Talk:Zlatko Hasanbegović

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPoV

I am opening this to politely discuss criticism on Mr. Hasanbegović. Current version of page (at least before I made a couple of corrections) is leaning torwards views supported by certain political groups and citizen organizations, with usage of unreliable sources, such as Index.hr article descibing human rights organization Croatian Helsinki Committee as "ultra-nationalist" and similar. More opinions and (reliable) sources for both support and criticism of Mr. Hasanbegović would be welcome. HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is far from neutral. The case regarding his writing for the Independent State of Croatia magazine is not yet resolved, and secondly, we don't need to add literally everyone who expressed his support or opposition to the new minister. The only thing that I would keep from the edits since the 00:21, 9 February 2016‎ revision is the Simon Wiesenthal Center comments.Tzowu (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is No1 portal in Croatia unrelable source?[1] Is T-portal good enough for you? IN NETWORK OF IDEOLOGY: How HHO turned for 180 degrees. More articles about affairs and nationalistic outbursts of HHO leaders--DobarSkroz (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not return an article on the biased condition with false information. He was in HOP, he was lying, HND is against him not for as it was written before. And case about writhing for NDH is resolved.[2]--DobarSkroz (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tzowu, I agree with you 100%. DobarSkroz, by your name I can guess you understand Croatian language, so, please tell me, can an article with a title like "Hrvatski helsinški odbor, privatna prčija ultra nacionalista" ("Croatian Helsinki comitee, ultra-nationalist's private "place for f..king") be neutral? Plus, the article was originaly published by "kontraportal.com", which also has super-neutral and sophisticated pseudo-satirical article with the title "Kako je mali Hasan postao najveći seronja?" ("How the little Hasan became the biggest asshole?", http://kontraportal.com/kako-je-mali-hasan-postao-najveci-seronja-2/). "Little Hasan" is, of course, author's (almost islamophobic) nickname for minister Hasabegović. Plus, the same portal also calls the whole government to be "Ustašas" in another pseudo-satirical article (http://kontraportal.com/bozo-petrov-pao-je-u-tesku-depresiju-svi-u-vladi-ustase-jedino-petrov-sjedi-besposlen/). On HHO: they are human rights organization, like it or not. THe fact that some of the members are conservative or pro-nationalist oriented doesn't matter (and it even shows that it is an organization that includes members of various political orientations, thus being far more tolerant than some others). Afte all, since when do liberals have monopoly on human rights? HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, a huge number of historians, mostly unversity professors, support him: http://narod.hr/hrvatska/procitajte-pismo-potpore-ministru-hasanbegovicu-i-tko-je-sve-potpisao (I know narod.hr is not a neutral source, although not as extreme as kontraportal.com, but I am using it only to show the list of names, not the opinion of an author of the article).HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are human rights organization an exception to being nationalistic or radical? And if narod.hr is not neutral how can we consider it reliable and trust what they're saying? And by the way, prčija is prćija, a dowry [3] derived from prtiti [4]. Nothing profane about it, it's only a proof that you don't know your language well. --109.121.37.159 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They (human rights organisations) are not an exception and I never wrote that, I was saying that human rights are not a monopoly of "liberals". Plus, calling HHO to be radical is a sign of very radical anti-HHO sentiment by that person. Few members of HHO are moderate nationalists, but hardly any of them is neo-Ustaša or something similar.

On narod.hr: I agree, we can't consider THEM neutral, I was only using them to show you the list, since they published it with all the names (a document was signed by many people and it was also mentioned in other media, but without full list of people, so I used this site). I am not using the opinion of their editors and journalist as a source (and I will certainly not be doing it).

On "prčija": "prĆija" is a "dowry" (and not only that, but I don't want to go in details, since you wouldn't understand them anyway as the word has regional variations), "prČija" is literarly "place for sexual relations", and it comes from "prčiti" (I guess you know what you mean, but I will say that in some regions people use "prkno" for "ass", and "prčiti" is verb which will literarly mean "to sodomize"). I know it is hard for people in some regions of Croatia to understand difference between "Č" and "Ć" (and I don't mean it in offensive way, it's just a matter of local speech), but you should at least not be arrogant and understand your obvious limitations when talking about (our) language. And, if you are so educated in our language: please explain me how is HHO an "ultra-nationalist dowry". Of course, I know you can't, since you are writing nonsense that is not related to the article and I don't know why am I even answering.HeadlessMaster (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: the problem with the article is excessive, point-by-point polemic tone, which is usually a hallmark of POV writing. Needs to be condensed and toned down. E.g. it is not OK to start the "Career" section with a controversial episode which is not really a part of his career - which, of course, does not mean it's not OK to mention it elsewhere, in appropriate context. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can put his HOP carrier in special section like "HOP controversy". "Mali Hasan" is minister nickname from times of his career as football hooligan. I gave other references about HHO, not just this one. And I can give you more. [5] [6] You also must know that Internation Helsinki Federation for Human Rights Forced to Close Down. IHF was forced to file for bankruptcy and consequently close down due to a massive fraud committed by its former financial manager. And Croatian HHO expelled most of they old members and all that are left are far right. Dont read just headlines. Still there is still more job on this articel. There were two more protests agaist Hasanbegović which are not mentioned, an many more of reactions on his new controversial articles about SS brigades, Jasenovac and more. But I see that even smal amout of criticisim is problematic for some.--DobarSkroz (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HOP controversy (although HOP is a legal party in Croatia, so I can't see why it is THAT controversial, aside from the minister's denial of being a member, since telling a lie is almost always wrong). And inciminating two of the HHO members with some very dubious articles (which themselves don't prove that either of them is "ultranationalist") is simply laughable, and I will leave other editors to discuss it if they have nerves for it. HeadlessMaster (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is controversal becaouse he is denying it, and there are articles and pictures which are telling different. OK, we don't need any explanation for HHO in this article, I will transfer these referencese on their article.--DobarSkroz (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree on that :) As for HHO, there is already a criticism section on their page, so feel free to make it better (just use reliable sources an neutral wording and it will be fine). HeadlessMaster (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we definitely should not go into merits of HHO as an organization in Hasanbegović's article.

HOP was founded by Ante Pavelić, so at least that is a legitimate reason for controversy (e.g. imagine a current existence of a Hitler-founded political party in Germany).

There's more stuff, of course - what is missing is e.g. the interview on Đozo in Oslobođenje.[7] Still, one should be wary of WP:RECENT - I feel it's better to leave most of the tangential stuff out (at least for the time being) than throw every little bit of controversy in. GregorB (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another post I agree with. Although we can have a little black humour with the fact that Pavelić founded HOP should be hardly controversial in Croatia (as much as I opose his ideas), since in 2000 and 2011 we elected a government led by a party which is legal successor to "League of Communists", whose longest-serving leader was equaly bad criminal :) But I agree, membership in any party which is legal successor to fascist-aligned movements is, or at least should be, very controversial. HeadlessMaster (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pro et contra sides should just be mentioned briefly, not stating everything they said. A part of the HND journalists did say they supported him, which is sourced in the article ("Corps of Internet Journalists backs culture minister's decision"). The part of the article dealing with those that expressed their support for him could be as long, if not longer than the opposing side, for example the Islamic Community of Zagreb and Croatia said yesterday that they are backing the minister and called the attacks islamophobic. Tzowu (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corps of Internet Journalists HND-a does not exist--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Community in Croatia said today that personal opinon of hafiz Aziz ef. Alilija does not represent official opinon of community. "When it comes to his current status in the media and political space, that is a result of his ideological orientation". So, thay dont think that "attacks" are islamophobic.--DobarSkroz (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"formally doesn't exist", but nonetheless a part of the HND journalists supported Hasanbegović and there is currently a rift in the HND. OK, its some members of the Islamic community, not the official stance of the community, but also it was some members of the Jewish community, i.e. one (Sanja Zoričić Tabaković). I also left out these little-known organizations like the GOLJP or the Antifascist League, I'm sure they participated in that protest and that they are among those 60 NGOs mentioned. Tzowu (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rift. 10 out of 3000 members are for Hasanbegovic, or 0,33% of members. Antifa League is not part of Plaforma 112, so I will put it back. Antifascist League is not little-known, it bigger then HHO. And they are not "some members" of Jewis community but representativs of: "Židovska općina" and "Židovska vjerska zajednica Bet Israel"--DobarSkroz (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And 2990 members all said they are against Hasanbegović? Antifascist League is a marginal, little-known organization. The same thing applies to Platform 112, 99% of people didn't know that it even existed before they staged a protest. HHO, on the other hand, is well known, as well as the Matica Hrvatska, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the HND. The source says one member of the Jewish minority. Tzowu (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By replacing "The Croatian Journalists' Association issued a statement in which they strongly opposed the nomination of Hasanbegovic as Minister of Culture." instead of "The Croatian Journalists' Association issued a statement late on Thursday saying that it was appalled by the nomination of Hasanbegovic as Minister of Culture in the new government. They say that he was put in charge of 'disciplining' politically unsuitable journalists, and is outraged at the fact that such a person could have been proposed as a minister." you are dismissing valuable information, an important perspective on minister storming the unsuitable journalists. That's not shortening, that's hiding i.e. censorship. Besides there's not a word about accusation against Hasanbegovic being unfounded on the link presented. The article's title is "Corps of Internet Journalists backs culture minister's decision" not "Corps of Internet Journalists backs culture minister". This Corps of Internet Journalists did no such thing as supporting this minister, only did they back one of his decisions. Additionally they insisted on "appoint[ing] truly independent experts to the Commission members and not based on ideology as has been the case" and "members of state bodies [not] deciding what and how [(unemployed) journalists] would report, as has been the case". This attempt by user:Tzowu to somehow legitimize support for Hasanbegovic is very dishonest and outright sneaky. --172.93.122.64 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which journalists were "disciplined" or "stormed" by the new minister? That is not a fact, so it's reasonable to shorten their long statement to "the HND is strongly opposed to the new minister". This is a Wikipedia page about the Croatian Minister of Culture, what would the pages of other ministers look like if every press release from every organization was added to the article body? And btw, the minister can't remove or appoint journalists anywhere so that doesn't even make sense. If by that they were referring to the government funding of some media, then I must say that no newspaper should receive taxpayers money and that is not "disciplining" journalists, just common sense. You also said that the Corps of Internet Journalists "just supported one decision", but the minister only had that one decision and that one came under fire from the HND. They issued a statement where they condemned the "attempt of ideological and political alignment of the HND". We can add all of that and make the article the longest one in the scope of Wiki Project Croatia, or we can only point out some of the key participants in the debates. An acceptable option could also be to just add that the opposition led by SDP (Croatia is Growing Coalition) asked for his resignation, and the government led by HDZ (Patriotic Coalition) and Most expressed their support for him. Tzowu (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on not making this article a listing of supporters and detractors. The controversy should be summarized, not described into every detail. Also, let's not include SDP's calls for resignation - they're the opposition, of course they'll be calling for resignation no matter what, that's a nobrainer. The same goes for HDZ's support. GregorB (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I just mentioned it as an option that is better than adding dozens of mostly unknown supporters on one side and the opposition on the other. Tzowu (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromise. 172.93.122.64 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"grandfather did something"

I noticed that the grandfather claims are actually discussed in the media at length and by the person in question, but regardless, this whole angle still doesn't make sense for the encyclopedia, it's usually a signature of hit pieces. If that grandfather was really a notable person, can someone write a standalone article about him, so that this article doesn't have a coat-racking issue? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong, his grandfather did nothing wrong. The story of his grandfather - hiding a little Jewish girl during WWII and then being executed as a wealthy merchant during the communist power takeover - has only one point: to whitewash and explain Z. Hasanbegović's admiration for Ustaše and Pavelić in the 1990s, as well as his later affiliation with Jasenovac holocaust deniers and fascist groups. --Bojovnik (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the section heading to more clearly summarize the issue. --Joy (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaša cap

Why is user TzoWu removing the entire paragraph about the scandal with his wearing an Ustaša cap and replacing it with merely his rebuttal, thus presenting just one side, without a discussion? --Bojovnik (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the paragraph is too long and it was a HOS cap, not an Ustaše cap. It deserves merely a sentence at most. Though, the HOS leadership was back then very pro-NDH minded, but there's already enough written about what Hasanbegović did when he was young. For example, Ivica Đikić, the main editor of Novosti that revealed all these details, wrote in his youth that Max Luburić was a great leader. Tzowu (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what other people did is not the concern of this article. Second of all, he wasn't awfully young - he was 23 at the time. When I was 23, I got married and enlisted in Croatian Army, I didn't write odes to fascists in obscure magazines and sport ustaša caps wearing lacoste shirts. If you read the sources and take a look at the photos, you can clearly see the cap is identical to the caps of WWII ustaša uniforms. It is black, wide, almost completely round, pointed at the top, with an ustaša badge on the front. Take a look at the photogallery in the sources and you will see photos of Jure Francetić wearing one during WWII, and then Croat Defence Forces officer Marko Skejo wearing his ustaša cap in 1995, holding a speech in which he called himself and all of Split CDF unit ustašas, and then, finally, compare it to the cap Hasanbegović wore. The caps they usually wore were normal black berets, not those pot-looking ustaša caps. Furthermore, if we don't need to talk much about what he did in his youth, we can also erase his Ph.D., his grandfather's ancient history etc. This is cherrypicking. You are in favour of putting a sob story of his grandfather here as long as it is in his favour, but God forbid we mention he admired ustašas and wore their caps, at the tender age of 23. Bojovnik (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Đikić is the one who revealed this Ustaše admiration past controversy, so it's perfectly normal to make comparisons. Even you made one, writing about yourself in your 20s. After all, Hasanbegović is not the first one that had pro-NDH writings or speeches in his past, at least two ministers (in a centre-left government) and one former president did the same. The only reason Hasanbegović got so much attacks is because he is cutting state funding to formerly privileged media and organizations. About the cap, he was 19 when that picture was taken (it was in 1993). The entire Croatian Defence Forces leadership was sympathetic to the Ustaše. Everything they wore was similar to what the Ustaše wore, from uniforms to caps. From the picture we can't tell which one is it. For example, this cap has a different sign from the one Skejo is wearing on your link. It may have also been an Ustaše sign. Even if it's not, Hasanbegović obviously had positive about the Ustaša movement. So it's totaly irrelevant which cap was it when there's already content about his writings in the NDH newspaper. Tzowu (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV

"grandfather did something"

Ustaša cap

Categories