Talk:Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia

Operational Aircraft

I have added a table listing the operational aircraft of the Croatian Air Force, together with some references.Oz Cro (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Operational Detail.

I have added some new sections to the Article dealing with some referenced detail of the aircraft and operations of the ZNDH.Oz Cro (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Images

I have added some aircraft images. Would like to find some in ZNDH livery. Oz Cro (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

I reassessed this article as mid importance. This has nothing to do with the article quality, which is assessed on a separate scale (B class, at the moment). High importance for this article is simply not warranted: it is not more important than, say, Croatian Home Guard (mid importance), and its importance is far below Independent State of Croatia itself (high importance). GregorB (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ZNDH "Generals"

I have removed the paragraph refering to four ZNDH "Generals" as there seems to be some problem with its authenticity. I have linked Vladimir Kren and will await an outcome regarding the accuracy of the paragraph's information.Oz Cro (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Croatia and NDH

I have made several edits on this article regarding the use of the words Croatia and Croatian. The NDH was far larger than modern Croatia and the use of the term Croatia in this context is POV and potentially confusing to the reader. The NDH is a unique period in the history of the Croatian people and it should be clear in all articles relating to the NDH that we are not talking about Croatia, but the Axis puppet state. I have made a number of edits to this article on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst not questioning your motives, I cannot agree that "the use of the term Croatia in this context is POV". This is because most of the alterations in your copyedit have been made to quotations from published sources cited in the article's bibliography. Almost 100% of the text comes from a, referenced, English language source. I am happy to be guided on the Wiki policy for altering quotes from referenced text.Oz Cro (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely and support the fix. I will also add, in addition to the above, that from 1943 onward the Federal State of Croatia (headed by Vladimir Nazor and the ZAVNOH) was also in existence, hence using simply the term "Croatia" can be even more confusing to the reader. The modern Croatian state is entirely unrelated to the NDH, and makes a point in the constitution of making clear it is the successor of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (i.e. the Federal State of Croatia). -- Director (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OzCro, my motive is accuracy. If the aircraft are flying over the NDH, that is what they are flying over, not Croatia. Assuming the text of the article does not break WP rules about plagiarisation, if they are quotes, put them in quotation marks and provide inline citations. I am challenging the accuracy of the use of the terms Croatian and Croatian in this context. I have boldly copy edited them out, feel free to convert them to quotes where appropriate and provide inline citations for facts, assuming the source is not POV itself. I have yet to see a copy of it, and do not know its provenance. Some of the text sounds a little triumphal ('wow, look what these guys did with second hand aircraft'), but I'm open minded about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, how about a little good faith. Even the most cursory glance will show that the article has been properly referenced from a variety of NPOV published sources and includes the proper citations. The editors have endeavoured to make this the least POV of Balkan articles. Solid research for the benefit of the curious or the interested, not just tinkering around the edges.Oz Cro (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

The lede states that the Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Drzave Hrvatske ("Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia") was renamed into "Croatian Battle Air Force". "Croatian Battle Air Force" is a relatively bad translation of "Hrvatsko bojno zrakoplovstvo".

• "Hrvatsko" means "Croatian"
• "Zrakoplovstvo" means "aviation"
• "Bojno" is an adjective, and its tricky to translate. The most literal translation would be "battle". If we wanted to convey the meaning of the adjective "bojno" more accurately, we would use the adjective "combat"; and if we took into consideration the context the word "bojno" is in, in this specific case, then the adjective "military" may work as well: "Croatian Military Aviation", perhaps best conveys the meaning.

So if we wanted to translate completely literally, "Hrvatsko bojno zrakoplovstvo" would be "Croatian Battle Aviation". If we wanted to convey the meaning of the middle word most accurately, we would use "Croatian Combat Aviation" or "Croatian Military Aviation". However, "Battle Aviation" or "Military Aviation" is equivalent to "Air Force" in English. "Croatian Air Force" is probably the best translation of "Hrvatsko bojno zrakoplovstvo". And since that is the last name this military organization used, and for the greater period of time - we should move this article to Croatian Air Force (NDH) -- Director (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The former lead paragraph had the phrase "in 1943 it was renamed into "Croatian Battle Air Force" inserted by an editor without citation. I have been unable to find any reference to this re-name in any of the English language publications and references on the subject. Indeed the Croatian Air Force (Independent State of Croatia) was referred to as the Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Drzave Hrvatske, or just ZNDH, until May 1945. I am inclined to remove the phrase "Hrvatsko bojno zrakoplovstvo), originally the" from the current lead paragraph to accurately reflect this.Oz Cro (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The hrWiki article also states "Hrvatsko bojno zrakoplovstvo" was the name from February 1943. It would be consistent with the nomenclature of NDH military organizations. However, if that is not the case, the article should definitely be moved back. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider we should be consistent across all related articles, and move it to Croatian Air Force (Independent State of Croatia), not (NDH), as NDH is not asclear a Disambiguation as the full name.Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. -- Director (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

This article goes against MoS with its usage of images.

• Image captions should not be used to convey information, but should only briefly describe what is depicted in the file.
• Images should be directly related to the subject matter. I see a lot of images depicting planes that were not flown by the Ustaše air force (the models were flown, but not the aircraft in the image).

I feel like deleting all of them, but I suppose the text from their captions should be integrated into the article first. -- Director (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There are links to the articles on most if not all of the aircraft flown by the NDH Air Force. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment regarding images. It perfectly complies with MoS. Don't just tinker, try and actually contribute to the article.Oz Cro (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to make new section, just to add this - official language of the Air Force, and country of this air force was Croatian. Also, more then 90% of the populaton of present-day Croatia speaks Croatian, and more then 90% of the population of B-H speaks Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian. Speaksers of SC are very low. Adding SC language is highly disputed. Keep that in mind. --Wustenfuchs 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

isn't this just POV revisionism? We are talking about the NDH and its whole population, including the large numbers of Bosnian Muslims and Serbs living in Bosnia, Herzegovina and parts of modern-day Serbia here. This is in the 40's, not now. My understanding is that the language was referred to as Serbo-Croat or Croato-Serb at the time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wustenfuchs, while most people in ex-Yugoslavia do state their language as "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian", or "Montenegrin", etc. the scientific community at large does not regard the wartime split in the early '90s as significant and refers to the above four as different official standards of the same language. This pluricentric language, the language we speak, is sometimes referred to as Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian or BCS, but its most common name in sources is Serbo-Croatian. To put it bluntly, the international scientific community could not possibly care less whether Balkans politicians, linguists, or even people in general, proclaim separate languages or not. Linguistics is a science. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oz Cro, I know you invested a lot of effort in those images but imo you should have checked with the manual of style first. Please be aware:

• WP:PERTINENCE: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic."

Images of various plane models, such as a Bf-109 in Ohio, just because members of the Ustase air force flew those models somehwere 60 years ago - are not good examples of WP:PERTINENT images directly related to the article's subject. The Bf-109 model aircraft, in and of itself, has nothing to do with this air force. Not only that, but the images have displaced the main text in covering a lot of info - which is also very much against the recommendations of MoS. -- Director (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DIREKTOR, but don't worry about the effort involved. Rest assured that WP:PERTINENT was consulted and the images constructed to be those most significantly relevant to the article. This was to illustrate the uniqely eclectic nature of the aircraft of a little-known air force, as was presented in the text of the article.Oz Cro (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please discuss on a policy-relevant basis. Simply saying they are "most significantly relevant" does not make them so. They are not directly related to the article's topic, and have nothing to do with this military organization. You will not find any military organization article on Wikipedia that depicts various pieces of military hardware simply because the same models were used by that military organization. Kindly make sure that the images in this article actually depict the Croatian Air Force. The massive captions violate MoS in more than one way. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The images are significantly related to the article using the style manual's own criteria. This article has been rated by WikiProject MILITARY HISTORY as meeting it's relevant criteria. The subject-matter is one that is both unique and rare and the style manual makes allowances for this, as should we all.Oz Cro (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Agree to disagree"? What does that mean? You'll edit-war over this until you have your way in spite of MoS, user consensus, and Wikipedia conventions? A classic case of WP:OWN.

It means that we have differing, but equally valid viewpoints. Although your lack of respect for fellow editors is breathtaking (I myself have nothing but the greatest respect for your editing efforts in the "quagmire" of Balkan articles and articles generally. Where I come from it is perfectly normal to approach a conclusion from opposite ends and meet, in compromise, somewhere in the middle.Oz Cro (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As for Wikiproject MilHist, I'd wager people just assumed the images were of NDH air force planes - because that's what you expect given that no other air force or military organization article on this project includes pics of various individual pieces of military hardware just because similar ones were used. I recall you tried to clog the Yugoslav Front article itself with these unrelated essay-images. Perhaps we should post an RfC over at MilHist and discuss MoS there (again)?-- Director (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mate, stop playing the man again. Why do you assume that everyone is acting in bad faith and that there are no other valid opinions besides your own? Your unilateral singlemindedness in deleting most of the images in the article after not contributing to the article's research is almost Orwellian in its attempt to stifle any counter-argument. Well, we've moved beyond 1984 and in a spirit of compromise, I am happy to remove many of the images and their captions after they are (in your words) "integrated into the article first". With the relevant references/citations. 48 hours or so should do the trick.Oz Cro (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You got it all wrong dude, I'm a rebel :), that's why I come-on so strong. Oz Cro, I'm not here on an evil agenda, I'm just trying to briefly "go over" the several problems this article has with Peacemaker - to make it better. Believe it or not an article that's more in-line with MoS is more likely to be recognized in various ways. You basically wrote this article and you did an excellent job, I just think it will be a further improvement not to include images that don't actually depict the Croatian Air Force in some way.

That's more like the real you. Let's clink a "virtual" glass of pivo and get on with improving this (and other) articles. As I mentioned, I'll dig out my references and integrate the captions into the text.Oz Cro (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Živia, Oz Cro. :) You're probably right, we could use a break and the status quo version should by right stay on while discussion is taking place. -- Director (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromises are tricky thing, and they don't really work except in rare circumstances. They necessitate duplicity. For example, if I wanted to remove the unrelated images as I did in that edit, and if I wanted to do so by compromise, I would have come-out here on the talkpage demanding all images be removed (or something of the sort, you get the my drift). Then I could scale-down my demands to what I really wanted and "compromise" to have my way. That's why rules and policies are, at least in theory, absolute criteria that do not concern themselves with the positions of various users. -- Director (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we start by integrating the captions into the text somehow? -- Director (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

SC or just C language

DIREKTOR, I do understand what scientists think about it, and even there, at field of linguistics scientists aren't united in that oppinion, as I said it's disputed.

I'll also say another fact that Croatian language, no matter what you or scientist think about it, is internationaly recognized language. Since this subject is mostly conected to Croatia and Croats who speak Croatian language, we should add translation of Croatian language. Anything other could be understood as an inslult.

As encyclopedia, Wikipedia should follow this rule and not add disputed things. It's not about linguistic discussion here, if we would discuss languages, I could understand shuch way of editing. --Wustenfuchs 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientists are very rarely actually "united" on any question. There are those who dispute gravity, evolution, etc. The point is that the overwhelming majority of scholars consider Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin to be one language. In addition, such is the long-standing and hard-established Wikipedia consensus on Talk:Serbo-Croatian, one that has a long time ago been transferred to the Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian main articles. I suggest you take your contentions regarding "international recongition" constituting a Wikipedia source over to the relevant talkpage. If the consensus gets altered based on policy-relevant sources, this problem will disappear. As things are now I am merely applying it to this article.

There are many articles, granted, that use "Croatian" as the lede translation language (in spite of it constituting only one of four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language). That'll likely change in time, but regardless - such a practice is imo not applicable here, since, as Peacemaker points out, the population of the NDH included very large numbers of Bosnian Muslims and Serbs. -- Director (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Population of NDH had many ethnic minorities, but official language was Croatian. Same thing for many other articles. Germany has significiant Turkish population and US has significiant Spanish-speaking population, but still don't have those languages (Turkish or Spanish) as translation languages on articles concerning those two contries. Different is with the articles that concern those populations. You will agree that HBZ doen's concern Serbs, it does Bosniaks, however, they spoke Croatian, or at least, they did during their service, since it was official language of that state and it's air force. --Wustenfuchs 17:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world should we care what language the Nazi puppet "proclaimed" its using? How does that impact the translations we are to give in the lede in current languages? The NDH included modern Bosnia, its a part of the history of that country and millions of Bosniaks and Serbs - that's a fact that is relevant with regard to lede structure. Various Axis proclamations do not even touch upon this subject. -- Director (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we. We are talking about the Air Force of that Nazi puppet state you know. If you denie the state, then you can denie it's air force, and this article with it. --Wustenfuchs 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't "deny" the state, Fuchs, I am merely pointing out that what the NDH called its language is entirely irrelevant for this discussion. -- Director (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

However it is DIREKTOR, if you see this as version of SC or idenpendent lang, same thing. We use this version called Croatian or we use independent Croatian language. Either way no need for SC. But different thing would be with Yugoslav topics. --Wustenfuchs 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I have quick failed the article and dropped its MilHist assessment to B-class because it is not sufficiently referenced. Each paragraph must have at least one citation covering the material in that paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about it. --Wustenfuchs 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Easy fix. I'll get on it.Oz Cro (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

This article is still packed full with back-to-back text-ridden images that do not depict the subject matter. -- Director (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Expansion: 1942

Tidied up some of the layout and referencing problems in this section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz Cro (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Tidy-up of referencing problems complete. Oz Cro (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tidy-up of referencing problems now complete.Oz Cro (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Name

"Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia" would seem to be a much more elegant name than the current one. Even "Croatian Air Force (1941–45)" or "Croatian Air Force (World War II)" would be more elegant. The current title is clunky and redundant: it tells us twice that this was a Croatian air force and requires seven words to do so. Srnec (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In the section above, an issue has been raised about the Croatian name used in the article as well. I didn't read the GA review before posting this, but it seems I'm not alone in thinking the article needs renaming. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A little common-sense goes a long way.Oz Cro (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Consistency in aircraft model designations, and the restored Avia aircraft with ZNDH markings

There are some inconsistencies in the aircraft model numbering and designations in this article. For example, some Do 17s are rendered as Do17, while others have the variant included (ie DO17E). The Messerschmitt Bf 109s are another example, some rendered as Messerschmitt 109G, but one is Messerschmitt Me-109G (in the table). The other aircraft models have similar consistency issues (notwithstanding the model differences, which should be included where the information is available). I suggest checking the sources and going through the article to ensure they are consistently presented, particularly before taking this article to MILHIST ACR. As an aside, can I just say that I consider the fact that someone has painted ZNDH markings on a restored Avia FL3 is a bit disturbing, and the inclusion of this pic in the article detracts from the strict neutrality that needs to be maintained on articles regarding the NDH? For me it was a line-ball decision on the neutrality criteria, but others may not see it that way. I don't think removing it would have any effect on the quality of the article, particularly as only 20 were operated by the ZNDH and they were used as trainers, not combat aircraft. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You make some good points about aircraft model numbering and designations. The ZNDH flew, for example, three variants of the Do 17, the E, K and Z. The only thing they had in common were the wings and tail, with fueselage, glass-house and engines all being quite different. I'll go back to the sources and make sure its fixed. Regarding the Avia FL3, its just about the only image avialable from Commons of an aircraft in late-war ZNDH markings and therefore illustrating the Cross of Zvonimir. I would imagine that the owner picked the livery due to its unique nature.Oz Cro (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements post-GA

A few post-GA suggestions for further improvements.

1. The Axis Europa book is not going to cut it at MILHIST ACR as a WP:RS
2. all refs in the Bibliography should be done IAW template:cite book
3. ref system should be consistent, either ref tags or sfn, not a mix
4. split the table of aircraft by type and put them into a couple of columns to reduce white space
5. some sources need publisher or location information expanded, all isbns need checking and 13 digit ones used where available
6. the raising of the HZL and its nature as a volunteer group in the Luftwaffe needs better explication (ie the current text tends to give the impression they were some sort of extension of the ZNDH, which they were not)
7. the Arena book has an isbn, use Worldcat

If I think of anything else I'll add it here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review efforts. Much appreciated. Treat yourself to a Pale Ale or two.Oz Cro (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

New pics

The two new pics have very doubtful "PD-Croatia" licensing, which is not ok on a GA. No author is provided, and no evidence of them being published. I have noted this on the files at Commons. I think their inclusion should be re-considered. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The pic of the Capronis was from the ZNDH published weekly journal called Hrvatska Krila (Croatian Wings) in 1942/3. I'll check them out and update Commons.Oz Cro (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, that one might be ok for PD-Croatia given its age since publication, but an author (or a reasonable supposition about the author) would be needed too, I believe, and it still might not get over the line. Let's discuss once you've checked? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Newly published source

I have updated the table listing the operational aircraft of the Croatian Air Force, together with a newly published reference.Oz Cro (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also updated the summary table of operational aircraft at the top of the article from the same newly published reference. Oz Cro (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)