Talk:Aloysius Stepinac

New edits

• I removed "blessed" from the lead. I just thought if the Pope John Paul II article can do without it, so can an article about an alleged Nazi collaborator.
• I added the native language in the brackets and I used "Serbo-Croatian". I did this for 2 reasons. 1) The term Serbo-Croatian is more appropriate since he was a Yugoslav, and Serbo-Croatian was the Yugoslav official language. A standardized Croatian language did not even exist during his lifetime, and this person is part of teh history of the whole of (ex-)Yugoslavia, not just Croatia. 2) The term Serbo-Croatian language includes the modern Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian languages (al of the neo-shtokavian dialect).
• I replaced "Croatian cardinal" with "Yugoslav cardinal", as this person, like all Croats, was a Yugoslav during his lifetime. He was a Yugoslav Croat, or a Yugoslav of Croatian nationality - a citizen of Yugoslavia. He may not've necessarily liked it, but that's not our concern. He was a Yugoslav cardinal, much like Krleža was a Yugoslav writer etc. It is misleading to just call him a "Croatian cardinal".
• I also added a piece of text stating he presided over the Croatian Catholic Church during WWII.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pope John Paul II is not beatified. This "alledged[!] Nazi collaborator" is beatified by the Catholic Church, and as most (all?) other beatified and saint people on the wiki, deserves his title be mentioned in front of His name. This is how we do things around here, you know.
• The standardization of Croatian language traces its beginnings back to 1595 (dictionary), and 1604 (grammar). Further more, even though Stepinac was a citizen of Yugoslavia, I doubt that Cardinal Stepinac once signed his name in Cyrillic, so the Cyrillic form is unnecessary at best.
• Your "Yugoslav cardinal" have been reverted, I'm telling you once more, it is not a nationality, and citizenship hardly defines him. Also note that Stepinac was the archbishop of Zagreb in the time of NDH as well. Again, I ask you to not push your agenda by editing this article the way you want to, and instead try to make it objective.
  --Paxcoder (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably the one person who made the most WP:NPOV edits in this article. Please avoid vague accusations of "POV-pushing". My view on these issues is perfectly legitimate. The puppet Croatian NDH you mentioned is de jure a non-existent state. Aside of course from his childhood in Austria-Hungary, the cardinal lived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, and SFR Yugoslavia.

• Ok, agreed: I didn't remove it in the first place. [1] [2]
• The man was a Yugoslav citizen, he is a part of Yugoslav history. That means he's part of Slovene, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Macedonian history. The main language of Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian. I think User:Ivan Štambuk could help us out there, he knows a lot more about linguistics than I.
• I am fully aware that, while Yugoslavs are a nationality, Stepinac was, in fact, a Croat. My edit clearly reflects that. However, he was a cardinal within the state of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav Cardinal of Croatian ethnicity. As you say, stating someone's a "Yugoslav Cardinal" is like saying someone's an "Austro-Hungarian Cardinal" - perfectly logical if that person is a cardinal in Austria-Hungary.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if non-intentional, the sound of your edits is, in my opinion, colored with a certain ideology, and if you're trying to be objective you should avoid that.

• I see, you are right about the title "blessed", it wasn't you who removed it. But you are the one who gave priority to his latinized name. May I ask why?
• I'm sorry, I still do not see rationale behind spelling it in Cyrillic, even if you presume that the language was one at the same at that time, which is inaccurate (perhaps artificially, but Croatian and Serbian differ for a very long time). At times, various languages were enforced in various parts of Croatia. It doesn't mean we should write the names translated into the then preferred language. Unless, of course, the person him/herself preferred it that way (eg. changed name, or used another). While perhaps not entirely wrong in this case, it looks forced.
• Yugoslavia was a federation, with Croatia in it. And I still think "Croatian" is more descriptive of a person than "Yugoslavian" (what does it mean?).

Please also try to correctly indent your responses, if possible. Thanks for the discussion.
--Paxcoder (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're implying I'm some kind of "communist", rest assured you got the wrong impression. You should probably avoid viewing any edits opposing Croatian nationalism as "communist". You're jumping to conclusions.

• The name of the article is "Aloysius Stepinac", that (hopefully) means the most common English language name is "Aloysius". Seeing as how this is the Englsih Wikipedia, I switched emphasis to the English name for this guy.
• Here's the rationale: 1) The guy, whether he (or you) liked it or not, was a Yugoslav (just like every other Croat). 2) He is part of the history of the whole of Yugoslavia, being the leader of the catholic church in that country for twenty-three years. 3) The main official language of Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian, which uses both Latin and Cyrillic script. 4) I would list both Serbo-Croatian and Croatian in the lede ("Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:" ) but that would be kind of stupid, since in modern terms the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage includes the Croatian language (alongside Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin).
• (The adjective is "Yugoslav".) Yugoslavia was indeed a federation with Croatia within it, I should know since I lived there. The point is, the country Stepinac was from was Yugoslavia as far as the "world outside Yugoslavia" is concerned. I am simply following the objective view. The nationalist "idolatry" surrounding him aside, in general terms and in the historical context of his life he was a Yugoslav of Croatian nationality. The adjective "Yugoslav" refers to his country - Yugoslavia.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I confused you for someone else then.

• Nikola Tesla is not spelled Nicolas Tesla, I don't see a reason why the name should be translated and the translated name mentioned here. Not to mention that it is now the main title of the article. Do English historians use the anglonized name exclusively?
• Ok, let's do it your way: the microlanguage is enough. Do you go around adding serbo-croatian to Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia's articles? And even if it were justified to do so here (no, there is no need) there is certainly no need to respect the dual writing system of the old country.
• Yes, he was a citizen of Yugoslavia, we established that. He was also a citizen of Croatia (then a part of Yugoslavia), and a Croatian. Thus the latter, "Croatian" is more descriptive. Would you honestly write that someone was a SSSR bishop or would you rather say he was a Russia or a Estonian bishop? Don't you think that the article sufficiently explains the countries and borders important for the article?

What's up with the indentation?
--Paxcoder (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look its simple: in the English Wikipedia we use the most common English language term for everything. If Englsih speakers use "Nikola Tesla", then we use "Nikola Tesla", if the most common name in English is "Aloysius", we use "Aloysius".
• I do not care about the Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia. And no, the microlanguage is not "enough" as the matter concerned more than just SR Croatia, is that your whole argument here? The dual writing system of the old country is the dual writing system of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. I see your point of view, and I realize that this all may seem "unacceptable" to you. However, this is an article about Yugoslav history, try to see that you're not being 100% objective here. Professionally and objectively, the historical context of this person's life must be taken into consideration.
• This man was from Yugoslavia, his country was Yugoslavia. He was not a citizen of Croatia. There was no such thing as Croatian (or Bosnian, or Serbian,...) "secondary citizenship" in SFR Yugoslavia in 1960. He was a citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality. Yes, even Ante Pavelić was a "Yugoslav collaborator". Stepinac was a Yugoslav Cardinal of Croatian nationality. (Ah, it used to be "Austro-Hungarian" and after that fit ok we go to "Soviet"? :) How about we forget the silly "comparisons"?)

I believe that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you look. He was a Croatian, weather the old country liked it or not. And there was Croatia even in that time. He probably never used Cyrilic, let alone wrote his name in it. There is no objective reason why his name should be written in it, even if there is a reason to use the term "serbo-croatian", and you fail to say why a micro is not enough. All you do is keep repeating that he lived in Yugoslavia that used the above term, and both Cyrilic and Latin. How does this matter to this modern article?
The comparison with SSSR is in this case (without any pretend modesty) perfect. Look over it again. Try answering why it would be a "silly" comparison as you say, and I might just settle for it. Or, if you can't, see that i'm not being unreasonable, and try to question your own motives again. --Paxcoder (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to make it very simple, answer me this:

• Why is micro language enough on most other articles about Serbian or Croat people but not on this one?
• If a person of Estonian nationality who lived during the time of SSSR in Estonia is Estonian, and not SSSRian, then why is a person of Croatian nationality who lived during the time of Yugoslavia in Croatia not a Croat, but a Yugoslavian? --Paxcoder (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(The ethnonym is "a Croat", the adjective is "Croatian".) Since "the old country" actually established the modern Croatian state within it, I'd say it had no problem with Croats whatsoever. :) You don't really have an argument here. Let me illustrate:

• Languages. The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. (What script he may or may not've used to sign his name is completely irrelevant.)
• Cardinal. I repeat: I hold that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV.

The comparison between the USSR and Yugoslavia in this discussion is almost ridiculous, Austria-Hungary was actually a much better example. Russians were overwhelmingly favored and dominated the USSR, which was often informally called "Russia" and its people were colloquially known as "Russians" (since it was formed out of the Russian Empire, as you know). In ethnic discussions, the two are incomparable. (Was Yugoslavia sometimes referred to as "Serbia"? :) This is significant because the general disposition of English speakers towards the ethnicities within the two states is completely different. "Soviet" was increasingly synonymous with "Russian", and the two were almost used interchangeably. Either way, there is no real precedent on this and all "comparisons" are pretty meaningless - they are not arguments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• So you say you want "Yugoslav" in there to mean his citizenship only? I did not say I do not approve of simple "citizen of Yugoslavia" (the latter is unlike the former non-ambiguous). However "Yugoslavian of Croatian nationality" is old terminology and if we really *need* his citizenship in the lead (it's redundant because it's elsewhere), and it must not be Croatia, but instead the whole federation, then I suggest "Croatian citizen of Yugoslavia".
• Treatment of people inside a federation makes no difference to my case. Was Stjepan Radić an Austrio-Hungarian, and should his name be written in all the numerous official languages of that state? Or is he perhaps SHS-ian (since he was most active there) and should his name perhaps be written in "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" (because that's what wiki lists for an official language)?

Please stop flapping around with your NPOV --Paxcoder (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep the flapping down, if you insist. Forgive me if a flap or two escape me... :) You should try to remain civil and keep your frustration in check. Radić was unquestionably a Yugoslav politician. Krleža was unquestionably a Yugoslav author. Pavelić was unquestionably a Yugoslav collaborator. I refuse to indulge you in any more of your silly comparison games as you struggle to grasp the objective view any person outside of Croatia (and the Croatian Wikipedia) has about these sort issues.

• "Citizenship only"? Let me ask you a question, do you or do you not hold that Aloysius Stepinac was a Yugoslav? Simple as that. No "meanings" attached. Would this person, this person from Yugoslavia, be referred to as "a Yugoslav" in 1960? In other words, is he or is he not a Yugoslav? Of course he's a Yugoslav. I can tell you right now that you can forget about removing that adjective from the lead.
• "Treatment of people inside a federation makes no difference to my case"? Doesn't it now? That is the silliest thing I've heard yet. Let me repeat: The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly are Yugoslav and Croatian mutually exclusive? Why not mention both (like in many other articles for persons living during the time of Yugoslavia(s)?) As for the language in the title, IMHO Croatian could stay, it's not like we're invalidating the fact that Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin are 4 different names for one and the same thing - we're simply making concession to various national-specific articles to prefer their own ethnic designation. OTOH, when adding pronunciation in IPA transcription, Serbo-Croatian should be used ({{IPA-sh}}) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with both ("Yugoslav and Croatian Cardinal"), I'm opposing the total removal of "Yugoslav" from the lead. The same thing goes for the languages, I'm perfectly ok with "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Cyrillic: Алојзије Виктор Степинац)" or "(Serbo-Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Алојзије Виктор Степинац; Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac)". The problem is that User:Paxcoder will have no mention of "Yugoslav" or use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to write in Cyrillic. Croatian being a micro language of "Serbo-Croatian" or not, there is no reason to write Cyrillic version of a Croatian name. I left "Yugoslav", so you can now perhaps stop claiming without foundation that I "will have no mention of 'Yugoslav'". I still think that "Yugoslav" is ambiguous and that "Yugoslav citizenship" is better, but I see that disputing with you leads nowhere - you decided to claim this article and there's hardly anything I can do about it. I instead made a slight, hopefully helpful and resolving modification. There is no reason to write any Croatian's name from that period in Cyrillic, and we don't do this on wiki, there is absolutely no reason we should do it on this particular article. Again, please stop yelling POV (this time try harder, last time you failed miserably) because personally, you're projecting. --Paxcoder (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic is NOT Serbian. Cyrillic is not a language. It is an alphabet. An alphabet used by the contemporary language of Stepinac's lifetime - Serbo-Croatian. This has no more to do with the Serbian language than with Finnish. You can write-up words in the Croatian language in Cyrillic, its still Croatian, in fact, you can write French or Portuguese or German in Cyrillic it makes no difference. Writing someone's name in Cyrillic ≠ Writing someone's name in Serbian, ok?

I'm just going to repeat this since I still haven't gotten a proper reply:

The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Antony's name was "Marcus Antonius", so that argument is useless. Now without discussing weather you're right when you claim that Croatian and Serbian are two dialects or not, I will once again claim that there is no reason to write Serbian Cyrillic alphabet (or any other alphabet) if Croatian language is sufficient which I claim it is. I have already expressed why I feel it is sufficient (Ctrl+F "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" and read the paragraph). Do you have some other reason why you feel this "information" (Stepinac's name in Cyrilic) is useful? --Paxcoder (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no language that Serbian and Croatian are dialects of - they're one and identical dialect called Neoštokavian, which is another name for Serbo-Croatian. (all of the Croatian linguists also agree that dialectologically modern standard B/C/S/M are one language, don't forget that). This is the biggest paradox of kroatistika nowadays, how can one and the same dialect be "different languages", and 3 completely different dialects, mutually unintelligible in some speeches (Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian), be "one language" :D

As for Serbo-Croato-Slovene - it was imaginary political constructions, which never had its grammars, orthographies, grammars etc. published. Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, had it, for 150 years no less. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim Serbian and Croatian are two dialect, you're putting words into my mouth. Serbian and Croatian are languages that are part of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. Here's the thing though: that's completely irrelevant right now.

The language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. You have no basis upon which to remove that language. "Sufficient"? So your "argument" is that you can remove the contemporary language Stepinac spoke on the basis that you personally estimate another similar language spoken today is "sufficient"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't claim these are one language, then I see absolutely no further reason why you would want any mention of Serbian language (and with it, the Cyrillic) in the lead as my argument about languages in other now-defunct states explains. It's a Croatian guy's Croatian name spelled in Croatian - what's the big deal, WHY do we want another language used at that time? Even translating names of organizations, parties, and other things in the article would make more sense than translating a person's name. This is just not common practice on the Wikipedia, and there is no reason to do this. (I'm puzzled, wayttd?) --Paxcoder (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You see absolutely no further reason why I would want any mention of Serbian language? Neither do I. What part of "Cyrillic is NOT Serbian" do you find unclear? Serbo-Croatian is not Serbian, any more than it is Croatian, or Bosnian. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the fact that Serbo-Croatian was used at the time, and that's why you want to exclude any mention of it from the lead.

• "WHY do we want another language used at that time?" because its a history article. Contemporary languages used at the time the historical figures lived and worked are historical information (that you are trying to exclude on the basis of arbitrary "feelings").
• "It's a Croatian guy's Croatian name spelled in Croatian - what's the big deal." Correction: Its a name of a Yugoslav Croatian guy who lived all his life in Yugoslavia and never ever spoke any language that was called "Croatian" (because Croatian did not exist at the time; Nazi views on the matter excluded). Its a guy who's language was known as Serbo-Croatian, whether he liked it or not.

I'll be brief: the language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. You have absolutely no basis upon which to remove it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we say Cyrillic is non-Serbian specific (even though you know as much as I do that Croatian isn't and wasn't written in it), then it doesn't need to be in the lead simply because "Serbo-Croatian" can also be spelled in Latin only. But let me try to put it differently: Serbo-Croatian is what they called two languages under the same umbrella in the time that this guy happened to live in. This is not A language at a time, this is a macrolanguage, or a common name for two languages used at the time, depending on who you ask. Alojzije is a Croatian name, and using Serbo-Croatian instead of Croatian (alone) is unnecessary. However, I still don't see why would you insist that this man's name be spelled in Serbo-Croatian, when it's not a Serbo-Croatian name, when nothing else in the article that is in "Serbo-Croatian" is spelled with Cyrilic letters (also), and again, because this is not common practice. All these things point to the fact that this is completely unnecessary regardless of what people in Yugoslavia declared their language to be or what letters they used. --Paxcoder (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to use a macrolanguage with all its alphabets for this person's because:

• For various institutions, "Serbo-Croatian" names in Latin are enough, why isn't it for the person's name? By any logic, it should be the other way around.
• Unlike what you say, historians claim Croatian has existed before, and not just after the split. You say Croatian language is a subset of "Serbio-Croatian". It is also distinct from Serbian. Therefore, there is no need to use a Cyrilic alphabet (common to Serbian only) alongside Latin alphabet common to Croatian. - Croatian is sufficient.
• For Stjepan Radić we don't use all 13 languages and various alphabets of the Austria-Hungary where he lived nor the "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" from SHS where he also lived, it's unnecessary, and we don't need to do it here - It's not common practice.

I think these are sound, non-POV arguments, and any further arguing would be redundant if you do not adress the above as-is (without merely repeating that "Serbo-Croatian" was declared a state language in Yugoslavia). --Paxcoder (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian was not classified as a macrolanguage or umbrella term back then, i.e. in the historical context of Aloysius Stepinac's life. It was simply an "ordinary" language (with variants). (I thought we had this clear...)

• This is an encyclopedia. If some choose not to use both scripts, its their choice. However, I "choose" to add this information into the article. It is valid, and relevant. Why shouldn't I?
• No language known as "Croatian" is classified to have existed between 1918 and 1991.
• Stjepan Radić should definitely have his name in both scripts of Serbo-Croatian (his article is kind of crappy too, if you'll pardon the expression). There is no "common practice" concerning this. Your comparisons are still not really arguments.

You're not giving me any real reason not to include this valid, relevant information into the article. I get the feeling like you just believe it is somehow "wrong" and are perpetuating this discussion without foundation. I do not much like nationalist anti-Serbian nonsense, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you don't want Serbo-Croatian to be mentioned because you feel its "too Serbian" for such a "Great Catholic Croat"?

The contemporary language of this Croatian person's lifetime was the Serbo-Croatian language, it is only proper to add this language into the lead of the article. I can't see a single proper reason why I should not add it. I'm sorry we can't reach an agreement, and I suppose we'll have to start the dispute resolution process if you still disagree. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to address your "answers":

• You think it's relevant, but give no arguments why. The fact that both scripts were equally used for government-related things back then is not one (argument). Again, why a person's name in a different script than what he preferred, and not organizations' names? (because, if anything organizations were spelled in both scripts, and names - almost never I would guess)
• Weather the government of that time recognized Croatian to be a distinct language or not is irrelevant, and not a reason to use Cyrilic script for a Croatian name. Please try to *understand* my arguments.
• Common practice is a practice that is common (as the phrase implies). Using every language/script used at a time of a now-defunct states for people's names is uncommon and unnecessary. My comparisons are just to give examples.

There is nothing Serbian about the man's name. There is no need to use a Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, instead of using plain Latin alone, commonly used for Croatian names. The name of the "language" as the state viewed it and what scripts they required official organizations be labeled in is, again, irrelevant - all Croatian names weren't magically transformed into "Serbo-Croatian" at the time of Yugoslavia and they do not require that we spell them in Cyrillic today (actually, this wasn't even required at that time). It makes no sense to have Cyrilic. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding...

• It is relevant because the language at that time (and throughout 67.22% of his lifetime) was Serbo-Croatian. Therefore that language should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Simple as that. I see no valid reason why to include it only partially.
• I agree: it is irrelevant. Croatian is relevant, and should be included in the lead (even though it did not legally exist). Serbo-Croatian is also relevant because it was the only language that did legally exist.
• There is no established "common practice" in these mostly crappy Balkans biographical articles. The whole thing is haphazard. Most English names are exactly like the Croatian or Serbo-Croatian names. There isn't a single GA-class Balkans bio article...

I agree yet again: there is absolutely nothing Serbian about the man's name, which is why I wouldn't suggest adding Serbian here in my wildest dreams. You're also right in that Croatian name in Latin (commonly used for Croatian names) should definitely be mentioned. You're just not telling me why Serbo-Croatian can't be used.
This is all because the Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian name for this guy are identical. This is why you imagined that writing his name in Cyrillic = writing his name in Serbian (LoL :)...

Shall we please agree on this? Mentioning both languages seems so damn unacceptable here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. This discussion was a failure. I give up. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav and/or Croatian

I removed a couple of "Yugoslavia"s from the lede; well OK, he was a citizen of Yugoslavia, but being a Croat is what defined his life and career. I think that application of "Yugoslav" and national labels should be decided case-by-case, and that this is not one of cases where it's applicable. I was about to say that Ante Pavelić article does not refer to Pavelić as a "Yugoslav" but found out that it was Direktor [3] who changed it, and it seems bizarre to me. I'm an anti-nationalist, but I think you're being too bold with this. Some of Yugoslav cultural and historic heritage is shared indeed, but I think that referring to all persons who lived between 1918 and 1990 as "Yugoslavs" is going overboard. Surely being a "Croat" and a "Yugoslav" is not mutually exclusive, but many of them – Stepinac being one – come from a clearly identifiable national milieu and in those cases should be labeled as such. Andrić, Bregović, Tito or Selimović would probably be another story, but please let's be reasonable. No such user (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree. Firstly, 1) its not up to us to establish some arbitrary "rule" on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" a person was. It is obvious that that is no way to write an encyclopedia. Secondly 2) a person's ideological disposition towards Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism is completely irrelevant in determining his country of origin. Thirdly, 3) we are here to convey correct information.

It is only in the Balkans, where our own little "ideological struggle" is so inextricably mixed with everything, that stating someone was from Yugoslavia is somehow "bold" and "inappropriate". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But, how do you determine the meaning of adjective Yugoslav DIREKTOR. Does it mean "originating from Yugoslavia" (whichever Yugoslavia), or "Yugoslav by provenience of one's work"? On German Wikipedia they use the term Yugoslav in such broader sense, which makes lots of nationalists angry (and gets them blocked :D), but should we really force it only upon individuals who have either openly accepted their Yugoslav provenience, or have strong Pan-Yugoslav context in their work, or alsoon everyone that happens to be born in a state called Yugoslavia, regardless of his ideological convictions? I'm sure that there are many proud Yugoslavs born in the period of NDH, and which your classification would exclude! Pavelić OTOH is an example of extreme right-wing Croatian nationalist and clearly doesn't fit into Yugoslavism by his belief or work. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. You are of course referring to the difference between an ethnonym and a demonym. "Yugoslav" should be used in the sense of a demonym ("a name for a resident of a locality which is derived from the name of the particular locality"), with the ethnonym following it:

• "XY was a Yugoslav Serbian baseball player" or "XY was a Serbian Yugoslav baseball player" (just like a "XY was a Serbian American joke of a governor" ;). Though... I'm not sure on whether we should reverse the two.

If the person is actually was actually a Yugoslav (and not a Serb/Croat/Slovene.. etc.) then we only mention "Yugoslav" in the sense of an ethnonym which is common practice with "ordinary" nations:

• "XY was a Yugoslav tapdancer..."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not inventing any "rule" -- on the contrary, I think you are enforcing a "rule" whereby a person's passport country must be stated first in the lead. A number of articles lived happily for quite a while with a "Croatian" ethnonym before you started implementing the "rule". I don't think that anybody thinks of them as "Yugoslav anything". I claim that there's no (or should not be) cut and dried "rule" which ethnonym/demonym to put in the lead. I don't know what ethnonym should be in the lead for various sportspeople, entertainers and other biographies, but for Pavelić or Stepinac I find it outright bizarre.
For (an imperfect) comparison, imagine that all 19th century Croatian people had "...was an Austro-Hungarian writer..." in the lead. Well, I would revert-war about this first. No such user (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, aptly put. ;) I could also argue that you are enforcing "The Rule" by which Users are not allowed to mention a person's demonym but only the ethnonym in the lead (when the two differ). Should we write "Josip Jelačić was a Croatian Austro-Hungarian"? I certainly see no reason why not (quote: "being a son of the (Croatian) nation, being the supporter of liberty, and being subject to Austria, I am faithfully committed to the constitutional Emperor of the Empire and its Kings, and I long for a great, free Austria.").

Perhaps "rule" was a wrong choice of words. Let me rephrase: its not up to us to decide on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" that person was. You are not suggesting a "rule", and I am not suggesting we implement a "rule" either. Quite simply, I argue that users should not be prevented from mentioning the actual country all these people were from, i.e. their demonym, in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, um, since there we agreed that there is no rule, then can we reach a WP:CONSENSUS that Stepinac and Pavelić were defined as Croatian politicians in the lead, just as they were before you intervened? I find that the phrasing of "Croatian Austro-Hungarian", or "Serb Yugoslav", and like, is plain ugly, and I doubt you will find a English-language publication using that sort of language.

I am not advocating that users be banned from mentioning the demonym, but I stress that there is no rule that the demonym must be mentioned either, especially in the cases where it's not pertaining to the person's career and is clear from the context. In shifting borders of the Balkans, some Bosnians were born in Ottoman Empire, raised in Austria-Hungary, and died in Yugoslavia -- what were they? I'm just asking for common sense to be applied, and I argue that "Aloysius Stepinac was a Yugoslav..." violates (my idea of) the common sense.

Now you did the same to Draža Mihailović [4]. Unfortunately, I don't have as much energy to spare to the issue as you do, but I want to put forth my disagreement with your editing style. No such user (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, articles change all the time, and I like to think its mostly for the better. We both agree (I hope) that Stepinac and Pavelić were ethnic Croats from Yugoslavia. That much is apparent. What we have here is an article lead that only states they were ethnic Croats, and omits any mention of the fact that they were from Yugoslavia (demonym). Now, you're saying that there is "no rule that the demonym must be mentioned". At this point I must draw attention to the fact that there is "no rule" that requires us to add almost anything in the lead. The lead, however, is there to include basic information on the subject. I believe that a person's country of origin falls in that category. I know you're not suggesting a "rule", but you'd actually need a "rule" (MoS) to justify removing that information.

Concerning Draža. He's an extremely controversial person, and his case is the perfect example of how unstable "arbitrary opinions" can make an article. I take it you believe we should state that he was a "Serbian general". Well, I could argue that he was a Yugoslav monarchist (Yugoslav monarchism = Yugoslav unitarianism), and therefore a typical monarchist unitarianist Yugoslav. Many would argue that way, especially his supporters. This example shows how easily all these debates can be avoided by simply mentioning both adjectives. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. I think you're overdoing it. Every single person above has reservations and objections with the nature of your edits, and I think you're acting against consensus. I don't want to impose a majority view, but when myself, Paxcoder, Thewanderer raise objections to those edits, and even Štambuk has serious reservations, and you're the only one who changes long-standing definitions I think it's time that you reconsider your approach. And I don't think that you can call my or Štambuk's POV "a nationalist".
Simply put: I think it's unnatural to classify a person as a "Yugoslav" when he had solely or mostly an anti-Yugoslav attitude, clearly belongs to one national culture, and has acted solely in affirmation of that culture. That is not to say that Yugoslavia must not be mentioned in the introduction, but there are a number of ways to phrase the same thing. Again, "Yugoslav Croatian" is bad English, as one does not accumulate two locative adjectives. "Yugoslav and Croatian" is grammatical, but redundant, because any reader with minimal knowledge would know that in "(1918-1990) Croatian < Yugoslav". Again, no person from Austro-Hungary was labeled "Austro-Hungarian", and no person from Ottoman Empire was labeled "Ottoman" unless they were statesmen. Yes, Yugoslavia was a different case than Austria-Hungary or Ottoman Empire, as many people have acted across the ethnic lines; it is highly inappropriate, however, to apply "Yugoslav" label so broadly as you are trying to do. No such user (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Again, Direktor, should every USSR citizen who lived between 1918 and 1990 have "Soviet" adjective in the lead, just because he had an USSR passport? I thought we established that the "Yugoslav" adjective is simply redundant here? No such user (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's futile, No such user. Direktor writes what Direktor sees fit (or otherwise wants to write). --Paxcoder (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

C'mon DIREKTOR, Yugoslav as a general national designation is way too compromised nowadays to be used that loosely. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that using the combination of adjectives "Yugoslav Croatian" is clumsy, and we've had this kind of language reverted on several Partisan biography pages. There is, however, merit in mentioning Yugoslavia earlier than it is currently done, because that was the defining environment of his archbishopric throughout his tenure. Mentioning NDH earlier than Yugoslavia gives that period undue weight over the other one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

US High School Named in Honor of Stepinac

In White Plains New York is a Catholic Boys High School that was named in honor of Cardinal Stepinac. One of the most noted graduates of the school was John Voight the movie star. He is today a staunch supporter of the school along with his two brothers who also attended the school. (I am a graduate of Stepinac High School) 71.94.251.83 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this article titled Aloysius Stepinac, when the man's name is Alojzije? Names should not be translated: The article for Pierre Trudeau would never be titled Peter Trudeau, for example. If this has to do with the name under which he was beatified, I would still insist that his legal name be kept in the title. 74.104.98.175 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove section?

I think this section:

"In 1984 a community of Croatians who had emigrated to Cleveland, Ohio, built a Croatian American Home named after Stepinac and placed a larger-than-life statue of Archbishop Stepinac in its hallway. The Croatian American Lodge is located in Eastlake, Ohio."

Is irrelevant. There are many statues of Stepinac (including one in my home town - a bust to be exact) and other depictions (ditto). I don't see why the above is encyclopedic material. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP. Now Direktor has posted on my talk page that it's no longer needed. Is there consensus that the content dispute is over and that protection can be lifted? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All I asked the user was to please show me that honorifics were included in the "name=" parameter of the template, because I know from experience they are usually not. As it turns out there is a specific parameter for honorific prefixes. Between starting an edit-war and calling me all sorts of names (and "standing by them"), the user has at last done the research and properly included the honorific. Therefore on my part the issue is resolved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem so, SlimVirgin. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've removed the protection. Happy editing. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Having finally done the relevant research myself now, I must regrettably admit that I do see a problem. As N419BH pointed out, WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion". I have also noticed that "Saint" does not fall under the term "honorific" since it is a religious spiritual rank, not a title of honour. Policy expressly contradicts the current state of the article, and "blessed" should be removed from the lead and the infobox where it is incorrectly inserted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about trying a WP:RFC, to see what's the take of the community on the issue? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCWC applies to *articles*, not names in absolutely every place imaginable. This and the honorific title are added on the grounds of John Henry Newman article (how many times do I need to say this?). Curiously, "DIREKTOR" doesn't have a problem of these being there, but when it comes to Aloysius - an force of resistance against communism, he's willing to start an edit war and even contact administrators to get his ways. Now that things blew over (and I'm still here), he tries it again. I am frankly tired of this. Should it be decided to expand the policy to other things, and that "saint" is not a honorific title, then a bot should replace any occurence of "saint" or "blessed" alongside a name across all articles mentioning saints or blesseds. Should it also be decided that saint and blessed are explicitly *not* honorific titles, those should be removed across Wikipedia as well. While there is no consensus, I am referring to the existing practice. --Paxcoder (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To be brief, naming conventions apply to article text as well, "Paxcoder". Read up on that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say this one last time: The above policy applies to titles of articles, and makes no "common sense" for it to be applied across whole articles, and wherever the saint's/blessed's name is mentioned. The latter part of this (my final) statement about this matter is supported by common practice, of which examples I am tired of giving. The former is supported by this line from the policy you mispresent: "This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about individual people.".

Next time you revert these edits, I'll give you the taste of your own medicine and contact the admin board - a thing which I have never done about anyone before, unlike you who tried to get me banned (as you've said) because you were "insulted" when I called you a vandal. No doubt you've done that in order for you to be able to edit in peace the way you want to, too bad for you it didn't work out. The difference will be that I have real and overwhelming evidence of your vandalism, your systematic attempts to add a POV color to this article (I don't know about other articles, but I'm sure your practices are pretty much the same elsewhere). I see you - and people like you as a threat to Wikipedia and its (for the most part) democratic nature: You are what they call an oppressive vocal minority with an agenda and obviously countless hours to spare on pushing it (copy paste this to the admin board, I'm sure you want to). Article squatters like you need to be stopped. If you continue doing this, be certain that I will make sure that you get banned (something I should've perhaps done a long time ago) even if it takes me being banned: There's not much point of me being here if I cannot contribute to the community by standing up to even one agenda-pusher. I refuse to be terrorized by you again for simply saying the truth about you (that you're a vandal), and people here are tired of your vandalisms and quasi-argumentation as well. Somebody needs to step up, and since nothing else works with you, I unfortunately need to be the one. --Luka Marčetić/Paxcoder (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name:

"Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick."

Aloysius Stepinac is obviously not known as "Blessed Aloysius".
Additionally, WP:NCWC most certainly does apply to article text. Please do not start listing irrelevant examples. This is an issue of policy now, which certainly supersedes any articles you may find that happen to support your POV. I can list an infinite number of articles about saints and beatified people that do not share your "catholic glorification" lead format. In short, I am not interested in precedents.

As for the infobox: "Venerable" is an honorific title. "Saint" is NOT an "honorific title". It is a spiritual rank granted by God himself. I am not religious but I imagine other Christians might very well even be offended by your equating Sainthood with e.g. the Order of the People's Hero. I imagine you are unaware of this, but your argument amounts to the claim that "Saint" is an "honorific title" granted by the Vatican, i.e. that saints do not exist. God does not grant "honorific titles". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS A STUB

Clearly, when someone doesnt know what to say, It speaks lies... a Lesson of History for you! Why stepinac was "Santified" by Pope Jonh Paul II??? In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... thats why Jonh Paul Beatificated him!!! Understand?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KIHV1402 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac is blessed and not saint

This article is not a stub, but maybe it is necessary a little more overview over it. I think, that it is too long to be "stub", isn't it?

Stepinac is family name and in all cultural languages must be written with great letter: also Stepinac and not stepinac.

Cardinal Stepinac was not "sanctified" by Pope John Paul II, but only "beatified". It is however one step before "sanctification" or "canonization". So must be transformed his Infobox: not only as cardinal (violet), but also as Saint (yellow).

User KIHV1402 wrote: »In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... that’s why John Paul beatified him.» Not only of this reason. He is beatified especially for that reason, because he personally lived as good Christian in ascetic, forgiveness and praying. He is nominated as martyr too, because he is poisoned. But he is great Catholic Christian too, because he remained faithful to Pope. Pope is proxy (substitute) of Christ in this world and so is Catholic Church true Church of Christ. The destiny of Alojzije Stepinac during dictator Tito was very simile as destiny of Saint Cardinal of Westminster John Fisher during dictator king Henry VIII. These dictators were cruel persecutors of Catholic Church. --Stebunik (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He was not accused of treason due to his "defiant resistance" to the formation of a separate Yugoslav church. That was a rather unrealistic proposal that was very quickly abandoned even by the communists themselves, and is frequently used for propaganda purposes aimed at persons unacquainted with the actual facts of the matter.

The actual facts are that he started very openly and aggressively to meddle in secular matters of state, with a clear agenda to maneuver himself and the church into a position where they could make demands of the Yugoslav government. He and the church started making proclamations aimed directly against the government, without a doubt in order to counter the exclusion of the church from state-run schools and the nationalization of its huge estates (along with everybody else's). Even with such open attacks and the blatant pushing of his own political agenda, Stepinac was given every opportunity to stop with his aggressive campaigning to galvanize Yugoslav catholics. He did not realize, as Josip Broz Tito did, that he really had no power to bargain with the Yugoslav leadership. Even after his conviction, he received preferential treatment in jail, and his sentence (already incredibly small for a charge of high treason) was quickly commuted.

The claims that he was "murdered" are nonsensical myths without any support in any evidence whatsoever. For one thing, if the government wanted to get rid of him, why did they commute his sentence? The man died of polycythaemia-induced thrombosis (a disorder harboring absolutely no symptomatic similarities with oleandrin poisoning). He was a politician first and foremost, and no martyr. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,comrade DIREKTOR! You are right! (LOL)

Oh no, I'm sure he was just an innocent holy guy, just minding his own holy business when, just for the kick of it, the satan sent the evil communists to imprison him for 5 years. Either that or he brought the church into politics, and got himself locked-up on trumped-up charges (yes, I am aware they were likely fake).

Unfortunately for your world view, I'm not a socialist. And yes - I am right. Unlike you, I educated myself about this person from non-Yugoslav historians and scholars, not my local priest. (Altering people's posts is not allowed on Wikipedia.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All your education on that is based on the official sources of SFRJ. No other POVs were allowed at that time! There was no independent investigation-it could not possibly beacause it was a dictatorship.So, your "education" are more-less theories! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.30.140 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. He certainly did bring the church into politics. And in a real country the church would be prevented from doing so (rather than issuing "proclamations" in support of Sanader and similar nonsense). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 about persecution of Serbs too

All men and all races are children of God; all without distinction. Those who are Gypsies, Black, European, or Aryan all have the same rights.... for this reason, the Catholic Church had always condemned, and continues to condemn, all injustice and all violence committed in the name of theories of class, race, or nationality. It is not permissible to persecute Gypsies or Jews because they are thought to be an inferior race. Here is original in Croatian. Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 in Zagreb about persecution of Serbs too. In first section Stepinac mentions Serbs and other nations in danger; in second part however he affirms, that all races are equal before God. (In original is written ie and not ije: uviek, riečima, srdce…). Let you translate it in English:

Jedni nas optužuju, da nismo pravodobno i da nismo kako bi trebalo ustali protiv zločina, koji su se zbivali po pojedinim krajevima naše domovine. Njima odgovaramo prije svega, da mi nismo niti želimo biti bilo čija politička trublja, koja prilagođuje svoj glas časovitim željama i potrebama pojedinih stranaka ili pojedinaca. Mi smo uvijek naglašavali u javnom životu principe vječnoga zakona Božjega bez obzira radi li se o Hrvatima, Srbima, Židovima, Ciganima, katolicima, muslimanima, pravoslavnima ili kome drugom. Ali mi ne možemo zvati na uzbunu niti fizički koga prisiliti, da te vječne Božje zakone vrši, jer svaki čovjek ima slobodnu volju i svaki će za svoja djela odgovarati prema riječima apostolovim, da će «svaki svoje breme nositi» (Gal 6,5). Zato ne možemo odgovarati ni za koju tu usijanu glavu u svećeničkim redovima.

Second passage speaks about races. They are equal, because God is Creator of all them:

Odgovorit ćemo konačno i onima, koji nas obtužuju, da smo pristaše rasizma, jer kako vidite, katolička je Crkva u nečijim glavama za sve kriva. Mi smo svoje stanovište prema rasizmu definirali otkad rasizam postoji, a ne možda danas. A to stanovište je kratko i jasno. Katolička Crkva ne pozna rasa, koje gospoduju i rasa koje robuju. Katolička Crkva pozna samo rase i narode kao tvorevine Božje, a ako koga više cijeni, to je onaj, koji ima plemenitije srdce, a ne jaču pesnicu. Za nju je čovjek jednako Crnac iz centralne Afrike kao i Evropejac. Za nju je kralj kao čovjek u kraljevskoj palači upravo tako čovjek kao zadnji siromah i ciganin pod šatorom. Ona među njima ne pozna bitne razlike kao čovjeka. Jedan i drugi imaju neumrlu dušu, jedan i drugi su istog kraljevskog porietla, vukući lozu od Boga Stvoritelja. To je rasna nauka katoličke Crkve, a sve drugo su obična podmetanja, za koja vrijede riječi – u laži su kratke noge!

--Stebunik (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Stebunik. Words are one thing, deeds (or lack of them) - entirely another. The catholic church in general, and especially that in Croatia, is well known to have had strong ties with fascist regimes (esp. Mussolini, Franco, Petain, and Pavelić, not so much the Nazis). Whole books were written about this stuff. The church has of course, quite unsurprisingly denied this vehemently, but the sources and evidence are there nevertheless (see sources in this article, exampli gratia [5]).

I will review the sources to see how much of his speech were just pretty words in contradiction with the facts and actions of others. However as far as I'm concerned please post the text in English, it is undoubtedly relevant and well sourced. However: please do not present this as a condemnation of the crimes against Serbs. Serbs were mentioned very marginally in the sermon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians?

"Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians." So was in time of Stepinac too. He rejects such accusations ih his sermon too. (Croatian: Katolička Crkva neka bi bila kriva za sve. To krivo gledanje spominje Stepinac i u svojoj propovijedi i odbacuje ga. I danas je nekima Crkva dežurni krivac za sve.) Today are many persons, that think: Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians, sinners, managers, capitalists and so on. Pedofilia is so only in Catholic Church? Between lay teachers, politicians, parents does not exist? Maybe more as between Catholic priests. Here are many prejudices. If you are interesting, dear user Direktor, let you read the books, which are written from Vojislav Šešelj against Catholic Church. There are not many true sources, but often lies. But he is not alone. Already the titles of his books are fool of hatred. Let you read the newspaper of Šešelj’s part „Velika Srbija” (Great Serbia) too. It is published now too. I do not know, that exists one newspaper with title „Velika Hrvatska” (Great Croatia).

I ask: When are forced Catholics to enter in Orthodoxy in Romania, Ukrayina, Russia - protested maybe at least one Orthodox-bishop or priest or believer? Or when king Henry VIII. forced all Catholics in Anglia in anglicanism, who protests today in Anglican Church against this injustice? But Stepinac protestes against persecutions of Serbs alredy during this events, here is his greaty! That fact was very dangerous during nazis!

We speak here but not about clergy in Croatia in general, but especially about part of Cardinal Stepinac. I think, that here is not only history, but propaganda against Catholic Church too. I felt much hatred in this matter already from other site. We must write „sine ira et studio”. I read now the book about Stepinac from Stella Alexander „The Triple Myth, A life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac” in Croatian ISBN 86-2673-001-6 – „Trostruki mit, Život zagrebačkog nadbiskupa Alojzija Stepinca”, Golia Zagreb 1990. I think it is one good book.

By Orthodoxes I do not know one simile sermon as this of Stepinac: never during the Second World War nor during this last War (1991-1999) in Former Yugoslavia. I admire Stepinac! He was not politician or commander in chief, but pastor of souls. In his vocation he was consequent. He said, that his power is little.

The facts are imporant, but the words too. That citation in article about Stepinac from his sermon on 31th October 1943 is not entirely faithful. I have original - diference is not great. The sense is the same. --Stebunik (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The letter from 31th October 1943 is not mentioned in article. That letter is not from this datum, therefore a difference. --Stebunik (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"The poor Catholic Church gets blamed"? Nonsense. The Church is well known to have been a political force indisputably responsible for the deaths of millions of people in history, and also for actively and directly participating in heinous crimes during the Yugoslav Front and the Spanish Civil War in modern days. A devout Catholic such as yourself is hardly an objective observer. Clergymen played direct roles in the mass "conversions" that ended with the massacre of the (now "purified") civilians involved - with absolutely NO reprimand by the Church.

The Church is a very powerful political and financial force cynically portraying itself as a benevolent "good shepherd". It continues to be the cause of mass suffering throughout the world. As a medical man I can say that I am paricularly appalled at the role the Church played in the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Africa, and that's just one example. We are talking about millions of real human lives, lost and ruined for the sake of pathetic mumbo-jumbo... But I digress, apologies. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed; you are intollerant!

Dear user Direktor: --Stebunik (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I am indeed very intolerant of all things harmful. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear user Direktor! I am in contraty not angry. Be you peaceful, lovely, with great soul too. God bless you! I wish to you and to all users in Wikipedia happy and blessed New Year 2011!--91.148.64.186 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)