Jump to content

Talk:Aloysius Stepinac/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Please lock

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

Two facts?

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

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

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

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

Blessed

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

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

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

Star of Karageorge

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Motto

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

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

DR/N Case: Current

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

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

Supreme Vicar

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose (i.e. support current version). "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" is about as blatant POV as it gets. Apart from that, there seems to be a failure to grasp the meaning of the word "honorific". GregorB (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As GregorB noted, clear POV. Meatsgains (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are a whole bunch of issues with this "title" and whether the sources for it are reliable. Regardless of that, it is not appropriate to place it in the infobox as an "honorific", per GregorB, because it obviously isn't one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article need to be more aware about his alignment with the fascist regime in Croatia during the Second world war, a practice that was common place in Europe during and after that time. Also regarding the empowerment of the catholic right wing and their influence in the policies and the rise of fascism. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tuvixer, I have been improving the coverage incrementally (using reliable sources that have a range of views on Stepinac) over the last few months. It is a controversial area, even by Balkans standards, and not in my main (military) area of interest, but I'll continue to chip away at it. I might get it to GA one day. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not whether the title is "honorific"; Nowhere in the article is the information even remotely suggested. The proposed title isn't even a title, let alone honorific. For one, it isn't a legitimate prefix. Moreover, it can't be fit into the current one. In no way is "including genocidal Ustase forces" factual. The matter of whether a title is "honorific" is another thing. By all measures, no source will cover that (no one refers to people with that kind of title, so it is unreferenced in nature). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose - I speak from utter ignorance here, but unless there is a court finding of genocide I don't think the allegation should be made in Wikipedia's voice. If in fact this is is common knowledge, then the fact that the Croatian army included these forces will also be well-known. If the OP wants to make sure that this is discussed on wikipedia then the way to do this would surely be in the body of the article as a summary and on the main page for the Croatian Army; then he/she can wikilink as necessary in the body of this article to support any contentions made there about whether this commander was in charge for given battles or massacres. As for whether Grand Vicar is an appropriate title, I have no idea and bow to those who have more knowledge of the subject than I. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
to be clear, I am saying that even assuming he definitely *was* responsible for genocide, which seems to be in dispute, but assuming that reliable sources exist and are cited, the place to put this claim is in the text not the infobox Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Two quotes

The first is from today's Jutarnji list, p. 31, article titled "Stepinac nije ratni zločinac, ali ni simbol otpora ustaškom režimu" ("Stepinac is not a war criminal, but he is not a symbol of resistance against Ustasha regime either"). It's an interview with Hrvoje Klasić, a historian, in which he says:[3]

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

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

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

The second quote is an entry from Stepinac's personal journal, dated 5 September 1940:[4]

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloysius Stepinac. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Census data do not support claims of forced conversion to Orthodox in pre-WWII Yugoslavia

It says in article; “Stepinac was well aware of the fact that an estimated 200,000 mostly Croatian Catholics had converted to the Serbian Orthodox Church in the interwar period. He later claimed that Catholics were forced to convert to Orthodoxy during the period between the wars, but according to the historian Jozo Tomasevich, the principal reason for their conversions was the pro-Serb public policy in the Serb-dominated Yugoslav state meant that it was advantageous both politically and for career prospects to be a member of the dominant religion”

I looked and failed to find support for these claims in census data - i.e, between 1910 (last Austro-Hungarian census) and 1931 (2nd Yugoslav census), the Catholic population of Bosnia actually grew slightly faster (+26.2%) than the Orthodox (+25.5%). Some point to a similar trend in Croatia – e.g. this article says the percent of Orthodox in Croatia declined from 19.7% to 19.3%, between the 1921 and 1931 censuses.

This data seems to contradict claims of forced conversions to Orthodox. I wonder if anyone has Žerjavić’s calculations for the number of Catholics vs. Orthodox in Croatia and Bosnia, according to 1921 and 1931 censuses? This could help provide additional relevant information Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen quote

Regarding this quote ([5]), it is based on a letter sent in May 1943 to the Vatican that was allegedly written by Stepinac. The letter contains a list of "good things" done by the NDH regime where, among others, is the ban of abortion, pornography, etc. That was added in June to the article, but I removed it ([6]). Historian Franjo Švanjek said that it is a "proven forgery":[7] "The alleged Letter to the Pope, registered on 24 May 1943 in the office of the State Secretariat of Vatican, is a proven forgery by the NDH regime that archbishop of Zagreb denies authenticity and authorship, which was confirmed by Radio Vatican and L'Osservatore Romano on 10 and 11 October 1946 in connection with the staged trial of Dr. Alojzije Stepinac." ("Navodna Predstavka Papi (Memoire au pape), registrirana 24. svibnja 1943. u kancelariji državnog tajništva u Vatikanu, dokazana je krivotvorina režima NDH kojemu nadbiskup zagrebački otklanja autentičnost i autorstvo, što su potvrdili Radio Vatikan i L'Osservatore romano 10. i 11. listopada 1946. u svezi s montiranim procesom dr. Alojziju Stepincu.") It was presented as evidence on the trial against Stepinac. On page 100 Švanjek writes that "as soon as the state prosecutor read the first lines of the letter, Archbishop Stepinac energetically denied his imputed authorship." ("čim je državni tužitelj pročitao prve rečenice iz navodne Predstavke papi, nadbiskup Stepinac je energično pobio imputirano mu autorstvo") The letter was written in Italian, while Stepinac wrote all his letters to Vatican in Latin. It wasn't signed and there was no seal. (Xavier de Montclos: Les chretiens face au nazisme et au stalinisme, Paris 1983, p. 170) So, it is a forgery from the NDH authorities, not a letter from Stepinac. Tzowu (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is one view. It seems to me that Radio Vatican wasn't going to accept it. What non-Catholic Church source concludes it was a forgery? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Richard Pattee: The Case of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, p. 88-90 [8]
"The authenticity of the alleged report of May 18, 1943, is open to the most serious question and the internal evidence is overwhelming as to its forged character. The external evidence, and especially the reply of Cardinal Maglione, dated June 17, 1943, furnished strong proof that the document represents either an out and out forgery or a draft prepared by someone which the Archbishop refused to send or regarding the content. The document is of the greatest importance because it is used by the Prosecution as evidence of the total subservience of the Archbishop to the Ustasha regime and his constant efforts to enlist the enthusiastic support of the Vatican on behalf of the Pavelić government."
"The internal evidence of forgery or falsification would indicate that the copy read to the court by the Public Prosecutor had in all probability no relation to the original report. Dr. Politeo argued that the copy read to the court was very likely an Ustasha forgery, the aim of which was to create the impression of Vatican support. The content of the report directly contradicts the well-known opinions of the Archbishop. The latter denied completely ever writing such a report. Dr. Politeo acknowledges that mere denial on the part of the defendant does not constitute proof. He proceeds, therefore, to dissect the document to show that from every point of view it is highly improbable that the Archbishop ever wrote it and much less dispatched it to Rome as the expression of his views. In the first place, the report is written in Italian and it was the invariable practice of the Zagreb chancery to draft reports and other communications with the Holy See in Latin. Moreover, the Latin form of these dispatches did not vary and the salutation as well as conclusion always followed the same standard order. The copy as read gives the Archbishop the title of Metropolitan of Croatia and Slavonia which was never used and was incorrect. It is not in the least probable that the Archbishop would sign a document with a title that on no other occasion was ever employed. The copy read by the Public Prosecutor was discovered in the files of the Ustasha Foreign Office which in itself is highly suspicious since no copy of any other report of the Curia was found there nor was any copy found at all in the Archiepiscopal archives, the natural place for such materials to be preserved."
"The original of a letter from His Eminence Cardinal Maglione was presented by the defense and dated June 17, 1943 in acknowledgment of the report that Archbishop Stepinac had dispatched to Rome. This reply was evidently made to the authentic report or statement of the Zagreb Metropolitan. The text of this reply shows clearly that the subject matter of the alleged report was totally different from what the prosecution alleged. Cardinal Maglione states that, "I have noted with great interest the ample documentation sent to me by Your Most Reverend Excellency regarding the work carried by you in favor of the Serbs and Hebrews in Croatia." The Cardinal adds, "I beg you to continue to keep the Holy See informed in the matter, adding, if possible, some news also regarding the work of the other Croatian Bishops." Here is very plain proof that the Archbishop had informed the Holy See of the details of his own efforts on behalf of Serbs and Jews suffering persecution at the hands of the Ustasha regime. It is highly improbable as well as impossible for formal proof that he included in this same alleged report eulogistic comments on the very regime against which he was protecting the unfortunate Serbs and Jews."
"The copy of the alleged report as read was dated May 20, 1943. The Cardinal's reply bore the date of June 17, 1943. The acknowledgment could refer logically only to a report on or about the date of the copy in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, there is no indication on the copy when the original was sent or by whom. How, then, did this copy come into existence and how explain its presence in the Ustasha files? There is no absolute proof of what happened. The version advanced by the defense was that the chief of the religious affairs of the Ustasha Ministry, Radoslav Glavas, may very likely have conceived the idea of persuading the Archbishop to sign some such document that would favor the Ustasha regime. It is well to remember that the late spring of 1943 was a critical period for the Axis with the current beginning to turn favorably to the Allies. The reaction in Zagreb Ustasha circles must have been one of panic and fear of the consequences of the inevitable Axis defeat. Nothing was more natural than this grasping at any straw that might strengthen the fragile regime. If a draft of some sort had been prepared by Glavas, it may have been turned down by others in the foreign office or considered as too risky at the moment. The copy may simply have been filed away in the Archives and the original retained by Glavas. There is internal evidence here too to allow the supposition that Glavas may have been the author. The text is full of allusions to Bosnia and its history, a field in which Glavas was something of a specialist."
"Moreover, if the Archbishop had had any knowledge of the existence of this document or had supposed that it had been retained in the files of the foreign office, he could very easily have extracted the copy when these files were in storage in his own palace. The conclusion is that the copy was not drafted by the Archbishop, that he did not send it, and that in all probability it represents an effort on the part of the Ustasha government to compromise the Bishop at a critical turn of affairs for the Independent Croat State. Its value as evidence against the Archbishop is nil." Tzowu (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that seems pretty conclusive. I'll delete it. Thanks for your detailed explanation and the extended quotation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Tomasevich (2001, pp.576-579), describes his extensive efforts to document Stepinac's letter of May 18, 1943, and concludes that the letter which the Archbishop "repeatedly disavowed at his trial, and which his council characterized as a forgery, was in fact genuine".[1] Namely, in the Public Record Office in London, Tomasevich discovered a February 17, 1944 report by the British envoy to the Vatican, Sir Godolphin Osbourne, in whose appendix he included a summary of the letter, from Stepinac to the Pope, with the exact same passages as those presented at the trial. Consequently Tomasevich writes, we can conclude that the letter is authentic, and that Stepinac in the letter also gave an estimate of 240.000 Orthodox forcefully converted to Catholicism in the ISC, as May 1943.[1] Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Tomasevich 2001, p. 578.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aloysius Stepinac. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph does not belong in Forced Conversions section

The following paragraph has nothing to do with forced conversions, thus should be moved somewhere else:

In 1942, officials from Hungary lobbied to ecclesiastically attach Hungarian-occupied Međimurje to a diocese in Hungary. Stepinac opposed this and received guarantees from the Holy See that diocesan boundaries would not change during the war.[123][page needed] On 26 October 1943, the Germans killed the archbishop's brother Mijo.[124][page needed] In 1944, Stepinac received the Polish Pauline priest Salezy Strzelec, who wrote about the archbishop, Zagreb, and Marija Bistrica upon his return to Poland.[citation needed] Thhhommmasss (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Efforts to save Jews from perseuction

Peacemaker67 I do not see any refernce In Gittman book that Stepinac was "directly and iderectly involved in efforts to save Jews from perseuction". Not on Page 56, or elswhere. To the contrary. Can you provide please the exact citation for such claim?Tritomex (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I said that it was presumably from Gitman, which was a reasonable assumption given its position in the text. If it has failed verification, then you should state that you have looked at the reference and the material is not supported by it, not use an edit summary like "Unsourced. The claim of one individual cant be presented as an established fact." That edit summary indicates that it was unsourced, not that it failed verification. You also made the statement that the claim of one individual can't be presented as an established fact. That is incorrect. If it is in a reliable source, it can be used, whether one person said it or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason why I used that edit summary is because in my oppinion the first sentence is unsourced. It says "Stepinac was involved directly and indirectly in efforts to save Jews from persecution." I do not see any refernce for this particular claim. The second sentence which is sourced with Gitman, tacles the story of Miroslav Freiberger(Chief rabbi of Zagreb who was deported to Aushwitz) secretary, Amiel Shomrony, who unsucessfully nominated Stepinac for the Yad Vashem medal of honor (Righteus among Nations). Gitman precsely explains, that Stepinac was rejected out of hand due to his involvment in the persecution of Jews. So my logical conclusion was that the only possible source for that claim (that Stepinac was involved directly and indirectly in efforts to save Jews from persecution) was the failed nomination of Amiel Shomrony. That is why I said that such individual oppinions should be properly atributed. I hoped that before you reinstaled this contraversial claim, you checked wheter or not this claim is based on the same source with whom the Shomrony issue is sourced. As far I menaged to chek, that is not the case.Tritomex (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Too much Conjecture

Why are there so many words in the Article devoted to "nomination" and controversy? How the hell do you call a man who dies of thrombosis cyclosis a martyr. Unbelievable. I was raised Catholic and the amount of heresay and speculation posted into the main body of this biography is horrendous. Could you shorten this article by about 3000-4000 chars pls. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper

I won't comment on Cdl Stepinac's specific situation, but there are several types and degrees of martyrdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#Degrees_of_martyrdom Caisson 06 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Annulment of the verdict. please change X the fact that the whole process of annulment was over in only six days[165] On that "accusation" of only six days process, judge dr. Tanja Pavelin replied that it was very easy to refute it because the Court did not judge nor conducted the evidentiary procedure, but it had only evaluated the verdict for the reasons stated in the revision. However, even for that much smaller process than the trial, it has taken them longer than to the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Croatia to convict the Archbishop. Glas Koncila: [9], Glas Koncila 3/2020. Zore70 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy

My shortened lede was reverted, with the result that the Tomasevich quote "cannot be defended from the standpoint of humanity, justice and common decency" still occurs twice, in the lede and in the Overall assessments of Stepinac's actions during WWII section (now again devoted to one historian). Also problematic is the word for word repetition in the lede of the sentence "However, some claim the trial was "carried out with proper legal procedure".[1] " in paragraph 1 and again in paragraph 3.

Usually the exposition of a biography is followed by a Legacy or Controversies section where posthumous evaluations can all be treated together. Here we have instead: Early life' thru Archbishop of Zagreb, an evaluation of Political and religious views up till then, World War II with remarks like "On the other hand, X writes" and a Tomasevich subsection Overall assessments of Stepinac's actions during WWII , Post-war period, Trial with Annulment of the verdict (2016 is not strictly speaking part of the trial, is it? Btw, the lede's quote "gross violations of current and former fundamental principles of substantive and procedural criminal law".[10] does not appear in the linked reference), Imprisonment-Cardinalate, Death and canonisation controversies (2 things, or were these previously linked because of a "death controversy"?), Legacy, Primary sources, which seems to bear on historiography more than bibliography. Could this be simplified a little to pre-war life & views, war & postwar actions, trial & historians' evaluations, imprisonment & death, posthumous reputation & beatification controversy? Sparafucil (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article, but the Tomasevich quote is an important conclusion from a non-partisan Yugoslav specialist about Stepinac's actions during the war, which is why it appears in both. I see you have deleted the second reference to the "proper legal procedure" repetition now I have attributed the first one to Fine. I'll have a think about the structure. A couple of years ago I rewrote the body of the article down to the beginning of the World War II section, but I didn't consider the structure in detail. I think it needs to have a snapshot of his views prior to WWII at the current point in the narrative to provide context for his actions during WWII, but your suggested structure seems reasonable on face value. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the main share of the thinking! During our library lockdown I can only offer a non-specialist's perspective, and point our anther problem with the lede: sentence 4 reads "The trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial", [Coleman 1991 p=113] [Gruenwald 1987 p=516] and was biased against the archbishop. [The New York Times 13 October 1946 'Human Rights' at Zagreb "This was clearly a political trial..."]"
At first glance one might think this is backwards and that the 1946 NYT article is a 'depiction', while the 1987 & 1991 articles are more distanced evaluations. But Gruenwald's article merely includes in passing Stepinac & Mihailovic among what it calls "show trials", while Coleman is unavailable on JSTOR. It seems to me the Cold War context could be better depicted. Sparafucil (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav citizenship

Ok talk page like you say. Why should there be a double standard here can write nationality Yugoslav, and here can not[10]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.178 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Read MOS:CONTEXTBIO, which says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not the answer to my simple question because it is a double standard. But this is how you revealed yourself, I knew that you were not neutral and that you worked for Serbian propaganda, and that was hidden from the others, which can be seen in the edit your page and your answer. I know that you are a well-coordinated team of Sadko, Vanjagenije and you etc., But you still can't lie so much and work a double standard that other foreign editors can't see it.I know you are a Serb from Australia but sometimes you need to be objective and stop lying and write the truth. If you have to write here that he is Yugosloven which he is not, then you should put in other places to write Yugosloven and lie the same when you don't want the truth not to be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.178 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been "accused" of being a Serb, Croat, sockpuppet, you name it I've been called it. I'm Australian with British and German ancestry and as my user page says, other than six months spent in the former Yugoslavia twenty-five years ago, I have no affiliation with any country or faction in those countries. I try to keep Wikipedia neutral despite all the POV-pushers. Just because another article doesn't apply the Manual of Style correctly doesn't mean this one should ignore the Manual of Style. That doesn't make any sense. If you have a problem with the Pavle, Serbian Patriarch article, take it up there. And how about you register an account and be accountable for your edits and accusations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
:Haha! Buddy, I can vouch that Peacemaker67 is definitely not “well-coordinated team of Sadko, Vanjagenije etc”. He definitely is neutral, and in fact is my go to to check by my own potential biases. So I would give his replies more merit and think about it.OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby You have no idea. He is a covert Serbian propagandist. He has no answer to a simple question, he puts here that he is a Yugoslav, and there he supports Sadko when he deletes that he is a Yugoslav in another article, and Vanjagenije who writes that he is a Yugoslav about Ivan Mestrovic just so he wouldn't be a Croat ,such as.

I have interacted with Peacemaker for some time now and see how he carries himself on Wikipedia. He is one of a very few editors on here that I trust. He is no propagandist and even if he was Serbian would make no difference as being of an ethnicity does not make you automatically biased and the transverse is true too. Fact is during the time of Yugoslavia that was the nationality for people. Croat is ethnicity and that usually does not go in the lead. OyMosby (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's be honest, what does Stepinac have to do with Yugoslav nationality? What he writes is nonsense, but in time it will come into its own, so this does not worry me. But when such nonsense is already supported, then the same should be written in other articles so that there are no double standards.I can put a lot of sources here that he is a Croat or on Ivan Meštrović, but he will be deleted because there is a one-time rule here and Serbian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.178 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

He was a Yugoslav citizen from 1918 until his death in 1960. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean that he was Yugoslav by nationality, there were maybe 5 percent Yugoslavs in Yugoslavia, the rest were of other nationalities.In addition, the "Yugoslav prelate" does not exist there is only a "prelate" ,because the church is separated from the state it can only be the prelate of some church. When you already support such nonsense, then let it be written in other places as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.178 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You are confusing "nationality" as used within Yugoslavia which was in many cases aligned with ethnicity, and nationality (meaning what country someone is from). MOS:CONTEXTBIO is clearly talking about the latter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Write what you want just so that there are no double standards here to write it, and in other places it can't, so pay attention to user Sadko, because he doesn't respect it, he writes only where he wants, and where he doesn't want to delete. Look now he asked to make a semi protected page to change again and delete the Yugoslav [11] ,and here he puts that he is Yugoslav [12] and there he erases [13] , because it is sock puppetry and troll Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.178 (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, despite all bad-faith accusations by the above IPs, I must concur with the main point. Even MOS:ETHNICITY that you quoted for revert makes room for exceptions, emphasis mine: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability and if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
Stepinac was a Croat who advocated independent Croatia, and a catholic Bishop in Yugoslavia presiding mainly over catholic Croats, and was sentenced for his alleged support for an independent state of Croatia. During his tenure, Banovina of Croatia was a thing. My point is, his being a Croat is directly "relevant to the subject's notability", and I find grating the unqualified "Yugoslav" in the lead sentence, and no mention of Croatia until few sentences later.
We usually make exceptions to MOS:ETHNICITY for Soviet or Yugoslav people whose notability and life can be unambiguouslly attributed to one of constituent nations. Heck, we usually do so for British people as well – we normally don't call them "British" despite their having British passport. No such user (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've made it "Yugoslav Croat" to include both nationality and ethnicity per the exception you identify. I have little faith this will stop the interminable battlegrounding and politico-legal-historical attempts to erase Yugoslavia on all sides, but you never know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac/Archive_3&oldid=1257975990"