Talk:Ante Starčević/Archive 2

message: This article is very POV. Come on, this guy must've done something good. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim as given above - is not substantiated. --BarryMar 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm? No, really, the current version makes it looks he was nothing - but a Serb-hater/anti-semitic. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article is, say, 40% truth, 40 % semi-truth/lie & 20% shadowy "the rest". Unfortunately, I don't have the time to work on it (or any other text, for that matter), but in its current form it presents a gross distortion.
*it gives more than 50% space to Starčević's alleged "racism". In fact, Starčević was a typical 19th century liberal, English-type, who mixed sympathies for idealized Islamic polity as exemplified in Turkey, dislike of all things Byzantine & Russian czarist and the nascent ideas of social Darwinism (which didn't play much role in his worldview, since his outlook has remained essentially pre-scienfic). His "racism"-to call it that- was a minor thing compared to Marx's and Engels's 
*presentation of his "Slavoserb" neologism is incorrect. Its implication is that a contemporary nation, Serbs, are an "entity" he attached this neologism to. In actuality, main "Slavoserbs" ("Slaves" plus "Serfs" (nor an exact translation- "Servus" is a servant, or someone with subservient mentality) were his political opponents- most notably archbishop Strossmayer, a Croat of half-German extraction.  True, Starčević was fierce in his political/polemical attacks (anyway- is there such thing as equanimous polemic ?) & frequently harsh and one-sided. But-to proclaim him to be a "racist" is a complete nonsense.
*a non-negligible part of the article is a lie. For instance, it claims that the top expert on Starčević, Croatian historian of Jewish origin, Mirjana Gross, has claimed that Starčević was an anti-Semite & racist. This is as far from the truth as possible. Whoever read Gross's monumental monograph on Starčević (ca. 800 pages)- and not distorted misquotations published in ideologized provincial papers, knows that such allegations are pure fiction.
I could go on and on, but this is enough. I don't have the time to waste, so I implore conscientious wikipedians to counter this Greater Serbian propaganda (after all, it boils down to it.)Mir Harven 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ignorance & bias are not the measuring stick here. The article will be changed, and significantly so. The text is a blatant example of undue weight.Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant text (unfortunately, in Croatian only), will be presented here in the form of quotations of Starčević's admirers Antun Gustav Matoš and Miroslav Krleža, as well as encyclopedic entry on him from Yugoslav 1982. encyclopedia. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to argue with POV dogmatists. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Rubbish. Mir Harven 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely POVy 

message: Could you, please, stop writing these lengthy monologues in order to justify your cutting off hugge portion of this biography related to his racism??? Do not you see that, no matter how many times you are calling upon the Wikipedia rules, some rules you invented childishly - you cannot hide your bad faith edits???
How come that you even do not know exact reference title? Is your "Marcus Tanner, Croatia, Yale University Press, New Haven 1997"  actually Croatia: A Nation Forged in War By MR Marcus Tanner,
Published 1997 Yale University Press? What it has to do with Starcevic's life and work? Tanner was just a correspondent - not historian and how his writing might preceed those coming from the world renown historians as A.P.J. Taylor and Mirjana Gross about the very Starcevic hand his party? 
If you ever had that book in your hands - please, tell us publicly on which pages Tanner mentioned Starcevic? On which page he metioned him second time and in what context? How it supports the text you wrote here as your 'contribution'?
--Giorgio Orsini 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the problem??? 

message: Case I : Zmaj
As it can be seen here 
# (cur) (last)  23:26, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,390 bytes) (Croatian, not provincial)
# (cur) (last) 23:25, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,401 bytes) (→Historical findings about his political ideology - let's not beat about the bush)
# (cur) (last) 23:24, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,425 bytes) (doesn't warrant a separate chapter)
# (cur) (last) 23:24, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,468 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - Wikipedia articles are not a place for irony)
# (cur) (last) 23:23, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (19,554 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - this rant has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Starčević)
# (cur) (last) 23:21, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,845 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - POV assumption of what a person thinks)
# (cur) (last) 23:20, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,930 bytes) (→Starčević's racism and its followers - what's this? extending one person's racism to an entire nation? shame on you!)
# (cur) (last) 23:15, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (21,939 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - why was this put here? it's completely irrelevant for the biography of Starčević; it could maybe be moved to the Karadžić article)
# (cur) (last) 23:05, 20 June 2007 Zmaj (Talk | contribs) (23,424 bytes) (the photos are different, so don't remove them!)
user Zmaj, except a plain disqualification of the previous editorial work - as it can be seen above - did not support his changes by any valid and rational explanations or knowledge. Also, he throws incivil and rude accusation of the previous editors by saying what's this? extending one person's racism to an entire nation? shame on you!
Case II : Spylab
His edits  are summarized below
# (cur) (last)  13:46, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,190 bytes) (→Footnotes - corrected my typo)
# (cur) (last) 13:45, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,191 bytes) (→Footnotes - added cleanup tag because some of the notes are way too long)
# (cur) (last) 13:17, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,155 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - corrected grammar & spelling in poorly-translated sentence)
# (cur) (last) 12:58, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,202 bytes) (added 2 tags because there are many problems that need to be corrected in this article)
# (cur) (last) 12:55, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,133 bytes) (deleted strange and unnecesssary adjective in intro)
# (cur) (last) 12:52, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,144 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - deleted totally POV sentence that also had horrible spelling & grammar)
Asked to elaborate the Edit summary inline notes here 
. No rational response was ever gotten to this request.--Giorgio Orsini 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm a "case" now, am I? FYI, the first three chapters of the article have been almost entirely written by me, in an objective and truthful manner. What valuable information did you contribute to the article? I've seen only trolling so far. You have brought more harm than good to Wikipedia. So, yes, shame on you! Shame on you for disrupting other people's hard work. --Zmaj 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Giorgio Orsini has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. This sock puppet list shows that a single person edited this article with at least three sock puppets (Purger, GiorgioOrsini, IP number), maybe more. It is obviously a maniac who keeps creating sock puppets to vandalize Croatian articles. There is no reason to suppose he or she will give up. --Zmaj 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, he will not. Next to expect is user:Guivon to suddenly appear here. He has strikingly similar agenda to proved sockpuppets of user:Purger. See Special:Contributions/Guivon. Let's wait and see. --Ante Perkovic 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last two edits 

message: I see at least three things that do not make sense 
- quoted text is marked by s???
- two photos of the same man in this article???
- Accusations and controversies is another  frivolous change. Starčevic's racism is a well-known thing.
More evidence about his racism comes from his book: Pasmina slavoserbska po Hervatskoj by Ante Starčević, Tisak Lav. Hartmána i družbe, Zagreb 1876 where he tried to 'scholarly' explain that the Serbs are not people - rather an animal breed. Here is an abundance of quotes from this book:
Page V Učenu je svetu poznano da ime Serb ili Serv starinom, ime Slav u srednjem veku biaše kod svih narodah obćenito za sužnja; da su se tomu imenu, tudju, Hervati i Poljaci vazda ugibali; i da ono na ove narode nesp'ada više nego n. p. na Engleze. 
Page 25 Slavoserbi i ostali kojim je vera samo sredstvo koristiti se ludostju drugih, oni, gde bolje, tu duglje.
Page 28 Vlasi kao sužnji, kmeti, razlučeni od naroda. 4 Razumeva se da kmeti mogahu biti samo oni koji se udomaćiše. Smatrahu ih posebnom pasminom, s drugda se i sami zvahu Vlasi, ter pristajahu uz onoga, kod koga se najboljemu nadahu. 6 Kad se Stefan-Tomaš Ostoić podpisiva kralj Serbljem, Bosni 7 — tu je očit dokaz da Serblji biahu razlučeni od naroda kraljevine. Po Arbanskoj klatio se taj puk pod imenom Serbeljah.
Page 33 Oko 1440. zauze Turčin Smederevo, oko 1454. zarobiše Turci pasmine 50.000 komadah. Za tih skokovah prodavahu Turci za čizmu, opanke-li pod izbor Serbkinje devojke. Dakle, eto bežanjah, tretjega, četvertoga i petoga, pod Jurjem Brankovićem, i pod njegovimi sinovi Stefanom i Vukom. 3 Očito, nečisti puk onih zemaljah kroz tolika bežanja, klanja i zarobljenja, moradiaše već onda posve izginuti, pa da bude l plodnii nego li se kroz vekove pokazao. Ali primesa uzderžava pasminu.
Page 34 Tu se vidi cena i novca, i zaroba, i vrednost slavoserbske pasmine. ...
Neznalice i herdjelji prenesoše znamenitost ovoga rata na kukavno Kosovo polje od 1389. koje možda imadiaše znamenitost samo po one koji na njemu poginuše. Biaše-li Turčin XIV. i XV. veka
sbilja onako jak kako se u povestnicah i činom pokazao? Bi-li on bio uznapredovao kako jest, da nebude hervatska pasmina nečistom pasminom u Arbanskoj, u Rašii i u Serbii prevladana, vladana, u Bosni raztrovana?
Page 40 Za tih ratah i mešanjah, da vidimo ponašanje pasmine. Kacianerova vojska: „Vlasi, Cigani, Sajkaši, Nosadci (brodari po Dunaju), Martološi, t. j. serbski vojnici na granici, robe i kradu na zapoved Mahomedbega, konje i vole artilerie, odrezuju hranu i trativo, obkoljuju tako, da nitko neusudjuje pokazati se van zalega.
Page 48 O koristi Vlahah i njihova vodjenja zna se samo gde i o plenu Uskokah. U ono vreme nebiaše verstnih zemljo vidah, i pasmina se u nje nije razumela. Kako dakle odkuda-li, ako je živela udomljena, ona znadiaše pute i staze? Na ovo pitanje već odgovorismo. Nu proti javnim zakonom tko je pasminu amo vabio, tko joj je što obećivao, kakova je to javna vera, kako o tih stvarih, proti svojemu vladaru može govoriti jedan dostojanstvenik?
Page 55 Onaj sabiratelj zagovoren je svojom pasminom ili zanešenostju; drugomu nikomu nebi obraz podnio ni prispodabljati a kamo usporedjivati Hervate sa Serbi, primeravati ovu pasminu s narodom, koj je premnogo sagrešio proti drugim a najviše proti samu sebi; nu koj svoje ime uhadjanjem, neverom, izdajom, podlostju, nebiaše okaljao.
Page 76 Ukinutjem granice Tisa Maroške mnogi begunci i rodjaci im, možda i drugi, pod vodjami To'ko'lvem i Horvatom izseliše se u Rusiu, i u pokrajini Jekatarinoslav osnovaše „novu Serbiu."
5 Za čudo: u ovih stranah uzimahu svakakova imena osim onog Serba, kojega se još preko 50 godinah ovde stidiše i plašiše.
Page 88 Na uspeh Miloša Obrenovića u Serbii, pretvoriše se Iliri u Serbe, ter nakon probiranja imenah kroz vekove, pasmina uze ime, koje joj najbolje pristoji. Beč navalivši na ustav Hervatske i Ungarie, najde pomoćnike u onih Serbih i u hervatskih ??-ih, protivnike u samih Magjarih.
Page 94 U „Imenu Serb" videlo se kako se Tribali skitaju, kako se mešaju Rašia, Serbia, Tribalia, i kako su im medje neizvestne. U ovoj razpravi opazilo se kako se mešaju Iliri, Raci, Serbi, Tribali. Nedavajuć se uzaludu na bistrenje toga muteža u koj pristupi takodjer ime Bulgarie, napominjemo iz povestnikah:  
Page 98 Lahko je razumeti da u iztočnih i iztočnosevernih krajih Hervatske, gde biaše slediteljah obiuh cerkvah, i nekerstjanah, i herpa Slavoserbah, nemogaše biti sloge ni snage za uzprotiviti se Turčinu.
Page 101 Vidimo da se pasmina prilično pohervatila u ovoj Hervatskoj. Kad Turčin prestao vojevali, pasmina, većinom ostade gde ju mir zatekao. U hervatskih pokrajinah Turske, ponešto natuca hervatski, drugde turski, bulgarski, rumunjski, gerčki. Ni u kneževini Serbii, ni po Ungarii, još se nije naučila pravo hervatski, nego itako jezik je njezin najsličnii hervatskomu. Da vidimo na koliko se kod nas prosvetlila i počovečila.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous version is a bit better 

message: Article protected for one month, per this ANI thread. EyeSerenetalk 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: I see that this article marked as POV for a long while. All those who kept this mark over this article never explained what it is that's POV nor did do anything to improve the article content. I see that the users who initially provided the article content covered it by valid and verifiable sources. Reviewing just first half of the article and going through the counted sources I saw that the content is professionally written.
However, a number of users distorted the initial text and marked it arbitrarily as not sourced enough. Why such damage of the article is not considered as vandalism and the users who did it warned or even prevented in their bad faith intentions? If someone knows that the content is bad why it is not elaborated here on the talk pages?--Remind me never (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions 

message: Reading the first two paragraphs of this section, for a person educated in literature and linguistic, it is clear that Starcevic was an amateur. His books and works were self-published, which "values" never attracted a serious publisher then or later ever. Some accolades about his "linguistic" and "literary" work coming from his political (nacionalistic) supporters shall be differently addressed than it was done here. No one is linguist for just having some thoughts about language nor writer for writing and self-publishing two-tree books.
Te whole article must be reviewed and corrected by someone who is a historian by vocation and by academic background. Amateuric changes in the text based on I-do-not-like-what-I-removed eroded work of others here--Remind me never (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary and linguistic work? 

message: The sentence that he was born to a "Serb Orthodox mother" (as cited by Tanner) was changed to "Croatian orthodox mother" and a source in Croatian was cited. So obviously there's a contradiction. Per WP:RSUE, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". It would be good if someone can translate what that Croatian source says in English. Spellcast (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing source by Tanner says Serb Orthodox mother, but the book you've cited (also by Tanner) purports to say Croatian Orthodox mother. What is the page number and exact quote that Tanner said in the book you've cited? It would be good to clarify this because it's unusual for the same author to contradict this own work. Spellcast (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying what the book says (I couldn't respond earlier due to computer problems). I originally added the journal source from JSTOR but I couldn't access the book. Wustefuchs, deliberately misrepresenting sources is extremely dishonest, if not outright vandalism, and there won't be another warning on this. Spellcast (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents 

message: See 
Croatia: a nation forged in war - Page 102
	
Marcus Tanner - 1998 - 350 pages - Preview
Born on 23 May 1823 in the village of Zitnik, near Gospic, in the Lika region, to a Croat father and a mother from a Serb Orthodox family. Starcevic was just old enough to have become an adult by the time of the great events of 1 848. ...
books.google.com - More editions - Add to My Library▼
See 
Illyrianism and the Croation quest for statehood
M Tanner - Daedalus, 1997 - questia.com
... Journal article by Marcus Tanner; Daedalus, Vol. 126, 1997. See below... Illyrianism and the
Croation quest for statehood. by Marcus Tanner. ... Strossmayer had been a protege of the great
Illyrian ban Jelacic; Starcevic was the son of a Serb Orthodox mother and a ...
Cited by 4 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 4 versions 
Tanner is consistent: in both of his works he claims the same: Starcevic was the son of a Serb Orthodox mother --166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying what the book says (I couldn't respond earlier due to computer problems). I originally added the journal source from JSTOR but I couldn't access the book. Wustefuchs, deliberately misrepresenting sources is extremely dishonest, if not outright vandalism, and there won't be another warning on this. Spellcast (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fogery

message: The question of nationality is disputed. Croatian historians claim she was Croat Orthodox, they are like Vatroslav Muran, so why we don't leave just Orthodox?--Wustefuchs (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, can you give the exact quote? If there really is a major dispute, surely there should be some English sources addressing this. However, all the sources presented here, whether from academic journals or Google books, consistently say a Croat Catholic father and Serb Orthodox mother. Obviously, you've selectively chosen sources that state his parents' religion but not both of their backgrounds in order to remove his mother's ancestry. The two sources you added both say he was born in a "mixed marriage", which is consistent with Tanner's work. Removing or distorting info to suit a nationalist narrative is the last thing anyone wants since Balkan topics are already plagued with nationalism. Spellcast (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother

message: Here is an apologetic text added
His attitudes regarding Jews, however, were more-less common in that period . (see Antisemitism in 19th and 20th century). Many famous politicians and writers over Europe had bad attitude towrds Jewish influence in their country's society. Dostoevski, Joseph Conrad[14] and Karl Marx[15][16] were just some of them.
''
Statement His attitudes regarding Jews, however, were more-less common in that period is a personal point of view, not supported by any reference. Putting in the same category (no matter for what reason) a petty provincial politician with the philosophers (Conrad, Marx) and insignificant writer who self-published his two books and some essays with the great Dostoevski is pointless and un-encyclopedic here.
Then this quote was removed from a previous version without serious explanation
The British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote (pages 188-189):The Croat Diet was dominated by the Party of Right, which continued to demand the "state rights" of Croatia and still lived in the dream world of medieval law from which the Hungarians had escaped. The Party of Right was clerical, conservative, and pro-Habsburg; its only concession to nationalism was hostility to the Serbs, ... When some members of the Party of Right hesitated to make conflict with the Serbs their only political activity, the majority of the party reasserted itself as the Party of the Pure Right - meaning pure of any trace of reality. 
Party of Right was established and led by Starcevic an he was spiritual and ideological leader of this party. So, the quoted text highlights Starcevic's political influence in Croatia.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More bad text in the article 

message: the ref Tanner, Marcus (2001) I cannot locate anywhere in his book stating that his father is Catholic Croat and Mother orthodox serb. All I can locate from his book regarding Ante Starcevic is quote " opposition to the Illyrians was led by Ante Starcevic and his Party of Rights. Starcevic and his followers took a stand on historic rights of the Croat Kingdom and looked to an idependent Croatia, not a joint Croat-Serb state." if you know in this book it states his mothers ethnicity can you please advise as the only place I can find his mothers supposed background is from servian site srpska mreza which everybody knows is unrealiable information.Dr. Pazaristanka (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded information on reference  

message: This man was racist, per himself, i.e. per his political views and writings. There was no need for removing Taylor's quotes about Starcevic's party nor inserting a defensive text coming from anonymous Serb historian. English language and notable references are must here. Links like http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=87657 http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/starcevic.htm cannot be used as sources, for being no more than blogs.--Eleven Nine (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't examined things in detail, but I just saw your assertion that a link from hrcak.srce.hr is no more than a blog. That is patently false, because it's an article in a Croatian scientific magazine Journal of Contemporary History. You are free to elaborate your dismissal of this particular journal or this particular text on various grounds, but not as something akin to a blog. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist, for sure 

message: "According to Croatian historians M. Gross and I. Goldstein, Starčević was a racist and an anti-Semite.[14][15]" 
There is no citation which proved that I. Goldstein stated that Starčević was a racist or antisemit! I personally joined a lesson of Prof. Ivo Goldstein and he spoke quite in respect of that man (taking into account that Prof. Ivo Goldstein is a jew himself!).
So maybe somebody should take I. Goldstein out of the sentence, at least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Goldstein said in his lesson that Starčević was not an antisemite - my guess is that he didn't - taken from you or any other editor here, it is not a reliable information. GregorB (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be noted that our reference [14] doesn't actually cite Goldstein's words from that article, so verification of the original statement is difficult. The link at Novi list's website confirms the existence of the article, but its text is available to subscribers only. It's not in English, so a translated citation would be preferred per WP:NOENG. In addition, mentions of Goldstein classify under WP:BLP. It wouldn't be unreasonable to to err on the side of caution there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist? Antisemit?