Talk:Ustaše

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2026

Whoever edited this page to indicate that Jews were the primary target of the Ustasha is either being intentionally deceptive or they're ignorant of history. Jews played a very minor role in the actions of the Ustasha and the NDH, which internalized the ancient schism between the Byzantine culture and Orthodox Christianity and and Roman Catholicism manifested primarily in the Hapsburg empire. The notion that Jews were the main focus of the Ustasha is patently ridiculous. The genocide was conducted against Serbs. Zontar68 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It was against both Serbs and Jews. Both of which should be acknowledged. The sudden downgrade in the Ustaše ideology section to just Croatian Ultranationalism should be addressed. There’s no need for the editors to be pedantic for sources regarding the Ustaše’s clear as day ideological hatred for both Serbian and Jewish people during the interwar and WWII periods. Just a month or two ago the ideology section was agreed upon, and suddenly it was reversed back to the blatant oversimplification. This needs to be rectified in order to promote a more accurate and impartial Wikipedia. ~2026-44496-44 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

 Implemented. The article has been restored to reflect the consensus wording reached at the talk page discussion you allude to. Peripteros (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ideology minimization

At least a month back the ideology section of the Ustaše had properly outlined both anti-Serb and anti-Jewish sentiments as aspects of Ustaše ideology, as both were driving forces of the Ustaše. What happened? Why the sudden reversal? What more proof is needed for those besides Jasenovac and the Croatian collaboration with Hitler in order to accurately include those aspects into the ideology section of the Ustaše infobox? Simply leaving it as Croatian Ultranationalism is a bit of a dishonest oversimplification to which the intent seems to purposely hide the anti-Serb and anti-Jewish sentiments that the Ustaše ironically did NOT hide during its time. Cheers

~2026-44496-44 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who made the reversion. The previous infobox lacked citations and replaced a previous infobox that was substantially better sourced, so I reverted it to the cited version.

Additionally, I think the infobox had become overly broad by including a number of characteristics that aren't necessarily appropriate as separate entries under “ideology,” including Catholicism itself and several forms of prejudice. I'm not arguing that anti-Serbism or antisemitism were unimportant aspects of Ustaše ideology. I'm questioning whether each of these characteristics needs to be independently listed in the infobox when they are already discussed and well-sourced in the citations supporting the broader ideological classifications under which they fall.

In particular, the current ultranationalism citation explicitly discusses the Ustaše's genocidal policies and their targeting of Serbs and Jews, so I don't think their removal from the infobox means that those aspects are being hidden or omitted from the article. The distinction here is between what constituted an aspect of Ustaše ideology historically and what is appropriate to enumerate as a separate ideology in an infobox.

I've also been strongly considering re-adding clerical fascism, since I think there is sufficient independent sourcing to justify treating it separately from its place as a citation for ultranationalism. I'm less convinced that the various forms of prejudice need to be listed individually, especially if doing so results in an increasingly inflated infobox. Lyfelight (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I support adding in clerical fascism but the actual formatting was agreed to by talk page consensus during an extensive earlier discussion. In terms of citations, this article follows MOS:LEADCITE which allows for reliable sources in the body to support content in the lead. Peripteros (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The earlier discussion doesn't seem to establish consensus on the formatting of the infobox outside of the inclusion of Anti-Serb sentiment, and that proposal itself was made by a newly created/unnamed account that framed the initial proposal in unusually normative and accusatory terms, including the assertion that disagreement would be considered an attempt to “whitewash” the Ustaše. That makes me hesitant to treat the subsequent implementation of even Anti-Serb sentiment as evidence of a well-established consensus on the broader structure of the infobox.

Much of the discussion outside of the inclusion of Anti-Serb sentiment was instead centered on avoiding a “laundry list of characteristics” in the infobox and distinguishing between actual ideological classifications and attributes or policies of the movement. That appears to be a point on which multiple editors agreed, including yourself. So I'm not sure why this is being treated as consensus on the longer infobox we now have.

Furthermore, additional edits I made separately from the infobox and its discussion were also undone, although the June discussion does not appear to apply to them. In particular, I removed Islamism because MOS:LEADCITE does not provide a basis for including material in the lead that isn't discussed in the article, and I revised the re-added Ustaše anthem without expanding the infobox, following your own request to do so here.

More broadly, I don't think a previous implementation can by itself make the matter permanently settled. WP:CCC recognizes that editors may propose a consensus change through discussion or editing. My edit was accompanied by a substantive argument about how the ideology field should distinguish principal ideological classifications from individual prejudices, policies, and other characteristics, so I think that argument should be addressed on its merits rather than treated as precluded by the June implementation.

If the claim is that the June discussion established consensus for the specific formatting you restored, could you point to where that agreement was reached? Lyfelight (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Just say you are in favor of minimizing the history of atrocities committed against Serbs.

Your personal grievance of the infobox simply being “too large” says alot. Perhaps its “too large” for a reason. For that is a grievance you should take up with your Ustaše friends. ~2026-46047-66 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lyfelight: Thanks for the clarification, I restored your other edits. In terms of the actual infobox, the editor consensus established that it would feature everything noted as ideological by the reliable sources (i.e. not by editors themselves) in the body of the article. @~2026-46047-66: if you're unable to remain civil in your discussion with Lyfelight, you may lose your editing privileges. Peripteros (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)