Jump to content

Talk:Ante Starčević/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ante Starčević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim from 2010

I do not see justification for this tag

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It's here for seven years, never explained nor discussed.--Taribuk (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ante Starčević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

The sentence "His orthography was adopted by the Ustaše regime in Independent State of Croatia." requires a reference to a reliable source.

The reason for this is that the sentence sounds wrong for these reasons: 1 Starčević used the "ekavian" dialect in his writing, whereas the so called "korijenski pravopis" orthography used by the Ustaše regime used a different dialect - "jekavian". 2 The official orthography endorsed by the Ustaše government was written in 1942 - almost 50 years after Starčević's death. The relevant book is called "Koriensko pisanje" written by Adolf Bratoljub Klaić - refer to the list of Croatian language orthography books at http://hr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Popis_hrvatskih_pravopisa 3 Starčević himself did not write any orthography books. 175.38.17.158 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added the {{fact}} tag to that sentence. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello

There is second sentence in the text " His works are considered to have laid the foundations for Croatian nationalism and he is referred to as "Father of the Homeland" by some Croats."

Iam a Croat, so he is referred as a Father of the Homeland, for all Croats, not "by some Croats." His face is on 1000 kunas bill. ?

l wish to say, that l love wikipedia,and truth will win. Pax ominam (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for you input, as they say - Like father, like son. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

March 2021

@Sadko: @Tezwoo: @Griboski:

To avoid edit wars, I'd like to start a discussion about recent edits that have been made. Griboski seems to have added more sources to the article while Tezwoo without no prior consensus decided to remove huge amounts of text because by him "Tomasevich, Goldstein, and Ramet are by far the greatest authority for these topics". Sadko proceeded to revert Tezwoo's edit because this wasn't previously discussed and because it should not be removed without no prior consensus. Tezwoo then proceeded to revert Sadko's edit. I don't want an edit war to erupt again because an editor decided to remove a bunch of text of which they didn't like. Before someone goes and reverts Tezwoo's edit again, let's discuss this first, why shouldn't the text that Tezwoo removed be a part of the article? Vacant0 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For starters this seems like random massive removal of sourced content. I can not see that is an improvement to the article. The mentioned tags have in fact been added a month ago by the editor who removed the very same sourced content recently. Thanks for starting this debate Vacant0. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)
Whoever wrote most of the section did a terrible job because they did not include any pages or links to their citations, making the text that they added unverifiable. If text can't be verified then it can be challenged and removed, so I don't necessarily disagree with the removal except it was done after tags were only added recently.
However, the idea that we can only cite particular historians on this subject is nonsense. MacDonald for instance, does a good brief analysis of Starčević. I also don't see why his statements on Serbs were censored as well as the fact that some scholars view him as anti-Serb because of them (even if Tomasevich disputes it). We can easily compare and contrast. So I added that back.
The consensus seems to be that the Ustaše distorted his views. But Starčević also slipped into anti-Serb rhetoric, denied the existence of Serbs, deeming them as Croats and wanted to assimilate them. He has been cited as the "father of racism" in Croatia. Thus he gave plenty of fodder for subsequent generations of more extremist racists. --Griboski (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree on this completely. The article is still mostly uncited (mostly in the first half of the text) and someone should work on adding more references, and not removing them. Thank you @Griboski: for adding back sourced content. Vacant0 (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Tomasevich, Ramet, and Goldstein are the biggest authority in this topic area and they have a positive take on Starčević. Ramet wrote more about Starčević in Ante Starčević : Liberal Champion of a "Citizen' s State" in Nations and Nationalisms in East-Central Europe, 1806-1948, and it is a positive assessment too. We can't counterbalance them by giving highly undue weight on some random authors no one ever heard of, and with McDonald (who always seems to have a special opinion corroborated by no one else). And even McDonald is misquoted here because this sentence: "Bruce MacDonald argues that Starčević's ideas could only justify ethnocide but not genocide because he intended to assimilate Serbs into "good Orthodox Croats", and not exterminate them." is highly misleading. On page 87 he simply gives his take on claims by some Serbian authors that Starčević's theories were genocidal, says why they were not genocidal, and what could in some way (a possible interpretation) be connected to those theories.
Also, Starčević didn't call Serbs an "unclean race", but "Slavoserbs" [1], which, as confirmed by Tomasevich, didn't relate to Serbs as a nation, but to persons he viewed as servants to foreigners (which he applied to some Croats as well as some Serbs). So that is also incorrect.
A very similar topic is the article about Vuk Karadžić, who had similar ideas in regards to who belongs to the Serbian nation, and the article has an overwhelmingly positive outlook about him. These ideas were nothing strange in the 19th century. Tezwoo (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
"Unclean race" is a direct quote and corroborated by other sources. You can't tag sentences and passages because you don't like the conclusions they make or because they aren't from scholars you personally think are great. Obviously there is controversy regarding some of Starčević's views and the fact that extremists and fascists claimed allegiance to them is not by mere accident. Macdonald's view is due because he tackles some of the claims and gives his assessment on Starčević. We shouldn't be glossing over this or omitting information. --Griboski (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not a direct quote. Direct quotes are provided by Mirjana Gross. Regarding the "unclean blood", she writes: "Pojam » nečisti ljudi « ili » nečista kerv « također se vezuje uz hrvatski gospodujući odnosno » slavoserbski « sužanjski duh ". (Gross 1973, p. 205) She is also cited by Gordana Uzelac in The Development of the Croatian Nation: An Historical and Sociological Analysis on page 103: "he labeled as an ' unclean breed ' all of those who were Croats by origin , but ' foreigners ' by spirit."
And the content you added about Macdonald is misleading. First, it's a side note he made and not the main point he was trying to make regarding Starčević. Second, he did not say "Starčević's ideas could only justify ethnocide". And talking about Macdonald, look at this quote of his on page 108, which, I'm sure, you'll agree is an important information which should not be ommited on Wikipedia:
  • "Equally famous was Vuk Karadzić' s 'Serbs All and Everywhere' (1849), which used a linguistic definition of nationalism (similar to that of Starčević), to posit that Croats and Slovenians were in fact Serbs, who all spoke the same Serbian language. This, as well, was seen to be a justification for the assimilation of non-Serbian nations – particularly the Croats. One historian went to far as to suggest that Karadzić' s policies were little different from those of the Nazis, fifty years before Hitler's birth" Tezwoo (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
For deeming Serbs as an "unclean race", in addition to Carmichael, there's Veljko Vujačić, Adriano & Cingolani, Udovicki, Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: An Encyclopedia (p.105) and others which state this. The claim regarding Karadzić from the Macdonald passage you cite is attributed to a Croatian (likely nationalist) historian from the 90s. The difference in the two is while both have been cited as nationalists and assimilationists, only Starčević's ideas as far as I know have been used to justify genocide (by the Frankists and Ustaše). So, the purpose of adding the Macdonald passage was to point out that despite what are seen as controversial and anti-Serb views, he was an assimilationist and inclusivist (not genocidal) which goes to the point of the other authors you added to the section, that the Ustaše misrepresented his views. A solution could be to copy-edit the passage so as to simply reflect Starčević's positions, minus the commentary about ethnocide/genocide. --Griboski (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
According to Ivo Banac [2], "unclean race" was applied to the term "Serb" (not Serbs as a nation, whom he viewed as Croats):
"As for the Serbs, the term could be applied only to an “unclean race” of various origins, dating to ancient times, which was bound together only by its servile nature; Aristotle had noticed this makeshift people in Thrace. The name derived from the Latin servus (servant) and was resurrected by Russian and Orthodox propaganda to divide the Croats by religion at the time of Peter the Great's first efforts to penetrate the Balkans."
This is in line with Tomasevich 2001, p. 347: "Starčević's anti-Slavoserbianism did not refer to the Serbs as a nation (whom he actually considered as Croats), but to politically servile groups and individuals."
The Ustaše were a marginal group before the war that claimed legacy from everyone in Croatian history. Every radical group claimed legacy from the past, whether it's Starčević, Karadžić, or Marx, and presented them in a way that fits their narratives. Macdonald even makes a good conclusion on page 108: "Both sides ignored the real similarities of Starčević's and Karadzić's national programmes, which were both bent on uniting the South Slavs against colonial oppression." This is the main point from his chapter, and not "ethnocide". Tezwoo (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ante_Starčević/Archive_3&oldid=1112750589"