Talk:Aloysius Stepinac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Saints / Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Croatia / Zagreb  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Aloysius Stepinac is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Zagreb task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Aloysius Stepinac is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please lock[edit]

Please lock this page, to protect it from excessive vandalism Vecanoi (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This article is really biased. It doesn't adequately address Stepinac's support of the Ustase fascists in Yugoslavia and its leader Ante Pavelic. Particularly the introductory section which is dangerously biased and nefarious in not including both sides in his role in the Yugoslavian genocide and the Ustase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiepdiax818 (talkcontribs) 05:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your POV tag, since at this point it is simply the viewpoint of one editor that the article is biased. If the consensus in discussion here is that the article has POV problems, then the tag can be added back. Please do not do so until a consensus has been reached.

In discussing this issue with other editors, whose views may differ from yours, please avoid using language such as "dangerously biased" and "nefarious", which will have the affect of getting the discussion off to a rocky start by poisoning the well. Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note, please, that according to this ArbCom decision, all articles related to the Balkans, broadly defined, are subject to discretionary sanctions. BMK (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading Wikiepdiax818's comment, I am quite relieved that discretionary sanctions exist. I doubt he would makes such accusations say this were a Serbia related article. Please leave YOUR bias out of this. History should not be tampered with. It does no one any good. 108.27.252.190 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Two facts?[edit]

So, according to these two sources[1][2]:

  • When in June 1941 the regime proclaimed that "the Jews are spreading false news [...] and obstruct the supply of the population in their well-known speculative ways", for which they will be "considered collectively responsible" and interred into concentration camps, Stepinac gave the instructions to the priests to relay this message to the church-going public.
  • In 1944 Stepinac was awarded the Red za zasluge – Velered sa zviezdom by Pavelić for - among other things - "unmasking the outlaws from the area of the ISC".

The sources could be better, and that's the interesting bit: I couldn't find these two issues discussed anywhere. Stepinac having received the Order of Merit, which appears to be one of the highest decorations of the ISC, is not a minor thing, but is conspicuously absent from pretty much everything that was published about him in Croatia. This does not exactly paint him as an anti-fascist and a dissident, as many of the sources would have it. GregorB (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the character of Stepinac is burdened so much with symbolism that both his fans and haters read into him that painting a realistic picture of the man is pretty much impossible. In any case, the decoration was mentioned by Drago Pilsel, a journalist and a colorful character himself, in a column published on his website in February 2014. He says the decision was published in Narodne novine, and even quotes the reasoning as published in NN - namely, that Stepinac had deserved the decoration "because, in his capacity as the archbishop, he exposed - both in the country and abroad - outlaws from the territory of the Independent State of Croatia." (Što je kao nadbiskup razkrinkavao u zemlji i izvan zemlje odmetnike s područja Nezavisne Države Hrvatske). Which sounds like a deliberately vague bureaucratic phrasing which means very little taken out of context. We don't know if Stepinac actually accepted the decoration, we don't know who the "outlaws" are, or what "exposing" involved, we don't know what does "exposing abroad of outlaws in the country" even means, etc. The only thing that seems to be sure is that the NDH regime wanted to present Stepinac (and by extension, the Catholic church) as closely tied to them, and as totally supportive of regime's goals, at a time when the tide of war was obviously turning against Pavelić and Co. and they really needed some good PR. Who knows. Timbouctou (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Communist post-war sources state that Pavelic awarded all the Catholic bishops, the Islamic leaders in Zagreb and Sarajevo, the Evangelical bishop in Zagreb, and the "Croatian Orthodox" bishop the Award for Merit on the anniversary of the NDH in 1944. Their reliability is obviously suspect. But even they don't indicate that the awards were accepted. Someone like Pilsel would've gotten information like this from the communist reports. Verifying it is relatively simple: 1) get the Narodne Novine issue in question from the national archive to verify the award, 2) research a few NDH newspapers to see if it was actually awarded or simply published as such. The fact that this clearly hasn't been done - or we would have heard about it - suggests that it didn't happen.
As far as the extraordinary law published on June 26, 1941 goes, your sources have largely taken it out of its full context. See Tomasevich's War and Revolution in Yugoslavia. The extraordinary law was motivated by complaints from the chief German officials Glaise-Horstenau and Kasche on Ustashe crimes, as well as the protest letter sent to Pavelic by Stepinac himself concerning the Glina massacre. The chief effect of the law was that it widened the authority of court martials and gave harsher sentences for crimes in an attempt to reduce lawlessness. According to Tomasevich the law was used to arrest and even execute some Ustashe. As far as I can tell only one paragraph mentions Jews, that is the one in question wherein the regime essentially blames the Jews for rumours of war crimes: Židovi šire lažne vijesti u svrhu uznemiravanja pučanstva te svojim poznatim spekulativnim načinima ometaju i oteščavaju opskrbu pučanstva, to se kolektivno smatraju za to odgovornima, i prema tome će se proti njima postupiti i spremati ih povrh kazneno-popravne odgovornosti u zatočenička zbirališta pod vedrim nebom. This was one of those "One hand giveth, the other taketh away" situations. Whether Katolicki List was mandated to publish this I don't know. But if Stepinac did in fact instruct his parishes to pass on this information, it was certainly in an attempt to dissuade further crimes and not because of this paragraph.--Thewanderer (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a complex issue, but after all it is a matter of balance and equal treatment: if we learn that Stepinac was awarded the Order of the Star of Karađorđe - without speculation as to whether he actually accepted the decoration or not - then I see no reason to introduce such speculation specifically for the order of Merit.
Since the source is quite particular about the decoration itself ("Na prijedlog ministra pravosuđa i bogoštovlja NDH dr Pavla Cankija svojom odredbom oč. broj 111-Zsl-1944., pod tek. br. 552-Zsl. Stepinac Alojziju, nadbiskupu zagrebačkom dodjeljen je 1944. godine od Poglavnika "Red za zasluge – Velered sa zviezdom", uz slijedeće obrazloženje u službenom NDH glasilu Narodnim novinama"), i see no reason to doubt it.
I understand that the regime certainly wanted to co-opt Stepinac. That's not his fault. He could not have reasonably declined it either. The point is: anti-fascists do not get decorated by fascist regimes, ever (at least I'm unaware of any such instances).
According to the source, the proclamation about the Jews was not mandated ("dok se vjerske vlasti samo "umoljavaju" da ovu odredbu daju proglasiti po duhovnim pastirima"). But, that put aside, I fail to see how spreading anti-Semitic propaganda was supposed to "dissuade further crimes".
Note that I'm not advocating OR here, I'm merely illustrating why these two bits of information could be legitimately seen as relevant for the article. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that the secondary (assuming Pilsel is reliable) source for the award is Pilsel, not NN, which is primary. If so, and the conclusion is that Pilsel is reliable (this may be the real question), then if it was attributed in-line to Pilsel it might be ok. I haven't looked for anything about this yet, so just my initial thoughts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, it seems incongruous to me that Tko je tko u NDH would not mention such a high award from Pavelic. My translation of it doesn't seem to mention it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, the absence of solid sources (Pilsel is barely passable at best IMO) for what seems to be a major fact about Stepinac is odd, and that is the reason why I'm raising the issue here. (I'm not really interested in editing the article, but even if I were, I'd still be reluctant to do it because the supporting sources are weak.)
I ran into this by accident, while researching Magnum Crimen. I suppose MC covers both of these events, but is it a RS? Which brings up the same question again: why are other sources silent on the issue? (I have the impression that, in Croatia, writing anything critical about Stepinac's role in WWII is bound to land one in hot water, especially if this criticism echoes that from the communist era. Still, there is no way to compensate for what the sources do not say, so this point is moot really.) GregorB (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not too interested in this either, but it seems that the decision published in NN should be easily verifiable, and as such belongs in the article. The problem here is that we would need more context around it, stemming from contemporary reports and/or later authors, for it to actually mean something. As for Tko je tko u NDH - the lexicon in its entirety has a right-wing slant and the entry on Stepinac is careful to talk about him in positive terms exclusively. Mentioning an award from Pavelić certainly would not fit in the narrative. Interestingly, the lexicon tries to prove his conflict with the Ustashe regime by quoting statements from October 1943 - and then immediately jumps to his March 1945 epistle (only two months before communist partisans entered Zagreb) in which he basically says nobody (including the clergy) should be blamed for supporting NDH during the war. One does not need to be a genius to see what he anticipated might happen in the aftermath of the war. I'm not an expert on this but I'd say it is pretty obvious that Stepinac flip-flopped throughout the war and was very careful to make his statements as vague as possible, so the only way to describe his relationship with the Ustashe would be to document it chronologically with lots of context mixed in. Pilsel is usually semi-reliable, but I guess we could give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. Timbouctou (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@GregorB: The article dissuaded further crimes insofar as it was intended for Ustashe (both "wild" and official) who were committing said crimes. And it was used as such against them per Tomasevich. That is what the vast majority of the law pertained to. That single paragraph is certainly racist and inflammatory, but the law has to be looked at in its full context. Every academic work on lawlessness and the uprisings in 1941 refers to said law in terms of NDH attempts to restore order. Again, as far as whether Katolicki List had to publish it, our sources do not appear to be reliable enough or exhaustive enough to confirm this. And they certainly aren't reliable enough to provide any nuanced reasoning for this publishing.
The narratives here are complicated. As touched upon, the regime increasingly co-opted whatever institutions it could to try to tie them closer to the Ustashe in the later stages of the war (most notably disbanding the Home Guard, who had not been considered collaborators by default by the communists). A major stream in the Ustashe disliked Stepinac to begin with due to his history as a volunteer on the Salonika front and his cordial relationship with the Karadjordjevic's.
There's a copy of Ivan Gabelica's Blaženi Alojzije Stepinac i hrvatska država near me. If I recall correctly he was a bit of an Ustashe apologist, but it's one of the more thorough books available. If anyone would have the info on that award it would be there.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Blessed[edit]

Cardinal Aloisius Stepinac is „blessed“, and so is right to write his title.--Stebunik (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Long introduction can be on end, not in beginning of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stebunik (talkcontribs) 09:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

His feast-day is on his death-day, 10 February. Place of beatification was shrine Marija Bistrica.--Stebunik (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent significant change to article[edit]

G'day, there has been recent significant change to this article, and despite my suggestions that the editor attempting to make these changes (Erosonog) start a thread on the talkpage to discuss these changes per WP:BRD, the user has ignored this suggestion and continues to make assertions via edit summary. As a concerned watcher of this article, which is often subject to disruption by POV warriors of all sides, I consider several aspects of these significant changes that fly in the face of WP policies such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. My major concerns are:

  • the changing of the standard Catholic honorifics from "His Eminence Blessed" to "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army"
  • the removal of the "infobox cardinal styles" from the infobox (despite Stepinac clearly having been a Roman Catholic cardinal)
  • the changing of the first lead paragraph to include mention that he was a Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, material that is not properly and reliably sourced in the article body
  • the insertion of three quotes into the lead which adds a great deal of weight to one point of view of Stepinac, and detracting from its role of providing a proper summary of the article and the arguments for and against Stepinacs's actions during the war, which it previously achieved
  • the use of an article on a blog called libcom.org, authored by Seán Mac Mathúna who is a playwright and short story author who doesn't appear to have any academic qualifications or published works regarding Yugoslav history or Stepinac. This article is clearly not a reliable source, and should not be used

I have again reverted these significant changes, and ask Erosonog to respond to my concerns on this thread. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Erosonog has placed a comment on my talkpage in relation to this matter, I have pasted it here for continuity:

In your reversal of my revision 682035133 you said that I haven't used reliable sources for my edits. As I stated in my re-reversal, my edits do use reliable sources. When quoting Stepinac's words "Hitler is an envoy of God.“ I have used the Croatian Sentinel and when quoting Stepinac's words „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“ I have used Nedelja Croatian weekly. For the paragraph detailing Stepinac's role as the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, I have used Seán Mac Mathúna reference. For Stepinac's words on the Schism, I have used Sabrina P. Ramet's book. For details of his conviction by the Yugoslav authorities, I have used Phayer's book. If you have some facts to substantiate your allegation that these are not reliable sources, feel free to share.
I have removed the text “Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs...“ This text was written to convey an opinion that Stepinac has made an error at the start of his carrier and later changed his ways. The fact of the matter is that Stepinac became Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army in 1942 (after “initially welcoming [it]...“ ), that he retained that position until the fall of Ustashi, that he sat on the Ustashi parliament, that he oversaw forcible conversions, that he received “Order of Merit“ medal from Pavelic in 1944 and even took over after Pavelic escaped. The record shows that he did not change his ways and hence doesn't deserve to be so described.
I have removed the text discussing the perception of the Stepinac's trial as “biased against the archbishop“ and „The trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist show trial …". Although written to appear as a fact (e.g. „the trial was depicted ...“) the text creates an impression that it indeed was a show trial without substantiating the fact. Given the prevailing bias in the West against anything “communist“ at the time further discredits this view expressed. Indeed, there was a strong opinon in Yugoslavia that the trial was biased for Stepinac, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, while hundreds of thousands of victims of the Ustashi army of which he was the Supreme Vicar received a rope and a bludgeon.
One of my edits was the removal of the paragraph sourced from Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth. The paragraph praises Stepinac for „behaving very well“ and his growth „in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal.“. The paragraph is simply Stella's own opinion and is not an impartial statement of facts. The fact that her opinion got published in a book doesn't change the fact. Further, prefacing the paragraph with the admission that the source is “sympathetic“ to Stepinac doesn't rectify the heavy imbalance. Hence, I have removed the paragraph. I am not the only with the same oppinon. User 67.180.132.28 did the same edit on September 27, which you again deleted with the comment: “Resoring pre-vandalisation version“[sic]. Please explain why do you consider this edit to be vandalism?
Instead of the removed material which contained conjectures and opinions, I have added Stepinac's own words ("Hitler is an envoy of God.“, „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“). I haven't added any commentary to his words – they speak for themselves. If you can give a good reason why you think this should be removed, please elucidate.
Lastly, I have changed the honorifix prefix from “His Eminence Blessed“ to the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. I had two reasons for this change. First, the “Blessed“ title was given to Stepinac by the Pope. The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. Stepinac sent reports to the Pope on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. As such, Pope Pius XII shares Stepinac's guilt. That another Pope would whitewash it by beatifying Stepinac does nothing to exonerate the crimes he was complicit in. To refer to Stepinac as His Blessed Eminence gives impression that Stepinac was indeed “blessed“, holy and an innocent martyr. This hardly counts as a neutral point of view. My second reason for this change was that the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ was the most important role in his life. He got the title in 1942 and kept it until the bitter end, in the crucial years of his life and the world history. His most important work was done under this title. The title is not a figment of imagination but a simple and a salient fact.
Peacemaker67, when you undid my revisions on 26 September you suggested that admins should decide on this dispute. As I said in my comments, I do agree with this. I am putting back my edits. Here is your chance to bring this to a higher level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erosonog (talkcontribs) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Now we are getting somewhere. Great that you have replied, but do not edit-war your changes to the previous consensus. They are opposed, and unless you can gain a consensus through discussion here, I will just ask for you to be sanctioned for edit-warring. Make a serious effort to discuss our positions on these matters here, on the talkpage, and you may be surprised with the outcome. But wholesale changes will never be achieved by edit-warring. I am also going to formally advise you on your talkpage about the very serious sanctions available to admins under ARBMAC, just so you are clear where you stand on edit-warring in the contested WP space of the Balkans. I'll respond to your points in separate subsections. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Seán Mac Mathúna blog[edit]

As I have pointed out above, one of my concerns is your use of an article on a blog called libcom.org, authored by Seán Mac Mathúna who is a playwright and short story author who doesn't appear to have any academic qualifications or published works regarding Yugoslav history or Stepinac. This article is clearly not a reliable source, and should not be used, either for the infobox or the point in the text where the title is mentioned. Please read the linked guidance on reliable sources. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Valid point on the the Mac Mathúna source. Here are some other sources confirming that Stepinac was indeed the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army:

"The Case of Archbishop Stepinac", Information Officer, Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947, page 67

  • "God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican", Gerald Posner, page 87
  • "Catholic Terror Today", Avro Manhattan
  • "Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement", David Eggenberger and J. Heraty, page 356
Erosonog (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It is important to remember that some older sources may have taken what the Yugoslav government said as gospel, and merely regurgitated communist propaganda, wittingly or unwittingly. Of those sources, the Encyclopedia of Biography looks best, Manhattan is decidedly fringey, I do not know Posner, and the Yugoslav government source is dubious because it reflects self-serving Yugoslav communist government propaganda on an avowed anti-communist. However, replacing Mac Mathuna with a reliable source in the body doesn't mean this title should displace his "blessed" and "cardinal" styles in the infobox. As I have said below, he is best known for being an archbishop who did not speak out publicly against the Ustasha state, and his promotion to cardinal and beatification are controversial because of this. He is not best known for being the Vicar (assuming we can find better sources to support the Encyclopedia), he is best known for being a leading archbishop in the NDH during WWII and for being controversially promoted to cardinal and then being beatified by Pope John Paul II. Placing the "Vicar" styles in the infobox gives too much weight to one role over roles for which he is far better known. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See my arguments made today in the below section "Removal of infobox cardinal styles". Erosonog (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the use of the Encyclopedia as a source for this statement. It doesn't need inline attribution IMO. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Avro Manhattan's book is a good source, as I explained earlier. By insisting on another source, you are simply attempting to undermine the importance of Avro's work. If you don't agree with using Avro, open an RFM please.
Erosonog (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The "importance of Avro's work"? If you want to use Manhattan on its own, I believe inline attribution is needed. If it was supported by the Encyclopedia I would think it was ok without. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just some points about the reliability of the sources being advanced by Erosonog:

  • The document published by the Yugoslav Embassy in Washington in 1947 is, IMHO, not reliable in its context, and in fact is highly questionable. Firstly, the document itself contains many errors of fact, and secondly and thirdly it was written and published by Yugoslav government. The same Yugoslav government that arrested, tried and convicted Stepinac, was suffering diplomatically because of it, and had a vested interest in its version of that process. It even says in its preamble that it was published to counter what it claims was a campaign of misrepresentation against the Yugoslav government. It offers the crimes and actions of disparate Catholics who were not under Stepinac's authority (even including the Archbishop of Vrhbosna) as direct evidence against Stepinac. I'm not sure if that sort of evidence could stand up in a Yugoslav court, but where I come from, there has to be evidence the accused person actually took a particular action, or failed to take a particular action within their power, for it to be used in court. Saying (for example) that another Archbishop (of the equal rank and status of Stepinac, and over whom he had no authority whatsoever), did something or said something, could only be used against the Archbishop that made the statement or took the action. There are pages of this sort of arrant nonsense in the Yugoslav embassy document. It is pure propaganda and should be dismissed as a source about everything but itself.
  • The passage in Posner has a citation (fn81) which is unavailable in preview on Google Books. I would be very surprised if the citation wasn't to Manhattan, and this should be explored before it could be used as a source independent of Manhattan. If it does come from Manhattan, we are dealing with a classic case of self-referencing. So, if Manhattan is the source for this claim, then Manhattan is the source that should be examined for credibility/reliability. Posner's book is about Vatican financing, not Stepinac or even the NDH, and the reference is tangential. Let's see what source sits behind the Posner reference before we start treating it as a separate source from Manhattan.
  • Manhattan. I'm happy to look at his body of work (and academic reviews of it) after we've explored the other sources. I will note that one of Manhattan's books (p. 367 of Manhattan's Vatican imperialism in the twentieth century) refers to Stepinac being the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian army, not the "Ustashi Army". The similarities with the next point about the Encyclopedia are startling.
  • The Encyclopedia refers to Stepinac accepting the role of Supreme Apostolic Vicar-General of the Croatian army not Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army The NDH had both a Croatian Home Guard (armed forces, including land forces), and a completely separate Ustase party militia (like the Nazi SS or Fascist Blackshirts) until November 1944. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of infobox cardinal styles[edit]

Given that this infobox (nested in the main template) relates to cardinals, and Stepinac clearly was one, it is hard to understand why this would be removed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise here. The cardinal infobox can be left as is, but an infobox for a criminal needs to be added. Stepinac was clearly a convicted criminal and adding this infobox to the page gives the page the balance it lacks. If this infobox is significantly shorter than the cardinal infobox, it should be placed above the cardinal infobox.

Erosonog (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Your premise is based on a selection of sources with a very specific point of view. Articles must reflect the totality of the academic work done on the subject, and in this case, the more recent and balanced work of Mark Biondich has yet to be introduced into the article. I do not agree that Stepinac is best known as a criminal. He is best known as an archbishop who did not come out publicly against the genocidal actions of the Ustasha state. His promotion to cardinal and later beatification are obviously controversial for that reason. The academic consensus regarding his personal involvement in conversions is far less clear than you appear to believe. You appear to be coming from the viewpoint of Magnum Crimen, which is only one view about the role of the Catholic Church in WWII, and it lacks nuance. Different viewpoints, unless completely fringe, should be mentioned in the article, but one interpretation of events cannot be allowed to push the academic consensus aside. By placing a criminal infobox in the overall infobox, we would be giving far too much WP:WEIGHT to his trial and conviction by the Yugoslavs, which was substantially motivated by his anti-communism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, you say that Stepinac is best known as „archbishop who did not come out publicly against the genocidal actions of the Ustasha state“. This is probably in reference to the fact that, as the war progressed, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to some of Ustashi crimes, especially after they killed his own brother. You are using this fact to formulate a definition which gives an impression that Stepinac was fighting the Ustasha state in private. A statement like: „Stepinac was an archbishop who supported the Ustasha state, sat in Ustasha parliament, was the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian Nazi Ustashi Army and, as the war progressed, on several occasions, objected to some of Ustashi crimes“ is not only factually correct but also correctly reflects Stepinac's work and views.
Now, a separate question is what is Stepinac best known as? The largest number of people (Catholics) know Stepinac simply as a beatified cardinal, the consequence of the Pope conferring these titles on him which was well publicised by the Catholic Church. Indeed, a very small number of people know that Stepinac was also the „Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. Even though this title was also conferred to Stepinac by the Pope, it is not something the Catholic Church advertises. Consequently, the prevailing point of view (defined by the number of people cognizant of a fact) indeed is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. Let's examine now why is this the prevailing point of view? As I sad above, The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. It was the Pope who conferred the title „Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ on Stepinac. It was the Pope who was receiving Stepinac's reports on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. It was Pope's Vatican that organized rat channels for Pavelic and other Nazis. Pope Pius XII therefore shares Stepinac's guilt. Several years after the WWII, another Pope gives Stepinac the title of a cardinal. Seven years after the independant Croatia is resurrected (1998), yet another Pope beatifies Stepinac. So Papal chair, which was complicit in Stepinac's crimes, whitewashes them by beatifying him and consequently makes him best known as a beatified cardinal. Hence the situation today: the prevailing POV is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. The question we are grappling with here is: should Wikipedia strive to present the prevailing POV or the neutral POV? If the prevailing POV is chosen - Vatican whitewashing succeeded and the Pope is indeed proven infallable.
You say that Biondich is „balanced“. Biondich says that Stepinac was not Ustasha supporter! (Abastract, Controversies surrounding the Catholic Church in Wartime Croatia, 1941–45, Biondich Mark) He says this for the person who: sat in Ustashi parliament, was the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, wrote pastoral letters urging Croats to support the Ustashi state of NDH, received a medal from Ustashi leader Pavelic, presided over the Ustashi commitee for forcible conversions... Balanced indeed.
You seem to be acusing me for not being „nuanced“ enough? I am telling the truth and I am using valid arguments. As far as your argument about lack of „nuance“ in Magnum Crimen, try putting some „nuance“ in this excerpt from the book describing deeds of one of Stepinac's clergyman: „he (Tomislav Filipović) placed the 12 Ustashe in a circle and then ordered the children to run next to them. As each child passed, an Ustashe would gouge out an eye and push it into the child's slit belly; he would cut off an ear from a second, the nose from a third, a finger from a fourth, the cheeks from a fifth... And so on until all the children collapsed. Then the Ustashe finished them off in the snow".
Erosonog (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is atrocious, but what involvement did Stepinac have in that event? I know of no source that says he had any involvement in it. I think this one needs a RfC. Do you want to draft a short statement about what you believe should be in the infobox and why? I will then draft my statement and will post the RfC. You can make whatever arguments you like, and the community will decide. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The atrocious crime I quoted was in response to your comment about Magnum Crimen lacking "nuance". However, since you asked about Stepinac's involvement in it: before this crime, Stepinac instigated this crime by urging Croats to support Ustashi. Stepinac was superior to Tomislav Filipović in both of his roles: as a Franciscan friar (Stepinac was his Archbishop) and as a military chaplain (Stepinac was the Supreme Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi army). Stepinac knew very well about the atrocities in Jasenovac where Tomislav was the commander after this crime but did nothing. Stepinac sat in the Ustashi parliament which means that he was actively involved with governing the Ustashi, including those responsible for this massacre.
You did not provide counter arguments to anything else I wrote here, yet you want me to write more. I have already documented my reasons for the infobox changes in detail. Instead of an RFC, I suggest an RFM.
Erosonog (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have found mediation to be next to useless on WP. It is much more useful to get a wider community consensus. I'm going to write one up, if you don't want to have any input into drafting it, you can comment once it's up. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Who is the "wider community" you are talking about? Judging by the sorry state of the Stepinac page, there is certainly enough editors sharing your point of view (see my analysis of the prevailing versus neutral POV). Use your arguments if you have them or call an RFM. By the way, you are again ignoring my arguments. I explained why I think the infobox needs to be changed. I provided a counter argument for the source you were using. You asked what "what involvement did Stepinac have in that event"? I answered. Do you have anything to say?
Erosonog (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You provided nothing, just a bunch of assertions with no sources to back them up. Mediation has to be entered into freely by all parties, I don't do mediation on WP. I'll do a RfC. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This issue has been referred to a RfC (see below). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Croatian Sentinel quote[edit]

The quote "Hitler is an envoy of God" is attributed to Stepinac, and it is said that it was from a letter in the Croatian Sentinel (Hrvatska straža) of 1 January 1942. A search of Google Books and even Google for that quote reaps a decidedly dubious and inconclusive set of results, including blogs by Carl Savich and (apparently) a work by Avro Manhattan, much of which appears to be drawn from immediate post-war communist tracts. In line with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, it seems unlikely the editor concerned personally read it in Hrvatska straža, so the actual source being used, and the exact wording in Croatian would be a good start point for discussing this quote. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Stepinac's words "Hitler is an envoy of God" were also quoted in Edmon Paris's book "The Vatican Against Europe", page 197. He also uses The Croatian Sentinel as his source. Besides not seeing the actual printed version of the paper from 1941, do you have any other basis to allege that the quote is untrue?
Also, you seem to declare Avro Manhattan's work worthless?? Are you saying that any "post-war communist" sources are by default falsifications and shouldn't be believed? This statement holds as much water as "Pope is infallible". Bear in mind that Avro Manhattan did go to Yugoslavia after WWII, collected documents and spoke to survivors of the Ustashi genocide. Are you saying that the fact that Yugoslavia, after 1945, was run by the Communist Party makes all the material Avro documented false? If you are falling into the trap of being too focused on Anglo-American sources, read what Eleanor Roosevelt told Avro in 1947 on the subject of Ustashi crimes and the role of Catholic church in hiding them ("The Vatican's Holocaust", Avro Manhattan, pages 107 to 108).Erosonog (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry about re-factoring the formatting of your comments, but please learn to indent your comments at the next level below mine. You can't use Hrvatska straža as a bare source, because you haven't read it there. If you are using a quote from Paris that itself quotes from Hrvatska straža, then follow the guidance at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. I use sources in Serbo-Croat and all former Yugoslav languages, Italian, German and English, and occasionally other languages, and by authors from all those countries and more. Ramet, Tomasevich, Biondich, Milazzo, Pavlowitch, Lemkin etc are hardly Anglo-American sources, yet I use them all the time. I am not suggesting Manhattan's work is worthless, but it needs to be used with a fair amount of care. It is a. old in academic terms, b. clearly biased. Paris is the same. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used to show differing views on the subject, it just means that they need to be used carefully, placed in the context of differing views, and attributed inline as necessary. These are all basic tenets of WP. You clearly need to take a closer reading of the basic policies and guidelines before trying to make wholesale deletions and changes to an article on such a controversial subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You need to take a closer look at your "hardly Anglo-American sources": Sabrina P. Ramet - born in London, England, undergraduate degree at Stanford, MA in at the University of Arkansas, Ph.D. at UCLA; JozoTomasevich – professor at San Francisco State University; Mark Biondich – professor at Carleton University, Canada; Matteo J. Milazzo – best known for one book on Chetniks, published by Johns Hopkins University Press; Stevan K. Pavlowitch – professor at University of Southampton; Raphael Lemkin – professor at Duke, U of Virginia, Yale, Rutgers.
You seem to be saying that Manhattan's work is less reliable because it is "old". This is like saying that Pliny the Younger's account of destruction of Pompeii is "too old" and we should give more credence to a 21st century historian. As far as being biased - Manhattan documented accounts of survivors of Ustashi genocide conducted in a most bestial manner. You may as well say that accounts of Holocoust are biased against the Nazis.Erosonog (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying Manhattan's work is old, and care needs to be taken with using it. There has been significant academic examination of the role of the Catholic Church in the NDH since the 1940's. I haven't said Manhattan shouldn't be used, just that he needs to be used with care and inline attribution where necessary. This particular quote is quite extraordinary, and it needs extraordinary sources. Manhattan alone isn't extraordinary. Don't you think it is strange that the quote in Manhattan hasn't been repeated by later scholars working in the area? I do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, the same quote is in Edmon Paris's book "The Vatican Against Europe", page 197. These are valid sources. The quote can therefore be used as per the policy for using secondary sources. Erosonog (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And I'm saying it needs to be attributed to Paris inline. Please do that. And don't try to insert a series of changes about different things in one go. Do the Paris quote then we can close this thread, then we can move on to other issues. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You are repeating the same argument we discussed above regarding quoting Manhattan. Now you have the same issue with Paris. BTW, the citation already qualifies as an inline citation.
Erosonog (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Inline "attribution" means actually using Paris' name in the sentence, stating that "he" makes the relevant claim. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Which would make the statement appear suspect, and which is the effect you are trying to achieve with the attribution... As I said already, there is no valid reason to do that. Erosonog (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Stepinac never said that. This alleged quote is found in two versions, in one it is Pavelić that is an envoy of God (this one is found in Serbo-Croatian language sites), and in another version that Hitler is an envoy of God (in English). However, there is no proof for either of them. I'm really sure that at least one of those communist post-war propagandists would have mentioned it if Stepinac really called Hitler an envoy of God. Not even Magnum Crimen does that. Some sites do mention the 1 January 1942 edition of the Croatian Sentinel (Hrvatska straža), but just point out this message reportedly from Stepinac for the New Year: "Hrvatska Straža' stajala je uvijek na braniku vjerskih svetinja Hrvatskog naroda, bez kojih i sam narod ne znači ništa. Neka tim putem nastavi i dalje i u Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj. Veće usluge svom narodu ne može učiniti, nego šireći i braneći načela, koja je Bog postavio kao temelj života pojedincima i narodima. Neka ih u tom radu prati blagoslov božji". No mention of Hitler or envoys, just praising the weekly newspaper. Tzowu (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So we are back to it being an extraordinary claim. I have also searched for it in English and just found the usual anti-Croat/anti-Catholic polemics. I don't know what it would be in Croatian. This is definitely of significant concern. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of reliably sourced material[edit]

Stella Alexander quote[edit]

In addition to the above, material that is more sympathetic to Stepinac has been repeatedly deleted, despite being reliably sourced. For example, the paragraph with the text, "Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth, a sympathetic biography of Stepinac, writes about him that "Two things stand out. He feared Communism above all (especially above fascism); and he found it hard to grasp that anything beyond the boundaries of Croatia, always excepting the Holy See, was quite real. ... He lived in the midst of apocalyptic events, bearing responsibilities which he had not sought. ... In the end one is left feeling that he was not quite great enough for his role. Given his limitations he behaved very well, certainly much better than most of his own people, and he grew in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal."

This removal of text drawn from one of the few full biographies of Stepinac's life is inappropriate. It reflects the reliable sources towards one end of the spectrum of opinion on a controversial character, and should be retained in the article as is, attributed inline and identified as being from a "sympathetic biographer". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided my arguments for removing this text. I am repeating it here for your convenience, in italic. Perhaps now you will take this opportunity to answer why you called the same change by another editor vandalism?
One of my edits was the removal of the paragraph sourced from Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth. The paragraph praises Stepinac for „behaving very well“ and his growth „in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal.“. The paragraph is simply Stella's own opinion and is not an impartial statement of facts. The fact that her opinion got published in a book doesn't change the fact. Further, prefacing the paragraph with the admission that the source is “sympathetic“ to Stepinac doesn't rectify the heavy imbalance. Hence, I have removed the paragraph. I am not the only with the same oppinon. User 67.180.132.28 did the same edit on September 27, which you again deleted with the comment: “Resoring pre-vandalisation version“[sic]. Please explain why do you consider this edit to be vandalism?
Instead of the removed material which contained conjectures and opinions, I have added Stepinac's own words ("Hitler is an envoy of God.“, „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“). I haven't added any commentary to his words – they speak for themselves. If you can give a good reason why you think this should be removed, please elucidate.
Erosonog (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The opinion of a major biographer of Stepinac is completely appropriate for inclusion. When someone studies a subject, their opinions are valid. They are attributed inline and even point out that Alexander is a sympathetic biographer. It is entirely appropriate that her views on Stepinac be included in this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have already provided my arguments which counter yours, but you did not answer them directly. Why do you think removing this paragraph is vandalism?
Erosonog (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Your "arguments" do not "counter" mine. Alexander has been his primary non-hagiographical biographer in English for a quarter of a century, so her views have weight. What overwhelming combination of sources are you suggesting should completely discount her assessment of Stepinac? I note that including her assessment doesn't mean other assessments shouldn't be included (in fact, I'd encourage it), this discussion is about wholesale deletion of her assessment of him. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You have already received a clear answer to your question on the "wholesale deletion" of this paragraph. I suggest reading the above text in italic again to refresh your memory. However, you still haven't answered why do you think removing this paragraph is vandalism?
Erosonog (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A random IP is hardly someone supporting your edit, and reliance on support from an IP with no editing history is frankly ludicrous. That could have been you for all I know. If that IP had a record of constructive editing in this part of en WP, I would treat them as a registered editor. They haven't, and I didn't. The onus is on them to register or build up a constructive edit history if they want to be treated seriously. I treated their edit as vandalism, and yours, because they involved "wholesale deletion of reliable sourced material" from this article. That is what I consider vandalism. I will also point out that at that stage, you had refused to follow the WP:BRD policy, and were edit-warring via edit summary. My edit summary marking it as vandalism was entirely justified. I don't have anything further to add in that respect. The paragraph cited to Alexander is entirely legitimate, and should remain in the article. If you've got other sources to compare and contrast her view against, feel free to add them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, you have not only changed Wikipedia definition of vandalism, but you have also changed Wikipedia position that editors are supposed to be equal, signed in or not. I am also unfamiliar with this new rule of yours - you seem to be saying that content can not be deleted, no matter how biased.Erosonog (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Material from Gilbert, Jansen, Kent etc[edit]

The following reliably sourced text has also been repeatedly deleted: "Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs. He objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws, helped Jews and others to escape and criticized Ustaše atrocities in front of Zagreb Cathedral in 1943. Despite this, Stepinac never broke with Ustaše regime and continued to attend public gatherings at their side."

Given it is reliably sourced, it should be contrasted with other reliably sourced material, not deleted. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This too I have explained previously. Again, I am repeating it below for your convenience, in italic:
I have removed the text “Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs...“ This text was written to convey an opinion that Stepinac has made an error at the start of his carrier and later changed his ways. The fact of the matter is that Stepinac became Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army in 1942 (after “initially welcoming [it]...“ ), that he retained that position until the fall of Ustashi, that he sat on the Ustashi parliament, that he oversaw forcible conversions, that he received “Order of Merit“ medal from Pavelic in 1944 and even took over after Pavelic escaped. The record shows that he did not change his ways and hence doesn't deserve to be so described
In addition to what I said before: in his letter dated May 18, 1943, Stepinac pleads with the Pope to support the survival of NDH which "is desperately fighting for its survival... [I] recommend to your fatherly care and your prayers NDH, and I am certain that in the same time I recommend in the best way the holy faith in our fatherland and in the Balkans" This is in 1943, after Stepinac was well informed of the Ustashi atrocities. It also shows that he was aware of the imminent fall of NDH. Hence my words better reflect his state of mind and his role at the time: As the war progressed and Nazi defeat appeared more probable, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws.
Further, the text I changed is carefully crafted to give a generally positive picture of Stepinac while still retaining resemblance of factual correctness (omitting Stepinac's actual words and omitting references). AFAIK, Stepinac never publicly condemned genocide against Serbs, even though they constituted the great majority of Ustashi victims. He did publicly defend converted Serbs, at least at one occasion, which by omitting them, left the non-converted not only not defended but implied that they are rightful targets of killings.
Erosonog (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
None of which, as bare assertion, justifies removal of reliably sourced material. You appear uninterested in any views other than the ones you advance. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
These are not "bare assertions", but facts. If there are inaccuracies, falsehoods or lies in what I said, please point them out. You are welcome to provide counter arguments as well. The sentence I furnished to replace your "reliably sourced material" is also reliably sourced - I reused the same source for the sentence I wrote to supplant the removed text ("As the war progressed...[") ! Truth be told, the reference is "somewhat" biased since Jansen ("the reliably sourced reference [Jansen p151][Jansen p87]") says in his book that "it is a blatant lie that Pope Pius XII collaborated with Nazis and that he worked day and night in favor of the persecuted Jews". This is the same pope that conferred the title of "The Supreme Vicar of Ustashi Army" on Stepinac in 1942. Still, I did leave the reference, since it is factually correct that Stepinac did on several occasions object to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws.
Erosonog (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reproduced the whole material you deleted. Leaving the "reference" does not retain the deleted material in the article. Given you are saying that he did object to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws, why did you delete that phrase from the article? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you did not read what I wrote. I did not delete the material about how Stepinac "objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws." Yet again, for your convenience, this is what I wrote: As the war progressed and Nazi defeat appeared more probable, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws..
Erosonog (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Condemnation of communist government[edit]

Another piece of text that has been repeatedly deleted is that from Bunson, that Stepinac "publicly condemned the new Yugoslav government and its actions during World War II, especially for murders of priests by Communist militants." As this action preceded his arrest and trial by the Yugoslav authorities, it is an important part of the post-war context. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence I deleted is followed by another "Yugoslav authorities indicted the archbishop on multiple counts of war crimes and collaboration with the enemy during wartime." The juxtaposition is crafted to give an impression that Stepinac was accused because the Yugoslav authorities wanted revenge since he condemned them and that the war crimes and collaboration accusations were just excuses. The truth is a bit different. Yugoslav communist authorities (led by Josip Broz Tito, who himself was a catholic and a Croat) sentenced Stepinac very lightly. As I said before: Indeed, there was a strong opinon in Yugoslavia that the trial was biased for Stepinac, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, while hundreds of thousands of victims of the Ustashi army of which he was the Supreme Vicar received a rope and a bludgeon.
I have removed the text "... especially for murders of priests by Communist militants." because one gets an impression that these were innocent priests murdered by nasty Communist militants. The truth here is also a bit different. There were around 130 catholic priests that served as military chaplains in the Ustashi army, under Stepinac who was their superior as the "Supreme Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi army". It is also true that many other catholic clergy in NDH have distinguished themselves by killing and instigating killing. Filipovic had many colleagues that committed horrible crimes that deserved punishment. I would agree to preserving this text in this form "Stepinac has especially accused Yugoslav government of killing catholic priests, many of whom instigated and committed crimes with the Ustashi forces."
Erosonog (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, no sources, just bare assertion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please help me here. What exactly to you consider to be a "bare assertion" here? Since this is a discussion on the Talk page, not the material on the page, and since you profess knowledge in the subject, I assumed you would be familiar with certain facts. I may have been mistaken. Which of these you need the reference for: that there was a strong opinion that the sentcence was light, that Stepinac received 16 years, that hundreds of thousands of Ustashi victims received a rope and a bludgeon, that 130 catholic priests served as Ustashi chaplains, that Stapinac was their superior, that many other catholic clergy killed and instigated killings?
Erosonog (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
So, if I understand you, your claim is that Stepinac's post-war statements about communist actions in WWII are irrelevant to his later arrest and trial, and that's why they should be deleted? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I have already explained my position, however I am willing to repeat my words with more explicit explanations, for your benefit: The juxtaposition (of the two sentences, the first of which is about Stepinac's post-war statements about communist actions in WWII) is crafted to give an impression that Stepinac was accused because the Yugoslav authorities wanted revenge since he condemned them and that the war crimes and collaboration accusations were just excuses..
Erosonog (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
So, come up with reliable sources to compare and contrast with that material, don't delete it or refactor it to read the way you think it should read. Simple, really. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of trial in the West[edit]

A further piece of reliably sourced text that has been repeatedly deleted is: "The trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial", however, some claim the trial was "carried out with proper legal procedure". In a verdict that polarized public opinion both in Yugoslavia and beyond," Again, this deletion appears to be aimed at ensuring only one version of the trial is included in the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence gives impression that the overwhelming opinion ("the West") was that this was a "show trial" while only a minority ("some") thought otherwise. I am fine with replacing the text with this: "While some in the West depicted the trial as a typical communist "show trial", there was a strong opinion that Stepinac was lightly sentenced, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, even though he was the Supreme Vicar of Ustashi army which was responsible for a genocide against Serbs, Roma and Jews in NDH."
Erosonog (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And what would be your source for that material? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You are repeating the same question as before. As I already answered above, please enlighten me with what do you need the help with? As I already said: since this is a discussion on the Talk page, not the material on the page itself, and since you profess knowledge in the subject, I assumed you would be familiar with certain facts. I may have been mistaken. Which of these you need the reference for: that there was a strong opinion that the sentence was light, that Stepinac received 16 years, that Stepinac was the Supreme Vicar of Ustashi army or that Ustashi army was responsible for a genocide against Serbs, Roma and Jews in NDH?
Erosonog (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It is pretty clear, I think. In the first part, I am asking you what sources you are relying on for your assertion that the trial wasn't depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial". What are those sources? In what way do they outweigh the sources that indicate it was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, you appear not to have read what I wrote. I did not assert that the trial wasn't depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial"
Erosonog (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
So, you agree the trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial"? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. Simple, really.
Erosonog (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should {{infobox criminal}} be used in this article?[edit]

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached that {{Infobox criminal}} should not be used in this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The subject of this article was convicted of several serious crimes by a post-WWII Yugoslav court. There are a range of views on the legal validity of the trial, ranging from the view that the 16 year sentence was lenient, to that it was a communist show trial. Given that context, should {{Infobox criminal}} be used in this article? If so, then should it replace, or be placed above or below {{Infobox Christian leader}}? Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • No. Stepinac's conviction is widely (albeit not universally) disputed. Even without going into details of the case (the charges and the evidence), one might legitimately presume (a "rebuttable presumption" of sorts) that all communist-era convictions which were political in nature are unreliable and thus tainted. I believe this reasoning holds even if this article is not a BLP, and that's why the answer is "no" (for a BLP, it would have been "hell no!"). GregorB (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes He was found guilty in a court of law representing a sovereign state. However we may feel about it, and however the political opponents of that state might have felt about it at the time, does not change that fact. Unless we are in the business of assigning greater weight to the concept of criminality, or alternately he has since been pardoned, he is technically a criminal. As the article states: The verdict has not been formally challenged nor overturned in any court between 1997 and 1999 while it was possible under Croatian law. siafu (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Siafu can you clarify how you think it should be used? Instead of, above or below the other infobox? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No. From the template docs, bold mine: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due mainly to the person being a convicted criminal. Stepinac does not fit at all. His notability stems from his clerico-political role, and he was convicted for mainly political reasons (not even entering the question whether those reasons were justified). No such user (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with GregorB and No such user on this one. His conviction is disputed as being unreliable and biased. If we are going off of the template here (seen above), then Stepinac does not belong. Like mentioned previously, he is not most notable for this conviction, but rather for his political views and role. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No I am persuaded by a. the template docs as pointed out by Nsu and the current practice in WP which is consistent with the template docs, and b. the equivocal coverage of the trial in the academic literature, including by Tomasevich, Biondich and Ramet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No Thank you to No such user for quoting from the template documentation. This template does not belong in this particular biography. I do not need to assess the fairness of the trial. Even if the trial was fair and the conviction just (which I express no opinion about), this template should not be used for a person convicted of this type of crime. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No Largely for reasons that have already been touched upon here. This infobox is clearly designed for "career" criminals (that is subjects whose notability extends almost exclusively from a life in personal or professional crime, not war crimes and similar crimes of a broader socio-political context; it's a (frankly obvious) violation of WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:WEIGHT to utilize it here. It would be inappropriate to use this option even if his guilt were not a politically and historically divisive topic, simply because (as will often be the case with those charged with high-level state-interest crimes) he is seen from many different perspectives. That said, we can add into this the fact that primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing are all over the place with regard to his guilt on the specific charges as well. WP:SNOW "no" from...Snow let's rap 06:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No This particular RfC was initiated by Peacemaker67 as a result of my suggestion. Upon further research of Wikipedia practices, I have found out that other war criminals like Hermann Göring, Adolf Eichmann, Wilhelm Keitel also do not have the Criminal infobox on their page. Instead, they have "person", "military person" or "officeholder" infoboxes. Please note that my vote pertains to the specific question of should the Infobox criminal be used in this article. My vote on this question should not be extrapolated to other questions, like should Infobox Christian leader be used for Stepinac, was Stepinac indeed a criminal, or should "The Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army" be used as the honorific-prefix of the Infobox Christian leader or what other content should be in the article. I think this particular issue can therefore be put to rest. I thank everybody for their contributions to this RfC Erosonog (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Star of Karageorge[edit]

I have removed the mention that he was awarded the Star of Karageorge, as its source (Kurapovna, 2009) is dubious, particularly in respect of this "fact". The source says Stepinac was a "once decorated soldier awarded the Order of the Star of Karageorge by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during World War I". Of course, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't exist during WWI (not until 1929 actually), so that is the first problem. Secondly, Stepinac didn't see action with the Allies (ie Serbia), as the war ended before he was released from the POW camp. Thirdly, Kurapovna states elsewhere (p. 31) that Draza Mihailovic received the Victoria Cross in WWI, which is clearly not correct. It would appear that Kurapovna has a problem with accuracy when it comes to awards made to persons mentioned in her book. I have also seen no other mention of this award to Stepinac in the many hagiographies available. Given the above, I think the best solution is to remove it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Sabrina Ramet mentioned the medal in her book "The Independent State of Croatia 1941-45", pg 100.
Erosonog (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Good pick-up. I have a copy. I'll look for other sources as well. 23 editor do you know any other sources for Stepinac being awarded the Order? The dates given so far don't really seem to fit him actually serving on the Salonika/Macedonian Front prior to the end of the fighting, but Ramet is usually pretty reliable. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I researched the internet a bit, but came up empty. It is mentioned several times in yellow press and internet forums, but nothing remotely approaching WP:RS. No such user (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I came up with much the same. Even Catholic hagiographies like Butler and Burns don't mention it. For now, I've included it in a note sourced to Ramet, but it seems incongruous if the war was over before he even went to the Salonika Front. I mean, what heroism could be possibly have been decorated for? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DR/N Case: Current[edit]

As of the 18th October, 2015, there is an open DR/N case that I am mediating. It is concerned with several aspects of the related article's content. Please feel free to join in but remember to read my mediation rules (in the Discussion section) and to add your own summary of the dispute with a ~~~~ signature. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

These latest changes have been already discussed at length on this Talk page, mainly as a dialogue between Peacemaker67. The discussion resulted in one RfC and a DRN. The RfC was closed under concensus, but the DRN was closed because Peacemaker67 withdrew from it around November 5 2015 on the premise that he/she will open a new RfC to further discuss the changes. Since no such RfC was opened, I am editing the page again.Erosonog (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
On what basis do you make that claim? You are the one wanting to make changes to the article, I have been verifying and adding reliable sources and generally improving the MOS-compliance. Your interest appears to be in the infobox and lead, when the lead should only reflect the body. I suggest you contribute to the further development of the body of the article, and when that is done, we discuss what goes in the lead. I have no intention of re-engaging in a DRN, and any edit-warring of the infobox and lead will be reported for ARBMAC enforcement. Merry Xmas. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Motto[edit]

Peacemaker67, why are you against this translation? United Union (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am against using a translation from an Anglican bible when we already have a translation from the Croatian Catholic website, which is quoted verbatim in the body of the article and properly cited. I thought it was pretty straightforward, and was surprised when you had another crack at it. Why would you use a translation from a Protestant bible on an article about a Catholic cardinal? I'm an atheist, and even I think that's just weird. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen quote[edit]

Regarding this quote ([3]), it is based on a letter sent in May 1943 to the Vatican that was allegedly written by Stepinac. The letter contains a list of "good things" done by the NDH regime where, among others, is the ban of abortion, pornography, etc. That was added in June to the article, but I removed it ([4]). Historian Franjo Švanjek said that it is a "proven forgery":[5] "The alleged Letter to the Pope, registered on 24 May 1943 in the office of the State Secretariat of Vatican, is a proven forgery by the NDH regime that archbishop of Zagreb denies authenticity and authorship, which was confirmed by Radio Vatican and L'Osservatore Romano on 10 and 11 October 1946 in connection with the staged trial of Dr. Alojzije Stepinac." ("Navodna Predstavka Papi (Memoire au pape), registrirana 24. svibnja 1943. u kancelariji državnog tajništva u Vatikanu, dokazana je krivotvorina režima NDH kojemu nadbiskup zagrebački otklanja autentičnost i autorstvo, što su potvrdili Radio Vatikan i L'Osservatore romano 10. i 11. listopada 1946. u svezi s montiranim procesom dr. Alojziju Stepincu.") It was presented as evidence on the trial against Stepinac. On page 100 Švanjek writes that "as soon as the state prosecutor read the first lines of the letter, Archbishop Stepinac energetically denied his imputed authorship." ("čim je državni tužitelj pročitao prve rečenice iz navodne Predstavke papi, nadbiskup Stepinac je energično pobio imputirano mu autorstvo") The letter was written in Italian, while Stepinac wrote all his letters to Vatican in Latin. It wasn't signed and there was no seal. (Xavier de Montclos: Les chretiens face au nazisme et au stalinisme, Paris 1983, p. 170) So, it is a forgery from the NDH authorities, not a letter from Stepinac. Tzowu (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is one view. It seems to me that Radio Vatican wasn't going to accept it. What non-Catholic Church source concludes it was a forgery? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Richard Pattee: The Case of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, p. 88-90 [6]
"The authenticity of the alleged report of May 18, 1943, is open to the most serious question and the internal evidence is overwhelming as to its forged character. The external evidence, and especially the reply of Cardinal Maglione, dated June 17, 1943, furnished strong proof that the document represents either an out and out forgery or a draft prepared by someone which the Archbishop refused to send or regarding the content. The document is of the greatest importance because it is used by the Prosecution as evidence of the total subservience of the Archbishop to the Ustasha regime and his constant efforts to enlist the enthusiastic support of the Vatican on behalf of the Pavelić government."
"The internal evidence of forgery or falsification would indicate that the copy read to the court by the Public Prosecutor had in all probability no relation to the original report. Dr. Politeo argued that the copy read to the court was very likely an Ustasha forgery, the aim of which was to create the impression of Vatican support. The content of the report directly contradicts the well-known opinions of the Archbishop. The latter denied completely ever writing such a report. Dr. Politeo acknowledges that mere denial on the part of the defendant does not constitute proof. He proceeds, therefore, to dissect the document to show that from every point of view it is highly improbable that the Archbishop ever wrote it and much less dispatched it to Rome as the expression of his views. In the first place, the report is written in Italian and it was the invariable practice of the Zagreb chancery to draft reports and other communications with the Holy See in Latin. Moreover, the Latin form of these dispatches did not vary and the salutation as well as conclusion always followed the same standard order. The copy as read gives the Archbishop the title of Metropolitan of Croatia and Slavonia which was never used and was incorrect. It is not in the least probable that the Archbishop would sign a document with a title that on no other occasion was ever employed. The copy read by the Public Prosecutor was discovered in the files of the Ustasha Foreign Office which in itself is highly suspicious since no copy of any other report of the Curia was found there nor was any copy found at all in the Archiepiscopal archives, the natural place for such materials to be preserved."
"The original of a letter from His Eminence Cardinal Maglione was presented by the defense and dated June 17, 1943 in acknowledgment of the report that Archbishop Stepinac had dispatched to Rome. This reply was evidently made to the authentic report or statement of the Zagreb Metropolitan. The text of this reply shows clearly that the subject matter of the alleged report was totally different from what the prosecution alleged. Cardinal Maglione states that, "I have noted with great interest the ample documentation sent to me by Your Most Reverend Excellency regarding the work carried by you in favor of the Serbs and Hebrews in Croatia." The Cardinal adds, "I beg you to continue to keep the Holy See informed in the matter, adding, if possible, some news also regarding the work of the other Croatian Bishops." Here is very plain proof that the Archbishop had informed the Holy See of the details of his own efforts on behalf of Serbs and Jews suffering persecution at the hands of the Ustasha regime. It is highly improbable as well as impossible for formal proof that he included in this same alleged report eulogistic comments on the very regime against which he was protecting the unfortunate Serbs and Jews."
"The copy of the alleged report as read was dated May 20, 1943. The Cardinal's reply bore the date of June 17, 1943. The acknowledgment could refer logically only to a report on or about the date of the copy in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, there is no indication on the copy when the original was sent or by whom. How, then, did this copy come into existence and how explain its presence in the Ustasha files? There is no absolute proof of what happened. The version advanced by the defense was that the chief of the religious affairs of the Ustasha Ministry, Radoslav Glavas, may very likely have conceived the idea of persuading the Archbishop to sign some such document that would favor the Ustasha regime. It is well to remember that the late spring of 1943 was a critical period for the Axis with the current beginning to turn favorably to the Allies. The reaction in Zagreb Ustasha circles must have been one of panic and fear of the consequences of the inevitable Axis defeat. Nothing was more natural than this grasping at any straw that might strengthen the fragile regime. If a draft of some sort had been prepared by Glavas, it may have been turned down by others in the foreign office or considered as too risky at the moment. The copy may simply have been filed away in the Archives and the original retained by Glavas. There is internal evidence here too to allow the supposition that Glavas may have been the author. The text is full of allusions to Bosnia and its history, a field in which Glavas was something of a specialist."
"Moreover, if the Archbishop had had any knowledge of the existence of this document or had supposed that it had been retained in the files of the foreign office, he could very easily have extracted the copy when these files were in storage in his own palace. The conclusion is that the copy was not drafted by the Archbishop, that he did not send it, and that in all probability it represents an effort on the part of the Ustasha government to compromise the Bishop at a critical turn of affairs for the Independent Croat State. Its value as evidence against the Archbishop is nil." Tzowu (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that seems pretty conclusive. I'll delete it. Thanks for your detailed explanation and the extended quotation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Vicar[edit]

Erosonog, Tuvixer: for the statements that Stepinac was the "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army" and that he "sat in the Ustashi parliament", please bring much better secondary sources than

  • Alojzije Stepinac. The Case of Archbishop Stepinac, Stepinac's letter (PDF). Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. p. 66.  - prepared by the Yugoslav Embassy in 1947, citing a primary source
  • Magnum Crimen, a controversial book in which in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor. (from our article).

I'm not dismissing the statement in advance, but I would much prefer analysis of later historians without an apparent bias. No such user (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

ok, I tried to help, good luck with that crazy person. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What honorific-prefixes should be included in the infobox?[edit]

This RfC was closed with the clear consensus that "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" should not be used in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the honorific-prefix field of the infobox of this article include the prefix "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" as well as "His Eminence Blessed Dr."? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The two sources being used to source the first honorific are:

  • Alojzije Stepinac. The Case of Archbishop Stepinac, Stepinac's letter (PDF). Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. p. 66.  - prepared by the Yugoslav Embassy in 1947, citing a primary source
  • Magnum Crimen, a controversial book in which in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor. (from our article).

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A link to this RfC and request for input has been posted to all WikiProjects associated with this article, and the Reliable Sources and NPOV noticeboards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose (i.e. support current version). "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" is about as blatant POV as it gets. Apart from that, there seems to be a failure to grasp the meaning of the word "honorific". GregorB (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As GregorB noted, clear POV. Meatsgains (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are a whole bunch of issues with this "title" and whether the sources for it are reliable. Regardless of that, it is not appropriate to place it in the infobox as an "honorific", per GregorB, because it obviously isn't one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article need to be more aware about his alignment with the fascist regime in Croatia during the Second world war, a practice that was common place in Europe during and after that time. Also regarding the empowerment of the catholic right wing and their influence in the policies and the rise of fascism. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tuvixer, I have been improving the coverage incrementally (using reliable sources that have a range of views on Stepinac) over the last few months. It is a controversial area, even by Balkans standards, and not in my main (military) area of interest, but I'll continue to chip away at it. I might get it to GA one day. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not whether the title is "honorific"; Nowhere in the article is the information even remotely suggested. The proposed title isn't even a title, let alone honorific. For one, it isn't a legitimate prefix. Moreover, it can't be fit into the current one. In no way is "including genocidal Ustase forces" factual. The matter of whether a title is "honorific" is another thing. By all measures, no source will cover that (no one refers to people with that kind of title, so it is unreferenced in nature). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose - I speak from utter ignorance here, but unless there is a court finding of genocide I don't think the allegation should be made in Wikipedia's voice. If in fact this is is common knowledge, then the fact that the Croatian army included these forces will also be well-known. If the OP wants to make sure that this is discussed on wikipedia then the way to do this would surely be in the body of the article as a summary and on the main page for the Croatian Army; then he/she can wikilink as necessary in the body of this article to support any contentions made there about whether this commander was in charge for given battles or massacres. As for whether Grand Vicar is an appropriate title, I have no idea and bow to those who have more knowledge of the subject than I. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
to be clear, I am saying that even assuming he definitely *was* responsible for genocide, which seems to be in dispute, but assuming that reliable sources exist and are cited, the place to put this claim is in the text not the infobox Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though the information should be made prominent. -Darouet (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No The article already includes the appropriate honorific for an archbishop. User GregorB (talk) has hit the nail on the head. Jschnur (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - more relevant would be asking if such honorifics are good idea in general. Piling extra stuff there is definitely not a good way forward.--Staberinde (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose full wording / Support "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army" - I have interacted on this article before, though mainly in a copy-editing capacity. Having the whole "genocidal forces" bit needs at least A source to verify such a claim, though the Supreme Vicar of Croatian Army seems to be fairly sourced. Perhaps it is time for a snowstorm closure per the many opposing !votes. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Aloysius Stepinac. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Two quotes[edit]

The first is from today's Jutarnji list, p. 31, article titled "Stepinac nije ratni zločinac, ali ni simbol otpora ustaškom režimu" ("Stepinac is not a war criminal, but he is not a symbol of resistance against Ustasha regime either"). It's an interview with Hrvoje Klasić, a historian, in which he says:[7]

Stepinac i Pavelić nisu bili bliski. Po svemu sudeći, nisu se ni podnosili. To ipak ne znači da je Stepinac zbog toga imao problema ili da je, kako on sam na suđenju ističe, bio "persona non grata" u NDH. Jer, vrlo se rijetko nepoželjnim osobama dodjeljuje orden za zasluge. A jedan takav (Red za zasluge - Velered sa zviezdom) Ante Pavelić dodjeljuje Stepincu, i to ne 1941., nego 1944!

Stepinac and Pavelić were not close. By all accounts, they even couldn't stand each other. That, however, does not mean that Stepinac had any problems because of that or that he was, as he pointed out himself in his trial, a "persona non grata" in the ISoC. That's because undesirables are very rarely awarded an order of merit. And an order of merit (Red za zasluge - Velered sa zviezdom) was awarded to Stepinac by Ante Pavelić, not in 1941, but in 1944!

This confirms the fact I've put forward earlier in this talk page (section "Two facts?"), but - interestingly - also parallels my earlier conclusion about it. That is not too surprising, actually - it's common sense.

The second quote is an entry from Stepinac's personal journal, dated 5 September 1940:[8]

Svijet ide uistinu u propast ako ga čudesnim načinom ne spasi ruka Božja. Pobijedi li Njemačka bit će grozan teror i propast za male narode. Pobijedi li Engleska ostati će na vlasti masoni, Židovi, prema tome nemoral, korupcija u našim zemljama. Pobijedi li SSSR onda je đavo dobio vlast nad svijetom i pakao. Dakle, kuda ćemo Gospodine nego k Tebi podići oči?

The world is indeed on the road to ruin if it is not miraculously saved by the hand of God. If Germany should win, there will be horrific terror and doom for smaller nations. Should England win, masons and Jews will remain in power, and hence immorality and corruption in our lands. Should the USSR win, then the devil himself will be ruling the world and hell. So, to whom shall we raise our eyes, Lord, if not to You?

The article's author noted that in this quote Stepinac "largely summarized his views towards the warring sides". I agree - and I'd add that it doesn't sound all that favorable for him. In fact, these two quotes taken together are even more damning. GregorB (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)