![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably the one person who made the most WP:NPOV edits in this article. Please avoid vague accusations of "POV-pushing". My view on these issues is perfectly legitimate. The puppet Croatian NDH you mentioned is de jure a non-existent state. Aside of course from his childhood in Austria-Hungary, the cardinal lived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, and SFR Yugoslavia.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're implying I'm some kind of "communist", rest assured you got the wrong impression. You should probably avoid viewing any edits opposing Croatian nationalism as "communist". You're jumping to conclusions.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(The ethnonym is "a Croat", the adjective is "Croatian".) Since "the old country" actually established the modern Croatian state within it, I'd say it had no problem with Croats whatsoever. :) You don't really have an argument here. Let me illustrate:
The comparison between the USSR and Yugoslavia in this discussion is almost ridiculous, Austria-Hungary was actually a much better example. Russians were overwhelmingly favored and dominated the USSR, which was often informally called "Russia" and its people were colloquially known as "Russians" (since it was formed out of the Russian Empire, as you know). In ethnic discussions, the two are incomparable. (Was Yugoslavia sometimes referred to as "Serbia"? :) This is significant because the general disposition of English speakers towards the ethnicities within the two states is completely different. "Soviet" was increasingly synonymous with "Russian", and the two were almost used interchangeably. Either way, there is no real precedent on this and all "comparisons" are pretty meaningless - they are not arguments. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to keep the flapping down, if you insist. Forgive me if a flap or two escape me... :) You should try to remain civil and keep your frustration in check. Radić was unquestionably a Yugoslav politician. Krleža was unquestionably a Yugoslav author. Pavelić was unquestionably a Yugoslav collaborator. I refuse to indulge you in any more of your silly comparison games as you struggle to grasp the objective view any person outside of Croatia (and the Croatian Wikipedia) has about these sort issues.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with both ("Yugoslav and Croatian Cardinal"), I'm opposing the total removal of "Yugoslav" from the lead. The same thing goes for the languages, I'm perfectly ok with "( Serbo-Croatian, Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Cyrillic: Алојзије Виктор Степинац)" or "( Serbo-Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Алојзије Виктор Степинац; Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac)". The problem is that User:Paxcoder will have no mention of "Yugoslav" or use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the lead. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Cyrillic is NOT Serbian. Cyrillic is not a language. It is an alphabet. An alphabet used by the contemporary language of Stepinac's lifetime - Serbo-Croatian. This has no more to do with the Serbian language than with Finnish. You can write-up words in the Croatian language in Cyrillic, its still Croatian, in fact, you can write French or Portuguese or German in Cyrillic it makes no difference. Writing someone's name in Cyrillic ≠ Writing someone's name in Serbian, ok?
I'm just going to repeat this since I still haven't gotten a proper reply:
The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "( Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not claim Serbian and Croatian are two dialect, you're putting words into my mouth. Serbian and Croatian are languages that are part of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. Here's the thing though: that's completely irrelevant right now.
The language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. You have no basis upon which to remove that language. "Sufficient"? So your "argument" is that you can remove the contemporary language Stepinac spoke on the basis that you personally estimate another similar language spoken today is "sufficient"? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You see absolutely no further reason why I would want any mention of Serbian language? Neither do I. What part of "Cyrillic is NOT Serbian" do you find unclear? Serbo-Croatian is not Serbian, any more than it is Croatian, or Bosnian. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the fact that Serbo-Croatian was used at the time, and that's why you want to exclude any mention of it from the lead.
I'll be brief: the language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. You have absolutely no basis upon which to remove it. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian was not classified as a macrolanguage or umbrella term back then, i.e. in the historical context of Aloysius Stepinac's life. It was simply an "ordinary" language (with variants). (I thought we had this clear...)
You're not giving me any real reason not to include this valid, relevant information into the article. I get the feeling like you just believe it is somehow "wrong" and are perpetuating this discussion without foundation. I do not much like nationalist anti-Serbian nonsense, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you don't want Serbo-Croatian to be mentioned because you feel its "too Serbian" for such a "Great Catholic Croat"?
The contemporary language of this Croatian person's lifetime was the Serbo-Croatian language, it is only proper to add this language into the lead of the article. I can't see a single proper reason why I should not add it. I'm sorry we can't reach an agreement, and I suppose we'll have to start the dispute resolution process if you still disagree. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Responding...
I agree yet again: there is absolutely nothing Serbian about the man's name, which is why I wouldn't suggest adding Serbian here in my wildest dreams. You're also right in that Croatian name in Latin (commonly used for Croatian names) should definitely be mentioned. You're just not telling me why Serbo-Croatian can't be used.
This is all because the Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian name for this guy are identical. This is why you imagined that writing his name in Cyrillic = writing his name in Serbian (LoL :)...
Shall we please agree on this? Mentioning both languages seems so damn unacceptable here... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I profoundly disagree. Firstly, 1) its not up to us to establish some arbitrary "rule" on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" a person was. It is obvious that that is no way to write an encyclopedia. Secondly 2) a person's ideological disposition towards Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism is completely irrelevant in determining his country of origin. Thirdly, 3) we are here to convey correct information.
It is only in the Balkans, where our own little "ideological struggle" is so inextricably mixed with everything, that stating someone was from Yugoslavia is somehow "bold" and "inappropriate". -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, Direktor, should every USSR citizen who lived between 1918 and 1990 have "Soviet" adjective in the lead, just because he had an USSR passport? I thought we established that the "Yugoslav" adjective is simply redundant here? No such user ( talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
C'mon DIREKTOR, Yugoslav as a general national designation is way too compromised nowadays to be used that loosely. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that using the combination of adjectives "Yugoslav Croatian" is clumsy, and we've had this kind of language reverted on several Partisan biography pages. There is, however, merit in mentioning Yugoslavia earlier than it is currently done, because that was the defining environment of his archbishopric throughout his tenure. Mentioning NDH earlier than Yugoslavia gives that period undue weight over the other one. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, be real. How can you call a Croatian bishop, a person of Croatian origins, a person who declared himself as a Croat to be something else? And all of your other post on this subject have strong POV. So please stop. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 08:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In White Plains New York is a Catholic Boys High School that was named in honor of Cardinal Stepinac. One of the most noted graduates of the school was John Voight the movie star. He is today a staunch supporter of the school along with his two brothers who also attended the school. (I am a graduate of Stepinac High School) 71.94.251.83 ( talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article titled Aloysius Stepinac, when the man's name is Alojzije? Names should not be translated: The article for Pierre Trudeau would never be titled Peter Trudeau, for example. If this has to do with the name under which he was beatified, I would still insist that his legal name be kept in the title. 74.104.98.175 ( talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this section:
Is irrelevant. There are many statues of Stepinac (including one in my home town - a bust to be exact) and other depictions (ditto). I don't see why the above is encyclopedic material. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP. Now Direktor has posted on my talk page that it's no longer needed. Is there consensus that the content dispute is over and that protection can be lifted? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Having finally done the relevant research myself now, I must regrettably admit that I do see a problem. As N419BH pointed out, WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion". I have also noticed that "Saint" does not fall under the term "honorific" since it is a religious spiritual rank, not a title of honour. Policy expressly contradicts the current state of the article, and "blessed" should be removed from the lead and the infobox where it is incorrectly inserted. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name:
"Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick."
Aloysius Stepinac is obviously not known as "Blessed Aloysius".
Additionally,
WP:NCWC most certainly does apply to article text. Please do not start listing irrelevant examples. This is an issue of policy now, which certainly supersedes any articles you may find that happen to support your POV. I can list an infinite number of articles about saints and beatified people that do not share your "catholic glorification" lead format. In short, I am not interested in precedents.
As for the infobox: "Venerable" is an honorific title. "Saint" is NOT an "honorific title". It is a spiritual rank granted by God himself. I am not religious but I imagine other Christians might very well even be offended by your equating Sainthood with e.g. the Order of the People's Hero. I imagine you are unaware of this, but your argument amounts to the claim that "Saint" is an "honorific title" granted by the Vatican, i.e. that saints do not exist. God does not grant "honorific titles". -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, when someone doesnt know what to say, It speaks lies... a Lesson of History for you! Why stepinac was "Santified" by Pope Jonh Paul II??? In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... thats why Jonh Paul Beatificated him!!! Understand?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KIHV1402 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, comrade DIREKTOR! You are right! (LOL)
All men and all races are children of God; all without distinction. Those who are Gypsies, Black, European, or Aryan all have the same rights.... for this reason, the Catholic Church had always condemned, and continues to condemn, all injustice and all violence committed in the name of theories of class, race, or nationality. It is not permissible to persecute Gypsies or Jews because they are thought to be an inferior race. [1] Here is original in Croatian. Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 in Zagreb about persecution of Serbs too. In first section Stepinac mentions Serbs and other nations in danger; in second part however he affirms, that all races are equal before God. (In original is written ie and not ije: uviek, riečima, srdce…). Let you translate it in English:
Second passage speaks about races. They are equal, because God is Creator of all them:
-- Stebunik ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians." So was in time of Stepinac too. He rejects such accusations ih his sermon too. (Croatian: Katolička Crkva neka bi bila kriva za sve. To krivo gledanje spominje Stepinac i u svojoj propovijedi i odbacuje ga. I danas je nekima Crkva dežurni krivac za sve.) Today are many persons, that think: Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians, sinners, managers, capitalists and so on. Pedofilia is so only in Catholic Church? Between lay teachers, politicians, parents does not exist? Maybe more as between Catholic priests. Here are many prejudices. If you are interesting, dear user Direktor, let you read the books, which are written from Vojislav Šešelj against Catholic Church. There are not many true sources, but often lies. But he is not alone. Already the titles of his books are fool of hatred. Let you read the newspaper of Šešelj’s part „Velika Srbija” (Great Serbia) too. It is published now too. I do not know, that exists one newspaper with title „Velika Hrvatska” (Great Croatia).
We speak here but not about clergy in Croatia in general, but especially about part of Cardinal Stepinac. I think, that here is not only history, but propaganda against Catholic Church too. I felt much hatred in this matter already from other site. We must write „sine ira et studio”. I read now the book about Stepinac from Stella Alexander „The Triple Myth, A life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac” in Croatian ISBN 86-2673-001-6 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum – „Trostruki mit, Život zagrebačkog nadbiskupa Alojzija Stepinca”, Golia Zagreb 1990. I think it is one good book.
The facts are imporant, but the words too. That citation in article about Stepinac from his sermon on 31th October 1943 is not entirely faithful. I have original - diference is not great. The sense is the same. -- Stebunik ( talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear user Direktor: citation needed-- Stebunik ( talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear user Direktor! I am in contrary not angry. Be you peaceful and tolerant, lovely and with great soul too. You have so more fortune in life. God bless you!
I wish to you and to all users in Wikipedia happy and blessed New Year 2011!--
91.148.64.186 (
talk)
06:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 may be of interess of editors of this article. All inputs are welcome. FkpCascais ( talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kebeta, you may be surprised but I already have read WP:LEAD and I know what a lead is supposed to do. You did not expand the lead's scope in any way. Its still talks about the same things as before your edit. You did, however, rewrite sourced information. You removed sourced info. And you added your own unsourced claims (e.g. that Stepinac was released due to "international pressure"). Can you please list proposed changes here so that they can be discussed? You could also use my help in making sure the sources are not misrepresented. (No hard feelings, man, lets all keep it cool :))
As for the infobox: quite simply biographical articles do not have two infoboxes, and this person is not known in sources (or generally) primarily as a saint (such as e.g. Saint Nicholas), but instead as a cardinal archbishop. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You will have to explain to me why Josip Broz Tito's position as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia is being systematically removed from mention in this article? Simoultaneously with attameots to replace his actual post with the term "leader" (Fuhrer?), encyclopaedic wording? Please explain why "Yugoslav government" is being changed to "communist government" (as opposed to a "capitalist government"?). I should like to hear why statements drawn almost verbatim from published sources are being rewritten? Every conceivable effort is being made here to cicumvent the actual sources.
There is incontrovertible evidence, quoted in 1st rate secondary sources, that this person is guilty of treason during wartime in favour of the Axis. There are sources that describe the evidence against him as "both damning and accurate". Other sources describe his collaboration with the enemy in April 1941 specifically. Yet, a sourced statement to that effect, copied word by word from an TOP quality source, has been REMOVED? Or should I say "censored"? Any further alteration of sources, and I shall bring this whole Nazi love-fest we call an "article" to the attention of the admins. The Catholic Church does not own Wikipedia. Its high time this person, who (among other things) prayed time and time again to the Christian god to bestow "blessings" upon the greatest fascist mass murderer in our history, is portrayed as a collaborator - which he most certainly was.
I've had to revert the whole thing. Please, re-insert sourced statements, but do not alter other sourced statements. Do not change sourced wording to your personal preference. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
"John Paul II's book of saints" is a book published and owned by the Roman Catholic Church, written by a family (Matthew, Margaret, and Stephen Bunson - Pappa Bear, Momma Bear, and Baby Bear :). I cannot believe the rubbish is quoted here as an actual "source". It is not a historiographical publication. It is not even a scholarly publication of any sort. It is NOT a reliable, NPOV reference. Its going. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) is a realible source. The books co-autor is Pope John Paul II. --
Kebeta (
talk)
09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Here ares some aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac, if this is your problem with the book:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)Tito was a dictator--just stating the facts. The fact that he masquerades behind meaningless titles as "Prime Minister" or "President" is cute, but doesn't change the fact. Yet his biggest fans take offense to that. The Yugoslav government was a communist government--much like the Independent State of Croatia was a Nazi-backed puppet government--something Direktor loves to remind us every, single, sentence, I guess in case we forget. The truth will not stand for real criminals being glorified here--how you Direktor, could think Stepinac is a monster but TITO is not, is baffling beyond belief. -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 08:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). " was changed to "In accordance with the evidence presented, on October 11 1946, the court found Stepinac guilty of
high treason and
war crimes. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison (a mild sentence for a conviction of high treason during wartime and/or complicity in war crimes). He was to serve five years of the 16-year sentence with preferential treatment, to be later released into house arrest within his home village." After looking at countless cases on Wikipedia, I have yet to come across one that states "In accordance to the evidence presented". Why on earth would this be added--of course the verdict was done with evidence in mind! That is like implying "because of the evidence provided in the trial that he attended for 3 years, Bob Smith was found guilty of the charges that the prosecution brought forth against him in the trial". Every Wiki page states the outcome--without these weasel words attempting to make the Yugoslav court seem so innocent. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves?
Suggest you people look at Ramet who is scarcely a pro-nationalist or pro-communist. She says "Communist acusations that the archbishop "collaborated" with the NDH go to far" and highlights various controversial actions of his. p 127. It was considerably more complicated than that and neither a pro-Tito or pro-catholic slant is likely to do justice to this article. She describes his trial as a "show trial" of one of a number of unco-operative prelates which was also symbolic in delegitimising Croatian nationalism. p165. Meanwhile - enough with the fascist insults. Fainites barley scribs 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a brief response (I really am swamped). Fainites I have no doubt Ramet's opinion is indeed scholarly and may be based on research. My point was that it is unverifiable (what research?), as opposed to the statement that Stepinac did engage in treasonous activities. My position here is a defense of the simple fact that Stepinac was indeed guilty of the charges he was accused of. Opposition to that amounts to a contesting a murder trial finding with a source that says "he probably was not guilty [no reference]", against a source that says "he was guilty, it is public knowledge that he killed the guy, he published the fact himself [here is the reference]". And the latter source deals with Stepinac specifically and in great detail, while the former does not.
When sources contradict on a particular point, it is the easiest thing in the world to determine which supersedes the other: check the backing of the statement. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed IP trolling. I won't be insulted or slandered any further here, will take this IP's behaviour to ANI. (This sort of response from random Balkans IPs shows exactly what I mean about pro-Stepinac public sentiment.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm still waiting for a response from Direktor to my 18 points, plus my response to Direktor's claims I removed Top Class World University Historians, and other evidence I gave. We are getting nowhere here. I want to know what is apparently "abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising" about my article which is apparently not done "in accordance with (proper) sources". -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather on focusing on the encyclopediatric and historical view,the article looks like the ususal ex-yugoslav crap.This article is more about who said what and where,rather then focus on the Cardinal Stepinac himself.I as a Croatian Jew,have really greatest respect this man,but that's my personal opinion that has nothing to do with this article.About forced convertions,the great Cardinal Stepinac said that all the people should be converted if that may save their lives from the hands of the Ustashi fasist regime and all the people that were converted this way are to be allowed to return to their faith when the war ends.The forced convertions(not only of Serbs,but Jews as well) are the only fact used in the showtrial against him,so naturally the nationalist Serbs who were just as bad in WW2,)Belgrade being the first Judenferi(Free of Jews) city in Europe as early as 1942 and enforcing racist Nurnberg laws 6 months before the start of WW2) would use it in their slander campaign against everything Croatian for nationalist and geopolitical purpouses.Cardinal Stepinac really lived with his people,not only Croats but all people that lived in Croatia at that time.Dr.Esther Gitman just published a new book about saving of Jews in the Independent state of Croatia and Stepinac.Buy it,read it,you won't regret it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Few more things that are not mentioned in the article.Cardinal Stepinac spoke openly against the yellow(David star) ribbon laws and was personaly responsible for non-prosecution of halfbloods(people that were half-jewish) after Himmler visited Pavelic in 1943 and ordered him to do eliminate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
And Amiel Shomrony (Emil Schwartz) volunteerd to testify in court during the Cardinal Stepinac trial on his behalf but was prohibited by the communists to apear in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to,because every ex-yugoslav article needs to be read every week in order to protect it.It's a constant struggle by those who want to work on the article and those who use it for spreading hate propaganda (just like in Nazi Germany at the time).I don't want to read the same articles every 4-5 days in order to keep them objecitve and true.If you want to work on the article I'll provide you sources.Regards,Jakov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 13:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
From the pulpit of his Cathedral, Archbishop Stepiniac declared, in July 1941:
"We call God to witness that we have always ben opposed to any compulsory attachmet to the Catholic Church. We must declare that the Church has done all in her power to give aid and protection to the Orthodox".
source
In December of the same year, he wrote to the head of the collaborationist government in the name of his colleagues:
""Only those could be received into the Church who, without having been subjected to force of any kind, might be converted of their own free will, after having become convinced in their own mind that the Catholic Church is the only true Church."
source — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Domics (
talk •
contribs)
07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I am contesting the use of John Paul II's book of saints by Mr. Matthew Bunson and Mrs. Margaret Bunson ("Our Sunday Visitor Publishing"), as a reliable source. There are several problems here, each of which is alone, in my view, sufficient cause to disregard this book. Firstly, this is an unprofessional, non-scholarly book - devoid of even th most basic system of primary references. Secondly, it is published by the Roman Catholic Church (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing), assuring that the work most likely (and in fact) displays a decidedly pro-Church bias in this highly controversial subject. And thirdly, the booklet harbours known falsehoods and myths, such as those on Stepinac's alleged "poisoning".
In that context, I would also like to address the issue of Stepinac's death. There is no question that the evidence on the alleged poisoning is non-existent, and there are no sources which claim outright that he had been poisoned. There is however evidence from independent experts, that the archbishop suffered from polycythemia (indeed, the Yugoslav authorities have offered to send him abroad for treatment, which he refused.) Actual scholarly sources can be provided, by the bushel-full, on Stepinac's very serious illness and its bitter end.
The actual facts of the matter are that the cause of death had been established as polcycythemia, and that some have expressed doubts as to whether that was in fact the cause of death. That is all. The poisoning "theory" is in fact a myth, an unsubstantiated opinion at best. Suffices to say that the "poisoning myth" also includes the tale of how the communists "wrenched his heart out and burned" it afterwards.
For example:
P.S. Prof. Tomasevich, one of the foremost world authorities on Yugoslav history, wrote rather extenisvely on the subject of Stepinac, and will be an excellent source for a more balanced, less pro-Church version of Stepinac's latter years. Prof. Sabrina P. Ramet, also an expert on the subject, will have her say as well. I am currently studying these two sources and will get back to you on their position. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I copy/paste some books from section above. These books are aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac. Is any of these books scholarly publication in your opinion?-- Kebeta ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)There is not much solid evidence that this guy was poisoned - I am going to change the article unless somebody can come up with better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 ( talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
marcustanner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).balkan strongmen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tito
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).triple myth
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably the one person who made the most WP:NPOV edits in this article. Please avoid vague accusations of "POV-pushing". My view on these issues is perfectly legitimate. The puppet Croatian NDH you mentioned is de jure a non-existent state. Aside of course from his childhood in Austria-Hungary, the cardinal lived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, and SFR Yugoslavia.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're implying I'm some kind of "communist", rest assured you got the wrong impression. You should probably avoid viewing any edits opposing Croatian nationalism as "communist". You're jumping to conclusions.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that, considering the historic context, "citizen of Yugoslavia of Croatian nationality" is a reasonable compromise. You however, demand that the adjective "Yugoslav" be completely stripped from the lead. That is simply not WP:NPOV. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(The ethnonym is "a Croat", the adjective is "Croatian".) Since "the old country" actually established the modern Croatian state within it, I'd say it had no problem with Croats whatsoever. :) You don't really have an argument here. Let me illustrate:
The comparison between the USSR and Yugoslavia in this discussion is almost ridiculous, Austria-Hungary was actually a much better example. Russians were overwhelmingly favored and dominated the USSR, which was often informally called "Russia" and its people were colloquially known as "Russians" (since it was formed out of the Russian Empire, as you know). In ethnic discussions, the two are incomparable. (Was Yugoslavia sometimes referred to as "Serbia"? :) This is significant because the general disposition of English speakers towards the ethnicities within the two states is completely different. "Soviet" was increasingly synonymous with "Russian", and the two were almost used interchangeably. Either way, there is no real precedent on this and all "comparisons" are pretty meaningless - they are not arguments. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to keep the flapping down, if you insist. Forgive me if a flap or two escape me... :) You should try to remain civil and keep your frustration in check. Radić was unquestionably a Yugoslav politician. Krleža was unquestionably a Yugoslav author. Pavelić was unquestionably a Yugoslav collaborator. I refuse to indulge you in any more of your silly comparison games as you struggle to grasp the objective view any person outside of Croatia (and the Croatian Wikipedia) has about these sort issues.
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with both ("Yugoslav and Croatian Cardinal"), I'm opposing the total removal of "Yugoslav" from the lead. The same thing goes for the languages, I'm perfectly ok with "( Serbo-Croatian, Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Cyrillic: Алојзије Виктор Степинац)" or "( Serbo-Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac, Алојзије Виктор Степинац; Croatian: Alojzije Viktor Stepinac)". The problem is that User:Paxcoder will have no mention of "Yugoslav" or use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the lead. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Cyrillic is NOT Serbian. Cyrillic is not a language. It is an alphabet. An alphabet used by the contemporary language of Stepinac's lifetime - Serbo-Croatian. This has no more to do with the Serbian language than with Finnish. You can write-up words in the Croatian language in Cyrillic, its still Croatian, in fact, you can write French or Portuguese or German in Cyrillic it makes no difference. Writing someone's name in Cyrillic ≠ Writing someone's name in Serbian, ok?
I'm just going to repeat this since I still haven't gotten a proper reply:
The contemporary language of his time was Serbo-Croatian. It simply has to be included in the lead, just as the Latin name of Mark Antony has to be included in the article (Croatian actually did not exist at the time). The language used two alphabets, leaving one out them out is discriminatory. Though it is a rather silly wording, if you want to insist on the formulation of "( Serbo-Croatian, Croatian:)" I am of course willing to compromise, but the full Serbo-Croatian native name should be included in the article - or we are sacrificing information for the purpose of pushing a nationalist POV, more specifically, anti-Serb sentiments. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not claim Serbian and Croatian are two dialect, you're putting words into my mouth. Serbian and Croatian are languages that are part of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. Here's the thing though: that's completely irrelevant right now.
The language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. You have no basis upon which to remove that language. "Sufficient"? So your "argument" is that you can remove the contemporary language Stepinac spoke on the basis that you personally estimate another similar language spoken today is "sufficient"? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You see absolutely no further reason why I would want any mention of Serbian language? Neither do I. What part of "Cyrillic is NOT Serbian" do you find unclear? Serbo-Croatian is not Serbian, any more than it is Croatian, or Bosnian. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the fact that Serbo-Croatian was used at the time, and that's why you want to exclude any mention of it from the lead.
I'll be brief: the language spoken in Stepinac's time is the Serbo-Croatian language. Therefore, that language will be listed in the lead. You have absolutely no basis upon which to remove it. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian was not classified as a macrolanguage or umbrella term back then, i.e. in the historical context of Aloysius Stepinac's life. It was simply an "ordinary" language (with variants). (I thought we had this clear...)
You're not giving me any real reason not to include this valid, relevant information into the article. I get the feeling like you just believe it is somehow "wrong" and are perpetuating this discussion without foundation. I do not much like nationalist anti-Serbian nonsense, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you don't want Serbo-Croatian to be mentioned because you feel its "too Serbian" for such a "Great Catholic Croat"?
The contemporary language of this Croatian person's lifetime was the Serbo-Croatian language, it is only proper to add this language into the lead of the article. I can't see a single proper reason why I should not add it. I'm sorry we can't reach an agreement, and I suppose we'll have to start the dispute resolution process if you still disagree. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Responding...
I agree yet again: there is absolutely nothing Serbian about the man's name, which is why I wouldn't suggest adding Serbian here in my wildest dreams. You're also right in that Croatian name in Latin (commonly used for Croatian names) should definitely be mentioned. You're just not telling me why Serbo-Croatian can't be used.
This is all because the Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian name for this guy are identical. This is why you imagined that writing his name in Cyrillic = writing his name in Serbian (LoL :)...
Shall we please agree on this? Mentioning both languages seems so damn unacceptable here... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I profoundly disagree. Firstly, 1) its not up to us to establish some arbitrary "rule" on who was a Yugoslav and who was not based on a personal idea each one of us may have on how "pro-Yugoslav" a person was. It is obvious that that is no way to write an encyclopedia. Secondly 2) a person's ideological disposition towards Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism is completely irrelevant in determining his country of origin. Thirdly, 3) we are here to convey correct information.
It is only in the Balkans, where our own little "ideological struggle" is so inextricably mixed with everything, that stating someone was from Yugoslavia is somehow "bold" and "inappropriate". -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, Direktor, should every USSR citizen who lived between 1918 and 1990 have "Soviet" adjective in the lead, just because he had an USSR passport? I thought we established that the "Yugoslav" adjective is simply redundant here? No such user ( talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
C'mon DIREKTOR, Yugoslav as a general national designation is way too compromised nowadays to be used that loosely. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that using the combination of adjectives "Yugoslav Croatian" is clumsy, and we've had this kind of language reverted on several Partisan biography pages. There is, however, merit in mentioning Yugoslavia earlier than it is currently done, because that was the defining environment of his archbishopric throughout his tenure. Mentioning NDH earlier than Yugoslavia gives that period undue weight over the other one. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, be real. How can you call a Croatian bishop, a person of Croatian origins, a person who declared himself as a Croat to be something else? And all of your other post on this subject have strong POV. So please stop. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 08:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In White Plains New York is a Catholic Boys High School that was named in honor of Cardinal Stepinac. One of the most noted graduates of the school was John Voight the movie star. He is today a staunch supporter of the school along with his two brothers who also attended the school. (I am a graduate of Stepinac High School) 71.94.251.83 ( talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article titled Aloysius Stepinac, when the man's name is Alojzije? Names should not be translated: The article for Pierre Trudeau would never be titled Peter Trudeau, for example. If this has to do with the name under which he was beatified, I would still insist that his legal name be kept in the title. 74.104.98.175 ( talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this section:
Is irrelevant. There are many statues of Stepinac (including one in my home town - a bust to be exact) and other depictions (ditto). I don't see why the above is encyclopedic material. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP. Now Direktor has posted on my talk page that it's no longer needed. Is there consensus that the content dispute is over and that protection can be lifted? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Having finally done the relevant research myself now, I must regrettably admit that I do see a problem. As N419BH pointed out, WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion". I have also noticed that "Saint" does not fall under the term "honorific" since it is a religious spiritual rank, not a title of honour. Policy expressly contradicts the current state of the article, and "blessed" should be removed from the lead and the infobox where it is incorrectly inserted. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCWC explicitly discourages the use of "Saint" and "Blessed" in alongside a person's name:
"Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick."
Aloysius Stepinac is obviously not known as "Blessed Aloysius".
Additionally,
WP:NCWC most certainly does apply to article text. Please do not start listing irrelevant examples. This is an issue of policy now, which certainly supersedes any articles you may find that happen to support your POV. I can list an infinite number of articles about saints and beatified people that do not share your "catholic glorification" lead format. In short, I am not interested in precedents.
As for the infobox: "Venerable" is an honorific title. "Saint" is NOT an "honorific title". It is a spiritual rank granted by God himself. I am not religious but I imagine other Christians might very well even be offended by your equating Sainthood with e.g. the Order of the People's Hero. I imagine you are unaware of this, but your argument amounts to the claim that "Saint" is an "honorific title" granted by the Vatican, i.e. that saints do not exist. God does not grant "honorific titles". -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, when someone doesnt know what to say, It speaks lies... a Lesson of History for you! Why stepinac was "Santified" by Pope Jonh Paul II??? In 1946 Tito offered Stepinac to found another church and he could be the pope of it. But he refused... thats why Jonh Paul Beatificated him!!! Understand?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KIHV1402 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, comrade DIREKTOR! You are right! (LOL)
All men and all races are children of God; all without distinction. Those who are Gypsies, Black, European, or Aryan all have the same rights.... for this reason, the Catholic Church had always condemned, and continues to condemn, all injustice and all violence committed in the name of theories of class, race, or nationality. It is not permissible to persecute Gypsies or Jews because they are thought to be an inferior race. [1] Here is original in Croatian. Stepinac speaks in sermon on 31st October 1943 in Zagreb about persecution of Serbs too. In first section Stepinac mentions Serbs and other nations in danger; in second part however he affirms, that all races are equal before God. (In original is written ie and not ije: uviek, riečima, srdce…). Let you translate it in English:
Second passage speaks about races. They are equal, because God is Creator of all them:
-- Stebunik ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians." So was in time of Stepinac too. He rejects such accusations ih his sermon too. (Croatian: Katolička Crkva neka bi bila kriva za sve. To krivo gledanje spominje Stepinac i u svojoj propovijedi i odbacuje ga. I danas je nekima Crkva dežurni krivac za sve.) Today are many persons, that think: Catholic Church is guilty for all mistakes of politicians, sinners, managers, capitalists and so on. Pedofilia is so only in Catholic Church? Between lay teachers, politicians, parents does not exist? Maybe more as between Catholic priests. Here are many prejudices. If you are interesting, dear user Direktor, let you read the books, which are written from Vojislav Šešelj against Catholic Church. There are not many true sources, but often lies. But he is not alone. Already the titles of his books are fool of hatred. Let you read the newspaper of Šešelj’s part „Velika Srbija” (Great Serbia) too. It is published now too. I do not know, that exists one newspaper with title „Velika Hrvatska” (Great Croatia).
We speak here but not about clergy in Croatia in general, but especially about part of Cardinal Stepinac. I think, that here is not only history, but propaganda against Catholic Church too. I felt much hatred in this matter already from other site. We must write „sine ira et studio”. I read now the book about Stepinac from Stella Alexander „The Triple Myth, A life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac” in Croatian ISBN 86-2673-001-6 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum – „Trostruki mit, Život zagrebačkog nadbiskupa Alojzija Stepinca”, Golia Zagreb 1990. I think it is one good book.
The facts are imporant, but the words too. That citation in article about Stepinac from his sermon on 31th October 1943 is not entirely faithful. I have original - diference is not great. The sense is the same. -- Stebunik ( talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear user Direktor: citation needed-- Stebunik ( talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear user Direktor! I am in contrary not angry. Be you peaceful and tolerant, lovely and with great soul too. You have so more fortune in life. God bless you!
I wish to you and to all users in Wikipedia happy and blessed New Year 2011!--
91.148.64.186 (
talk)
06:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 may be of interess of editors of this article. All inputs are welcome. FkpCascais ( talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kebeta, you may be surprised but I already have read WP:LEAD and I know what a lead is supposed to do. You did not expand the lead's scope in any way. Its still talks about the same things as before your edit. You did, however, rewrite sourced information. You removed sourced info. And you added your own unsourced claims (e.g. that Stepinac was released due to "international pressure"). Can you please list proposed changes here so that they can be discussed? You could also use my help in making sure the sources are not misrepresented. (No hard feelings, man, lets all keep it cool :))
As for the infobox: quite simply biographical articles do not have two infoboxes, and this person is not known in sources (or generally) primarily as a saint (such as e.g. Saint Nicholas), but instead as a cardinal archbishop. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You will have to explain to me why Josip Broz Tito's position as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia is being systematically removed from mention in this article? Simoultaneously with attameots to replace his actual post with the term "leader" (Fuhrer?), encyclopaedic wording? Please explain why "Yugoslav government" is being changed to "communist government" (as opposed to a "capitalist government"?). I should like to hear why statements drawn almost verbatim from published sources are being rewritten? Every conceivable effort is being made here to cicumvent the actual sources.
There is incontrovertible evidence, quoted in 1st rate secondary sources, that this person is guilty of treason during wartime in favour of the Axis. There are sources that describe the evidence against him as "both damning and accurate". Other sources describe his collaboration with the enemy in April 1941 specifically. Yet, a sourced statement to that effect, copied word by word from an TOP quality source, has been REMOVED? Or should I say "censored"? Any further alteration of sources, and I shall bring this whole Nazi love-fest we call an "article" to the attention of the admins. The Catholic Church does not own Wikipedia. Its high time this person, who (among other things) prayed time and time again to the Christian god to bestow "blessings" upon the greatest fascist mass murderer in our history, is portrayed as a collaborator - which he most certainly was.
I've had to revert the whole thing. Please, re-insert sourced statements, but do not alter other sourced statements. Do not change sourced wording to your personal preference. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
"John Paul II's book of saints" is a book published and owned by the Roman Catholic Church, written by a family (Matthew, Margaret, and Stephen Bunson - Pappa Bear, Momma Bear, and Baby Bear :). I cannot believe the rubbish is quoted here as an actual "source". It is not a historiographical publication. It is not even a scholarly publication of any sort. It is NOT a reliable, NPOV reference. Its going. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) is a realible source. The books co-autor is Pope John Paul II. --
Kebeta (
talk)
09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Here ares some aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac, if this is your problem with the book:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)Tito was a dictator--just stating the facts. The fact that he masquerades behind meaningless titles as "Prime Minister" or "President" is cute, but doesn't change the fact. Yet his biggest fans take offense to that. The Yugoslav government was a communist government--much like the Independent State of Croatia was a Nazi-backed puppet government--something Direktor loves to remind us every, single, sentence, I guess in case we forget. The truth will not stand for real criminals being glorified here--how you Direktor, could think Stepinac is a monster but TITO is not, is baffling beyond belief. -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 08:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). " was changed to "In accordance with the evidence presented, on October 11 1946, the court found Stepinac guilty of
high treason and
war crimes. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison (a mild sentence for a conviction of high treason during wartime and/or complicity in war crimes). He was to serve five years of the 16-year sentence with preferential treatment, to be later released into house arrest within his home village." After looking at countless cases on Wikipedia, I have yet to come across one that states "In accordance to the evidence presented". Why on earth would this be added--of course the verdict was done with evidence in mind! That is like implying "because of the evidence provided in the trial that he attended for 3 years, Bob Smith was found guilty of the charges that the prosecution brought forth against him in the trial". Every Wiki page states the outcome--without these weasel words attempting to make the Yugoslav court seem so innocent. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves?
Suggest you people look at Ramet who is scarcely a pro-nationalist or pro-communist. She says "Communist acusations that the archbishop "collaborated" with the NDH go to far" and highlights various controversial actions of his. p 127. It was considerably more complicated than that and neither a pro-Tito or pro-catholic slant is likely to do justice to this article. She describes his trial as a "show trial" of one of a number of unco-operative prelates which was also symbolic in delegitimising Croatian nationalism. p165. Meanwhile - enough with the fascist insults. Fainites barley scribs 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a brief response (I really am swamped). Fainites I have no doubt Ramet's opinion is indeed scholarly and may be based on research. My point was that it is unverifiable (what research?), as opposed to the statement that Stepinac did engage in treasonous activities. My position here is a defense of the simple fact that Stepinac was indeed guilty of the charges he was accused of. Opposition to that amounts to a contesting a murder trial finding with a source that says "he probably was not guilty [no reference]", against a source that says "he was guilty, it is public knowledge that he killed the guy, he published the fact himself [here is the reference]". And the latter source deals with Stepinac specifically and in great detail, while the former does not.
When sources contradict on a particular point, it is the easiest thing in the world to determine which supersedes the other: check the backing of the statement. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed IP trolling. I won't be insulted or slandered any further here, will take this IP's behaviour to ANI. (This sort of response from random Balkans IPs shows exactly what I mean about pro-Stepinac public sentiment.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm still waiting for a response from Direktor to my 18 points, plus my response to Direktor's claims I removed Top Class World University Historians, and other evidence I gave. We are getting nowhere here. I want to know what is apparently "abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising" about my article which is apparently not done "in accordance with (proper) sources". -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather on focusing on the encyclopediatric and historical view,the article looks like the ususal ex-yugoslav crap.This article is more about who said what and where,rather then focus on the Cardinal Stepinac himself.I as a Croatian Jew,have really greatest respect this man,but that's my personal opinion that has nothing to do with this article.About forced convertions,the great Cardinal Stepinac said that all the people should be converted if that may save their lives from the hands of the Ustashi fasist regime and all the people that were converted this way are to be allowed to return to their faith when the war ends.The forced convertions(not only of Serbs,but Jews as well) are the only fact used in the showtrial against him,so naturally the nationalist Serbs who were just as bad in WW2,)Belgrade being the first Judenferi(Free of Jews) city in Europe as early as 1942 and enforcing racist Nurnberg laws 6 months before the start of WW2) would use it in their slander campaign against everything Croatian for nationalist and geopolitical purpouses.Cardinal Stepinac really lived with his people,not only Croats but all people that lived in Croatia at that time.Dr.Esther Gitman just published a new book about saving of Jews in the Independent state of Croatia and Stepinac.Buy it,read it,you won't regret it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Few more things that are not mentioned in the article.Cardinal Stepinac spoke openly against the yellow(David star) ribbon laws and was personaly responsible for non-prosecution of halfbloods(people that were half-jewish) after Himmler visited Pavelic in 1943 and ordered him to do eliminate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
And Amiel Shomrony (Emil Schwartz) volunteerd to testify in court during the Cardinal Stepinac trial on his behalf but was prohibited by the communists to apear in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to,because every ex-yugoslav article needs to be read every week in order to protect it.It's a constant struggle by those who want to work on the article and those who use it for spreading hate propaganda (just like in Nazi Germany at the time).I don't want to read the same articles every 4-5 days in order to keep them objecitve and true.If you want to work on the article I'll provide you sources.Regards,Jakov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 ( talk) 13:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
From the pulpit of his Cathedral, Archbishop Stepiniac declared, in July 1941:
"We call God to witness that we have always ben opposed to any compulsory attachmet to the Catholic Church. We must declare that the Church has done all in her power to give aid and protection to the Orthodox".
source
In December of the same year, he wrote to the head of the collaborationist government in the name of his colleagues:
""Only those could be received into the Church who, without having been subjected to force of any kind, might be converted of their own free will, after having become convinced in their own mind that the Catholic Church is the only true Church."
source — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Domics (
talk •
contribs)
07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I am contesting the use of John Paul II's book of saints by Mr. Matthew Bunson and Mrs. Margaret Bunson ("Our Sunday Visitor Publishing"), as a reliable source. There are several problems here, each of which is alone, in my view, sufficient cause to disregard this book. Firstly, this is an unprofessional, non-scholarly book - devoid of even th most basic system of primary references. Secondly, it is published by the Roman Catholic Church (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing), assuring that the work most likely (and in fact) displays a decidedly pro-Church bias in this highly controversial subject. And thirdly, the booklet harbours known falsehoods and myths, such as those on Stepinac's alleged "poisoning".
In that context, I would also like to address the issue of Stepinac's death. There is no question that the evidence on the alleged poisoning is non-existent, and there are no sources which claim outright that he had been poisoned. There is however evidence from independent experts, that the archbishop suffered from polycythemia (indeed, the Yugoslav authorities have offered to send him abroad for treatment, which he refused.) Actual scholarly sources can be provided, by the bushel-full, on Stepinac's very serious illness and its bitter end.
The actual facts of the matter are that the cause of death had been established as polcycythemia, and that some have expressed doubts as to whether that was in fact the cause of death. That is all. The poisoning "theory" is in fact a myth, an unsubstantiated opinion at best. Suffices to say that the "poisoning myth" also includes the tale of how the communists "wrenched his heart out and burned" it afterwards.
For example:
P.S. Prof. Tomasevich, one of the foremost world authorities on Yugoslav history, wrote rather extenisvely on the subject of Stepinac, and will be an excellent source for a more balanced, less pro-Church version of Stepinac's latter years. Prof. Sabrina P. Ramet, also an expert on the subject, will have her say as well. I am currently studying these two sources and will get back to you on their position. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I copy/paste some books from section above. These books are aditional sources which claim poisoning of Aloysius Stepinac. Is any of these books scholarly publication in your opinion?-- Kebeta ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)There is not much solid evidence that this guy was poisoned - I am going to change the article unless somebody can come up with better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 ( talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
marcustanner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).balkan strongmen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tito
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).triple myth
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).