Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Flag in 1990

Yes, this flag was officially (= constitutional; de jure and de facto) adopted and used in 1990. Not to be confused with the nationalist and/or separatist symbol (= first field of the chequy in white colour - instead of red) used from 1945 until 1990/91.

Since fellow User:Havsjö did this without any description, I have to create this talk-page entry.

According to the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia from August 27, 1990:

• AMANDMAN LXIV.:

“ U nazivu Ustava i u njegovim odredbama riječ "Socijalistička" ispred riječi "Republika Hrvatska" briše se. (In the title of the constitution and it's regulations, the word "Socialist" before the word "Republic of Croatia" is removed.)) ”

• AMANDMAN LXVI.:

“ 1. Grb Republike Hrvatske je povijesni hrvatski grb, osnovica kojeg se sastoji od 25 crvenih i bijelih polja. (The Coat of Arms of the Republic of Croatia is the historical Croatian Coat of Arms, made out of 25 white and red fields.)) ”

“ 2. Zastava Republike Hrvatske sastoji se od tri boje: crvene, bijele i plave, s povijesnim hrvatskim grbom u sredini. (The flag of the Republic of Croatia is made out of three colours: red, white and blue with the historical Croatian Coat of Arms in the center.) ”

And as you can see in this Video (timelink), the red-star flag was also replaced with the chequy one in 1990 by the People's Militia. This was still the time when no Yugoslav Republic demanded to secede from Yugoslavia, since their governments still believed in their unity and both Croatia and Slovenia, hoped that the Federation will be transformed into a confederacy.

So, just do me a favour and stop removing things like this without comment/having any arguments against it. This can be considered as promoting your own point of view (WP:NPOV) or vandalism (WP:VANDAL). --Koreanovsky (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How is Socialist Republic of Croatia referenced?

In the article is has been stated that the Socialist Republic of Croatia is commonly referred to as Socialist Croatia or simply Croatia, but there is more to it. Namely, back than in the emigration as well as today among many people it is referred to as Yugoslav Croatia and/or communist Croatia. This can even be seen in numerous books and it is even today used by the people when talking about that part of Croatian past. Therefore, to give a reader some more precise, it is useful to mention that as well. I have seen that recently a user tried to mention the term Yugoslav Croatia only to have his change reverted because the user who reverted them allegedly never heard of something like that. However, this can be easily referenced. Nbanic (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, it may be useful for the discussion here that here on English Wikipedia the link to Communist Croatia redirected even earlier on the page about the Socialist Republic of Croatia. Nbanic (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac

In the section on religion there seems to be a larger number of dubious claims to say the best.

First, the sentence His record during World War II, conviction, and his subsequent Roman Catholic martyrdom and beatification remain extremely controversial due to his delivering up to death of Orthodox Christians and Jews. is without any citation despite a warning several years old. The claims are quite harsh and serious and they are not upheld by any of the modern and independent research such as the one of Dr. Esther Gitman, an American holocaust survivor and researcher born in Sarajevo. I recently added the content that clearly shows that actually the situation was largely opposite. A lot of other people gave similar testimonies. The last that I can think of was Marko Danon who gave several interviews for Večernji list.

Next, there is the part This is controversial due to its overtly nationalist Croatian sentiments. First of all, how can the mentioned judge be called controversial here? The referenced text gives no such statement whatsoever, so this looks to me as some kind of subjective interpretation not based on facts. What does overtly nationalist even mean? How do you measure it objectively? And where is any citation for the basic alleged nationalistic sentiments? The provided reference gives nothing with such a content.

Next, there is the part the fact that the lower court (County Court of Zagreb) annulled the verdict of the Supreme Court, which is also supposed to be controversial. How can this be controversial? Namely, in the referenced text you have the part Prema Zakonu o kaznenom postupku ako je umrla osoba koju su sudovi bivše Jugoslavije osudili za vrijeme komunističke vladavine, poništenje osude do koje je došlo zlouporabom političke moći mogu zatražiti zakonski nasljednici. Tek ako su nasljednici nepoznati, reviziju mogu izjaviti udruge za zaštitu ljudskih prava sa sjedištem u RH tako da, dok god ima živih nasljednika, bez njihove inicijative revizija nije bila moguća. Is makes it clear that it is the standard procedure in Croatia when dealing with the past communist verdicts from their show trials. Therefore, there is nothing controversial here, it is simply following the law. Is this supposed to be controversial?

Next, there is the part the fact that the whole process of annulment was over in only six days. This is not controversial at all because it is known for decades and it has been publicly acknowledged by the Croatian parliament bach there in 1992, which even the referenced text mentions: Inače, Sabor je 14. veljače 1992. donio Deklaraciju o osudi političkog procesa i presude kardinalu dr. Alojziju Stepincu. U Deklaraciji se ističe da je Stepinac u montiranom političkom procesu “nepravedno suđen, čime je nanesena nepravda i uvreda hrvatskom narodu”, a cilj je bio i “uništenje Katoličke crkve kao vjekovnog čuvara i zaštitnika očuvanja identiteta i slobode hrvatskog naroda”. Deklaracija još ističe: “Iako hrvatski narod i Katolička crkva nikada nisu priznali osudu nadbiskupu Stepincu, hrvatski Sabor kao najviše predstavničko tijelo Hrvatske izricanjem jasnog stava prema nepravednoj osudi kardinala Stepinca ispravlja jednu povijesnu nepravdu i uvredu hrvatskom narodu”. Njome su osuđeni svi politički procesi brojnim nevino suđenimsvećenicima, redovnicima i vjernicima. Even further, the text continues with the following sentence: Paradoksalno je da osuda Stepinca opstala kao pravna činjenica više od četvrt stoljeća. So it explicitly claims that it is a paradox that the communist verdict was left intact for almost a quarter of century. Effectively, the claim of the controversy here goes directly against the referenced text. How can than this be controversial? The author of the text didn't read the text at all or maybe he had problems understanding the Croatian language.

Next, there is the part the fact that the prosecution was on the same side as the defense (they did not appeal the annulment) is definitely not controversial if you take into account what I have put in the previous paragraph here.

Finally, the part and the fact that the judge, who is openly anticommunist, obviously made his decision before the start of the trial. claims that the judge is openly anticommunist and that he obviously made his decision before the trial. As for the anticommunist part, the referenced texts do not mention something similar. Even if they mentioned it, being anticommunist is desired according Vilnius Declaration or the values of the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. Still, there are no references for this claim nor for why it would be controversial. As for the claim that he obviously made his decision before the start of the trial, this is also not supported by the referenced texts. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this section, there was an over two decades old declaration of the Croatian parliament that already stated that the process was unfair so there are no controversies here in that sense. On the contrary, as mentioned by the referenced text, it is a paradox that the communist verdict was left intact for almost a quarter of century.

For the reasons mentioned here I think that the section should be seriously rewritten at least by removing the mentioned parts. Nbanic (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't remove sourced content. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But if you read it, the sources have almost nothing to do with the sentences being used in the current content. That's why I removed it Nbanic (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I double checked it, this is definitely an example of bad sourcing. Nbanic (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

First you need to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. This kind of behavior is not civil, if someone reverts you, you do not engage in an edit war but go to the talk page and discuss. I removed everything that has nothing to do with the socialist republic, hence it happened after it ceased to exist. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting sourced content is not the best option and this is what is happening here without discussion. As for the Stepinac trial, it is widely considered to be a show trial and since it happened during the part of Croatian history, it is useful to mention it and cite it because it can give a reader a better understanding than just merely mentioning that there was a trial. There were numerous trials, but for many of them it was never said that they were show trials. This is, however, not the case with Stepinac. Because of that I think that it should be mentioned with appropriate references that his trial is considered to be a show trial. Nbanic (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you first need to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. You are edit warring and that is unacceptable. Are you going to stop edit warring? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think that you may need to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. Namely, it is not appropriate to delete sourced content connected to the stuff in the article without giving a good reason. Please, stop your edit war and try to behave reasonably. For example, try to use the talk page here to mention what seems to be the problem with the sourced content. Nbanic (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, are you going to stop edit warring and educate yourself on how Wikipedia works? If someone reverts your edits that means something, and before we can engage in any civil discussion you need to first STOP EDIT-WARRING and educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. Anything else would be unproductive and disturbing. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to wage an edit war. Why does it seem to me so? Even earlier you did not tend to have any discussion on the talk pages for longer periods and now you are trying to say that this is what should be done? But you are not doing it at all, you are simply deleting sourced content. You probably know that this is wrong. So please, stop waging this edit war and start discussing what you have against the sourced content that I put there. Nbanic (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again before any discussion, please, are you going to stop edit warring and are you going to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works? Please a yes or no answers. Any further discussion is pointless if you are going to continue edit warring. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to be interested in discussion as it seems to me. Will you start being interested in a discussion? Namely, when I started discussing and when I did not edit for a long period, you said nothing, you did not try to enter a normal discussion on the talk page. It seems to me that the proper way would be to ask you whether you are going to stop edit warring and going to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works? Namely, you are constantly deleting sourced content. What seems to be the problem? Even if none other content is deleted, but just a new one is added and sourced, you delete it. This seems to be an edit war. Will you please stop edit warring and trying to explain why you are refraining from discussion that you are calling to and deleting sourced content? Nbanic (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I am interested to start a discussion, but AGAIN, please, are you going to stop edit warring and are you going to educate yourself on how Wikipedia works? Please a yes or no answers. Any further discussion is pointless if you are going to continue edit warring. If you want to have a discussion you just need to acknowledge that you will not engage in edit-warring and that you are going to be civil. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You being interested in starting a discussion seems to be nice, but then you just have to start it first. Namely, you did not seem to be interested in starting a discussion on several occasions even with longer pauses between edits. To show that you are indeed interested starting a discussion and are not merely saying it, you should continue the discussion that has already been started and not waging an edit war. So when there were no edits, but calls to discussion, you did not try to discuss. Therefore, you should now show that you are willing to behave as it would be expected on Wikipedia. You should educate yourself how Wikipedia works. Now, can you do that? Yes or no? Nbanic (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have asked you, in a civil manner to state if you are going to stop edit warring or not. You have refused to give me a civil answer. There is no point in having a discussion if you are not going to be civil and if you are going to engage in edit-warring. If you really wanted to have a discussion then you would show show good faith and answer my question. If you answer, in a civil manner, to the question: are you going to stop edit warring? then we can have a civil discussion. And if you do that, I promise you, that we can have a civil discussion and that we can work on reaching consensus. First, you need to learn that edit-warring is unacceptable, ok? Please show some good faith. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is not appropriate, how can I stop something that others have started? Do you want me to admit something that someone else started? Let me explain it once again. I started to make some changes here, then you warned me about an alleged edit war. I started a discussion and I waited for over a longer period of time and you did not join the discussion that was mentioned. So how can I understand that you are interested in a discussion? Even after putting stuff on a talk page, you continued to wage an edit war in what seemed to be a disregard of the talk page. Therefore, it seems strange to me that you call again to a discussion and now I explained why. I do not see a point in forcing an answer to an ill-posed question. For example, take a look at some of your latest actions: you deleted sourced content on several occasions without participating in a discussion. You need to learn that this kind of edit warring is unacceptable, you can read more about it on the Wikipedia pages. Please, show some good faith and start discussing instead of waging an edit war. Nbanic (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. If someone reverts your edit that means something. That does not mean that you can revert them back. That is edit-warring. If you do not understand that then there is no point in a discussion. So please, for your sake and for the sake of other users here on Wikipedia, please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. And again, are you going to stop edit warring? Please, a yes or no answers. Show some good faith by answering and then we can have a civil discussion about the edits that you have made and how we can incorporate them the article. I have shown good faith. I have offered you, multiple times, a chance to prove that you are not a disruptive editor who only cares about pushing his own POV. Please, show some good faith and answer my question. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. If someone starts a discussion on the talk page and you do not participate, but nevertheless afterwards change the sourced content, that means something. Namely, it means that you are waging an edit war. If you do not understand that, then there is no point in your edit warring. So please, for your sake and for the sake of other users here on Wikipedia, educate yourself on why not to delete sourced content after you did not even try to discuss it after it was proposed and not opposed on the talk page. I have shown good faith. The discussion that I started on the talk page was available for a longer time. I have offered you multiple times a chance to prove that you are not a disruptive editor who only cares about pushing his own point of view by calling you to engage in a discussion, but you did not do it, even when I waited for a longer time. So I have shown good faith, now please, show some good faith and answer my questions: will you start discussing instead of edit warring and deleting sourced content? Nbanic (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current article it is mentioned that cardinal Stepinac was convicted, but this may hide the fact that it was a show trial and that there was and still is a wide perception of it being a show trial. In the previous versions of this article this has been well referenced and it has also been mentioned that the Croatian parliament declared it to be a show trial and that even the court in Zagreb annulled the verdict. These facts are all neutral since they describe the past as it was, namely, that there were such declarations and that there are such views. Finally, if the trial is already mentioned, the fact that it was a show trial makes a big difference since it is not just like any ordinary trial. Does anyone object restoring back that version of the article and if so, why? Nbanic (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First, before we can have any civil discussion, user Nbanic needs to apologize for all the disruptive behavior in the last week, for edit warring and for abusing multiple accounts. Until that happens I feel uncomfortable entering a discussion with a disruptive user who uses multiple sock puppet accounts -Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic - and I see no point in having a discussion if user Nbanic is going to continue the disruptive and unproductive behavior, like in the past week. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for any disruptive thing that I may have done. Nbanic (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, stating that it was a trial is irrefutable. Stating that it was a show trial is not neutral and is POV of user Nbanic. User Nbanic should educate herself/himself on how Wikipedia works, especially after constant disruptive behavor, edit warring and abusing multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic. As user Nbanic's "apology" is not honest and sincere there is no point in going in circles. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How is my apology not honest? I apologized and I really am sorry for any disruptive behavior that I may have done. What is wrong with that? Nbanic (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the trial being a show trial, how is that not a neutral POV? Take a look at the definition of the show trial. The Stepinac trial meets all the requirements of a show trial so it is a show trial by definition. Do you maybe think that it does not? Nbanic (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

False citations

• Djilas, Aleksa uses the term "Yugoslav Croatia" not to describe the Socialist Republic of Croatia but to use it as a contrast to the term "Croatian Croatia".
• Bellamy, Alex uses the term "Yugoslav Croatia" not to describe the Socialist Republic of Croatia but when talking about the "continual efforts to unify the Croatian and Serbian languages".
• Horton, John uses the term "Yugoslav Croatia" not to describe the Socialist Republic of Croatia but is only found in a reference, in the book, alluding to "Croatians abroad".

This all shows a clear misinterpretation by the disruptive user Nbanic. The term "Yugoslav Croatia" is not commonly used. I have to also add that I have lived my whole life in Croatia and I have never ever heard anyone using the term Yugoslav Croatia - "Jugoslavenska Hrvatska". As other users have pointed out, this is clearly yet another POV push by user Nbanic who, in the last week, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic.

Also:

• Carmichael, Cathie uses the term "communist Croatia" not to describe the Socialist Republic of Croatia. The term is used only in a reference and it is unclear what is meant by it. Also the author in the same sentence mentions "the newspaper Vjestnik" which does and has never existed in Croatia.

User Nbanic is again wasting time of other users. I have also never heard anyone using the term "communist Croatia - komunistička Hrvatska". Both terms are not used commonly. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The citations are not false, they indeed mention the pages of the books that use the terms that were mentioned here and such terms are usually used in the books and literature on that part of Croatian history. On the other hand, the first term that was there earlier and still is has no reference to it so removing this terms as user Tuvixer has done may seem as a push of a certain point of view. I have read numerous such stuff and I have seen it there numerous times. Additionally, how can the user Tuvixer claim that he never heard such terms in Croatia? It would be like living under the rock, it is more often then desirable the topic in media, in numerous debates in various circles of people, in common-day jokes, moans, and groans. Not seeing upon that would mean that there may be a potential push a certain point of view that tries to hide something? The user should read more. As for the term "Jugoslavenska Hrvatska", this is not an article written in Croatian, but in English, and in historical books about Croatia of that time this is commonly used in multiple such books. I can present more references if it is required, but I don't see the problem here. The references that were already given effectively prove that such terms are used. I repeat again, I can give more references. As a matter of fact, if the arguments of the user Tuvixer were valid, one could ask for the reference to the term socialist Croatia or even ask whether people in Croatia ever use it. They do sometimes, but still, this term does not have any reference here and it is debatable whether it is a commonly used term at all. Can the user Tuvixer provide a reference to it? As for the term "komunistička Hrvatska", what seems to be unclear? Has the user Tuvixer read the referenced book? I yes, where seems to be the problem? If not, then maybe he/she should read it. Maybe he just took a sneak peak to Google Books, but that does not account for actually reading the book or even at least the surrounding content. I again suggest the user Tuvixer to actually read the book if he has problems. Finally, the part commonly can be changed to sometimes to address the user Tuvixer's concerns even about the non-expressed concern about the term socialist. Nbanic (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the user Tuvixer removed sourced content, which is not behavior that is supposed to be expected or encouraged here on Wikipedia. Nbanic (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, if the terms are "commonly used" then provide 20 examples for each in English and in Croatian. I would love, at least, to hear a common-day joke with those terms. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no more "commonly", but "also". The same goes for "socialist Croatia". So, if I were to show you 20 examples for each, would that satisfy you? Nbanic (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why should we have any names other than "Socialist Republic of Croatia" in the lead. For other common names that were used at the time there is the "Names" section. Tzowu (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, initially there was this one term, namely "socialist Croatia" and it seemed strange to me that this terms was mentioned, while other terms that are used maybe even more commonly in the literature was not mentioned. Since user Tuvixer deleted my sourced content on multiple occasions, I even provided multiple references for the mentioned terms. Nbanic (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, here the section on Names lists the official names, and not the colloquially used names. Nbanic (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the page history and the part about common references were added by some IP with no explanation or sources. [1]. I would just leave out the "common names" from the lead. Tzowu (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Capital pre 1945

The infobox section about the Capital originally said "Zagreb (8 May 1945 – 25 June 1991), Šibenik (1 January – 7 May 1945)". I see that now someone changed it to: "Zagreb (1945–1991), Split (1944–1945)". I can imagine that the Croatian partizans have proclaimed a coastal city during WW2 as the capital, while Zagreb was still held by the nazi-puppet government, but is there any evidence that cities like Split or Šibenik have officially served as the capital of Croatia? --Koreanovsky (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)