that dj in the title of the page is enough? --Shallot 17:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Shallot's comments

The present article is in dire need of some paragraph breaks. Probably also a less mellow account of accusations against him. --Shallot 17:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed up some of it, but it's still written in an overly enthusiastic manner. --Shallot 10:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The page's improvement

Now, when I read it- this page is biased against Tudjman (mea culpa). I'll add a few things that will clear jabberwock about his policies one encounters in politically correct media trash (not dissimilar to the campaign against Putin or anyone else not willing to play the puppet role various WTOs, IMFs, US State Dept and similar moral standard-bearers would desire to see). And, as for so called NGOs, one of the rare oraginizations that deserve this name, has said it all (notwithstanding usual condescending comments re Tudjman's personal rule- they maybe prefer US style presidential clownishness or Blair "I lied, so what" style):

http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=7 "...The parliamentary elections in Croatia were conducted in a peaceful and proper manner which fairly reflected the will of the people. There can be no doubt that the population was tired of the ruling party and wanted change. The victors have promised to improve living conditions by cutting expenditure, lowering taxes, creating jobs and, of course, abolishing corruption. However, prime-minister designate Racan was soon hinting that many promises would be difficult to put into practice immediately.

Rumours that the HDZ would cheat or refuse, in some way, to accept the results of the election proved to be unfounded. The hand-over of power seems to be taking place smoothly. The party has only itself to blame for many of its problems having pursued an inappropriate economic policy while, at the same time, indulging in unseemly and damaging infighting.

However, Croatia has been subject to improper and unwarranted interference from the United States and certain European countries who made their preferences all too clear, hinting that failure to elect the opposition would lead to greater isolation from the international community. Such interference took many forms from funding supposedly ‘independent’ NGO activity to petty snubs like refusing to send proper representation to the late president’s funeral. One American media commentator said on election day that should Croatia fail to elect the opposition there would be "no Christmas presents for their children next year". It is to be hoped that the Croats are not disappointed by their choice: further integration both into Europe and the proposed South East European Stability Pact could reduce their chances of changing the status quo in the future..." Mir Harven 06:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is another opinion, and a non-current one too. Both the Račan government and the Sanader government have done various concessions to appease the western neighbours, and broken promises given to voters. We should refrain from commenting on whatever someone says or thinks, and instead simply point out the facts. We can, of course, discuss the selection of the data points, e.g. which factoids are more or less relevant.

It seems to me that the main thing that foreigners thought was not right in .hr during Tuđman's time was the considerable level of homogenization and apparent absence of influential dissent with regard to various issues. One may interpret this as "they wanted to break up our unity because of their own economic or other interest", but also as "modern democratic societies tend to have much more diversity which brings in tolerance and transparency". In reality, I don't think the Croatian society could have changed all that much just due to different parties in power, but it did show that it can be visibly diverse in various regards, and that it's not stuck in a cocoon. Varietas delectat, I guess. --Shallot 17:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since it would be cumbersome to answer point by point- only short response.

• Račan and Sanader are completely insignificant re arguments from BHHRG. The issue is special warfare against Croatia and Tudjman. This term may sound obsolete (along with socialist self-management, ONO i DSZ etc.)- but it's, essentially- true. It was a special war (waged by media, self-proclaimed NGOs, that proto-Mongol machinator Montgomery,..- all geared into one purpose, and this was to overhthrow Tudjman's government. Well- they succeeded. Temporarily. Now another puppet, a beardless one, is on stage, but that's onether story. As for US policy in the case in Croatia (and Macedonia and Albania and BH and Serbia and ..), I can, seeing them drowning in the morass of the lies, violence, blood and shame in Iraq and Afghanistan, only reiterate Gandhi's words: «In the end, deceivers deceive only themselves».

• as for «refraining from the comment»- this is basically meaningless. The application of this principle makes wikipedia such a poor source of information. Even non-selective factography is nothing more than- nothing. Without cause-effect dynamics naked facts are incomprehensible, and the purported objectivity is reduced to unintelligibility.

There's a difference between refraining from commentary, and being selective about the presented facts and explaining cause and effect. If done right, the latter two will obviate the need for explicit commentary.

(I'll refrain from further political discussion on the other two points because it doesn't seem like it would be productive.) --Shallot 00:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• and, as for «modern democratic societies»: well, it is a value judgement how one would assess these societies. One could argue that they are just soft totalitarianism in disguise and manipulation of anaesthesized herd of zombies- and therefore not democratic neither in ancient Greek nor in liberal pre-WW1 sense. On top of that, having in mind cynical and manipulative behavior of their governments (and their electorate not being aware of anything beyond their own picket fences), as exemplified in UN security council arms embargo or in hypocritical moves galore when they (USA, Britain, France, Russia,..) essentially assisted and abetted genocide (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda)-one is left only with disgust. Their lapdogs in post-Communist countries are filthy Commie apparatchiks-in case of Croatia Ines Šaškor (Zagreb Party chief in the 80s), Puhovski (Croatophobic «Yugoslav» snitch from 1971), I.Z.Cicak (another snitch, this time from the joint), Stjepan Mesic (vociferously condemning Croatian nationalism in 1967 «Declaration» case; also, a thief who served the time in1972. as «ordinary» criminal), Vesna Pusic and Zoran Pusic (the ORJUNA pedigree plus shameful «conference» with Serbian «intelelctuals», SANU-brand, in 1992.) etc. etc.«Democracy», «pluralism», «NGOs», «independent media», «minority rights», «..my foot. Mir Harven 21:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, bhhrg.org is British Helsinki Human Rights Group. No wonder it sounded fishy to me... :) --Joy [shallot] 11:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] semi-random personal attacks

Shallot aka Joy (as in strength though?) has been censoring other posts in a manner designed to suppress proven facts which do not help the Croatian Nazi case. He is a citizen of the Croatian nazi regime (it would be cynical to suggest an employee) & is clearly a vandal. I have put in a few extra points here, NOT deleting or censoring the (Croatian govts) original article. Anyone who wishes to censor my statements should first confirm anything that is untrue there. Neil Craig 7/11/4

You need help... --Joy [shallot] 08:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still censoring in the nazi cause I see. Neil 8/11

Neil Craig is a peder. Big time......== Franjo Tuđman ==

The entry for Franjo Tuđman as it is presented in Wikipedia at the moment fails to mention that ICTY (the United Nations' International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, Međunarodni krivični sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju) Chief Prosecutor Mrs Carla del Ponte confirmed, after Tuđman's death, that he would most likely have been indicted for war crimes cq crimes against humanity had he lived.

The fact that Del Ponte might have indicted Tudman does not prove anything. In her latest enhanced indictments against the generals Markac and Cermak she indirectly indicts any Croat who had any leading position in government, police and army, this would be around 6000 people (including western darlings Mesic and Sanader). This indictment just shows how absurd some of her indictments and comments can be.

From other cases before the ICTY it has become pretty clear that Tuđman had great influence on the leadership of the short-lived Herceg-Bosna republic; he most probably bore command line responsilbility for the war crimes committed by the HVO and para-military groups there. In his testimony in the Milošević case before the ICTY Paddy Ashdown, a former LibDems leader in the UK and the present High Representative in Bosnia-Hercegovina, made clear that Tuđman and Milošević had a basic understanding that Bosnia would be devided between Croatia and Serbia. In the eyes of these 'gentlemen', Ashdown stated, Bosnian Muslims were Serbs (or Croats) who had not had the guts to resist the Turcs and converted to Islam.

You are referring here to the legendary napkin map that was supposedly drawn by Tudman during the Guildhall banquet, 6th May 1995 to show Ashdown his master plan for dividing Bosnia with Milosevic.

Tudman has on many occasions explained that the drawing just resembeled a map that was depicted in an atlas that was published by the UN in 1993 (Gerard Chaliand, Jean-Pierre Rageau "Atlas Strategique. Geopolitique des nouveaux rapports de forces dans le monde.", Editions Complexe, 1994, pg. 219, ISBN 2-87027-528-5). The map was supposed to show the spheres of influence of western and eastern europe. When drawing the line that divided Bosnia he explained to Ashdown that when talking about peace in Bosnia one should consider the different spheres of interest. According to Tudman there was absolutely no talk about any division of Bosnia. The fact that Ashdown has no witnesses who overheard their conversation (at a party!) does not quite support his accusations.

Nonetheless Tudman`s answer to Ashdown`s harsh accusations simply keeps being left out (on purpose?) when talking about this toppic, so of course it seems as if Ashdown`s comments are true.

It is also very likely that Tuđman would have been indicted for war crimes crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Croatian army during operation Storm (operacija Oluja) in 1995, which drove some 300,000 Croatian-Serbs from the newly formed country.

Frank Tiggelaar Tribunal Live - Uživo - http://domovina.xs4all.nl Domovina Net - http://www.domovina.net

The major part of this is hearsay, so it has to be included with such a disclaimer. Even the existence of the piece of papertissue with a map of carved-up BiH has a handful of witnesses... --Joy [shallot] 13:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far is I know, noone is guillty untill opposite is prooved. And u can't say Serbs had country in Croatia, couse it wasn't recognised by noone, not even by Yugoslavia.

"Politically-motivated history writers had claimed that the number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac was between 500,000 to 800,000. These numbers were likely inaccurate, yet they were propagated, manipulated and intensified for political reasons:"

Who wrote this? A Croatian version of David Irving?

Whoever wrote the above comment "Who wrote this? A Croatian version of David Irving?" you are spot on! Wikipedia's 'NPOV' in action...lol Wikipedia moderators disallowing criticism [editing] For proof of this despicable & hypocritical policy, see http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/06/wikipedia-nazi-monopoly-on-tudjman.html

Whoever wrote this comment above... I've read your page... It's bullshit! 750 000 Serbs killed in Jasenovac? Are you nuts? There weren't that many Serbs in Croatia to begin with! Even Ivo Goldstein, a Croatian historian of Jewish origin, confirmed that those numbers were exaggerated. Look, I don't know who are you but I smell Chetnik propaganda behind this... I'm not a fan of Franjo Tudjman, but I dislike Serbian ultranationalist lies also. Ako si Srbin, ajde makar priznaj da jesi pa da te mogu poslat u vraziju mater. Kao sto sam rekao, ne volim ni ja Tudjmana previse, ali vi nemate nikakvo pravo dijeliti lekcije iz povijesti! Bar dok ne rijesite pitanje onog vaseg "antifasista". And btw. Encyclopedia Brittanica is probably the worst source of factual information in the world...

[edit] WWII victim numbers

This article uncritically accepts Tudjman's claims regarding the exaggeration of WWII genocide victims without any corroborating evidence. Someone is using this encyclopedia to further a rabid revisionist campaign that should have been put to rest ages ago.

Are you talking about this copy&paste above, or about the present article? --Joy [shallot] 16:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to comment earlier but I am still getting the hang of the wiki thing. There is a need for references for the claim below: "Tuđman had, relying on earlier investigations, concluded that the number of all victims in the Jasenovac camp (Serbs, Croats, Jews, Gypsies and others) was somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000. Current investigations have bracketed the figure between 49,000 and 85,000 — therefore confirming Tuđman's estimates." What current investigations? As far as I know, Tuđman's claims regarding Jasenovac and WWII in general are widely dismissed. Please cite these investigations in the article or remove the text which exonerates Tuđman of revisionism and anti-Semitism. Thank you.

Read Ustase#Victims for various quotes of the numbers. --Joy [shallot] 15:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Josip, If 77,000 names were collected, it can be accepted that estimates below 77,000 should be dismissed. Thus putting Tuđman's claims at least on the very low end. If we can consider the odds of linking victims to names to be small, then the actual figure should be well above 77,000. Sosyal 18:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. On the other hand, it's not impossible that there are not only omissions but also errors on the same list — missing people counted as Jasenovac victims but actually killed elsewhere, or not killed at all (emigrated and lost all track), or died of different causes (other warring parties, disease, cold, ...), etc — so it's non-deterministic either way. You'll notice that I've also amended the article to be less determined in assessing Tuđman's estimate as correct, since there's little or no point in saying that, either. Now it merely says that he likely didn't just invent them out of the blue. --Joy [shallot] 19:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is all biased......all this is coming from someone whom has no direct relation to the conflict......take it for what its worth....PROPAGANDA

[edit] Tudjman's and HDZ's legacy

I'm not a historian but just a Croatian that would like to offer different perspecitve regarding some parts of the main aritcle. However, I will not edit the article because I don't have time nor will for serious research. But I'll just say some facts I learned through experience and various local media. First of all, the discussion above suggests that Croatian media and media agencies (HRT and HINA) were the main sources of this article. It's a shame that Tudjman didn't write an autobiography (AFAIK), that would be even better source. I say this because most of the media in Croatia was under strong political control during the 90's, and HRT was one of the most notorious for it's propaganda. Tudjman was described as an benign and democratic President with some autoritarian traits. Well, that is far from true. Of course, he was not a hard core dictator but most of the media was state-controlled and used for both nationalistic propaganda and for denunciation and attacks on independent intellectuals and any ideologicaly-incompatible figures. Some independent (and critical) jurnalists and newspapers were sued for very large sums due to their open criticism (and/or satire). Most of the accusations were totaly absurd but the hammers kept pounding because HDZ controlled (and still does, maybe in a lesser amount) the entire judical apparatus. Maybe the most famous (and luckily unsuccesful) attempt to supress independent media was the attempt to ban Radio 101, popular Zagreb radio station. This attempt caused massive demonstration in Zagreb and HDZ had to withdraw :) Other examples include the parading of very powerful HDZ politican from Slavonia (in power today, member of the pro-european HDZ :) ) through the building of a local Slavonian newspaper. Parading, with his brethern in arms and armed to the teeth, of course (war days of early 90's). Furthermore, many many jurnalists, independent intelelectuals and activists were spied by several secret services. This is a well known fact because after the elections in 2001's this archives were opened to public.

  Nationalism was very very strong and agressive. I will not write about it here, but 

as one of the previous post's says, if Tudjman was alive, he would probably be in Hague (personaly, I'd like to see an posthumous trial, for the sake of national education). Serbs were ethnicaly cleansed, and stuff Croatians did in Bosnia is now reflected in several convicted war criminals from Herzegovina. Other examples are the notorious war prison in Lora, Split, where war prisoners and many civilians were held whitout trial and brutally tortured for weeks (this case is now being processed by Croatian courts for the second time, because the first process was overturned by the Supreme Court due to malversations and bias). And Mirko Norac, once renowned as a war hero (his prosecution caused massive coutrywide demonstration's) has been convicted to 12 years by Croatian courts. Etc., etc.

  But I'd like to say few words aboud benign economic impact of Tudjman's HDZ. Croatia was fairly

developed and industrialised country, with strong turism and shipbuilding, among other industry branches. The relative wellfare of the 80's is still reflected in nostalgy of a large parts of the population (especially older, and retired people - those were brutally pillaged). HDZ was a large movement and many shady characters used the chaos in the early 90's to come to power and acquire large companies. The laws were tailored to enable this aquisitions for small amounts of money (of course, the political sponsorhip was principle condition). For example, Slovenia had more heterogenous and wiser (more precisely, non-criminal) political leadership and they sold the stocks to the workers and not to (in most cases incompetent) Tycoons. This resulted in a devastated economy (imort/export ratio is 2:1, unemployment of around 10% of the entire population (unofficial estimates), and of course enormous foreign debt (80% of GDP and rising)).

  Science and technology are very underdeveloped, political elite is quite corrupted 

and incompetent (corruption is rampant), mentality balkanian, young educated people are leaving the country, state and law enforcement institutions are corrupted. People accused for war crimes like Ante Gotovina (convicted for armed robbery and kidnapping in France) still enjoy the status of heroes with capital H. And of course, large parts of the remaining industry (telecommunications, banks) are sold to foreigners that exploit country's economic weakness to pillage it ( height of Croatian interest rates is illegal in countries like Austria and Italy (and banks from those countries own banks in Croatia). Must I mention that our incompetent politicians dance to the tunes of IMF (last year IMF's mission leader tried to convince Croatians that free health service is entirely unlogical because if everything is free, the demand is infinite (and of course, we Croatians enjoy being ill because that way we can rest in our most perfect hospitals)). So, not to mention recent jurnalists-espionage scandals, coruption scandals (Minister of foreign affairs eventualy resigned, luckily) and many many other beautifull things.

  All of this is in greatest part direct result of HDZ's 10-year long rule. Everybody agreed that

Tudjman was HDZ's alfa and omega, undisputable authority. Well, then his in also very responsible for current state of affairs in this raped coutry. For that I thank him with all my heart. Thank you Franjo, thank you.

  At the end, I'd like one thing to be clear. I'm not a judeo-mason and foreign mercenary 

(terms used by nationalists (and probably part-time conspiracy theoreticians) to denounce some of the critical public persons during the 90's). I'm just realistic and unfortunately many of my fellow citizens aren't. We (oh I'm so proud) Croatians managed to create our own state. Unfortunately, we f***ed it up big time during the process.

[edit] Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti

195.93.21.100 wrote:

In this book he wrote that "the establishment of Hitler's new European Order can be justified by the need do be rid of the Jews" & that "Genocide is a natural phenomenon in harmony with the sociological & mythological divine nature. Genocide is not only permitted, it is reccomended, even commanded by the word of the Almighty, whenever it is useful for the survival or the restoration of the chosen nation, or for the preservation & spreading of it's one & only correct faith" (ie Catholicism).

Did he really? --Joy [shallot] 00:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

195.93.21.100 wrote:

Tudjman also claimed that only 900,000 Jews died in the Holocaust rather than the 6 million claimed by anti-Nazi sources - a matter equally "by & large confirmed" by Nazi sources

Source? --Joy [shallot] 00:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Kill A Nation by Michael Parenti ISBN 1-85984-776-5 pp 41-42 Neil I have been careful not to delete the contentious claims you made, though sometimes they should at least be put in quotes. It is improper of you to delete facts Strength thru Joy

[edit] constitutional language

195.93.21.100 wrote:

This right was legally guaranteed in the constitution of Croatia which was officially described as a republic of "Croats & Serbs" but on declaring independence the HDZ decided that constitutional rights no longer applied.

Some quote? --Joy [shallot] 00:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] partisan in 1944; statement about Hitler

195.93.21.100 wrote:

Opponents have pointed out that the first record of him in the resistance was in 1944 after Tito issued a proclamation granting amnesty to Croatian Nazi units which changed sides & that he may have fought on the Nazi side before. This would certainly be consistent with his later statement that "Hitler's new European order can be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews" & his favouring of wartime Nazis when he came to power.

Again, some references? (Mir Harven reverted this as vandalism, so I reckon he thinks that it's all bonkers.) --Joy [shallot] 09:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again the quote is from Wastelands. The fact that he has deleted everything I wrote proves 1 of 2 things. Either that everything I wrote is untrue or that the truth is a matter of no importance in this Nazi hagiography. Clearly the first choice is not true. Neil

Sorry to be so pedantic, but do you have a chapter and verse we can look up?

Also, let's not get too hasty about judging others when you insert things like he "may have fought on the Nazi side" before the first record of him not doing so. That's about as useful as saying that the Nazi concentration camps "may not have existed" prior to them having been recorded by the others later in and after the war. (How's that for an analogy? ;)

Ignoring the unverified statement you are quoting, that last statement is also false as it is taken out of context - he did not "favour wartime Nazis", he favoured the re-establishment of Croatian statehood. It is a matter of opinion whether this is pointless given that it was really a fascist puppet state, and it also doesn't necessarily mean that he condoned the fascists in all regards (such as criminal ones). You're implying guilt by association. --Joy [shallot] 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"Chapter & verse"? - p41 of the Parenti book line 7. If he favoured wartime Nazis as part of an a "attempt to re-establish statehood" as you say then he favoured wartime Nazis - if that is the closest you can get Strength through Joy to accusing me of falsehood this rather shows the accuracy of my case. I assume that actually providing c&v will not mean that any intrusion of fact will be allowed into this article which was, after all, virtually entirely produced by the obscene genocidal Nazi filth running Croatia. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. Neil

[edit] Not bad, not bad

Not bad (a lot better than the Croatian version of the article), but Tudjman's war propaganda, and his, well, "evil" side are almost entirely left out. A reader must understand that when he reads the article, he is facing a forger of a nation, a creator of a state, a brilliant politician (which is, actually, a bad virtue) and a strategist; and a very, very twisted criminal mind! HolyRomanEmperor 14:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much bias and anti-Serb sentiment

There's some pretty funny stuff in Edvin's edits. Holocaust denials are a "lack of sensitivity"?! Tudjman saying that a total of 900,000 Jews perished in the holocaust of the Second World War (New York Times, April 22, 1993), as opposed to the 5 to 6 million generally accepted among historians, is much more than insensitivity. It is anti-semitism. When were these tensions "dispelled by prominent Jewish figures like writers and publicists Alain Finkielkraut and Philip Cohen"? Sources?

"Apart from being a stew cooked in the ideological kitchen of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (the mother of all Serbian expansionist machinations in 1980s)... " Wait a minute. What kind of language is this? Is this an NPOV here? "Ideological kitchens"?! "Expansionist machinations"?!

"Tuđman had, relying on earlier investigations, concluded that the number of all victims in the Jasenovac camp (Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Croats, and others) was somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000. Current investigations have bracketed the figure in a similar scale — between 56,000 and 85,000." This is a highly controversial subject, so quoting sources may be in order.

"Faced with a superior military aggressor, the Croats, who had not yet built functioning national institutions, had to rely on a strong personal leadership Tuđman embodied. Although such kind of leadership necessarily involved unpleasant side-effects like traits of autocratic behavior, it proved beneficial in crucial matters." These are appaling excuses. So weak countries need dictators to succeed?!

All in all, this edit makes way too many excuses and is far from neutral. Some of the language sounds as if it were directly taken from Croat media during Tudjman's rule and then clumsily translated.

The article wasn't and still isn't NPOV in either direction, but claiming in your edit comment that "There are some very well substantiated references here, quoting some of the English-speaking world's premier news sources" I find equally ridiculous. --AHrvojic 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article on the The New York Times before saying that it isn't one of English-speaking world's premier news sources. And yes, I'm a New Yorker :-)

What I'm implying is that the English-speaking world's media is the worst place to learn about the war in Yugoslavia no matter where one's sympathies lie. The New York Times in particular was responsible for some of the greatest myths, misinformation, and gross oversimplifications out there, propagated so successfully precisely because of their reputation. This was obvious to any Croat or Serb of reasonable intelligence, so I wouldn't put too much faith in those sources and, if you happen to speak any other languages, you can easily see why for yourself. --AHrvojic 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have left out suggestions on what media sources are more objective in your opinion. I would love to hear who you have in mind. Perhaps German newspapers, as they were totally neutral during Yugoslav wars? (I cannot speak German, but am fluent in three and can dabble in two other languages.) I believe that good proof that media outlets such as The New York Times, BBC, Le Monde; or organizations such as International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia are doing something right is because all sides in the former Yugoslavia have been displeased with their reporting and/or actions. If you wish to make big claims such as that "The New York Times in particular was responsible for some of the greatest myths, misinformation, and gross oversimplifications out there", please back it up with something. These are big words. In the meantime, I will continue to prefer getting my news from The New York Times, whether that makes me "reasonably intelligent" or not.

Media sources are mostly inappropriate here--that was the point--because their business is readership not scholarship, nevermind the particular cultural filter you're applying by using only British and American sources. And yes, it is still hard to find good sources since the war happened relatively recently, so I'll give you that. As for all sides being displeased, it in no way follows that the articles are therefore accurate and balanced. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but my main problem is that all of your additions to this article have been pretty heavy allegations (Tudjman supporting genocide, the revival of fascist symbols, etc.), none of which are backed up by more than a few questionable news stories full of hand-me-down and likely mistranslated information. Considering that I haven't added anything of the sort to this article, I'd say the onus is on *you* to back things up. That and you should really create a user account.--AHrvojic 01:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, media sources are tricky, but that's what we have right now. Of course, scholarship is more noble than any newspaper, but we could argue that no scholarship is immune of "cultural filters" and whiffs of the marketplace. Let's see how many scholarly books will be getting published in the near future in Croatia saying that Gotovina isn't innocent. While American and British sources may have cultural filters applied, I don't see how any media source isn't going to have a filter of some sort, which does not have to be bad. It's just that different cultural filters displease different people. I, for instance, may dislike the one of Croatian diaspora.

As far as "my" heavy allegations are concerned, you removed the one about fascist symbols and I haven't touched it since. So at best, you can only accuse me of me stating that "Tudjman supported genocide". Some statements of his support that thesis, and I have tried to document them. Why should anyone be assuming right off the bat that they are "full of hand-me-down and likely mistranslated information"?

I understand that being "Father of modern Croatia" makes Tudjman supporters especially sensitive to criticism. I have tried to point out the controversy surrounding the man, that is all. Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite... but they still made important contributions to mankind. (1:01, 17 December 2005)

Saying that Croatian and German sources aren't any less prone than British and American sources to cultural bias still does not justify the use of British and American sources exclusively. Of course there's always a filter of some sort, but that's why you need to look outside your own part of the world and take those views into account as well.

By the way, your bit about Gotovina implies that Croats are of one mind on the issue and that Gotovina is guilty of what he's been indicted for by the ICTY *prosecution* before he's even gone to trial.

Finally, my "hand-me-down and mistranslated info" bit isn't an assumption; I know it from experience and I've learned to be much more critical of what I read in the media as a result, regardless of what country the news comes from. I'm no blind defender of Tudjman and he absolutely is a controversial figure, but that's precisely why efforts have to be made to be as fair as possible, and that in turn is only possible when one recognizes what the different perspectives are and where they come from. --AHrvojic 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Why not using president infobox like most of the presidents on wikipedia? --Dijxtra 10:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the "doctorate"

http://www.famainternational.com/mirror/ftcontent.htm

<quote> There are different versions of his leaving the military service in 1961. He claims that happened at his request, and that he wanted to dedicate imself to scientific and literary work. He returned to Zagreb, where, in an agreement with party leadership, he established the Institute for the History of the Workers' Movement. He received a doctorate in historical science under ethically dubious circumstances, (he could not do it in Zagreb so it was arranged that he do it in Zadar, but later the respectable historian Ljubo Boban publicly accused Tudjman of plagiarising his doctoral dissertation from Boban's works to a great extent). Tudjman was politically engaged, and on very good terms with former ruling circles. </quote>

Also, his studies at the military academy lasted only two - years and were at the level of a two-year community college

[edit] Historical accuracy

For so many of you, get a life, Tudjman started the war, period, and he was disconnected from life supporting machine, I was in Zagreb in December 1999 and I know better, also stop saying he won the war, he started it, yea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)

[edit] Edit wars, vandalism etc.

As I see, some contributors (unregistered-but, this isn't crucial) try to alter the page on Tuđman. Their contentions seem to be reducible to two basic claims:

• Tuđman was the chief, or among 2-3 chief instigators of wars following Yugoslavia's collapse in 1990/91.

• Tuđman's central national political goal was to expell or kill Croatian Serbs, reducing them to a marginal vulnerable minority

Except for the majority of Serbs and a small, but vociferous entourage of their fellow-travellers, a rather different picture seems to be accepted by the majority of mentally sane populace around the globe:

• the true motivational force behind wars in ex-Yu can be located in genuine Serbian frustrations at the prospect of inevitable dissolution of Yugoslavia. These frustrations have been harnessed by Serbian ideological elite & operationalized by Slobodan Milošević. In short:no Milošević and his supporters-no war. The case of USSR and Russia in 1991. illustrates the point. The USSR fell apart without the bloodshed on similar scale-because Russians didn't want war(s).

• as for the Croatian Serbs: they fled. Just like French pieds noirs from Algeria, like pro-British Americans after the American revolution, like Portuguese from Mozambique, like Greeks (here, situation is more complex) from Turkey after 1920s war, like ...The same pattern over and over again: an ethnic minority, behaving like the outpost (or, fifth column) of their "mother country's" imperial/expansionist enterprise/adventure is almost inevitably embroiled into the conflict, orchestrated from the colonial centre. But, if the "natives" win and liberate their country, then the following situation ensues: after the collapse of the grand expansionist plan-the minority invariably ends up in the motherland. If there is a lesson from history to be learned, this is it. Mir Harven 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hey, you could at least mention Jasenovac and 700 000 killed (not only serbs) but you say it's all bs, well, what is vandalism, death of innocent, or putting truth here? I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND SOMEBODY CHANGES THAT AND OTHER MISINFORMATION! Then again, neutrality, never is expected from wikipedia anyways! And as of today, nothing has been discussed here,AS USUAL; I guess too many nazis/neo-fascist folks run this bios.. no wonder!

[edit] Vandalism & the page protection

I think the page should be put under protection again. Annoying "contributors" (I would call them vandals)((700 k murdered in the Jasenovac c.c. and similar myths, dispelled by Vladimir Zerjavic & others are perpetually recycled without any effort to validate the claims)) haven't tried for a single time to substantiate their changes on the Tuđman page. IMO, this is a clear case of vandalism the page should be protected from. Mir Harven 15:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that number of murdered people in Jasenovac is at least 200,000. Claims by german general Lehr (400,000 up to 1943 alone), other german generals. Croatian comission in 1946 put number at 500,000-600,000. There is even a list of names, however partial, including almost 100,000 NAMES, that is, twice more than Tudjman claimed. He even reduced number of Jews killed overall, saying that it was lower by several milion. Even at Croatian TV recently a journalist has said that his "work" on belittleing the victims of holocaust are a big shame for Croatia. The opinions of Jewish scolars are quoted in full. The only vandalism is calling holocaust in Jasenovac a myth, and reverting valid edits with POV anti-Serbian propaganda. Mir Haven is a known serb-hater and a true vandal here. Saryatoya 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

I know that concept is supported by some marginal Croatian nationalists but could somebody prove it it was supported by Tuđman as well. Luka Jačov 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not. I dont remember he ever addressed the issue. Mir Harven 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Nationalism

If a guy is happy his mom is not serbain or jewish, that answers all my questions about the guy, you two are just protecting this site to make your hereo as great as possible... As far as 700 000 victims, you say there are 20 or may be 10, some say there are 20 000, now, you want me to proove and validate it, what kind of hipocisy is this and twisted explanation of facts, you want me to proove there are at least 50 000 in Jasenovac, no I can not, I can proove you 1000, that's all i can dig up, as for the other proof, the nazis together with the croats during world war 2, you did not bury, like in Auschwitz, you simple burned the bodies, you want proof? Thats a good one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.184.51 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Date of death

Tudjman died late on December 9, death was not announced for a long time, therefore... the date I posted and everything else is true... Evidence and they can not be wrong they are in business of death dates: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7942 -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.176 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• A contemporary BBC news report from Saturday Feb 11 indicates he died on "Friday" (ie, Feb 10): [1], which appears to confirm the recent edit.
• Croatian Wikipedia also says the 10th: hr:Franjo Tuđman.
• HRT (Croatian government-owned television) also says the 10th: [2].
• Britannica says the 10th: [3]
• His political party (HDZ) says the 10th: [4]

-- Curps 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curps wrong as usual

THE FIND A GRAVE WHICH DEALS WITH EXACT INFORMATION SAYS DECEMBER 9, DECEMBER 10 IT WAS REPORTED ON THAT DAY, YES, THAT'S TRUE, BUT I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE IN CROATIA AND CONFIRMED THAT HE DIED DECEMBR 9, LATE EVENING !!! Here's evidence: http://www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/europe/12/10/tudjman.obit/index.html Curps and rest of vandals... IT WAS ANNOUNCED AT 2 AM CROATIAN TIME ON DECEMBER 10th, IT TAKES FEW HOURS TO REPORT, BEFORE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOTIFIED, FROM MY SOURCES AND PEOPLE I KNOW IN CROATIA, HE DIED BEFORE 10PM, WHEN LIFE-SUPPORTING MACHINES WERE TAKEN FROM HIM, IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE YOU WILL READ THAT IT DID NOT SPECIFY TIME, HOWEVER NINTH IS OFFICIAL DEATH DATE.... AS FAR AS EVERYTHING ELSE ON IS LIFE... http://www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/europe/12/10/tudjman.obit/index.html http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world00/tudjman.htm http://geocities.com/georgereevesproject/franjotudjman

You specify two links supposedly in support of your position: http://www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/europe/12/10/tudjman.obit/index.html and http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world00/tudjman.htm . However, neither of these two links specify any date of death. -- Curps 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see why all the fuss about the date of death. Check on the linx given & get over with it. Mir Harven 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My position is clear AND NOT YOURS

Curbs and the rest... that is the day he died, period, however, in regards to Jasenovac and other things, you need to remove fact that he won the war, when nobody really won there anything, they say 10th because they want to make him alive longer, however in regards to... http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p240_Weber.html His denial of Jews and Jasenovac needs more changing...

[edit] Montenegrins?

Who deleted the Montenegrins fact? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and explained it little bit above your post. Luka Jačov 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by MirHaven

User Mir Haven keeps removing the well known quote of Tudjman.

Which one ? If it's on the status of NDH-this is not "the well known quote", but a routinely repeated falsity. Reliable source, please. Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You think, that this will get you somewhere? Indeed, you might not know, but the quote exists on video, and is publicly available from the materials in the Hague tribunal. Not in a form of a quote (which you might hope to dispute), but coming from the very mouth of Tudjman. Are you going to dispute this? You know full well that truth is against you, you will get nowhere by these methods. Other quotes will be added too, in a way that noone can deny. Your cheap tricks will not obscure the truth! Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat: the source ? I'm not interested in personal confessions of likes & dislikes. Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is considered improper to remove relevant material. Someone should stop him.

See above. The "material" is a lie. Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not only a malicious POV anti-Serbian troll, but you also push your POV in bad faith. Wasn't it you, who "corrected" this very quote: The proof that your disputing of the qoute is IN BAD FAITH - how come if it was a "lie"? Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote on the NDH is a lie. That's what I corrected. A quote, if it is to be called a quote, must be exact and complete. Otherwise, it's a lie. That's what was presented on the altered page. Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tudjman has also appologized for his revisionism of Holocaust to Jews in 1994, this is well known.

Again, not correct. Tuđman apologized to some representatives of Jewish community (for instance, Tommy Baer, the then president of JWC) not for his "revisionism" (incidentally-no true "holocaust denier" ever apologizes), but for the lack of nuance and sensitivity he displayed in writing about Jewish condition during WW2. Hell, I, who am not a Jew, was enraged upon reading the first edition of his "Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti" & considered Tuđman had made quite a few shallow & irritating generalizations on Jews's behavior in CCs. This was/is not a sign of anti-Semitism/Judaism, but betrayed an unpleasant side of his character: clumsiness and faux pas "addiction", coarse stereotyping as a weapon in political polemics etc. If I got angry with his historiosophical fumble & thought this to be have been an exercise in superficial, pseudo-Hegelian "the role of the Evil in history" rubbish, no wonder that parts of Jewish community, served carefully sliced and baked portions of his amateurish musings on history, Jews, the Bible, genocide, terror (he made a stew out of Barbara Tuchman's book on the 14th century, Ante Ciliga's memoirs, Alexandre Kojeve's book on Hegel etc.)- no wonder that some of them were pissed. But, this was-as explained- only a misunderstanding that was cleared away. Nevertheless, Tuđman, "Mr. Lapsus", is to be partly blamed. Just, not for his imagined prejudices, but for contradictory nonsense he had not infrequently indulged in his writings. Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly not the person to talk about nuances - you clearly made your POV of denying holocaust clear (not just by Ustashas, but by Germans too) on talk pages here - let me quote what you said in one of your outbursts: "And, since Jews are here mentioned- let us not forget that prior to the collapse of Communism, the toll of victims in Auschwitz (vastly Jewish) was, officially, 4.2 M people murdered there. Now, after 1990., when the truth could be told be told without being commie-muzzled, the number has dropped to 1.1 M people. Where are those 3.1 M gone ? Hell, I'm pretty fed up with PC holocaust denial lingo".

True, and I stand by my words. If this is "holocaust denial"(whatta tag) in your mind, you got a problem with logic (and, probably, with mental sanity as well). Btw-thanx for trekking my aeons-long-forgotten posts.Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And use of euphemisms does not change the essence. The quotes from his book will be included and then readers can judge themself what is "nuance" and what is outright holocaust denial. You cannot remove quotes, or rationalize them as just some, as you say, "lapsus". His words and his policies speak for themself, you cannot pad them with your POV, which is quite blatant. Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

These are not quotes from official translation of the book, but from a pilfered & distorted Serbian-propagandists version. In short, putting sliced sentences of a text & context is, in this (and similar cases) just a piece of vicious propaganda harangue. Wikipedia is for information, not disinformation. And, I think- even copyright of such a pilfered material is problematic. These slices (I'm not sure of the vearcity of the translation) are classic example of a copy-paste propaganda from propagandist site(s). Misinformation from squeaky Serbian propaganda machine. Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He never appologized to Serbs though.

He didn't have anything to apologize for. He claimed that Jasenovac CC victims numbers had been exaggerated (from 700 k to 1.5 M) with the aim to impress a guilt-complex in the Croats & keep them in subservient position during ex-Yu dissolution interethnic disputes. Tuđman averred that the Jasenovac CC victims numbers had been between 30,000 and 80,000. Non-ideologicial historiography has proven him right. Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You try to sell your POV as an accepted position. The figures that you quote are certainly at the very low end of denial of the appaling crimes of Ustashas. That you think that there is nothing to appologize about, speaks volumes about yourself. Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

POV my foot. These are the figures accepted by virtually all authorities in the world (as I recall, only the Wiesenthal centre remained silent. As I see, the representatives from this institution have not uttered a word. Strange. And-this hysterical tne bespeaks volumes. I'm, it looks like, dealing with a rather frequent specimen: Serbian Ustashe-obsessed psycho. No wonder guys like you followed Milošević until the doom of 2000.Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it is obvious that Mir Haven (a very known anti-Serbian troll on internet, which can be easily proved - he has a racist hatred of Serbs, consider his posts here and even much more on Croatian wikipedia to get the idea - he is a webmaster on an anti Serb site herceg-bosna, soo there is no doubt where he comes from) is a vandal who should be banned.

Yawn...Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You were marked a problem user, and you should be banned for your racist anti-Serbian behaviour. Such blatant trolls insult every victim of a genocide perpetrated by Ustashe! Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Get a shrink. Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not his first incident! Maayaa 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Double yawn...Mir Harven 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You will be reported!Maayaa 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To whom ? Who opened these mental asylum gates ? Mir Harven 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This looks like a minor squabble between two editors. I'm unprotecting. Behave. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Not a minor squabble.

2. Not 2. There are vandalism-jukies galore (Curps knows it)

3. The page should be put under protection until vandals can be reasonably well controlled. Mir Harven 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it hasn't been edited at all in the six hours since I unprotected, so it sounds to me like they're fairly well controlled. I won't take any nonsense here. It's better to have an article open to editing than to have nobody allowed to edit it because one or two editors can't learn self control. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're naive. This is just a hiding-time period. Anyway, welcome to the rollercoaster. Mir Harven 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of the blatant nationalism on this page

I edited the section on Tudjman's anti-semitism to reflect a more factual, less emotional and nationalist slant (which takes into account both pro and anti-Tudjman viewpoints), and it was instantly returned to its earlier, inferior state. The person (or persons) who are so adamantly monitoring this page to ensure it consistently reflects a nationalist whitewash need to understand that they are sacrificing wikipedia's authority and neutrality in their effort to promote an ideologically fixated viewpoint.

1. get a wiki name.

2. then, regular members who are conversant with the topic, will debate your POV and contributions to the page(s).

3. from my POV, your (or-"your") contributions are nothing more than usual megaSerbian trolling. Mir Harven 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciliga

I also included some extremely anti-semitic quotations from Ciliga's book, which were removed. Whoever did this obviously has little stake in providing wikipedia readers with objective truth.

I have read Ciliga's book & there are no "extremely anti-Semitic quotations" out there. Ciliga was a top Communist & Internationalist who dumped his former ideological credo, but didn't switch to any other looney ideology. Mir Harven 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If 216 has a "chapter and verse", let him provide them. --85.187.44.128 13:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I happen to have read Ciliga's book, I know there are no such things. Ciliga was an anti-Zionist (among other things), but not an anti-Semite. Mir Harven 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, that was an exact quotation, not a retelling. It's possible that it's a fabrication, but can you be 100% sure that these particular sentences don't occur anywhere in that book? (Or, for that matter, that Tudjman never, ever, ever in his life said this or that?) Maybe you read those exact sentences but didn't feel they were antisemitic - it's a very subjective thing. Here's what I assume was 216's source [[5]. It appears to be an international or British anti-fascist magasine quoting a book by two Croatian (not Serbian) Jewish intellectuals. It certainly isn't a first-hand source, but I doubt that Wikipedia has such a requirement. I'm not going to meddle with this for the time being, but I certainly wish an objective and impartial Wikipedian would deal with this page. --85.187.44.131 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The site & the "quote" originate from the leftist propaganda mindset. It's, to be blunt-an unverified crap. Especially in the context of Mesić's fawning visit to Israel or father and son Goldstein murky political agenda. Father and son are Jewish chauvinists and persons of virtually nil moral integrity. Anyway- "Jewish question" was, in the case of Tuđman, inflated beyond any real significance. Jews and anything Jewish did not play in Tuđman's political credo and ambition any role: it was Serbian hegemony and Croatian nationhood he was focused on. His alleged anti-Semitism became a "controversy" only because of Serbian propagandist-political machinations. There is absolutely no reason to allot this calumny so much space-while true anti-Semites, like Karl Marx and Fyodor Dostoevsky do not get any space with regard to their opinion on that matter- especially since the quote comes from a visibly partisan and ideologically charged side. "Jewish issue", in Tuđman's case, simply isn't of such importance, nor is the source for it a reliable one. I'd say that insistence on ample discussion on such marginal matters bespeaks of a Jewish ethno-centrism (or, possibly, anti-Tuđman agenda). This quote has a value as a gossip, not the information. Reverted until more rational explanation.Mir Harven 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mir Haven, you must realize that this page should include both pros and cons, both the accusations against Tudjman and the pro-Tudjman point of view. Any Wikipedia page contains both.

It doesn't. As had been noted above, the page on, say, Karl Marx, a fierce anti-Semite, is a pure & unabashed nonsense. This important article (important because Marx is, no doubt, historically important) is a classic representation of falsification and, let's be blunt-a lie. While I don't think that Marx's anti-Semitism is of much importance, his hagiographers on the page devoted to him did all they could to white-wash their. This outspoken racist (not just anti-Semite) has been "defended" in most ludicrous ways, and the article on him is packed with apologetic nonsense only because those of the other opinion (which is shared by virtually all Marx's biographes who are not hagiographers) have been bored and gave up. So much for wikipedia information credibility, impartiality and "NPOV". Mir Harven 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference. Marx may have made statements that could be regarded as anti-Semitic or racist in private, but he didn't advocate them in his significant works or in the body of his theory.

What's the definitiom of an "anti-Semite" ? That he should be outspoken re his views ? Marx was an anti-Semite, but not an anti-Semitic ideologue (in fact, any ethnic, national or religious adherence was marginal to his historical determinism fantasy). He just disliked Jews and didnt hide it. They werent central to his ideology-but this has nothing to do with the definition of the concept. Mir Harven 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the essence of Tudjman's Bespuca, his most siginificant work, is to prove that "we Croats aren't so guilty" and he uses every possible argument to make this point, from arguing about statistics to implying that the Jews are no angels and are themselves partly guilty for what happened to them.

True, but again, you're missing the target. Tuđman used Jews, or Ciliga (among others, for that matter) to analyze & expound his views on the Croatian condition. One could argue that Tuđman's stance was food for bears compared to Marx's personal obsession: Tuđman referenced the Jews in one of his books; Marx wrote an entire essay "devoted" to their condition (as he saw it). Tuđman did not aver that Judaism is essentially parasitic human condition & that those "ensnared" by it are doomed to huckstering, money-lending & exploitation-unlike Marx. For Tuđman, Judaism is not something exclusively vicious, without redeeming qualities. For Marx, Judaism is parasitic & stinx, as is Christianity which he, interestingly enough, equates with Judaism's "lechery"-a position similar to the 19th and 20th century's neo-pagans who considered Xtianity to be just Judaism refurbished, an alien middle-Eastern implant polluting the true European spirit based on Hellenic & Teutonic heritage. But, we strayed...Mir Harven 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This just shows what kind of agenda he has. I'm pretty sure that no intelligent Croat needs this type of vindication; Croats and Ustashe aren't the same; in fact, by making this type of points, Tudjman is the one who falsely suggests that they are. --85.187.44.131 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See above, you missed the point (at least, that's my POV). Mir Harven 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether Tudjman was anti-Semitic is important, because the answer would shed light on other aspects of his activity, and that is why both his enemies adn his supporters discuss it in detail.

His "supporters" discuss it only because they, I suppose, got to react on politically motivated caluminators's fabrications. Just like the French say: throw the mud, something would stick anyway. The issue simply does not deserve the space it was alloted to. This would be as nonsensical as to discuss at length of, say, 30% of the article on the Jews, pro et con "arguments" on their role as "Christ killers". Mir Harven 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The best way to deal with that question and to clarify your decription is to include the actual relevant quotations as I did. Deleting "too much details", especially in a controversial issue, is not standard wikipedian practice (compare the grammar pages, which in many cases have evolved into complete grammars). Nothing of the sort has occurred e.g. on the Macedonian language page, another controversial topic that I've dealt with. As for the reliability of the source, in the "Ciliga 2" section of the page I explicitly asked people living in Croatia to check if the quotes are real, in case they are in doubt. That is easy both edition and page are given. The quotes appear to be authentic also due to the fact that they are very moderate, ambivalent and actually seem to include some reasonable things. You must also note that my edit actually defended Tudjman to a great extent, e.g. by revealing that one quote had in fact been misused by his opponents and by mentioning that he believed the qualities in question "weren't unique to Jews". Thus was by no means a Serbian POV edit.

Hmm....Agreed (with the latter part). I'll revert the page, but without later "quotation" nonsense. Mir Harven 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you just realized that it's in your own best interest that the page should at least look NPOV for you to bring home your POV. Cleanse it, but then make it look European.

As for the quotation thing, I agree that the page looks better without it, but I wanted to make a compromise, so as to stop the constant alternation between the Croatian and the Serbian redactions. The quotes aren't totally intolerable either, they aren't vandalism. Now he's going to continue inserting them forever. It's just pointless. --85.187.44.131 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that you're wrong, and I hope that you aren't engaging in censorship on purpose.

No, on principle. A page should be Mir Harven 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in this way. --85.187.44.131 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on doing it, I'm afraid that an edit war is both inevitable and necessary. Please, let's try and resolve this issue like civilised people. --85.187.44.131 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no answer. Just entered the edit war as a third party. I don't cherish much hope that anybody will appreciate that (wonder who's going to revert me first, the Serb(s) or the Croats). But at least in some hours of the day, the article is going to look as it should. --85.187.44.131 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed quote

Concerning the quote on the status of the NDH, I must say that it is indeed available in the materials of the Hague tribunal, and it was originally played on a video casette. But since it's a video, only the ones present in the court room can see who is saying the words. Only Milosevic says, later on, that the speaker is Tudjman, although no-one present denies it either. Anyway, I'm not quite sure if the source is sufficient. Let other people judge.

Here is the source:[6]

"SPEAKER: The programme objectives of the HDZ are nothing else but a renewal for the Ustasha Independent State of Croatia. However, they forget that this was not only a quisling state but it was also an expression of the wishes of the Croat people to have their own state as well as of various other factors, in this case, Hitler's Germany that wanted to introduce a new order in Europe and to change borders. Therefore, the independent state of Croatia was not a mere caprice of the axis powers but it was also due to various historical factors."

This quotation is a perversion. And also a fine example of Serbian school of falsification. Tuđman said: 1. Croats want, now, their own national state. 2. the NDH was not simply a puppet of the Axis powers (although-it was a puppet), but also the only possible Croatian state at the time, since Western imperial democracies opposed the very existence of a Croatian national home (the silence of British, French and American press with regard to the 1928. Stjepan Radić's murder had been very "vocal", so to speak). Tuđman never said that: "The programme objectives of the HDZ are nothing else but a renewal for the Ustasha Independent State of Croatia". This is fabrication and a lie. What Tuđman (and Croatian people, for that matter) wanted was resurrection of Croatian statehood, not a carbon-copy of a historically sunken puppet state that had emerged & collapsed in a matrix of irreversible historical circumstances. Mir Harven 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the quote about having a Serbian or a Jewish wife, it isn't there, but it doesn't sound antisemitic anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is authentical. I'd say it's irrelevant. --85.187.44.128 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the actual original quote, from a reliable source? The text of that speech in English or Croatian? Now this quote has been translated by the interpreters of the Tribunal, on the spot, from a video. Not by Serbian manipulators. If I have understood things correctly, it was translated from an English or Dutch voicecover, which decreases its credibility a bit (in that case, it was the Dutch school of falsification :) ). But the main question for me is whether the person speaking on the video is indeed Tudjman. As I said, nobody disputed that during the actual proceedings. And as you demonstrated yourself, most of what he said could be justified within the framework of Croatian patriotic discourse, maybe with the exception of the "nothing else but a renewal" part. This still doesn't make me 100 % sure that he did say it, which is why I'm not including it in the article. --85.187.44.128 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1. the ICTY is not an authority on anything. The proceedings out there abound in lies, stupidities, mistransaltions & outright idiocies (they prosecuted a man dead for years, cited unverified (and false) documents as proofs of indictment, misquoted a texts galore (a recent example is dabbling with the so called "Brijuni transcipts", trying to frame Ante Gotovina), do not know elementary sintactic and semantic differences between Croatian and Serbian, resulting in hilarious effects),..This courtrom is a hit-and-miss political stage with no credibility.

2. as for the Tuđman quote: Tuđman never said that his policial aim was to resuscitate any kind of NDH. This is a classic Serbian and anti-Croat smear campaign that tried, desperately, to halt the process of Croatian independence, equating the NDH (an Axis powers's, especially fascist Italy's puppet) with any form of Croatian statehood. The message was: any Croatian national state could be only a quasi-fascist, carbon-copy of NDH. This campaign succeeded in creating an emotional potential of mass hysteria that was to be geared in Serbian aggression on Croatia (and, later, Bosnia and Herzegovina). We all know how it ended. Mir Harven 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you say so.. You don't sound very objective to me, but I haven't got any first-hand info about this. --85.187.44.128 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

i only want to say the real truth, this asshole was nothing else that a fucking murderer, pupil of his former Nazy german masters and the Catholic Mafia. What states broke the Yugoslavia's constitution first? when any could get its independence by VOTES!!! FOR SURE something they did not. Franco prefered guns to solve this. Was not in Bosnia that they only got 63% to get independence when they need 66? And all the way they declared the independence the same. He was so bastard as milosevic...they only took care of their fucking share of power, when they could have saved a entire nation. So many men, so many orphans, so many destruction could be saved. I only hope this Hate's deliverers have been judged by the Lord as they deserve. Fatherlands go to hell!!!!

---

this is unsigned comment by anonimous

1. Calm down. You succeed in the seemingly impossible task of sounding even more hysterical than Mir Haven. 2. So far, you've provided sources for 3 of your quotes. Of these three, one doesn't necessarily refer to ethnic cleansing: when he says "da Srbi praktično nestanu", the context (a military operation) suggests that he means the Serbian forces, not the Serbian population as such. Another quote is provided by a pro-Milosevic witness, quoting a Croatian newspaper by memory (the thing that would be necessary is the newspaper itself or at least a quote from a source that isn't so overtly pro-Milosevic). The only quote that could be convincing is the one from the speech on Jelacic from the Bosnian (apparently not Serbian, since the language isn't Serbian) communist. On other occasions, I had only found that quote in Milosevic's defense and on other Serbian sites. But personally, I wouldn't inlude that quote either - after all, the communist doesn't say where he took it from either, and it seems likely that he took it from the Milosevic trial in the Hague. There, Milosevic presented a video )(with a Dutch voicecover), but the Hague interpreters didn't even manage to translate that sentence, so he had to repeat (?) it afterwards. Hmmmm..

Personally, I have no high opinion of Tudjman, but I'm sure there must be a better way to substantiate that.

--85.187.44.131 12:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Note tat above comment is not mine Mylan 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC) As for what you said, the relevance for wikipedia of quotes is how they are used. So the bold parts of quotes - My wife is neither Serbian nor Jewish etc - are often quoted alone. Also, I dont know what you mean by Bosnian language, since Serbian language has many speakers, and they speak many dialects. But thats another topic. Mylan 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I though the comment was yours. As for the dialects, I have very little experience in the field, especially outside of standard languages. I figured that a Bosnian Serb would use the standard Serbian language, for political reasons, when writing a newspaper article, even if his native dialect is actually closer to what now is the Bosnian Muslim standard language. Maybe that isn't the case, I've no idea. --85.187.44.131 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciliga 2

I found a source, which, although it has an extremely anti-Tudjman bias, includes really large portions of his "Bespuca" (2nd ed., 1989) translated into English. You can see the context and all, as well as page numbers so everyone can check. Thus, the Parenti quote about Hitler's New European Order (which he appears to have taken from the New York Times) is proved to have been taken out of context. If Tudjman was anti-Semitic, it appears to have been in a rather mild form, without racism and such. Anyway, I tried to summarize them and include them in the article so that everybody can judge for himself. If somebody has objections, please take the original of the book (I'm sure you can find that second edition in every larger Croatian library) and check the quotations on the relevant pages. If you find something that you believe is a mistranslation, do point it out, but also write the Croatian text on the talk page so that everybody can judge for himself. --85.187.44.131 20:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First or ninth

It is written that former president Franjo Tudjman was the first president of Croatia from the 30th of May 1990. It cannot be true. Either he was the first president from July 1990 (before that, he had been president of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Croatia) or he was the ninth president from the 30th of May (following Jakov Blažević, Marijan Cvetković, Milutin Baltić, Jakša Petrić, Pero Car, Ema Derosi-Bjelajac, Ante Marković and Ivo Latin). In my opinion, it is completely irrelevant whether he was the first or ninth president (although, I personally prefer to call him ninth president since Socialist Republic of Croatia is legal predecessor of the Republic of Croatia) but that fact should be correctly interpreted in one way or another.

[edit] What was Tudjman convicted for?

Mylan writes: "Tuđman was tried again in 1981 for spreading national hatred, which was a serious crime in Communist SFRY, while giving an interview to the Swedish TV on the position of Croats in Yugoslavia and got three years of prison, but again he only served a portion, this time eleven months. "

Is there any source to prove that "spreading national hatred" is, officially, what he was convicted for?

Found a book where the accusation and the sentence are quoted:

"- dakle, uz pomoć iz inozemstva zlonamjerno i neistinito prikazivao družstveno-političke prilike u zemlji, - pa da je time počinio krivično djelo protiv osnova socialističkog samoupravnog društvenog useđenja i sigurnosti SFRJ - neprijateljskim propagandom - opisano u članu 133 stav 1 i 2 KZ SFRJ a kažnjivo po članu 133 stav 2 KZ SFRJ"--85.187.44.131 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Source: Goran Babic, "Bespuća Franje Tuđmana", p. 101

[edit] War-related accusations and their refutation

Mir Haven, I think a long, detailed argumentation against the assertions should be placed somewehere else, say in the articles on Republika Srpska Krajina or on the Croatian homeland war. After all, this article here is about Tudjman and his historical role. Here, a very short resume of counter-arguments would be enough (basically, I don't see what other relevant arguments can exist but "it just ain't true, he/we didn't (1) rehabilitate, (2) harass or (3) expel anybody", which is why I only wrote that it was "dismissed as Greater Serbian propaganda").

Besides that, your present counter-arguments are so weak that they really needn't be inserted in the article, they don't even logically exclude the accusations: even if we assume that the Krajina Serbs were indeed Greater Serbian chauvinist homicidal maniacs and had been such not just since the 1980s, but even since the early 19th century, nay, ever since the moment when that abominable combination of sounds "srp" was pronounced for the first time - all that doesn't mean that the NDH wasn't vindicated, and that these Serbs weren't harassed and expelled. --85.187.44.131 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Which I'm not saying they were. Just discussing the relevance of the arguments. --85.187.44.131 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since, due to other obligations, I again do not have time enough to elaborate on the issue (which I will continue to do later), I'll just put linx from the Croatian wikipedia and elsewhere. Needless to say, Serbian harping on the NDH is nothing but a reflection of their mental illness- there is nothing to refute, but only a therapy to be administered.

http://www.hic.hr/books/analysis/

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska_Krajina#Politi.C4.8Dka_aktivacija_Srba

http://www.nsf-journal.hr/issues/v1_n1/domazet.htm

http://www.hic.hr/books/myth-reality/

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domovinski_rat

This all will be dealt with in an appropriate way. Mir Harven 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On wiki citation policy

I've seen in this article (of course, even more on other pages) an excessive & frequently absurd policy of putting a {{Fact}} tag on virtually every contention. While I do agree that some more controversial issues need to be corroborated by citing sources and external linx-the habit has in many cases got out of control & become an absurdity in itself: Dostoevsky's masterpiece is "Brothers Karamazov" (who said this ?); some consider Nietzsche's "Thus spake Zarathustra" not his magnum opus, but a gorgeous failure (who agrees & disagrees ?); Poincare's work in relativity is mathematically more important than Einstein's (who said this ?). The overcitation is a nuisance & nonsense (who said this ? I did.) Mir Harven 12:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, the reason why these tags are put there are because people either doubt the factuality of a claim or suspect that it is original research. Examples:

"If Tuđman’s stature as a historian and publicist is to be evaluated, it would probably be ^{[citation needed]} along the following lines: "

Here, I suspect that the editor is the one who assessed the relative importance of Tudjman's various works, and that's none of the editor's business. People should quote an authoritative neutral source, scholarly consensus etc. before making statements of this kind.

Nonsense. His books are in the universities curricula. What kind of "citation" is needed in such instance ? is this a joke ? Mir Harven 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which "unversities"? All "universities"? Anyway, I wasn't in doubt as to whether his works were important enough to be included in curricula on history of the Balkans or something (of course some of them are) but about this particular ranking of his works, where the editor says "this is most valuable", "that is less valuable etc." and gives particular reasons for that. Also, the fact that he writes "would probably be" suggests that the editor is the one who assumes that. [signed: the same guy on another computer :)]

As things are now, it looks more like an essay than like an article.

"Franjo Tuđman expressed a firm opinion ^{[citation needed]} that all this was done in an attempt to create and solidify Greater Serbian domination on the ruins of the destroyed, post-Titoist Yugoslavia".

I didn't put this tag, but I think it's there because the editor doubted that Tudjman dared say anything like that at the stage when he wrote "Bespuca".

Again, this is a misperception. Tuđman's policy with regard to the Greater Serbia is evident from his texts and interviews during the 1991.-1995. wars. "Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti" were just one polemical text saying what was possible at the moment. There is no need to quote anything from "Bespuća", since this is a passage on Tuđman's strategy and not on his explicut statements before the 1991.-1995. wars. Mir Harven 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Check that again - this isn't in the passage about Tudjman's strategy, it's in the passage about "the controversy surrounding "Bespuca"." From the sentence, the reader gets the (wrong) impression that Tudjman said it in "Bespuca", at the time. You have to be psychic to tell if he thought/felt, at that stage, what he said much later.

Find the relevant quote from "Bespuca" and the tag will be gone.

No need for a quote, since the sentence doesn't hinge on the anything written explicitly in the book. Mir Harven 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Either the sentence should be re-written, or a quote is needed.

The same applies to:

"During the turbulent 1971, Tuđman's role was that of the dissident who questioned a cornerstone of modern Serbian nationalism, the number of victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp, as well as the role of centralism in Yugoslav and the continuation of ideology of unitary "Yugoslavism". Tuđman felt that this originally Croatian romantic pan-Slavic idea from the 19th century had been mutated in harsh realities in both Yugoslav states into the front for a, as he claimed, pan-Serbian drive for domination over non-Serb peoples^{[citation needed]} — from economy and army to culture and language. "

Did Tudjman really say that at the time? As for what "he felt" without saying it, you can't verify that.

Is this a joke ? Was Gulag an institution for re-education ? Had Mao's ideology deviated from Marx's ? Does one have to prove, by quotation, that water is-wet ? Mir Harven 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this isn't obvious. I don't know whether you mean that it's obvious that Yugoslavia was some kind of a prison for non-Serb peoples, or that it's obvious that Tudjman must have believed in that sincerely not only in the 1990s, but also during his entire previous life - in both cases the answer is "no", it isn't obvious. And again, the sentence implies that he actually said it at the time. This reminds me of, say, Trotskyists willing to assume that because Trotsky ended up being a Bolshevik icon, that should reflect back on his entire life, so he can't have been a Menshevik before. People develop.

"Some current investigations have bracketed the figure in a similar scale, between 56,000 ^{[citation needed]} and 85,000 &mdash" Here, you should say which investigations you mean. I've seen the 80 000 claim in the Jasenovac article, but I haven't seen the 56 000 number. --85.187.44.131 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Jasenovac official page. Or, it's lesser. We'll check it out. Mir Harven 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing:

" his voluminous (more than 2,000 pages long) “Hrvatska u monarhistickoj Jugoslaviji”/Croatia in Monarchist Yugoslavia, has become standard university textbook ^{[citation needed]} analyzing this period of Croatian history;"

Now, I don't doubt that this work is on curricula. The question is if it is used as a textbook, especially in universities outside of Croatia. A textbook and a historical source aren't one and the same. I can't imagine Tudjman as an objective historian. What citation? Well, either an objective source claiming it or the curricula itself, but in the latter case, it's still hard to prove that it is "standard".

[edit] My latest edit

Justifications coming any moment. --85.187.44.131 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted.

• I mention that the numbers were propagated (whatever does "maniulated and intensified" mean anyway? I haven't deleted it, but it's silly)"for various reasons: a general exaggeration of the Yugoslavian death toll was likely motivated by the desire of the new government to receive a larger contribution". That motive is mentioned in the Jasenovac artilce and/or on other wiki pages on the Yugoslav death toll. The impression that the figures were exaggerated for the sole purpose of oppressing Croats is, I think, misleading.
• I added that when Tudjman believed that "this was done in an attempt to create and solidify Greater Serbian domination on the ruins of the destroyed, post-Titoist Yugoslavia", the means to achieve that was "among other things by exploiting a Croatian shame and sense of guilt". I think it's a clarification that is necessary for people who are unacquainted with the subject, because the immediate connection between the exaggeration of the numbers and Greater Serbian domination isn't obvious.
• Concerning the passage on Bespuca in "published works", I changed the formulations to more neutral ones to show that this or that is only ONE opinion. Before that, the very language was extremely POV. Whether Jasenovac is indeed that much of a "myth", and whether it is more central to Serbian nationalsim than, say, the Kosovo myth, is a subject of debate.
• I changed "Since the split among Communists in Yugoslavia was caused by the pan-Serbian movement led by Slobodan Milošević" to "Since the split among Communists in Yugoslavia on a national basis was already a fact at that time (according to prevalent opinion, that was primarily Serbian leaderSlobodan Milošević's responsibility)". The main reason is that "a pan-Serbian movement lad by Milosevic" can be misleading. What does "pan-Serbian" mean? It's a very vague term. Is it "the idea that all territories where Serbs are in the majority should be join the same state"? Milosevic didn't advocate that idea at that stage; he didn't advocate the secession of the Krajina and of the Bosnian Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia before Croatia and Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia. What he did in Kosovo and Vojvodina was apparently harness nationalist sentiment, but that isn't enough to call it pan-Serbianism. Generally, the passage leaves the reader with the impression that "Serbia ueber alles", "Blut und Boden" were written in Milosevic's party programme, whereas in fact he was very careful to manipulate nationalists while maintaining a safe distance and without directly proclaiming that he was a nationalist himself.

[edit] WP:3RR Warning

To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creeping Serbian POVization

Gossip about possible Tuđman's indictment by ICTY cannot be included in the definition sentences. The facts go there, not anyone's wishful thinking or tabloid talk. Mir Harven 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence didn't include speculations about a possible indictment, it included the fact that he is mentioned as responsible for ethnic cleansing. The fact that he is mentioned as such in the prosecution case doesn't mean that he is guilty. And his being mentioned is a verifiable fact, as far as I understand, not gossip. The Serbian socks' source is, apparently, http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/katz/. I suppose that the actual texts of the indictments can be consulted, too. So what's your problem with that? If you think it's rubbish, why didn't you "cleanse" it from the indictment section, too?

I admit that, in the definition sentences, it should be enough to mention that he is controversial, without talking about the Hague, which is only one detail. But you have to compromise, modify, not just delete. --85.187.44.131 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Here it is, in the amended indictments against Cermak and Markac (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/cer-ai051214e.htm): "Many persons participated with Ivan CERMAK and Mladen MARKAC in this joint criminal enterprise. These persons included: Franjo TUDJMAN, the President of the Republic of Croatia (deceased, 10 December 1999)". So it isn't "gossip". This is not Serbian POV, this is freaking NPOV if there ever was one. --85.187.44.131 15:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in an ICTY indictment for other persons. Whatever I may think of the indcitment (actually-it's a trash, as are the majority of the ICTY proceedings), it is a part of others's ongoing legal troubles. As such, it is simply absurd to include is in the definition of the notion "Franjo Tuđman", who was not indicted during his life-time, for whatever reasons-or, was included later in others's indictment, for whatever reasons. This is not the way an encyclopedia article is written like & would be appropriate to remove it: this information is included in the body of the article. I don't see it as a "compromise", but as a not-so-subtle way of propagating the "equal guilt" ideology. Therefore, I think that this should be removed from the introductory part.Mir Harven 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether somebody would jump to the conclusion that Tudjman and Milosevic had "equal guilt" is irrelevant. And that's not a reason to delete info suggesting ("propagating the idea", if you like) that Tudjman had any guilt at all. I do agree that the Hague thing is too particular to be included in the introductory part (as I said, mentioning his being controversial is enough). But it is a compromise. Don't you see that this edit war can last forever in this way? And half the time, visitors might read the extreme Serbian POV version? Note that, before my other compromising edits, the entire article was subject to constant reverts, and now it's only the stupid quotes. So there is some progress. Imagine that this edit war actually stops. Wouldn't that be nice? --85.187.44.131 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of chosing the lesser evil. Wiki is, I think, an encyclopedia. And on principle, the definition of a person & his activity need not address the issues that are highly questionable-but must, for the sake of completeness, be included in the whole text.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where disputes are supposed to be resolved through negotiations and compromises (see Wikipedia:resolving disputes). Of course, this doesn't mean that total falsities are to be included; but here, we don't have a total falsity, just a dispute on how important/essential a fact is and whether it deserves to be mentioned in the beginning. In Wikipedia, people put in the introductory part not only the definition, but also anything that they judge to be very important. You must understand that for some people, Tudjman's supposed guilt is something very important.

Agreed. For some peopleTuđman's supposed guilt is important. For the same people Srebrenica was a Serbian graveyard, Serbs in Croatia not a fifth column of Serbian expansionism, but a poor minority set for slaughter etc. Frankly- I don't see why an encyclopedia article should be designed to placate such people ? Wikipedia is a compromise, but- there are limits to a compromise. Limits set by standards of truth & rational discourse. Well-those people who insist on putting supposed Tuđman's guilt in the definition are well-known Serbian vandals (Mylan, Medule etc.), who should, considering their "contributions" to the wiki, be permanently banned. They didn't provide any valuable info. They didn't write a single rational sentence. They just hang around Croatian pages & vandalize them. And-they got to be placated ? As a, let's say, sort of a reward for their vandalism ? Or a therapy for their mental disturbances ? Sorry, you espouse a way of reasoning virtually impossible to accept. Mir Harven 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, it's not just them. As we noted, it's also the Hague prosecutors. And the BBC article that the page has a link to mentions Tudjman as guilty for ethnic cleansing. And there are many many other sources that can't be dismissed that easily. Critique of Tudjman and of NDH's rule in general isn't limited to cranks and Serbian revisonist freaks. Apparently, I have to point out that not worshipping Tudjman isn't the same as exculpating the Serbian side - which seems to be a recurrent presumption in most of your arguments.

I guess this would be my last discussion with you on the subject (as I see, you're not using rational arguments). Yes, some BBC linx do mention Tuđman's alleged guilt-but in the way it was already included in the text.

Yes, because I had included it. Before that, the article didn't mention it at all. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your incessant efforts to put it in the definition paragraph cannot be rationally justified.

I haven't made any incessant efforts, I've only moderated what Mylan and Medule have been inserting, and I tried to point out that it wasn't so terrible to have it there ( of course, if I thought it was, I would be reverting Mylan and Medule's edits as you do, and not modifying them). I have also told you twice, in this very thread, that I, personally, don't think that deserves to be included in the definition paragraph, but you don't seem to hear what I'm saying. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw-your mental associations with the NDH are either an example of Croatophobia, or something I simply cannot decipher.

Sorry, I didn't mean that the Tudjman and the NDH were one and the same. In fact, I meant to write HDZ, not NDH. :) A (Freudian, you will probably say) slip of the tongue. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you think that the article on Tuđman is an example of "worhipping Tuđman"- this is another point I cannot agree with, nor, I'd say, the vast majority of rational people.

I didn't say the article was an example of "worshipping Tudjman", I said it was POV; I was trying to say that you regarded every edit or statement critical of Tudjman ("not worshipping Tudjman") as evidence of Greater Serbdom, vandalsim, Jewish ethnocentrism and what not.--85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you've collected gossip & underground media trash circulating mainly in the cirles lke this one. Now, for the sake of completeness, such views must be included in the article. Bur-they are not of the level of veracity that should dictate a general discourse on Tuđman.Mir Harven 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't collected anything. You should have noticed by now that Mylan and Medule are collecting and inserting things, I've mostly been trying to moderate them to make them fit the facts, while you have simply reverted both them and my attempts at a compromise. But, as I already mentioned, you are refusing to regard any form of compromise as anything but "Greater Serbianism" --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Mylan and Medule, I concede that they quite obviously use sock puppets, which is inadmissible, and their general behaviour (especially that of Medule, who has never discussed anything on this talk page, at least under this name) isn't that of good Wikipedians. I don't know about the real Yugoslav wars, but IMHO the Serbian side certainly makes the worst impression in the Wiki edit wars. :). However, their edits on this particular page aren't always unreasonable - or rather, they may be Serbian nationalist POV, but much of the page is pretty obviously Croatian nationalist POV (now a little less overtly so after all these weasel words and wordings I inserted), so they don't look that terrible against that background.

As I pointed before, I (and not only I alone) perceive a part of your alterations as examples of Croatophobia.

QED. That's exactly what I had in mind. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, of course, but the above paragraph has left only one option: your editing is a reflection of tabloids-from-the-gutter "opinions". And wikipedia is not a loudpeaker for tabloid sensationalism. At least I suppose it isn't.

Please, find a single counterfactual (tabloid) edit that I've made. It's true that Mylan and Medule are using gossip and totally POV sources, but I'm trying not to. On the contrary, I've been trying to verify the facts that they have been presenting, which is exactly what you people should have been doing instead of reverting everything. Examples: "what was Tudjman convicted for?", the source of the quote with Edo Murkic etc.. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw- I don't see Croatian wikipedians obsessing about the majority of Serbia-related pages. Isn't this whole Serbian behavior re Tuđman & all things Croatian a bit weird, eh ?Mir Harven 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I have enough trouble with this article, so I don't feel like dealing with the rest. Anyway, Tudjman is important for Serbs. They seem to view him the way Palestinians view Sharon and Israelis view Arafat, so it's pretty natural that they meddle with the page about him. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So I disagree with your opinion that you and they are on completely different levels, that your position is totally right, and everybody else (including myself) is totally wrong and a vandal. --85.187.44.131 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This "definition" is, let's be frank, a toned-down support for war-criminal indictment & the old-fashioned "they're all the same" Western pro-Serbian policy (the UN arms embargo which was the explict support for the armed side-and we know who it was.

I've already replied to this. We should be talking about facts, not about the general conclusions that might be drawn from them. --85.187.44.131 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the facts, and your-well, subtle ways of handling them are not presentation, but a distortion. To put a marginal view for the central. Mir Harven 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not "for" the central, but to mention its existence in the beginning, not to espouse it, for God's sake. --85.187.44.131 09:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget media pornography with regard to the Sarajevo siege: for 3+ ys a city is shelled upon, inhabitants killed, the entire "enterprise" daily seen on the TV around the world. Are there limits to the perversion of los internationales (David Owen, Cyrus Vance, Bill Clinton, Boutros Ghali, Yasushi Akashi,..) ?). No, I think-and I'm certain I'm not alone in this opinion- that the information contained in the main text about Tuđman's name in an ICTY indictment is more than enough. Mir Harven 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I need not add anything to this, I guess.Mir Harven 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You obviously like edit warring, and, unfortunately, so do Mylan and Medule. Too bad for the page, and for the spare time of us all. --85.187.44.131 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Who are "History writers"? Why does "These numbers are nowadays widely considered to be inaccurate" and "There seems to be a general consensus that Tudjman has made the following statements:" not have a reference? does it refer to the a few lines below it...? Also, editorializing edits like "even more atrocious than they actually had been" is against NPOV. I am warning to people to get it together here, I don't want to have to protect this page or block due to edit warring.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

<copy of the ensuing talk on Voice_of_All's user page>

Hello!

Thank you for your comment.

1. I have a question: was your comment a response to the RfC I sent?

2. Your comment appears to be based on an earlier version of the page. "Even more atrocious than they actually had been" and "these numbers are widely considered to be inaccurate" aren't present in the present version. Nevertheless, it's very helpful of you to indicate that they shouldn't be restored.

3. Could you please comment on the actual subject of the edit war (1. whether the existence of certain quotes of disputed authenticity deserves to be mentioned and 2. whether a certain fact deserves to be included in the introductory part) and how this conflict might be solved?

--85.187.44.131 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The "these numbers are widely considered to be inaccurate" may still get reverted in, perhaps the other one. I just wanted to be clear that statements like that are not exeptable. There is a long, light, edit conflict. The it is not enough to really call it an edit war just yet imo.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I wonder how you tell the difference between an edit war and a light edit conflict, though. This conflict involves the constant alternation between two versions of the page, so I've been forced to incorporate each of my edits in both versions to make sure they don't get lost in the next revert in a couple of hours. For me, this is as bad as it gets. --85.187.44.131 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromises

Now that the page is blocked (at my request), I'm waiting for somebody to propose some kind of compromise. I've tried several times but, as we know, I have failed.

Note that I'm trying to follow the wiki wikipedia:dispute resolution procedure as closely as possible. My ultimate ambition is to make one (no matter which one) of the currently alternating versions of the page plainly "illegal", which might, hopefully, put an end to this old boring edit war and allow us to start a new and exciting one :) - or perhaps even to start developing the article in a normal way. --85.187.44.131 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: After taking a closer look at current wiki practice, I'm in doubt as to whether that is technically possible. Anyway, I intend to try. --85.187.44.131 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment from RfC: It would probably help discussion if both (or all) competing versions of the header were placed here:

(I'm going to italicize my answers for clarity's sake:)

• The (original) version espoused by Mir Harven and other Croatian editors:

Franjo Tuđman (May 14, 1922 - December 10, 1999) was the first president of Croatia in the 1990s.

Tuđman's political party HDZ (Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica, Croatian Democratic Union) won the first post-communist multi-party elections in 1990 and he became the president of the country. A year later he proclaimed the Croatian declaration of independence. He was reelected twice and remained in power until his death in late 1999. In English, his surname is usually spelled "Tudjman".

• The version espoused by Mylan and the other Serbian editors (the inserted part is in bold):

Franjo Tuđman (May 14, 1922 - December 10, 1999) was the first president of Croatia in the 1990s.

Tuđman's political party HDZ (Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica, Croatian Democratic Union) won the first post-communist multi-party elections in 1990 and he became the president of the country. A year later he proclaimed the Croatian declaration of independence. He was reelected twice and remained in power until his death in late 1999. Prosecution documents of ICTY clearly identify Tudjman as a leader of a supposed "joint criminal enterprise" which cleansed Croatia of Serbs. In English, his surname is usually spelled "Tudjman".

• A compromise version that I proposed, Mylan et al. apparently accepted and Mir Haven et al. rejected (whereupon Mylan et al used their original "radical" version again):

Franjo Tuđman (May 14, 1922 - December 10, 1999) was the first president of Croatia in the 1990s.

Tuđman's political party HDZ (Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica, Croatian Democratic Union) won the first post-communist multi-party elections in 1990 and he became the president of the country. A year later he proclaimed the Croatian declaration of independence. He was reelected twice and remained in power until his death in late 1999. His role in the events surrounding the Yugoslav wars is controversial - it has been alleged, among other things, that he was responsible for acts of ethnic cleansing (that is also part of the case of the prosecution in some current trials against Croats at the ICTY). In English, his surname is usually spelled "Tudjman".

--85.187.44.131 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the latest clash involves the inclusion in the header of the following sentence:

Prosecution documents of ICTY clearly identify Tudjman as a leader of a supposed "joint criminal enterprise" which cleansed Croatia of Serbs.

• Are there other issues to be commented on?

Yes, a number of quotes in the end of the article, which are ascribed to Tudjman by his critics, but the sources are more or less dubious. See thread 32 (Quotes and Croatian POV). Mylan and the rest insist on including them, Mir Harven and the rest revert them, and my failed compromise was to include them, while mentioning explicitly that the authenticity of the quotes is disputed and that reliable sources are lacking - which Mylan more or less accepted, but Mir Harven and the rest rejected. I'm placing Mylan's last version of the quotes in a separate thread entitled "Quotes"

• What is the exact nature of the dispute:
  1. That the sentence is not true?
  2. That the sentence is not sourced?
  3. That the sentence is not important enough to be put in the header?
  4. That the sentence is misleading?
  5. Other?

It looks to me like the argument is about #4; but remember, we commenters are new here. Septentrionalis 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. The main problem is that Mir Harven et al. reject both versions of the sentence, because they (or at least he - I haven't spoken to the others) think that #3 "the sentence is not important enough to be put in the header". It is already mentioned in the end of the article (section "War crime indictment"), and Mir Harven feels that mentioning it in the beginning would suggest that it's more important than it actually is. As he puts it in the "Creeping Serbian POVization" thread:

"Whatever I may think of the indcitment (actually-it's a trash, as are the majority of the ICTY proceedings), it is a part of others's ongoing legal troubles. As such, it is simply absurd to include is in the definition of the notion "Franjo Tuđman", who was not indicted during his life-time, for whatever reasons-or, was included later in others's indictment, for whatever reasons. This is not the way an encyclopedia article is written like & would be appropriate to remove it: this information is included in the body of the article."

However, you're right that my reason for switching from Mylan and Medule's original version to my attempted compromise version was indeed that #4 "the sentence is (or at least could be) misleading", as it could appear that the Hague Tribunal as such had multiple proofs/evidence that Tudjman was guilty; I think that in my version, you see the facts more clearly. But, as I mentioned, this is not the real source of the edit war: the real source is that Mylan and Medule insist on having the sentence in the header in SOME form, while Mir Haven et al. don't want it there in any form.

--85.187.44.131 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I will accept your compromise, if others accept it.--Medule 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear something from all sides before commenting again; but the anon makes a reasonable case for inclusion. It may help to mention in the header that

• this is evidence in the trials of other people
• Tudjman isn't being tried; he's dead.
  • I know this last should be obvious, but sometimes stating the obvious helps. Septentrionalis 01:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you suggestions. The obvious is certainly necessary here. :) But I didn't mean to make a case for inclusion. I'm pretty much indifferent to the "Hague" statement; personally, I think it's too concrete for the header: I would only mention that Tudjman's role is controversial and that accusations of ethnic cleansing exist, without going into detail about the Hague and such. But I wouldn't edit war about it! So I proposed to keep the statement just to make everyone (relatively) happy.

As for your proposal, could we use something like that: "Among other things, it has been alleged that he was responsible for ethnic cleansing. For example, since 2001 (i.e., two years after Tudjman's death), the prosecution case in some trials against other Croats at the ICTY has described him as an accomplice of the accused in a joint criminal enterprise of that nature." --85.187.44.131 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuđman led his nation in its struggle for survival. His actions, unlike those of his opponent, were in most cases in proportion to the situation in question. As for the ethnic cleansing accusation, recent testimony by the former US ambassador Peter Galbraith during the Mile Martić trial in the Hague confirms once more what was already known - Serbs were ordered to leave their homes en masse by their own political leadership, which also obstinately refused any negotiations on peaceful reintegration of Krajina into Croatia. Cf. the Eastern Slavonia - it was reintegrated peacefully and there was no mass exodus of Serbs there (they still live in Vukovar in large numbers). There is as much sense in including this paragraph in the header as in including allegations about Dresden bombings in the header of Winston Churchill or Japanese internment in FDR. --Elephantus 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent comparison - Tudjman is Churchill, Milosevic is Hitler, and Gotovina is Mother Theresa. We should include those in the opening statements of the articles as undisputable, undeniable facts, citing Elephantus.

Arguing about whether he actually was guilty or not takes us nowhere (there are tons of arguments and authorities on both sides). As for your comparison - few people hate Churchill or Roosevelt today, but just look at the headers of Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon (mentioning, respectively, terrorism and the Sabra and Shatila massacre). Those headers can be summarized in the word "controversial", even though I'm sure many Israelis and Palestinians would like to have "clean" headers for their former leaders. The problem is that many others wouldn't. So - something like the word "controversial" should be present, and as for the Hague - does it really matter? It's just a detail. The very fact that you're taking the pains to resist so vehemently would almost make one think that it is important - and, consequently, that it should be included in the header. Why not include also what you said about Galbraith (or rather, your version of the events generally) and be done with it? --85.187.44.131 23:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph should be about undisputed facts, not disputed claims. Opening with a dispute in the lead erodes the whole article. See for example George W. Bush, another controversial contemporary politician. --Elephantus 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Any opening paragraph should point out that the guy is a contraversial figure, at the very least - for Croats a national hero, while for Serbs he is one of the worst criminals in recent Croatian history (its hard to beat Croatian WWII crimes of course), who bouldozered Jasenovac, expelled 500,000 Serbs, send his troups to Bosnia and Herzegovina, renamed streets after Milo Budak, rehabilitated Ustashe, took money from WWII Ustashe criminals, organized Croatian secession in illegal (i.e. criminal) way, and indeed was identified as a leader of joint criminal enterprise in ICTY after his death, while investigations were under way during his life. Maayaa 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Bush, I suppose one reason why the header doesn't need to say that he is controversial is because absolutely everybody knows he is. He is so controversial that we literally need to be brought back to the basic, sober facts. That's not the case with Tudjman, at least for most English speakers who have never heard of him. As for "eroding" the article - well, many feel democracy and pluralism erode society... Keep just one POV and the article will be nice and harmonious. --85.187.44.131 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 85.*** ... whatever edits

Looks we're confronted with the following situation:

1. user 85. ** remains virtually anonymous. Sure, one doesnt need to disclose personal details in order to participate in wiki-but, I dont feel comfortable talking to a number. So, if this user wants to be taken seriously, (s)he should better register. Under any name.

2. as far as I've seen, this user's edits are focused mainly on issues regarding Croatia's ex-prez Tuđman, plus tangential themes of Serbophobia. All in all-the majority of edits are Croats's related, and in particular, Tuđman-related. Interesting, eh ? For essentially anonymous user, eh ?

3. the profile of her/his alterations is to smear Tuđman by allegedly toning-down chauvinist nonsense of users Medule or Mylan (who knows, maybe these are one and the same guy ? Or, more realistically, they seem to be related in a joint propaganda warfare). It looks like this: a heavily biased Serbian user spews hatred and nonsense no person of sane mind would swallow. Then, the 85.** whatever enters the game & tries to sell, say, 50% of the nonsense as "mitigated" version.

4. the sources of this user are some wacko socialist sites of spurious credibility (one can find really everything there) and pages "confirmed" by Serbian users as being factually true. Evidently, this user hasn't read anything Tuđman actually wrote. I don't know whether he reads Croatian (maybe, yes-maybe, no), but his obsession-we might call it that- with everything potentially nasty or mercenary, associated with Tuđman almost exclusively via Serbian propagandist sources & of little or no credibility is, without exaggeration- insatiable. Any person of sane mind would ask: why ? Why is an anonymous user so obsessed with some politican & writer who's only of regional importance ? It's pretty obvious that this user (OK-it's also "guessable" from the number) is a Serbian/pro-Serbian propagandist residing in the Balkans engaged in anti-Croat propaganda warfare. It's as simple as that.

5. but- what if the user's intention is simple improvement of the article ? Then, I guess, his edits would not have been so "unilateral". Now and then, "good" and "bad" info on Tuđman would have appeared in his edits. No such thing. Only concocted half-truths & lies. The user, as seen from his edits, actually doesn't know what Tuđman had written, commanded to his armies or talked to international negotiators. (S)he only "knows" tits-and-bits of claptrap circulating in Greater Serbian paranoid circles.

6. at the end, I would like to address the issue of writing articles that are "composed" mainly of selected "quotes", hearsay and media gutter pieces. Well-this is not the way to compose a page. This is, probably, a way of spreading agenda one would like to be presented as factual truth. Hence, the very way of editing this user is practicing (and similar ones, like Medule etc.) is a kind of distortion. If (s)he wants to contribute truly, then, write something not copy-pasted from Serbian propagandist sites or containing a piece of valuable new info not contained in this page. Hmmm...seeing what I've written above, looks like I'm only joking. Mir Harven 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Do I really need to answer this? Maybe I do, but I kinda don't feel like it. Proving my identity, neutrality and good faith to you? Naah, it's not my cup of tea. If you want to discuss any of my actual edits or proposals (including for the purposes of proving my Croatophobia, gutter-tabloid sensationalism, socialism, Jewish ethnocentrism, Greater Serbianism, Western Balkanophobia and whatever else you have accused me of since we've been communicating - sorry, I don't remember it all), then I will certainly respond, though it will hardly give me any - I repeat any - pleasure at all. --85.187.44.131 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I-and, I'd say the rest of mentally sane editors of this page, are fed up with talking to a number. Frankly-get a name or get lost. Mir Harven 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone else feels convinced by some of Mir Harven's points and would like to hear my comment, please let me know. --85.187.44.131 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To 85.187.44.131: I don't think a comparison with Arafat or even Sharon is justified or appropriate here. I'd say it would be more appropriate to compare Tudjman with David Ben-Gurion who is probably hated and reviled by more people than Tudjman will ever be, yet none of this is mentioned in the article about him. This may not be possible in this article, but I think that one thing should be remembered: Tudjman bashers consistently choose to forget that he was democratically elected to the presidency of a country and that he swore to uphold, among other things, that country's territorial integrity, which was under threat at the time. Had he not acted to uphold it using all means available to him, it would be a neglect of basic duties as president. --Elephantus 11:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I'm not going to dicuss it - no offence meant. As far as I understand, we aren't here to argue about politics and discuss each other's views; we're here to talk about what to do with the article, about what should be included, what may be included and what may not be included, in accordance with wiki guidelines. Our priorites may be motivated by our personal interests, opinions and sympathies, but that's not what counts. What counts is whether our contributions meet certain criteria, such as verifiability, neutrality, etc..

As for Ben Gurion, despite my Jewish ethnocentrism :), I'm not very well acquainted with that issue. Anyway, you're right that wikipedia is inconsistent; the way a wiki article looks is often the result of an accidental "balance of power" rather than of some principle. It's up to the editors to decide in each case which precedent is "better". --85.187.44.131 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we please change this sentence

"Another frequently misused quotation is the claim that "the establishment of Hitler's new European order could be justified by the need both to remove the Jews" (1989, 2 ed., p.149), which in fact describes the hidden agenda of the Hitlerite propaganda machine rather than Tuđman's own opinions."

Another frequently misused quotation is the claim that "the establishment of Hitler's new European order could be justified by the need both to remove the Jews" (1989, 2 ed., p.149), which in fact describes the agenda of the Nazi military machine rather than Tuđman's own opinions.

I think that would be more correct, unless you think that Germany committed all off its crimes by simply publishing propoganda, or if you think there agenda was at all hidden.

No, it's difficult to change it; the article was blocked because of the constant disruptive edit wars, and no consensus has been reached so far, so unblocking it seems like a bad idea to me. I don't think it's an urgent necessity, people do know what Hitler did. Now, the sentence really has a bad wording (I wrote it in haste); it should be something like:

Another frequently misused quotation is the claim that "the establishment of Hitler's new European order could be justified by the need to remove the Jews" (1989, 2 ed., p.149), which in fact describes the Nazi ideology and its hidden motivation rather than Tuđman's own opinions.--85.187.44.131 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone please delete and rewrite this article?

This is a terrible article, and should be rewritten from scratch. Most of it is absurdly biased, and the rest is a lame attempt to reconcile the bias with refutations of the "accusations" and "allegations" of his odious behavior. Currently, there is no mention of his role in the Yugoslav Wars, of his subversion of Croatian democracy through corruption and repression, of his attempts to glorify the Ustashe regime, of his demagogic inflamation of Croatian nationalism to consolidate his power, or of his leadership in the ethnic cleansing of Croatia. This article is a dangerous misrepresentation of him, the country, and the history of the region. I can't find a discussion above about the disputed section of the article, but I don't think there's much to debate. Someone needs to start over. --Msr657 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I second this. Seriously. Same thing goes for the Slobo artical. I doubt that we can ever have a NPOV artical on them, as the two versions of history are so radically different. However, we can have it better organized.

Manipulation of the Media.

Nationalism

The Hero

The Villan

the Controversy...

or something... I really dont know. I recently wrote a reasurch paper on yugoslavia, and I found myself supporting Tudjman at first... but as i did more and more reasurch, things began to unravel, and now I believe Tudjman is the greater Evil.

-- Evil Bob (forgot to log in, sorry)

Dear fellow unregistered users, if you can add any new and sourced facts, do post them here on the talk page for starters. This article is blocked, because it was the constant source of completely insane, robotic edit wars with no discussion at all. I assure you that any attempt to add poorly sourced or unsourced anti-Tudjman material would be instantly reverted by a huge number of Croatian patrollers. Generally, I hope you realize that wiki can only mention opinions, without attempting to determine whether they are right or wrong. You know,WP:NPOV and all that.

Now, the article already mentions most of your allegations in "President of Croatia": "Furthermore, it should be noted that critics, mostly in Serbia but also elsewhere, have blamed Tuđman and his party for having manifested a benevolent attitude and all but formally rehabilitated the Nazi Independent State of Croatia, for alleged harrassment and campaigns against Serbs in the eve of Yugoslav wars and for war crimes, above all for what many consider to have been an ethnic cleansing of the Serb population of Krajina in 1995. Proponents dismiss these allegations as anti-Croat Greater Serbian propaganda.".

Next come the common Croatian nationalist objections to that; these also exist and shouldn't be censured even if that were possible under the current balance of power. If you can add anything concrete and sourced, please say what it is. --85.187.44.131 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

This article has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks, and nobody has edited the talk page in two weeks. Oh for heaven's sake. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I dunno. I strongly urge that someone delete and rewrite it. If I had more free time, I would (and might anyway over the next few months). For now, I'll just say to anyone naively reading this article for information, look elsewhere. --Msr657 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article modifications

Having read the article carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the text, although could (of course) be improved in numerous ways-mainly through quoting various reliable sources- is controversial in at least one manner: Tuđmanophobes (to call them that) insist on inserting the fact of ICTY indictment against Tuđman, which is "muffled" in other prominent Croatian military figures indictments. While the existence of indictment, embedded in other indictments, is undeniably true, this fact, mentioned in a paragraph of the text, has become the bone of contention of pro- and anti-Tuđman "factions" meddling around the article. All I can give is a personal opinion: I do not think that such a prosecutorial endeavour warrants anything more than a mention in the article. "Anti-Tuđmanites" tend to, at least I think so, not to inform the general wiki audience, but to strongly imply, beyond the actual weight of the issue, that Tuđman was "guilty" of ethnic cleansing and similar matters. Phrased thusly, the article in this form does not present the information, but misinformation. As they say, the Devil is in the details. Hence, I agree with Elephantus' position on the matter-the Ben Gurion parallel- and have reverted the text to the previous version I consider more balanced. It is, in my opinion, a bit pro-Tuđman, but only a bit. Contrary to the other faction's interventions. Bardon Dornal 17:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I'm incorporating my edits in both versions is because I am more or less neutral, and I want the edit warriors to revert back to a version that contains my edits. I would appreciate it if you take that into account and don't revert anything I do just because I have done it after Medule. --85.187.44.131 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to disinterment

This attempt at disinterment was fiercely opposed by many, for example by the independent satirical newspaper Feral Tribune and by influential politicans associated with the past regime [citation needed] and their supporters from abroad [citation needed].

"For the time being, I have moved this passage to the talk page and replaced "influential politicans associated with the past regime and their supporters from abroad" with "the left and or non-nationalist part of the political spectrum". If a source proving that some old commies opposed it is provided, then that can be mentioned. If a source proving that all who opposed it, apart from Feral Tribune, were old commies, that can be mentioned, too. Also, it would be nice if someone specified who were the supporters from abroad. --194.145.161.227 11:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (yes, I'm old 85..).

Comments on Mir Harven's objection to Feral Tribune being called independent:

Concerning "Feral Tribune", I think that the international consensus is that it is independent. For example, Human Rights Watch [7] and The Council of Europe [8] call it independent. User:Joy, who defends the Croatian cause in topics related to the Yugoslav wars and is by no means "unpatriotic", has nevertheless written an almost panegyrical article about the newspaper, so I had to tone it down in places. It appears that radical Croatian nationalists (such as Mir Harven; this is not a personal attack) don't like the newspaper (to put it mildly) and see it as part of something like an international Communist conspiracy, but it seems clear that they are in the minority.--194.145.161.227 13:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I've reverted to the last version by user Dornal (sp ?) because:

• user Antonrojo has done a good cleaning job-but, he's thrown out a baby with a bathwater. I agree that some passages are superfluous, but "purist" interventions that seek to eliminate adjectives like "tremenduous" & to stick to factography (a reduced one, for that matter) only, miss the point-if applied consistently. Allegations against Tuđman, as well as various babbles, need to be addressed and explained- following the policy of undue weight. Antonrojo's edits have left us only bones, with no meat on them.

• other edits differ, so I wouldn't address any particular one. So, although "back to facts" policy is a healthy one, it cannot be implemented by chopping a 30% of the article-and not some insignificant blabber, for that matter, but a thorough discussion of debatable points. Therefore I've reverted the page. Mir Harven 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franjo Tudjman a Great Man

This man was a true patriot and was the only man in the end to regain croatia indepedance. But there's one thing i dont understand why isin't he praised more then Ante pavelic, after all he has acheived more for Croatia then any other Croat since Croatian king Tommislav. Being a Croat myself i have not seen enough praise from Croat's towards the great Franjo Tudjman, I think i have heard more praise for Ante pavelic then for Tudjman and i have never understood that. Another thing i feel is that alot of Franjo Tudjman colleages that were with him back then have betrayed him, Im talking about Stipe Mesic and Ivo Sandar who have talked against him and have been calling him a murderour. My opion of these two that they are trataiors and should be charged for treason or better yet to be shot and never be heard of agian. --Marbus2 5 11:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a croat, Tuđman was an animal. He didn't love Croatia, the country was nothing more than a twisted obsession to him. Compare the situation in Slovenia to Croatia: Slovenia is in the EU and the average wage there is twice that in Croata. Slovenia is so much better off because it didn't have Tuđman.

I think the comparison is unfounded - Slovenia didn't have a Serb minority that with the aid of the JNA (by that time it had become a Serbian army in terms of makeup and goals) tried to amputate and ethnically cleanse parts of the country. How many Vukovars, Dubrovniks, Karlovacs & Zadars in Slovenia - in short Slovenia had a brief war and did not have with the social, economic and political consequences of a devastating war. iruka 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who ever wrote the above is exactly what im talking about, your a stupid Yugoslav who should go and shoot himself for the uncroatian fuck you are. --Marbus2 5 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your use of such oppressive words make you less and less credible each time you speak. Just think about what's right for all people, not just yourself and maybe you'll discover the truth. Don't lie to yourself.

Tudjman is Milosevic is Pavelic is Karadzic. If the lot of them were tied up and thrown in the river together, the region would be much better off for it.

Tudjman was a nothing as a bad dictator wannabe. If he could, but he wanted to, he would let police and dogs on the union protests in late 90s. There was the bigest post-communist protest in Zagreb, after he tried to bann radiostation Radio 101. He also didnt wanted opositional major of Zagreb so he dissmissed him. Croatian democracy wasn't born in 1990, but the day he finaly dropped dead. Yes, you can call this oppinion "yougoslavic", but that says more about you than me. There is nothing yugoslavit than being a anti-fashist pro-croatian democrat....Yugoslavia was nothing about that, but Tudjman regime wasn't too.--Marko Jurcic 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Reference

Removed

His brand of nationalism included restoring the flags and other symbols used by the old fascist Ustasha regime that had fought alongside the Nazis during World War II.[9]

This is blatantly wrong. The symbols used pre-date WW2, some by several hundred years and are different to the ones used by the Ustashi in WW2. croatian_quoll 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy in Tudjmans Family

Someone should state in the Article, that there was a Tragedy in Tudjmans Family, which was a important Part of his Life. Franjo Tudjmans Father killed his Wife and then himself in 1946. It surely had a bad affect on him, maybe this Incidence made him the Warlord he became in the Early 90s.

And someone should add that one of his first Acts of Nationalism was the restoring of the Flag and Hymn Croatia used in World War II, while being a Fascist-Puppet State under Nazi Control, killing hundrets of thounsands Serbs, Jews, Gipsies and other Minorities in Concentration Camps.

[edit] The President

Replaced blamed to accused w.r.t the notion of benevalent attitude to NDH b/c it is an accusation - there are no facts to support this but opinions of political opponents.

Replaced equally rampant with brand w.r.t Croat nationalism. The exercise of equivalence is a subjective one @ best and not supported by facts. iruka 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The book is irrelevant

The book Franjo wrote is irrelevant concerning his life. Now and today, for Croats and Serbs we have to see what is the exact number of dead people in Jasenovac. Before doing so it is useless to comment anything. We had a war here and I did not see such dynamic analysis of other wars involving USA, GB, France, USSR, and other untouchable countries because they all make crimes which can be sought on TV and they do not have trails for it and nobody calls their presidents or former president to any court. I think it is naturally that some bad things could happen during the war, and it happens in all countries affected with war, and after war end comes another president which is better, then the better one comes... Not to be interpreted wrongly, I'm not saying it's acceptable, (it's wrong but exists).

When country is under attack sure that media is under control, sure that criminal comes with guns... The worst is with people who lost somebody, then with injured ones. So the story about Franjo should be very short for now. He was born. He was president. Facts not tots. And future will write about him!!!

[edit] Subjektive

This article is subjektive and gives a "answer" of pro-tudjman orientation on every critisicm. Tudjman commited agression on Bosnia and genocide on Bosniaks, his stenograms proves this and he is mentiond in the Haag in trials against his ministars as part of a "criminal enterprise". Stop glorifying him the Croation people should throw away his criminal legacy it was the croatian soldiers who made Croatia independent Tudjman was betraying Vukovar and sending arms and soldiers to another countrys teritory to fight against it.Dr. Thug 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

It’s worded very poetically and I’m sure is historically accurate but it’s not very grammatically correct.--J intela 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context

Well, there was a fascist, collaborationist state in the 1940s comprised of present day Croatia. Tudjman was born in 1922, therfore an adult in 1940. So add a rubrik with more info about him in that period. For that period, there are far too many accounts that are like placques in Viennese hotels telling that: Mark Twain slept here in 1902, and the President of the Ohio State Bank in 1932, and , oh well, dot...dot...dot... in 1946. George Marshall slept here. What about the dot... dot... dot... ????