Talk:Far-right politics in Croatia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Croatia → Neo-Ustashism in Croatia — The articles has no 1 single reference related to nazis and/or nazism. The only and unique issue of this article is related to sympathizers of Ustaše.Ustaše are related to nazis but not the same. Therefore this is the more appropriate article.--Kennechten (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

• support as nominator--Kennechten (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While this article certainly does appear to be more about Ustaše than Nazism, that term isn't very well known outside of Croatia. As neo-fascism encompasses both far-right movements, how about moving this article instead to Neo-fascism in Croatia? The Celestial City (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  {{quote|Neo-Nazism' consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism or some variant thereof.

As you can see definition does not include ustaše. Yes, term neonazism is much more notable outside Croatia (as well as nazis are much more famous than Ustaše. but, it still does not change the fact these are 2 separate things.--Kennechten

Article neonazisma has section about many countries-and huge one about Croatia. but in that section there is nothing abou nazis!!(talk) 14:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly opose. There are no Ustaše in modern Croatia. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are no Ustaše, neither nazis, but there are still their fans. --Kennechten (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, change to Support. The article does not have anything in it about nazism in Croatia. Article about neo-nazism in Croatia should be something like this Neo-Nazism_in_Serbia--Čeha (razgovor) 08:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I see your point, to a point, but Neo-Ustashism is very clumsy in English, it wouldn't be good to use that. Neo-fascism in Croatia sounds usable? Far right in Croatia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose to the Neo-Ustashism in Croatia title per reasons stated above. Not only is the term rather obscure outside Croatia (and in fact it would be difficult to prove that it is used in Croatia at all as I never heard anyone using the "neo-ustaštvo" or "novo-ustaštvo" variants), but it would also be slightly misleading as holding neo-fascist views does not have to include attempts to revive either the ustashe or nazi movements. Therefore the more general Neo-fascism in Croatia would be a much more suitable title than either Neo-Nazism in Croatia or Neo-Ustashism in Croatia. In addition, although the definition cited by The Celestial City shows that Neo-Nazism would indeed cover the so-called Neo-Ustashism as it would fit the "Nazism or some variant thereof" description, one would be hard pressed to find evidence of any "social or political movements" seeking to revive it in Croatia. What Kennechten wants to call Neo-Ustashism generally consists of random people wearing Ustashe-like insignia at concerts of a select few performers, occasional chanting of nationalist slogans at football matches or random graffiti. There is no political party active today in Croatia which advocates racial policies or "Greater Croatia" nor is there any social movement which publicly attempts to politically rehabilitate ustashas or their policies (in fact, politically active right-wingers usually spend their time trying to depict leftist figures of the past as equally criminal as the fascists ustashas were). In other words, there is nothing in Croatia remotely comparable to something like Obraz in Serbia and these are all merely occasional occurrences in which individuals choose to flirt with fascist symbols for whatever reason (which sensationalist media regularly picks up and often blows out of proportion). There's no element of organisation or guidance to it, which would be a prerequisite to call the occurrence "Neo-Ustashism". Timbouctou 18:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus for neo-fascism. Kennechten, do you agree with such a move instead, to expediate this procedure? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree to be written article neo-fascism in Croatia but only if it will be mentioning fascism (or nazism) explicitely. It makes no sense to list escapade of every idiot under this term. Statements , action etc. against Jews, Serbs , gays ...are to be liste in their proper articles (Antisemitism, Serbophobia, homophobia). As an alternative it would make sense to raname into Far-right in Croatia--Kennechten (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article is moved to Neo-fascism in Croatia then the primary element for including content should be the apperance of fascist (e.g. ustashe or nazi) symbols. Therefore Thompson's fans wearing ustashe insignia or Hajduk jugend t-shirts or even HOS (which copied their insignia, motto and rank names from the ustashe WWII regime and had units named after ustashe commanders) should be in there. Any occurrence of homophobia or antisemitism without these symbols should be included in their own standalone articles. The Far right in Croatia would have to include primarily political parties and movements which promote Far-right politics, and there are two problems with that - a) there are few such entities in Croatia today and parties or organisations of that persuasion receive very limited coverage by the media (perhaps a few marginal Croatian Party of Rights offshoots or organisations such as HKV could be mentioned at best), and b) any content included in that article would be controversial and an edit-warring playground as the debate on what is really far-right never resulted in a public consensus in Croatia. Due to Croatia's political history the border between patriotic and nationalist views is extremely blurred. In short, we could have both articles if you insist but they would have to include different kinds of content. Timbouctou 13:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In a sense, you're right to say that not every incident is neo-fascist. Thinking of it that way would easily make the article in violation of WP:SYNTH. But the problem is that if we restrict the description of neo-fascism only to escapades organized by explicitly "fascist" groups, that runs the risk of emptying the article because no actual groups in Croatia would actually want to admit they have Ustasha leanings, let alone "fascist" ones. They all want to avoid that ugly connotation, saying they concentrate on the whole nationalist underpinning. "The Italians were fascists, we just wanted an independent state." But simple nationalism is passe here because the Croatian national status has been achieved without the Ustasha system, so Ustashism is indeed a distinct association with an ideology that created an authoritarian collectivist state where autonomous groups or even individualism were violently suppressed - a perfect manifestation of fascism. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but that's exactly why I proposed a clear distinction. If I go to a public place and shout that Jews should all be exterminated, that makes me a simple antisemite, regardless whether the country I do it in has a history of fascism. If I appear in public wearing a ustashe uniform that makes me a neo-fascist, even if I make a speech calling for world peace wearing it. If I find a few friends and establish a party or an organization promoting antisemitism without fascist symbols then it becomes a group advocating far-right politics, but if we adopt a fascist logo than that makes us neo-fascist. For example, the protest against gay parade in Zagreb organized by the Croatian Pure Party of Rights and the Croatian Nationalists association does not have to be labeled as neo-fascist but clearly would belong into the article about the far-right in Croatia (there's a video clip of the protest which clearly shows people spouting far-right ideas but without wearing any ustasha or fascist insignia). Also, we should take into consideration that public displays of ustasha symbols is illegal in Croatia, while elements of far-right politics are not (although the constitution explicitly forbids hate speech, these groups occasionally can and do stage protests and public gatherings in which they express disagreement with liberal legislation, however small and politically insignificant these gatherings may be). On the other hand, that's precisely the issue with Thompson and his fans - although in his songs he never explicitly called for violence against anyone, and although there is no real organization or political force behind it, his fans do wear ustasha symbols which should be reason enough for their arrests. So upon closer consideration I think this article should be moved to Neo-fascism in Croatia and any content about extreme right-wing groups which do not explicitly use fascist symbols should be added to the new Far right in Croatia article. Content in this article should be restricted to incidents involving fascist symbols regardless of their background, while the Far-right article should include all organized attempts of promoting far-right ideology in the country (which would include attempts of historical revisionism, parties or groups expressing homophobic views, as well as some extreme nationalist organisations). For example, pictures of Thompson's fans wearing fascists symbols would still belong here, HČSP's anti-gay protest would belong to the far-right article, while Vlatko Marković's statements about gays or Željko Kerum's statements about Serbs would not belong in either of these and should be mentioned in their biographies only (although this may change in Kerum's case if he becomes a highly-positioned politician in the near future). I think there's a strong case to keep these relatively close-related things separate and if both articles pointed to each other in the "See also" section I see no problem with that solution. Timbouctou 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

“ In a sense, you're right to say that not every incident is neo-fascist. Thinking of it that way would easily make the article in violation of WP:SYNTH. ”

That article would be no bigger violation of WP:SYNTH than this one.--Kennechten (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

“ In other words, there is nothing in Croatia remotely comparable to something like Obraz in Serbia and these are all merely occasional occurrences in which individuals choose to flirt with fascist symbols for whatever reason (which sensationalist media regularly picks up and often blows out of proportion). There's no element of organisation or guidance to it, which would be a prerequisite to call the occurrence "Neo-Ustashism". ”

Exactly:There no organized groups that (explicitely!!) support/sympathize Ustaše movement.Especially not nazis! The individuals that appear in public with nazi insignia are 50x less than those with Ustaše insignia. Therefore there is much less prerequisite to the current title.--Kennechten (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of this in terms of Nazism primarily meaning support of Hitler and Nazi party swastikas, so if the ustasha-like activities don't include that, they're not related. Would you feel the same way if it was called "Neo-fascism in Croatia"? Do you associate the term "fascism" primarily with Italian fascism, or do you find it generic enough? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the above, and rethought my position, I would suggest moving this article to Far right in Croatia rather than Neo-fascism in Croatia. Pure fascism is not intrinsically antisemitic or Serbophobic as far-right movements like Nazism and Ustaše are. The Celestial City (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I am cocernced titles like Far right in Croatia or Right wing extremism in Croatia are quite OK , appropriate for the described issue(s).--Kennechten (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But most of this article does not talk of random far right positions, the bulk of it explicitly concentrates on Ustasha-related activities. So you really advocate no move at all? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, Croatian far-right is almost exclusively made of Ustaše sympathizers! As I disagree with the current title. But I am bit flexible with proposed article title(s).Neo-Ustashism in Croatia,Far right in Croatia or Right wing extremism in Croatia are acceptable to me because they are in accordance with the content.names (Far right in Croatia and Right wing extremism in Croatia are even more appropriate beacuse article does not talk just about "Ustašephilia")--Kennechten (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose to any move. There is enough evidence about Neo-nazism in Croatia.--96.231.71.176 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Although much of what the article says is probably true (judging from the way this topic is usually presented in the local media) large parts of it reek of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because crucial statements which claim to offer an explanation of the phenomenon are not as nearly as referenced as they should be. I assume much of it was paraphrased from articles penned by notable historians like Slavko Goldstein, which I wouldn't have any problem with if it was quoted properly - but it is not. Also, some sections are probably overblown and given more attention than they deserve (like the NK Imotski shirt "scandal" which had barely registered on the mainstream media's radar) while others are totally irrelevant to the topic (I removed the section titled "Emigration" which didn't even mention anything about neo-nazism). I'm not entirely convinced that anything mentioned in the "Defacement of Monuments" section (also heavily uneferenced) falls within the scope of this article (although many partisan monuments were vandalized, similar events occurred in many other Eastern European countries following the fall of communism and describing it as merely symptoms of neo-fascism may be misleading as partisa monuments were not always symbols of anti-fascist struggle but other things as well - Estonians mobs tried to destroy monuments to Russian WWII soldiers recently, but this does not mean that they are a fascist society). This section is clearly WP:SYNTH as it makes unreferenced clams related to the motivations behind these incidents. In the "Nationalism in mainstream politics" the whole bit about the "bizarre situation" about Bobetko (which was obviously written to justify inclusion of the image next to it) is WP:OR - its interpretation also lacks references and it too tries to offer a strange interpretation of it (and consequently it ends up contradicting the main thesis of the article - if defacing partisan monuments is automatically a symptom of neo-fascism, then how come the neo-fascists are supporting the anti-fascist partisa general?). All it can do is tell us that this is a "bizarre inconsistency" without giving us any reference to support the claim. As for the section "Serbophobia" I would like that renamed to "Chauvinism" as "serbophobia" is a very controversial neologism and is virtually never used in Croatia (just like "croatophobia" is never used in either Serbia or Croatia). All in all, the article looks like a collection of unrelated bits which were assembled together to advance somebody's perceived nature of neo-fascism in Croatia. I cannot claim that this perception is entirely wrong, but it does seem to me that it largely consists of statements stolen from some left-leaning intellectuals who often get asked to comment on the topic, combined with an assorted collection of incidents which sometimes receive a great deal of media attention but are totally irrelevant in public life. The real issue here is that is portrays neo-fascism (with ustashe symbols) as omnipresent (which it isn't) and supported by very marginal groups (which it is) while at the same time ignoring nationalist and far-right parties and groups (which do not explicitly define themselves as fascist or ustashe) which are much more visible and influential in public (although in their own limited sort of way). An article about political parties which actively promote chauvinism of homophobia is something we SHOULD write about, as opposed to this collection of "scandals" which rarely survive more than a few days in the media, until some new "scandal" comes along. In short, the article desperately needs to be re-written, but IMO a better alternative would be to move the whole thing to Far right in Croatia and re-organize it. Sorry for the lengthy comment again. Timbouctou 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• • FYI much of the article was written in a hodgepodge fashion by random editors with an apparent pro-nationalist-Serbian slant, and I had personally spent a lot of time trying to cajole the mess into a half-decent article. Now that I look at it, it might have been better to insist more on WP:SYNTH, but at the same time, there really isn't a whole lot wrong in there. In the mean time it has been littered with citation requests, even the phrases which are obviously the result of a compromise wording. I'm tempted to go about mass-removing these, because it's pointless and disruptive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• • BTW regarding the graffiti - we can probably lose the Bobetko oddity if someone simply lists and/or pictures a few of the generic far-right graffiti instead. There's plenty to choose from (apparently the paint is cheap). Even a cropped version of the existing picture would suffice as an illustration. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I've taken the initiative and moved it to Far right in Croatia, because Timbouctou has made numerous compelling arguments, and the discussion has been going in circles. I was spending more time processing this than it would have taken me to actually contribute something useful. I trust I won't be accused of moving this in bad faith. Thank you all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I do not see who gave you the right to 'initiative'. Please, revert it back and respect the fact above: a similar earlier move was already rejected.--96.231.71.176 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, users The Celestial City, Joy, Kennechten, Čeha and yours truly all agreed with the move to the current title. In the meantime Joy has done substantial work on cleaning up the article and resolving some of its issues, and although it still has some way to go, I congratulate him for his efforts. On the other hand, I have yet to see a constructive edit from you, which I dare to say makes your comments rather pointless. Regards. Timbouctou 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, really, just the long-standing Wikipedia:Be bold guideline. The old discussion was also about "Neo-Ustashism", and I agree that this would not have been good - which is why I didn't use that, I used the generic term "far right". If you think "Neo-Nazism" is more appropriate, please don't hesitate to add some references for the usage of that term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thompson video as reference

I'm moving this out:

reference: - Thompson: I am not a Nazi! (Bot generated title)

The video's actual title has profanity in it (Thompson NAZI ??? FUCK NO!!!), and it has no author data (or copyright permission), so it's inherently unsuitable for a reference. This is what Marko Perković says in it:

Mene često napadaju i prozivaju da smo fašisti nacisti... Time i vas koji me slušate i pratite... A mi im odavdje poručujemo - da nismo fašisti nacisti nego hrvatski domoljubi! Poručujemo im da postoje vrednote zbog kojih živimo. Postoje ali su ljudi koje nikad nećemo zaboraviti... i da postoje snovi kojih se nikad nećemo odreći... jer ovo je zemlja stvorena, ova naša Hrvatska, stvorena je na krvi i muci ove generacije, pobjedničke generacije

Though it does demonstrate that line of thinking - "I don't mention "ustaša" stuff by name, I don't think we're all "Nazist", and I'm here for plain patriotic reasons" - it does little to actually address the accusations leveled against him... it's just preaching to the choir... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)