Jump to content

Talk:Ustaše in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 25 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Requested move 12 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There are no extant suggestions here for alternative titles, and the discussion has not seen any action for 11 days now, including a full relist. As such, I don't see any consensus for change. If someone wants to re-propose with a concrete title and evidence, they may go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaše in Australia → ? – In European usage, it seems to me that the term "Ustaše" mainly refers to the organization dismantled in the mid-20th century; its various vestiges and sympathisers have occasionally colloquially been referred to as "Ustaše", but I don't think this is a scholarly consensus. It seems a fair bit anachronistic to describe modern-day events under the exact same moniker, and it also seems to give undue weight to the concept of some sort of a multi-decade continuity that's not actually covered as such in sources. It would probably make sense to either rename or split into separate articles, using more descriptive titles (WP:NDESC). Something like History of right-wing nationalism among Croatian Australians? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ustaše were not dismantled in the mid-20th Century, only the puppet-state they had control of. It's quite strange that you can walk into Croatian Australian clubs and events today and walk past portraits and busts of Pavelic and Ustaše merchandise and people with Ustaše tattoos and shirts, hear Za dom spremni, but apparently this is not a continuation of Ustaše. The references cover that it is not just a casual link but a direct result of active Ustaše members achieving influence in Australia. I'll add some more if you like to make it clearer that there is an evident scholarly consensus. It is a very interesting topic and one of importance to the wider Australian community (considering the recent events) in understanding what the Ustaše is now and in the past and what it represents. Dippiljemmy (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an accurate reading of the sources, even those you have cited already. For example, Campion (2018) generally uses the term in this way to refer to post-WWII events, yet explicitly states how the term Ustaša is used to refer to "the Croatian extremist movement" and that there were a series of separate organizations, and then expressly states how what it describes as Ustaša ended in 1973. This is a glaring WP:SYNTH violation. So if you want to stick to 'Ustaše in Australia' and use this source, then you have to split off post-70s content off; if you want to keep it, you have to switch to a more descriptive title - and for example History of Croatian extremist movements in Australia could be one based on that source. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an area that editor @Peacemaker67: could provide insight on. The current intro seems a bit pov in the article. For example the 1990s Croatian war when this article is about Australia… Not sure about the term Ustase in modern contect. Maybe Neo-Ustase? OyMosby (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useful links include: this statement by the Australian A-G in 1972, which gives an idea of the arguments at that time. There are several books published in the 1970s by people associated with the CPA, including Aarons and Dave Davies, and also books by Marjan Jurjevic and the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation from the same time period. Not sure of any since the breakup of Yugoslavia, though I am aware of some newspaper and web news articles like this one from 2019. This article needs a lot of work to go through what is available among the reliable sources and fix it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case the URL goes bad, the first link has a paragraph that says:

The term 'Ustasha' is used by different people in different senses. Historically, it was the name given to the political revolutionary group which established the independent state of Croatia in 1941. In that sense the organisation, 'Ustasha', ceased to exist in 1945. By some, the term is used to indicate any manifestation of Croatian nationalism. Obviously, the use of the term in this way to suggest that any display of support for Croatian nationalism is terrorist, nazi or fascist is highly misleading.

It's nice to see this lack of nuance was recognized even that many decades ago. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also spell out the fact that the BalkanInsight article also leans on Dr Campion's work and clearly distinguishes the situation before and after the 1970s. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Major figures in that war were Croatian-Australians, ie. Kraljevic the general talked about in the section was a member of the HRB branch of the Ust. under Srecko Rover and he also was a part of the Bugojno incursion but was arrested in Melbourne on unrelated charges so was unable to take part. I'll probably add this in soon to make the direct connection more apparent. Also the HOS forces are a take from the original HOS armed forces of the NDH. The HOS as an entity was actually first re-introduced post WW2 by Srecko Rover in Australia in the 60s as an even more militant branch of the HRB and then continued by Kraljevic etc in the 90s conflict. The direct connections to Ustase are there but I guess could be made a lot clearer. I encourage others to look at it, it's very interesting. Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is in question. You actually forgot the fact that the guy who killed Josip Reihl-Kir was from Australia. However, this doesn't change the fact that calling all of those various people just "Ustaše in Australia" is devoid of encyclopedic rigor. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is indisputable, and thank you for agreeing with me on this, is that people like Srecko Rover and Ljubomir Vuina etc. were active Ustaše in the NDH who then came to Australia and continued as Ustaše by setting up branches of the Ustaša eg. HRB. People who joined the HRB etc. publicly expressed support for Ustaše ideals and devotion to Ustaše leaders ie. Ante Pavelic and/or Maks Luburic. Therefore, people like Kraljevic are Ustaše who lived in Australia conducted training as HOS (militant branch of HRB) in Australia and then went to Croatia as HOS to serve in war of independence. Hence, Ustaše in Australia is a title that reflects this.
Additionally, people like Vuina lived in Australia til 1999, Rover died i think in 2005, Lovokovic 2022, Spremnost stopped publishing only in 2007, 10th April celebrations still occur etc, thereby "Ustaše in Australia" is relevant til the 21st century. I would also add that the recent usage in Australia of the overt Ustaše flag with the U in the top left corner and other flags such as the HOS flag with NDH inscribed on it instead of HOS seem to be more popular than ever further strengthening the "Ustaše in Australia" as a highly representative title. Despite this, I am willing to compromise by re-naming the last main section as Neo-Ustaše activity in 21st Century Australia or something similar. Thank you. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I also think usage of the title suggestion of "History of right wing extremism among Croatian Australians" could be misconstrued as a demographic generalisation being potentially harmful to those many fantastic people in Croatian Australian society who reject Ustaša ideals. Thanks again. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
No, you're still making claims that are entirely too simplistic and which are not supported by sources. Please, simply read the preponderance of reliable sources and use their descriptions of these folks, as opposed to trying to infer and prescribe these things. Refer to WP:V and WP:NOR for more information. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: no viable proposed title yet. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

Now in regards to neutrality, not to sound dramatic but seriously, do other users think there should be more content supportive of fascist Nazi-collaborators responsible for some of the worst genocide of the modern period. Would anyone like to engage in some bothsidesism or genocide denial? Or what is the issue here? (Dippiljemmy (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

All articles, however vile their subject matter might be, must be written from a neutral point of view. If there have been Ustaše in Australia, and even if there are right now, then we need reliable sources independent of the subject to base the article on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That tag was added [1] by Mccapra, they can explain. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I had two concerns. The first was about language and the use of wiki-voice to make statements that were editorializing. I removed quite a lot of that as you can see from the diffs in the article history. As created I would describe the article as polemical. I’ve toned it down but I think it probably still needs some time and work on language/expression issues. The second thing relates to what is discussed in the section above, namely the article creator apparently drawing inferences from sources about things that are not explicitly stated by the source. I think I added a couple of “citation needed” templates e.g. here, and here but gave up at that point as there seemed quite a lot of tendentious statements in the article. Overall my impression was that this article was not carefully written to reflect what the sources actually said, but was a bit of a diatribe propped up by sources that, on examination, didn’t quite say what the article said. There were also statements that look like the author’s pov where there is no source, for example in the lede “With the help of Western authorities, who now viewed the fiercely anti-communist stance of the Ustaše favourably in the emerging Cold War…”. Does a source actually say that or is this the article creators summarisation of what they think can be inferred from sources? Also this “With the establishment of the modern state of Croatia, the neo-Ustaša in that country have been consigned to the far-right fringe. Their main political group, the Croatian Party of Rights, is unpopular in Croatia and Croatian ministers regularly condemn the fascist legacy of neo-Ustaša elements such as the HOS veterans groups.” No sources, no examples. Personally I’m doubtful that warm feeling towards the Ustaše is quite so marginal in Croatia as the article creator suggests, and that’s the kind of bold statement where I’d expect a Wikipedia article to provide some substantiation. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“ Personally I’m doubtful that warm feeling towards the Ustaše is quite so marginal in Croatia as the article creator suggests, and that’s the kind of bold statement where” That seems fairly bold a statement itself and odd that THAT is the take away issue with the way the article is written. And removing the mwntion of the rejection of Ustasism in general in Croatia a bold removal edit, no? While fringe group exists, the parties that support such fascist terrorist gangs are in a very small minority come election time of parties. Not the the intro going into “some of the worst crimes of the 90s”. Care to explain why you personally feel that and just how warmly are the Ustashe looked at by the average Croatian??? Also the author of the article makes person statements that wnd up in the article such as “ you can walk into Croatian Australian clubs and events today and walk past portraits and busts of Pavelic and Ustaše merchandise and people with Ustaše tattoos and shirts, hear Za dom spremni, but apparently this is not a continuation of Ustaše. The references cover that it is not just a casual link but a direct result of active Ustaše members achieving influence in Australia.” Is that not bold nor questionable via citation? This is starting to seem more like going by “gut feeling and personally formed viewpoints” about Croatians than just going by sources. Associating Ustase with modern Croats unquestioned, the distancing them from the mainstream questioned, oddly. At least that appears to be the conversation here. OyMosby (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn’t, and what I think about the topic, well founded or not, isn’t the topic either. The topic is that all of us who edit have to adhere closely to what reliable independent sources say, not editorialise, not infer things not explicitly stated in the source, and not make bold statements that aren’t supported by sources. I’m not writing an encyclopedia article about Croatian attitudes to the Ustaše, but if I was that’s what I’d have to do. The concerns being raised about this article in its current form are that it appears in places not to be doing that, and hence its neutrality is in question. Mccapra (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is fair game to ask as a topic since you brought your pov forward as a form of logic for an argument you made related to the article and removal edit you made. Making edits based on that is what I had found concerning. You did infer that “Personally I’m doubtful that warm feeling towards the Ustaše is quite so marginal in Croatia”. Which I agree with you to an extent though not sure how we both define how marginal. Is there perhaps sources you came across saying it isn’t marginal? Inagree the authtor needs to cite sources when claiming marginality, of course. Though again curious where you base such viewpoint on. Questioning some unbacked claims and removing them but not doing so with others in the article despite also being unbacked or seeming attempts by the author to editorialize based on personal formed ideas. I agree completely with you that any statement or generalizations need to be backed by reliable sources and not person anecdotes, pov or real life occurrences without RS citation. Be it the author, you or I. We can definitely agree that encyclopedias need to be fact based. Especially with heavy subject matters like these. It’s a new article so will require review. Improvements seem to be i progress but more to be done for sure. I will try to find time to research more into it. Also we need to vet the sources used as well to make sure they meet Reliable Source status. Someone mentioned that Facebook was used at some point??? Also it seems the article’s original author is claiming that those calling the neutrality in question are potential genocide deniers or false equalizers funny enough. Whoch I think is inappropriate per Wikipedia guidelines. Criticism of the way the article is written should not be vilified. Not aure if you noticed the users’ initial calling out of the tags. OyMosby (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The glaring issue there is that this article retells a fair bit from Far-right politics in Croatia but only links it in a single WP:EGG piped link in the infobox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article looks fine to me, where it sticks to the facts reported in the sources. I agree that with more eyes on it and more work it can certainly be improved to resolve the neutrality issues. Mccapra (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everybody, I appreciate everyones' comments on this page and I'm sorry it has taken me a while to respond again, I've had Covid so didn't really feel up to contributing. I will say this article does need some revision and tidying up of references and I will do that in the coming days/weeks. I created it in a bit of a rush but should have more time now. Input to improve from all is very much welcomed. It's a topic that is quite extensive and amazingly interesting so might take some time to get right but we'll get there. I'm disappointed that the Moomba picture is being requested for deletion, it's quite a picture but there are others that can be put in if it does get removed. Also its incredible that someone like Srecko Rover does not have a page yet but I will try to work on that too. Looking forward to making this a great balanced article, one that hopefully gets a lot of pageviews. Dippiljemmy (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source verification

There are a lot of copy pastes from the original article here, and I think that Facebook, YouTube cannot be sources, and also the book of a journalist Mark Aarons member of the Communist Party and he is not a historian. Most of the other sources do not say on which page it can be read, and I think that these sources have been added, but maybe it is not written there. Someone should check that. I also think the title of the article is stupid. 78.3.87.142 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on synthesis

Dippiljemmy you're still failing to understand the fundamental issue of European scholarship not actually calling what happened in the 90s an actual continuation of the same organization and the same people, and then this in particular makes no sense to magically translate to Australia. Also if you think that that having youtube links to weird extremist content in ref tags is appropriate in encyclopedia, then we really need to talk about WP:V. I'm losing patience here, because this falls under WP:ARBMAC. You can't keep blithely reposting the same claptrap and insisting that everything is fine. This is not appropriate. --Joy (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usta%C5%A1e_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1145672209&diffmode=source you claim "adding further info and ref on how the HOS and HSP were continuations of the Ustasa movement directly linking the 1940s to 1990s and the involvement of Croatian-Australians in this." The source at [2] says things like:

Više nije bila riječ o ceremoniji isključivo za bivše pripadnike ustaškog pokreta, nego je ona uključivala političare iz novoformiranih hrvatskih političkih stranaka i druge koji su došli iz Hrvatske.
translated: It was no longer a ceremony dedicated to former members of the Ustaše movement, but it included politicians from newly formed Croatian political parties and others who came from Croatia.

So the source already makes very clear distinctions between Ustaše and those who are not so, yet you're trying to use it as justification for this whole generalization. If you read everything that it says, it tells a rather nuanced story about the nature of HSP and their various overtures to the Ustaše sympathizers and how the HDZ played on that intentionally, and whatnot. Some amount of rigor is not optional when discussing such controversial topics. --Joy (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pavlaković (2008) source (I found at a different URL from the one in the article, the Google cache for [3]) says almost immediately:

[In 2007] there was hardly any mention of the HSP’s use of symbols and discourse associated with the pro-fascist Ustaša movement in the 1990s
The Ustaša (plural: Ustaše) movement, after the Croatian word for “insurgent”, was formed in the early 1930s by an HSP deputy, Ante Pavelić. This radical Croatian separatist movement was dedicated to the violent destruction of the Yugoslav state.

Hence it's not casually talking about Ustaše in the 1990s, but what it describes in the intro as “flirting with the Ustaše” and lists the Croatian phrase that translates from koketiranje s ustaštvom where the noun does not translate as membership but as likeness. --Joy (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno Joy, I think its pretty good. I'm just a skip who never went to school in Europe or nothing, but despite this i think the continuation is pretty clear cut. It doesnt appear to be a nuanced story. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

My opinion is that half should be deleted, because they are not reliable sources. Who is a certain Vjeran Pavlaković or Mark Aarons a communist and here are the "reliable" sources, there are more here than I can list and it is about misinformation. In addition, there are YouTube and Facebook sources, which is inadmissible, and they are here. Anyway, I will no longer edit this stupid page with a stupid name.93.138.178.146 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lmao Dippiljemmy (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's funny to you, but it's not funny, wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should be supported as such. And you, who have political goals and post misinformation, you must know that you have responsibility and that they can block you.93.138.178.146 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and HOS and Nazi/NDH propaganda

So hey, seems like a couple of users are not liking elements of this page, so I thought I'll just make a couple of things absolutely clear in the talk page section.

1) This is a page about the overall Ustashi movement in Australia, not just the individual people who came to Australia who were actually part of the NDH regime.

2) The flag that keeps getting deleted (the one with the sahovnica with the white square first etc.) is a flag well recognised to being associated with the Ustashi movement. The reference in the nb section in the infobox clearly shows this, as does the fact that this flag is banned in Austria. It may or may not have been used in the Ottoman times but that hasnt stopped it being appropriated as an Ustashi symbol in the same vein as the swastika is a Nazi appropriated Indian/Persian symbol that has been used in WW2 and ever since. Part of the reason I placed the SS propaganda poster into the article is that it clearly shows this flag being used during the NDH existence. Btw, this poster is legit and can be easily found on NDH collectors websites such as https://www.pinterest.com.au/ismoljko1043/ndh-1941-1945/

3) To claim that the HOS militia of the early 90s is not part of the Ustashi movement is something that takes next level cognitive dissonance. The HOS is so overflowing with Ustashi symbolism and idealism that I struggle to understand how people can deny it. As outlined in the references, the name, colours, anthem, slogan, ideology and aims of its leaders both political and military are so overt, so clear. How can you deny this? The Australian link is also so clear with the main leader of the group being a Croatian-Australian who had a strong history with the HRB in Australia. The HOS flag has the Ustashi slogan, ZDS, on the flag, so clearly when attributing all the other Ustashi elements associated with the HOS, it is obviously a flag utilised by Ustashi movement.

4) In light of the above points, any further deletion of these elements of the page will be classed as vandalism, and a protection for this page will be requested. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't pay close attention to what happened in the meantime that elicited this, but what I said in the previous discussion thread stands as I can see no actual refutation or acknowledgement. Making a new series of bold claims while not addressing previous basic errors is not a situation where you can invoke the protection policy to protect your edits; rather, it becomes that much clearer that the encyclopedia should be protected from both yourself and whoever else is using it to peddle whatever other arbitrary non-encyclopedic content in a context that is known to be controversial. --Joy (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ustaše_in_Australia&oldid=1210249480"