Talk:Croatisation

message: I don't know, but this article has a very propagandistic feel to it. It's a compilation of assumptions or daring statements, which are not backed up by any kind of source or information. It wouldn't surprise me, if the author of this article wrote it with the purpose of legitimating greater-serbian theories.
: Put tag up because:
:* Subject itself is POV;
:* Written by unknown person;
:* Quotes site reporting on testimony given by biased source;
:* Requires more sources;
:* Makes unquantifiable and unverifiable claims re Serbs trader coverting - indeed it claims were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism, a claim if verifiable, does not constitute change in ethnicity.  Nor is forced the right term  because it did not constitute a campaign to change ethnicities in territories outside it's control, but rather a condition of citizenship of it's state.
In the Croatian context it would cove  I think a different style of article article linked to the Croatia or Demographics of Croatia and titled Demographic History and Social Integration of Croatia.  It would cover the tendency of minority groups to adopt aspects of the mainstream (as covered generally in Social integration.  In the Croatian context it would cover Hungarian, Austrian, Vlach, Serb and one notable Polish-Slovak Slavoljub Penkala & Brazilian Eduardo da Silva immigrant that adopted the Croat national identity and Vlach immigrants that adopted the Serb identity.
: It could also cover the experience of integration of Croat immigrants in their new homeland - USA, Canda, South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  
::I don't know about that. The problem here is that this term is rather modern and negative one, it mainly refers to aggressive attempts of assimilation of other ethnic groups, namely Serbs during the 'World War 2'. As such this article should reflect that and I have made some changes about it. When we speak about peaceful and voluntary assimilation and social integration of various ethnic groups such as Germans, Slovaks, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. some other articles other than this should be used. --Factanista 08:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article stands, I'll have nominated it for deletion because it clearly is POV, represents propaganda and WP:POINT. iruka 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full support. --PaxEquilibrium 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: Croatisation is a useful article. I expanded it a lot, adding the Illyrian Movement, but it should be expanded even further to include the recent croatisation of several sportsmen. I'm not well-versed in sports, but names like Da Silva or Peshalov come to mind. I'll write that chapter if nobody else wants to.
I deleted the paragraph called "Croatisization (sic!) against Italians", since it had only one sentence which had nothing to do with the title. This is how it went: The Italian communities of Istria and Dalmatia are today reduced to a minimum part of their original size. The most of Italian left the present day Croatia during the Istrian exodus, after World War II. This is an article about croatisation, not the Italian exodus. If any Italians were croatised, the appropriate chapter should be added, of course. 
I also removed inappropriate links under "See also". Ustasha are quite relevant for croatisation, so I left them. But Jasenovac (an extermination camp) and Operation Storm (a military operation) have nothing to do with croatisation. --Zmaj 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding croatisation 

message: Small minorities assimilate into the majority or into ruling country's nation.
It's normal process everywhere in the world. 
Croatia wasn't independent in 19th century.
In fact, todays Croatia was dismembered in the 19th century between Austrian and Hungarian part of the Monarchy. And, as worse, the official language in littoral provinces was Italian. And still, many of those Italians that came to live in Croatian Littoral assimilated into Croats, some of them before Napoleon's and Habsburg rule.
And already, in 19th century, many of them were the local leaders or important personalities of Croatian Risorgimento, Croat national renaissance (hrvatski narodni preporod), some of them even croatising their name and surname. Kubura 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaceful assimilation 

message: Statement about assimilation of Italians in Dalmatia between 1850 and 1914/18 is under very good question. Census data from article Kingdom of Dalmatia for year 1880 are:
* 371,565 Croats
* 78,714 Serbs 
* 27,305 Italians
It is if nothing else misleading speak that when school has started to use Croatian language and not Italian is assimilation.  Croats have been 77 % of population and it is normal that in school and other public places language is Croatian and not Italian because they are only 5-6 % of population. Be good to answer this question with argument. If there is no answer today tag will be returned.--Rjecina 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Austrian empire has started to make census data only in 1880. Data for Italians between 1880 and 1910 are:
*1880 27305
*1890 16000
*1990 15279
*1910 18028 +2500 persons which are having Italian passport.--Rjecina 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatisation of Italians in Dalmatia

message: *:One thing is as much important as much politically significant: an article about a cultural assimilation (like croatization) doesn't give only a mere definition of what that assimilation is, if it's forced or not and when it took place, but, and above all it must shows historical implications of the issue, the primary and secondary effects on facts, peoples, communities, politics, cultures and everithing related to a social-historiographical consequences of a particular assimilation process. If the croatization actued directly (or indirectly) was one of the reason of a massive exodus, it must be said in the article. And nobody here deserves to be infamous called "fascist" (I consider that post above dirty and offensive, some apologies would be nicely accepted), just because boundaryor annexations matters or wars are all only a background, they are not the subject. 
::I suppose the cancellation of an entire paragraph, fully, partial or not supported by sources, it's not fair, and it can be interpreted as vandalism or at least as political POV cancellation: the same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago , and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) . Despite it was reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, (now expressed again by several users) the paragraph was cancelled for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when it could more simply to add the tag "". --Theirrulez (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason, but dubious pov, is VANDALISM. Your frivolous explanation for the removal can't absolutely be accepted after posts of other users above and considering that the rest of the article is quite completely unsurced. Thanks to stop your edit-warring. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is lack of sources. It is not "frivolous", but very serious indeed. The issue here is not the rest of the article, but the dubious unsourced section (though you may naturally feel free to remove any unsourced text, preferably after explaining on the talkpage why you think that's necessary). In short: sources please. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural assimilation and deliberate cancellations

message: Should Croatisation or Croatization be used as the article name? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are barely equivalent. This could be a case fitting google test. Why don't you try. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was a "Naming convention" that said whether it should be in British English or American English. nvm -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be.--Theirrulez (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatisation or Croatization 

message: Even with a predominant Slavic majority, Dalmatia retained large Italian communities in the coast (Italian majority in the cities and the islands, largest concentration in Istria). Most Dalmatian Italians gradually assimilated to the prevailing Croatian culture and language between the 1860s and World War I, although Italian language and culture remained present in Dalmatia. The community was granted minority rights in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; during the Italian occupation of Dalmatia in World War II, it was caught in the ethnic violence that followed the fascist repression: what remained of the community fled the area after World War II.Društvo književnika Hrvatske, Bridge, Volume 1995, Nubers 9-10, Croatian literature series - Ministarstvo kulture, Croatian Writer's Association, 1989
The Italian community of Istria and Dalmatia were forced to change their names to Croats and Yugoslav, during Tito's Yugoslavia.Nenad Vekarić, Pelješki rodovi, Vol. 2, HAZU, 1996 -  Jasminka Udovički and James Ridgeway, Burn this house: the making and unmaking of Yugoslavia
The same happened - but with lower incidence -  with Italians in Istria and Fiume who were the majority of the population in most of the coastal areas in the first half of the 19th century, while at the beginning of World War I they numbered less than 50%.
After World War II most of the Italians left Istria and the cities of Italian Dalmatia in the Istrian-Dalmatian exodus.Several estimates of the Istrian-Julian exodus by historians:
*Vladimir Žerjavić (Croat), 191,421 Italian exiles from Croatian territory.
*Nevenka Troha (Slovene), 40,000 Italian and 3,000 Slovene exiles from Croatian and Slovenian territory.
*Raoul Pupo (Italian), about 250,000 Italian exiles
*Flaminio Rocchi (Italian), about 350,000 Italian exiles
:The mixed Italian-Slovenian Historical Commission verified 27,000 Italian and 3,000 Slovene migrants from Croatian and Slovenian territory. The remaining Italians were forced to be assimilated culturally and even linguistically during Tito's rule of communist Yugoslavia. Luciano Monzali, Antonio Tacconi e la comunità italiana di Spalato, Società dalmata di storia patria. Following the exodus, the areas were settled and hardly croatized with Yugoslav people.Liliana Ferrari, Essay on Raoul Pupo, pag. 5, Rizzoli, Gorizia 2005 Economic insecurity, ethnic hatred and the international political context that eventually led to the Iron Curtain resulted in up to 350,000 people, mostly Italians, forced to leave the region. The London Memorandum (1954) gave the ethnic Italians the hard choice of either opting to leave (the so-called optants) or staying. These exiles would have been to be given compensation for their loss of property and other indemnity by the Italian state under the terms of the peace treaties.Who opted to stay, had to suffer a slow but forced croatisation.Sabrina P. Ramet, Balkan babel: the disintegration of Yugoslavia from the death of Tito, Westview Press, 2002 «...and since the sixties, those of the rest of Croatia. The Istrian Democratic Party demanded autonomy for Istria, as a protection against "the forcible Croatization of Istria" and an imposition of a coarse and fanatical Croatism[...]Furio Radin argued that such autonomy was vital for the cultural protection of the Italian minority in Istria.»
Some sporadic Croatization phenomena still took place in the last years of 20th century after Croatian Indipendency, despites many towns were declared bilingual by Croatian Law.«Pola, no to Italian chorus in St. Anthony church» in "Difesa Adriatica" year XIV n.5 - may 2008Alex J. Bellamy, The formation of Croatian national identity, Manchester University Press, 2003, 
====Note====
::Its important to note that these sources are, quite amazingly, ALL falsely quoted. They either 1) simply describe the events in question, but do not presume to label them "croatisation", or if they do actually address the subject of this article, 2) they are deliberately falsely quoted in that they do not refer to the events pushed as "croatization" in the disputed section (i.e. they have nothing to do with the text). Note for example the Sabrina Ramet ref: not only does the author use the term under parentheses in quoting a statement from a Croatian politician, but the source also refers to the 1990s, not the 1940s :P. The list is an appalling bit of sources manipulation, really, but alas too obvious: "lets list as many refs and links as we can, people won't check them so we can claim this is all sourced!"
::The issue is quite controversial and very much disputed. Without an actual source there can be no real question as to the inclusion of such claims. As things stand now, there isn't a single solitary source in existence that presumes to describe the events referred to in the disputed section as Croatisation. Not even the (biased) Italian right-wing authors have done anything of the sort. Frankly I cannot believe there's an actual dispute here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The article wasn't protected as a result of anyone's request - rather an observed edit war, and done in leiu of an sanctions.  Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, the italianized variant of the name should be removed; shows no particular relevance to the content whatsoever. Narrowing it down just to Croatian would be preferable instead. Or should we add Cyrillic and German as well? Er-vet-en (say) 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I think we could leave those translation in the language where the world earned a significant meaning for each national history. Italian translation croatizzazione is strongly present in Italian historiography, I don't think we can say the same for the Spanish or Dutch translation.- Theirrulez (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Croatization was much more present among Serbs in Croatia as the text asserts. Should've added Cyrillic script too, as opposed to just Italian translation. Er-vet-en (say) 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I strongly recommend you do not overwrite my edit request, because it's really not polite and it can give confusion in readability, wrongly mixing content and motivation of the edit request with your comments. You can add every comment you want on it here, it's more correct and surely make this section not fuzzy. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatisation of Italy's Julian March and Zadar since 19th century and after Croatian indipendence

message: ::Its important to note that these sources are, quite amazingly, ALL falsely quoted. They either 1) simply describe the events in question, but do not presume to label them "croatisation", or if they do actually address the subject of this article, 2) they are deliberately falsely quoted in that they do not refer to the events pushed as "croatization" in the disputed section (i.e. they have nothing to do with the text). Note for example the Sabrina Ramet ref: not only does the author use the term under parentheses in quoting a statement from a Croatian politician, but the source also refers to the 1990s, not the 1940s :P. The list is an appalling bit of sources manipulation, really, but alas too obvious: "lets list as many refs and links as we can, people won't check them so we can claim this is all sourced!"
::The issue is quite controversial and very much disputed. Without an actual source there can be no real question as to the inclusion of such claims. As things stand now, there isn't a single solitary source in existence that presumes to describe the events referred to in the disputed section as Croatisation. Not even the (biased) Italian right-wing authors have done anything of the sort. Frankly I cannot believe there's an actual dispute here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The article wasn't protected as a result of anyone's request - rather an observed edit war, and done in leiu of an sanctions.  Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Its important to note that these sources are, quite amazingly, ALL falsely quoted. They either 1) simply describe the events in question, but do not presume to label them "croatisation", or if they do actually address the subject of this article, 2) they are deliberately falsely quoted in that they do not refer to the events pushed as "croatization" in the disputed section (i.e. they have nothing to do with the text). Note for example the Sabrina Ramet ref: not only does the author use the term under parentheses in quoting a statement from a Croatian politician, but the source also refers to the 1990s, not the 1940s :P. The list is an appalling bit of sources manipulation, really, but alas too obvious: "lets list as many refs and links as we can, people won't check them so we can claim this is all sourced!"
The issue is quite controversial and very much disputed. Without an actual source there can be no real question as to the inclusion of such claims. As things stand now, there isn't a single solitary source in existence that presumes to describe the events referred to in the disputed section as Croatisation. Not even the (biased) Italian right-wing authors have done anything of the sort. Frankly I cannot believe there's an actual dispute here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the italianized variant of the name should be removed; shows no particular relevance to the content whatsoever. Narrowing it down just to Croatian would be preferable instead. Or should we add Cyrillic and German as well? Er-vet-en (say) 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I think we could leave those translation in the language where the world earned a significant meaning for each national history. Italian translation croatizzazione is strongly present in Italian historiography, I don't think we can say the same for the Spanish or Dutch translation.- Theirrulez (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Croatization was much more present among Serbs in Croatia as the text asserts. Should've added Cyrillic script too, as opposed to just Italian translation. Er-vet-en (say) 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I strongly recommend you do not overwrite my edit request, because it's really not polite and it can give confusion in readability, wrongly mixing content and motivation of the edit request with your comments. You can add every comment you want on it here, it's more correct and surely make this section not fuzzy. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on edit request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Croatisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013702/http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/krapinac.html to http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/krapinac.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please cite information's from sources and pages which are talk about Uskok Croatisation. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: please expose the evidence for this section. Thanks in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatisation of Uskoks 

message: Serbs in the Roman Catholic Croatian Military Frontier were out of the jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć and in 1611, after demands from the community, the Pope establishes the Eparchy of Marča (Vratanija) with seat at the Serbian-built Marča Monastery and instates a Byzantine vicar as bishop sub-ordinate to the Roman Catholic bishop of Zagreb, working to bring Serbian Orthodox Christians into communion with Rome which caused struggle of power between the Catholics and the Serbs over the region. In 1695 Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of Lika-Krbava and Zrinopolje is established by metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević and certified by Emperor Josef I in 1707. In 1735 the Serbian Orthodox protested in the Marča Monastery and becomes part of the Serbian Orthodox Church until 1753 when the Pope restores the Roman Catholic clergy. On 17 June 1777 the Eparchy of Križevci is permanently established by Pope Pius VI with see at Križevci, near Zagreb, thus forming the Croatian Greek Catholic Church which would after World War I include other people; Rusyns and Ukrainians of Yugoslavia.
*This information's are not in any Croatisation context, also sources do not put  religious history of Austro-Hungary in Croatisation context. For the stated reasons, I suggest removing this information which are irrelevant for this article. Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. Claiming otherwise just means that you are not reading carefully. It is about the role religion played in Croatisation, which is undisputable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then this information must be and part of article Magyarization, because this information's applies and to Hungarian territory ie under Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian political power(under which is and Croatia at that time). Mikola22 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   Proposal for removing information's from the article 

message: We must have clean edit, it is also request of the administrator, (Closing. Also, does anyone want to clean up the sock's contributions?) Mikola22 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Did you edit via your IP? 2) I have examined the material and consider it to be of great use to the article. Do you have any rule to quote or any real argument to present about this, rather than quoting "clean version" and evoking other editors? Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) No. 2) Editor John L. Booth is sockpupet an he made lot of edit, we have to start from a clean state. This was also ordered by the administrator. You check all sources, pages and information's from the sources(without WP:OR) and gradually return them to the article. You have my permission, but you must guarantee that everything will be clean(without OR or other problems). Mikola22 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no real or big problems with the material. Just giving generic answers and presenting them as problems is not of benefit to this project. Everything is checked. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of problems with this editing, a lot of it is not written in the source, but it is falsely written and a lot of it is without a source. I've reviewed briefly now.93.138.99.103 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit it properly and use the talk page. Please no vandalism from the sockpuppet. Thank you.93.138.99.103 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm going to rework the article for a bit by removing uncited claims and adding text and sources. Vacant0 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You must also check sources and information's from sources  because there is a possibility of WP:OR editing, see section Croatisation of Uskoks . Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to look into the sources to see if they claim the statements above. Vacant0 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed a full protection request and it seems another uninvolved user has too. The IP edit wars is enough. I restored the page to it’s stable form before the sock account added pov content that needs to be better worded and sourced if factual. As looking at the socks talk page I worry there was not neutral editing on their part. Thank you Vacant0 for volunteering to sift through the mess! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vacant0  in the section Croatisation during the World War II "see also Ante Starčević " and "This thinking was previously developed in the 19th century by Ante Starčević and his Party of Rights." you have to have a source for it .93.138.99.103 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page won't be uneditable for a week but I'll try to get an admin to add a source to that statement. Vacant0 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: we should really eeac consensus on your before before editing. The stable version should stay mean time as a foundation. OyMosby (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Vacant0 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: As a comment, I left these edits in place because they seemed reasonable and sourced, and I don’t hold wholesale reversions of socks if they have made useful contributions. Better to let the good stuff stand since that way they might learn how to better engage on wiki. He will be back later in the week after all. My actual concern on this was that it was better written than most of his edits and so was WP:COPYVIO from somewhere. Pipsally (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of John L. Booth  sockpupet 

message: A large part of the Habsburg unit of Uskoks, who fought a guerilla war with the Ottoman Empire were ethnic Serbs (Serbian Orthodox Christian) who fled from Ottoman Turkish rule and settled in Bela Krajina and Zumberak, in modern-day Slovenia.
*We cannot have such a sentence because in this contex is presumed that large part of all Uskoks are ethnic Serbs. This is one-sided context. We could write that larg part of Uskoks from area of Bela Krajina and Zumberak was ethnic Serbs. Also we must have and NPOV informations about Uskoks Vlachs in Bela Krajina and Zumberak which are not ethnic Serbs, and they were "larg part of Uskoks".  Mikola22 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again Uskoks