Talk:Aloysius Stepinac/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recent significant change to article

G'day, there has been recent significant change to this article, and despite my suggestions that the editor attempting to make these changes (Erosonog) start a thread on the talkpage to discuss these changes per WP:BRD, the user has ignored this suggestion and continues to make assertions via edit summary. As a concerned watcher of this article, which is often subject to disruption by POV warriors of all sides, I consider several aspects of these significant changes that fly in the face of WP policies such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. My major concerns are:

• the changing of the standard Catholic honorifics from "His Eminence Blessed" to "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army"
• the removal of the "infobox cardinal styles" from the infobox (despite Stepinac clearly having been a Roman Catholic cardinal)
• the changing of the first lead paragraph to include mention that he was a Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, material that is not properly and reliably sourced in the article body
• the insertion of three quotes into the lead which adds a great deal of weight to one point of view of Stepinac, and detracting from its role of providing a proper summary of the article and the arguments for and against Stepinacs's actions during the war, which it previously achieved
• the use of an article on a blog called libcom.org, authored by Seán Mac Mathúna who is a playwright and short story author who doesn't appear to have any academic qualifications or published works regarding Yugoslav history or Stepinac. This article is clearly not a reliable source, and should not be used

I have again reverted these significant changes, and ask Erosonog to respond to my concerns on this thread. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Erosonog has placed a comment on my talkpage in relation to this matter, I have pasted it here for continuity:

In your reversal of my revision 682035133 you said that I haven't used reliable sources for my edits. As I stated in my re-reversal, my edits do use reliable sources. When quoting Stepinac's words "Hitler is an envoy of God.“ I have used the Croatian Sentinel and when quoting Stepinac's words „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“ I have used Nedelja Croatian weekly. For the paragraph detailing Stepinac's role as the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, I have used Seán Mac Mathúna reference. For Stepinac's words on the Schism, I have used Sabrina P. Ramet's book. For details of his conviction by the Yugoslav authorities, I have used Phayer's book. If you have some facts to substantiate your allegation that these are not reliable sources, feel free to share.

I have removed the text “Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs...“ This text was written to convey an opinion that Stepinac has made an error at the start of his carrier and later changed his ways. The fact of the matter is that Stepinac became Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army in 1942 (after “initially welcoming [it]...“ ), that he retained that position until the fall of Ustashi, that he sat on the Ustashi parliament, that he oversaw forcible conversions, that he received “Order of Merit“ medal from Pavelic in 1944 and even took over after Pavelic escaped. The record shows that he did not change his ways and hence doesn't deserve to be so described.

I have removed the text discussing the perception of the Stepinac's trial as “biased against the archbishop“ and „The trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist show trial …". Although written to appear as a fact (e.g. „the trial was depicted ...“) the text creates an impression that it indeed was a show trial without substantiating the fact. Given the prevailing bias in the West against anything “communist“ at the time further discredits this view expressed. Indeed, there was a strong opinon in Yugoslavia that the trial was biased for Stepinac, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, while hundreds of thousands of victims of the Ustashi army of which he was the Supreme Vicar received a rope and a bludgeon.

One of my edits was the removal of the paragraph sourced from Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth. The paragraph praises Stepinac for „behaving very well“ and his growth „in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal.“. The paragraph is simply Stella's own opinion and is not an impartial statement of facts. The fact that her opinion got published in a book doesn't change the fact. Further, prefacing the paragraph with the admission that the source is “sympathetic“ to Stepinac doesn't rectify the heavy imbalance. Hence, I have removed the paragraph. I am not the only with the same oppinon. User 67.180.132.28 did the same edit on September 27, which you again deleted with the comment: “Resoring pre-vandalisation version“[sic]. Please explain why do you consider this edit to be vandalism?

Instead of the removed material which contained conjectures and opinions, I have added Stepinac's own words ("Hitler is an envoy of God.“, „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“). I haven't added any commentary to his words – they speak for themselves. If you can give a good reason why you think this should be removed, please elucidate.

Lastly, I have changed the honorifix prefix from “His Eminence Blessed“ to the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. I had two reasons for this change. First, the “Blessed“ title was given to Stepinac by the Pope. The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. Stepinac sent reports to the Pope on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. As such, Pope Pius XII shares Stepinac's guilt. That another Pope would whitewash it by beatifying Stepinac does nothing to exonerate the crimes he was complicit in. To refer to Stepinac as His Blessed Eminence gives impression that Stepinac was indeed “blessed“, holy and an innocent martyr. This hardly counts as a neutral point of view. My second reason for this change was that the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ was the most important role in his life. He got the title in 1942 and kept it until the bitter end, in the crucial years of his life and the world history. His most important work was done under this title. The title is not a figment of imagination but a simple and a salient fact.

Peacemaker67, when you undid my revisions on 26 September you suggested that admins should decide on this dispute. As I said in my comments, I do agree with this. I am putting back my edits. Here is your chance to bring this to a higher level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erosonog (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Great that you have replied, but do not edit-war your changes to the previous consensus. They are opposed, and unless you can gain a consensus through discussion here, I will just ask for you to be sanctioned for edit-warring. Make a serious effort to discuss our positions on these matters here, on the talkpage, and you may be surprised with the outcome. But wholesale changes will never be achieved by edit-warring. I am also going to formally advise you on your talkpage about the very serious sanctions available to admins under ARBMAC, just so you are clear where you stand on edit-warring in the contested WP space of the Balkans. I'll respond to your points in separate subsections. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Seán Mac Mathúna blog

As I have pointed out above, one of my concerns is your use of an article on a blog called libcom.org, authored by Seán Mac Mathúna who is a playwright and short story author who doesn't appear to have any academic qualifications or published works regarding Yugoslav history or Stepinac. This article is clearly not a reliable source, and should not be used, either for the infobox or the point in the text where the title is mentioned. Please read the linked guidance on reliable sources. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Valid point on the the Mac Mathúna source. Here are some other sources confirming that Stepinac was indeed the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army:

"The Case of Archbishop Stepinac", Information Officer, Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947, page 67

• "God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican", Gerald Posner, page 87

• "Catholic Terror Today", Avro Manhattan

• "Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement", David Eggenberger and J. Heraty, page 356

Erosonog (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that some older sources may have taken what the Yugoslav government said as gospel, and merely regurgitated communist propaganda, wittingly or unwittingly. Of those sources, the Encyclopedia of Biography looks best, Manhattan is decidedly fringey, I do not know Posner, and the Yugoslav government source is dubious because it reflects self-serving Yugoslav communist government propaganda on an avowed anti-communist. However, replacing Mac Mathuna with a reliable source in the body doesn't mean this title should displace his "blessed" and "cardinal" styles in the infobox. As I have said below, he is best known for being an archbishop who did not speak out publicly against the Ustasha state, and his promotion to cardinal and beatification are controversial because of this. He is not best known for being the Vicar (assuming we can find better sources to support the Encyclopedia), he is best known for being a leading archbishop in the NDH during WWII and for being controversially promoted to cardinal and then being beatified by Pope John Paul II. Placing the "Vicar" styles in the infobox gives too much weight to one role over roles for which he is far better known. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

See my arguments made today in the below section "Removal of infobox cardinal styles". Erosonog (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the use of the Encyclopedia as a source for this statement. It doesn't need inline attribution IMO. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Avro Manhattan's book is a good source, as I explained earlier. By insisting on another source, you are simply attempting to undermine the importance of Avro's work. If you don't agree with using Avro, open an RFM please.

Erosonog (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The "importance of Avro's work"? If you want to use Manhattan on its own, I believe inline attribution is needed. If it was supported by the Encyclopedia I would think it was ok without. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just some points about the reliability of the sources being advanced by Erosonog:

• The document published by the Yugoslav Embassy in Washington in 1947 is, IMHO, not reliable in its context, and in fact is highly questionable. Firstly, the document itself contains many errors of fact, and secondly and thirdly it was written and published by Yugoslav government. The same Yugoslav government that arrested, tried and convicted Stepinac, was suffering diplomatically because of it, and had a vested interest in its version of that process. It even says in its preamble that it was published to counter what it claims was a campaign of misrepresentation against the Yugoslav government. It offers the crimes and actions of disparate Catholics who were not under Stepinac's authority (even including the Archbishop of Vrhbosna) as direct evidence against Stepinac. I'm not sure if that sort of evidence could stand up in a Yugoslav court, but where I come from, there has to be evidence the accused person actually took a particular action, or failed to take a particular action within their power, for it to be used in court. Saying (for example) that another Archbishop (of the equal rank and status of Stepinac, and over whom he had no authority whatsoever), did something or said something, could only be used against the Archbishop that made the statement or took the action. There are pages of this sort of arrant nonsense in the Yugoslav embassy document. It is pure propaganda and should be dismissed as a source about everything but itself.
• The passage in Posner has a citation (fn81) which is unavailable in preview on Google Books. I would be very surprised if the citation wasn't to Manhattan, and this should be explored before it could be used as a source independent of Manhattan. If it does come from Manhattan, we are dealing with a classic case of self-referencing. So, if Manhattan is the source for this claim, then Manhattan is the source that should be examined for credibility/reliability. Posner's book is about Vatican financing, not Stepinac or even the NDH, and the reference is tangential. Let's see what source sits behind the Posner reference before we start treating it as a separate source from Manhattan.
• Manhattan. I'm happy to look at his body of work (and academic reviews of it) after we've explored the other sources. I will note that one of Manhattan's books (p. 367 of Manhattan's Vatican imperialism in the twentieth century) refers to Stepinac being the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian army, not the "Ustashi Army". The similarities with the next point about the Encyclopedia are startling.
• The Encyclopedia refers to Stepinac accepting the role of Supreme Apostolic Vicar-General of the Croatian army not Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army The NDH had both a Croatian Home Guard (armed forces, including land forces), and a completely separate Ustase party militia (like the Nazi SS or Fascist Blackshirts) until November 1944. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of infobox cardinal styles

Given that this infobox (nested in the main template) relates to cardinals, and Stepinac clearly was one, it is hard to understand why this would be removed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise here. The cardinal infobox can be left as is, but an infobox for a criminal needs to be added. Stepinac was clearly a convicted criminal and adding this infobox to the page gives the page the balance it lacks. If this infobox is significantly shorter than the cardinal infobox, it should be placed above the cardinal infobox.

Erosonog (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Your premise is based on a selection of sources with a very specific point of view. Articles must reflect the totality of the academic work done on the subject, and in this case, the more recent and balanced work of Mark Biondich has yet to be introduced into the article. I do not agree that Stepinac is best known as a criminal. He is best known as an archbishop who did not come out publicly against the genocidal actions of the Ustasha state. His promotion to cardinal and later beatification are obviously controversial for that reason. The academic consensus regarding his personal involvement in conversions is far less clear than you appear to believe. You appear to be coming from the viewpoint of Magnum Crimen, which is only one view about the role of the Catholic Church in WWII, and it lacks nuance. Different viewpoints, unless completely fringe, should be mentioned in the article, but one interpretation of events cannot be allowed to push the academic consensus aside. By placing a criminal infobox in the overall infobox, we would be giving far too much WP:WEIGHT to his trial and conviction by the Yugoslavs, which was substantially motivated by his anti-communism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you say that Stepinac is best known as „archbishop who did not come out publicly against the genocidal actions of the Ustasha state“. This is probably in reference to the fact that, as the war progressed, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to some of Ustashi crimes, especially after they killed his own brother. You are using this fact to formulate a definition which gives an impression that Stepinac was fighting the Ustasha state in private. A statement like: „Stepinac was an archbishop who supported the Ustasha state, sat in Ustasha parliament, was the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian Nazi Ustashi Army and, as the war progressed, on several occasions, objected to some of Ustashi crimes“ is not only factually correct but also correctly reflects Stepinac's work and views.

Now, a separate question is what is Stepinac best known as? The largest number of people (Catholics) know Stepinac simply as a beatified cardinal, the consequence of the Pope conferring these titles on him which was well publicised by the Catholic Church. Indeed, a very small number of people know that Stepinac was also the „Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. Even though this title was also conferred to Stepinac by the Pope, it is not something the Catholic Church advertises. Consequently, the prevailing point of view (defined by the number of people cognizant of a fact) indeed is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. Let's examine now why is this the prevailing point of view? As I sad above, The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. It was the Pope who conferred the title „Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ on Stepinac. It was the Pope who was receiving Stepinac's reports on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. It was Pope's Vatican that organized rat channels for Pavelic and other Nazis. Pope Pius XII therefore shares Stepinac's guilt. Several years after the WWII, another Pope gives Stepinac the title of a cardinal. Seven years after the independant Croatia is resurrected (1998), yet another Pope beatifies Stepinac. So Papal chair, which was complicit in Stepinac's crimes, whitewashes them by beatifying him and consequently makes him best known as a beatified cardinal. Hence the situation today: the prevailing POV is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. The question we are grappling with here is: should Wikipedia strive to present the prevailing POV or the neutral POV? If the prevailing POV is chosen - Vatican whitewashing succeeded and the Pope is indeed proven infallable.

You say that Biondich is „balanced“. Biondich says that Stepinac was not Ustasha supporter! (Abastract, Controversies surrounding the Catholic Church in Wartime Croatia, 1941–45, Biondich Mark) He says this for the person who: sat in Ustashi parliament, was the Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army, wrote pastoral letters urging Croats to support the Ustashi state of NDH, received a medal from Ustashi leader Pavelic, presided over the Ustashi commitee for forcible conversions... Balanced indeed.

You seem to be acusing me for not being „nuanced“ enough? I am telling the truth and I am using valid arguments. As far as your argument about lack of „nuance“ in Magnum Crimen, try putting some „nuance“ in this excerpt from the book describing deeds of one of Stepinac's clergyman: „he (Tomislav Filipović) placed the 12 Ustashe in a circle and then ordered the children to run next to them. As each child passed, an Ustashe would gouge out an eye and push it into the child's slit belly; he would cut off an ear from a second, the nose from a third, a finger from a fourth, the cheeks from a fifth... And so on until all the children collapsed. Then the Ustashe finished them off in the snow".

Erosonog (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is atrocious, but what involvement did Stepinac have in that event? I know of no source that says he had any involvement in it. I think this one needs a RfC. Do you want to draft a short statement about what you believe should be in the infobox and why? I will then draft my statement and will post the RfC. You can make whatever arguments you like, and the community will decide. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The atrocious crime I quoted was in response to your comment about Magnum Crimen lacking "nuance". However, since you asked about Stepinac's involvement in it: before this crime, Stepinac instigated this crime by urging Croats to support Ustashi. Stepinac was superior to Tomislav Filipović in both of his roles: as a Franciscan friar (Stepinac was his Archbishop) and as a military chaplain (Stepinac was the Supreme Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi army). Stepinac knew very well about the atrocities in Jasenovac where Tomislav was the commander after this crime but did nothing. Stepinac sat in the Ustashi parliament which means that he was actively involved with governing the Ustashi, including those responsible for this massacre.

You did not provide counter arguments to anything else I wrote here, yet you want me to write more. I have already documented my reasons for the infobox changes in detail. Instead of an RFC, I suggest an RFM.

Erosonog (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found mediation to be next to useless on WP. It is much more useful to get a wider community consensus. I'm going to write one up, if you don't want to have any input into drafting it, you can comment once it's up. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is the "wider community" you are talking about? Judging by the sorry state of the Stepinac page, there is certainly enough editors sharing your point of view (see my analysis of the prevailing versus neutral POV). Use your arguments if you have them or call an RFM. By the way, you are again ignoring my arguments. I explained why I think the infobox needs to be changed. I provided a counter argument for the source you were using. You asked what "what involvement did Stepinac have in that event"? I answered. Do you have anything to say?

Erosonog (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You provided nothing, just a bunch of assertions with no sources to back them up. Mediation has to be entered into freely by all parties, I don't do mediation on WP. I'll do a RfC. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been referred to a RfC (see below). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Croatian Sentinel quote

The quote "Hitler is an envoy of God" is attributed to Stepinac, and it is said that it was from a letter in the Croatian Sentinel (Hrvatska straža) of 1 January 1942. A search of Google Books and even Google for that quote reaps a decidedly dubious and inconclusive set of results, including blogs by Carl Savich and (apparently) a work by Avro Manhattan, much of which appears to be drawn from immediate post-war communist tracts. In line with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, it seems unlikely the editor concerned personally read it in Hrvatska straža, so the actual source being used, and the exact wording in Croatian would be a good start point for discussing this quote. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Stepinac's words "Hitler is an envoy of God" were also quoted in Edmon Paris's book "The Vatican Against Europe", page 197. He also uses The Croatian Sentinel as his source. Besides not seeing the actual printed version of the paper from 1941, do you have any other basis to allege that the quote is untrue?

Also, you seem to declare Avro Manhattan's work worthless?? Are you saying that any "post-war communist" sources are by default falsifications and shouldn't be believed? This statement holds as much water as "Pope is infallible". Bear in mind that Avro Manhattan did go to Yugoslavia after WWII, collected documents and spoke to survivors of the Ustashi genocide. Are you saying that the fact that Yugoslavia, after 1945, was run by the Communist Party makes all the material Avro documented false? If you are falling into the trap of being too focused on Anglo-American sources, read what Eleanor Roosevelt told Avro in 1947 on the subject of Ustashi crimes and the role of Catholic church in hiding them ("The Vatican's Holocaust", Avro Manhattan, pages 107 to 108).Erosonog (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about re-factoring the formatting of your comments, but please learn to indent your comments at the next level below mine. You can't use Hrvatska straža as a bare source, because you haven't read it there. If you are using a quote from Paris that itself quotes from Hrvatska straža, then follow the guidance at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. I use sources in Serbo-Croat and all former Yugoslav languages, Italian, German and English, and occasionally other languages, and by authors from all those countries and more. Ramet, Tomasevich, Biondich, Milazzo, Pavlowitch, Lemkin etc are hardly Anglo-American sources, yet I use them all the time. I am not suggesting Manhattan's work is worthless, but it needs to be used with a fair amount of care. It is a. old in academic terms, b. clearly biased. Paris is the same. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used to show differing views on the subject, it just means that they need to be used carefully, placed in the context of differing views, and attributed inline as necessary. These are all basic tenets of WP. You clearly need to take a closer reading of the basic policies and guidelines before trying to make wholesale deletions and changes to an article on such a controversial subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to take a closer look at your "hardly Anglo-American sources": Sabrina P. Ramet - born in London, England, undergraduate degree at Stanford, MA in at the University of Arkansas, Ph.D. at UCLA; JozoTomasevich – professor at San Francisco State University; Mark Biondich – professor at Carleton University, Canada; Matteo J. Milazzo – best known for one book on Chetniks, published by Johns Hopkins University Press; Stevan K. Pavlowitch – professor at University of Southampton; Raphael Lemkin – professor at Duke, U of Virginia, Yale, Rutgers.

You seem to be saying that Manhattan's work is less reliable because it is "old". This is like saying that Pliny the Younger's account of destruction of Pompeii is "too old" and we should give more credence to a 21st century historian. As far as being biased - Manhattan documented accounts of survivors of Ustashi genocide conducted in a most bestial manner. You may as well say that accounts of Holocoust are biased against the Nazis.Erosonog (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying Manhattan's work is old, and care needs to be taken with using it. There has been significant academic examination of the role of the Catholic Church in the NDH since the 1940's. I haven't said Manhattan shouldn't be used, just that he needs to be used with care and inline attribution where necessary. This particular quote is quite extraordinary, and it needs extraordinary sources. Manhattan alone isn't extraordinary. Don't you think it is strange that the quote in Manhattan hasn't been repeated by later scholars working in the area? I do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the same quote is in Edmon Paris's book "The Vatican Against Europe", page 197. These are valid sources. The quote can therefore be used as per the policy for using secondary sources. Erosonog (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And I'm saying it needs to be attributed to Paris inline. Please do that. And don't try to insert a series of changes about different things in one go. Do the Paris quote then we can close this thread, then we can move on to other issues. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You are repeating the same argument we discussed above regarding quoting Manhattan. Now you have the same issue with Paris. BTW, the citation already qualifies as an inline citation.

Erosonog (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Inline "attribution" means actually using Paris' name in the sentence, stating that "he" makes the relevant claim. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Which would make the statement appear suspect, and which is the effect you are trying to achieve with the attribution... As I said already, there is no valid reason to do that. Erosonog (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Stepinac never said that. This alleged quote is found in two versions, in one it is Pavelić that is an envoy of God (this one is found in Serbo-Croatian language sites), and in another version that Hitler is an envoy of God (in English). However, there is no proof for either of them. I'm really sure that at least one of those communist post-war propagandists would have mentioned it if Stepinac really called Hitler an envoy of God. Not even Magnum Crimen does that. Some sites do mention the 1 January 1942 edition of the Croatian Sentinel (Hrvatska straža), but just point out this message reportedly from Stepinac for the New Year: "Hrvatska Straža' stajala je uvijek na braniku vjerskih svetinja Hrvatskog naroda, bez kojih i sam narod ne znači ništa. Neka tim putem nastavi i dalje i u Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj. Veće usluge svom narodu ne može učiniti, nego šireći i braneći načela, koja je Bog postavio kao temelj života pojedincima i narodima. Neka ih u tom radu prati blagoslov božji". No mention of Hitler or envoys, just praising the weekly newspaper. Tzowu (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So we are back to it being an extraordinary claim. I have also searched for it in English and just found the usual anti-Croat/anti-Catholic polemics. I don't know what it would be in Croatian. This is definitely of significant concern. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of reliably sourced material

Stella Alexander quote

In addition to the above, material that is more sympathetic to Stepinac has been repeatedly deleted, despite being reliably sourced. For example, the paragraph with the text, "Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth, a sympathetic biography of Stepinac, writes about him that "Two things stand out. He feared Communism above all (especially above fascism); and he found it hard to grasp that anything beyond the boundaries of Croatia, always excepting the Holy See, was quite real. ... He lived in the midst of apocalyptic events, bearing responsibilities which he had not sought. ... In the end one is left feeling that he was not quite great enough for his role. Given his limitations he behaved very well, certainly much better than most of his own people, and he grew in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal."

This removal of text drawn from one of the few full biographies of Stepinac's life is inappropriate. It reflects the reliable sources towards one end of the spectrum of opinion on a controversial character, and should be retained in the article as is, attributed inline and identified as being from a "sympathetic biographer". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided my arguments for removing this text. I am repeating it here for your convenience, in italic. Perhaps now you will take this opportunity to answer why you called the same change by another editor vandalism?

One of my edits was the removal of the paragraph sourced from Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth. The paragraph praises Stepinac for „behaving very well“ and his growth „in spiritual stature during the course of his long ordeal.“. The paragraph is simply Stella's own opinion and is not an impartial statement of facts. The fact that her opinion got published in a book doesn't change the fact. Further, prefacing the paragraph with the admission that the source is “sympathetic“ to Stepinac doesn't rectify the heavy imbalance. Hence, I have removed the paragraph. I am not the only with the same oppinon. User 67.180.132.28 did the same edit on September 27, which you again deleted with the comment: “Resoring pre-vandalisation version“[sic]. Please explain why do you consider this edit to be vandalism?

Instead of the removed material which contained conjectures and opinions, I have added Stepinac's own words ("Hitler is an envoy of God.“, „God, who directs the destiny of nations...“). I haven't added any commentary to his words – they speak for themselves. If you can give a good reason why you think this should be removed, please elucidate.

Erosonog (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of a major biographer of Stepinac is completely appropriate for inclusion. When someone studies a subject, their opinions are valid. They are attributed inline and even point out that Alexander is a sympathetic biographer. It is entirely appropriate that her views on Stepinac be included in this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided my arguments which counter yours, but you did not answer them directly. Why do you think removing this paragraph is vandalism?

Erosonog (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "arguments" do not "counter" mine. Alexander has been his primary non-hagiographical biographer in English for a quarter of a century, so her views have weight. What overwhelming combination of sources are you suggesting should completely discount her assessment of Stepinac? I note that including her assessment doesn't mean other assessments shouldn't be included (in fact, I'd encourage it), this discussion is about wholesale deletion of her assessment of him. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You have already received a clear answer to your question on the "wholesale deletion" of this paragraph. I suggest reading the above text in italic again to refresh your memory. However, you still haven't answered why do you think removing this paragraph is vandalism?

Erosonog (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A random IP is hardly someone supporting your edit, and reliance on support from an IP with no editing history is frankly ludicrous. That could have been you for all I know. If that IP had a record of constructive editing in this part of en WP, I would treat them as a registered editor. They haven't, and I didn't. The onus is on them to register or build up a constructive edit history if they want to be treated seriously. I treated their edit as vandalism, and yours, because they involved "wholesale deletion of reliable sourced material" from this article. That is what I consider vandalism. I will also point out that at that stage, you had refused to follow the WP:BRD policy, and were edit-warring via edit summary. My edit summary marking it as vandalism was entirely justified. I don't have anything further to add in that respect. The paragraph cited to Alexander is entirely legitimate, and should remain in the article. If you've got other sources to compare and contrast her view against, feel free to add them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you have not only changed Wikipedia definition of vandalism, but you have also changed Wikipedia position that editors are supposed to be equal, signed in or not. I am also unfamiliar with this new rule of yours - you seem to be saying that content can not be deleted, no matter how biased.Erosonog (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Material from Gilbert, Jansen, Kent etc

The following reliably sourced text has also been repeatedly deleted: "Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs. He objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws, helped Jews and others to escape and criticized Ustaše atrocities in front of Zagreb Cathedral in 1943. Despite this, Stepinac never broke with Ustaše regime and continued to attend public gatherings at their side."

Given it is reliably sourced, it should be contrasted with other reliably sourced material, not deleted. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This too I have explained previously. Again, I am repeating it below for your convenience, in italic:

I have removed the text “Despite initially welcoming the Independent State of Croatia, Stepinac subsequently condemned the Nazi-aligned state's atrocities against Jews and Serbs...“ This text was written to convey an opinion that Stepinac has made an error at the start of his carrier and later changed his ways. The fact of the matter is that Stepinac became Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army in 1942 (after “initially welcoming [it]...“ ), that he retained that position until the fall of Ustashi, that he sat on the Ustashi parliament, that he oversaw forcible conversions, that he received “Order of Merit“ medal from Pavelic in 1944 and even took over after Pavelic escaped. The record shows that he did not change his ways and hence doesn't deserve to be so described

In addition to what I said before: in his letter dated May 18, 1943, Stepinac pleads with the Pope to support the survival of NDH which "is desperately fighting for its survival... [I] recommend to your fatherly care and your prayers NDH, and I am certain that in the same time I recommend in the best way the holy faith in our fatherland and in the Balkans" This is in 1943, after Stepinac was well informed of the Ustashi atrocities. It also shows that he was aware of the imminent fall of NDH. Hence my words better reflect his state of mind and his role at the time: As the war progressed and Nazi defeat appeared more probable, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws.

Further, the text I changed is carefully crafted to give a generally positive picture of Stepinac while still retaining resemblance of factual correctness (omitting Stepinac's actual words and omitting references). AFAIK, Stepinac never publicly condemned genocide against Serbs, even though they constituted the great majority of Ustashi victims. He did publicly defend converted Serbs, at least at one occasion, which by omitting them, left the non-converted not only not defended but implied that they are rightful targets of killings.

Erosonog (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

None of which, as bare assertion, justifies removal of reliably sourced material. You appear uninterested in any views other than the ones you advance. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

These are not "bare assertions", but facts. If there are inaccuracies, falsehoods or lies in what I said, please point them out. You are welcome to provide counter arguments as well. The sentence I furnished to replace your "reliably sourced material" is also reliably sourced - I reused the same source for the sentence I wrote to supplant the removed text ("As the war progressed...[") ! Truth be told, the reference is "somewhat" biased since Jansen ("the reliably sourced reference [Jansen p151][Jansen p87]") says in his book that "it is a blatant lie that Pope Pius XII collaborated with Nazis and that he worked day and night in favor of the persecuted Jews". This is the same pope that conferred the title of "The Supreme Vicar of Ustashi Army" on Stepinac in 1942. Still, I did leave the reference, since it is factually correct that Stepinac did on several occasions object to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws.

Erosonog (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reproduced the whole material you deleted. Leaving the "reference" does not retain the deleted material in the article. Given you are saying that he did object to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws, why did you delete that phrase from the article? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you did not read what I wrote. I did not delete the material about how Stepinac "objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws." Yet again, for your convenience, this is what I wrote: As the war progressed and Nazi defeat appeared more probable, on several occasions, Stepinac objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws..

Erosonog (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The cited source for the claim that Stepinac condemned Croat atrocities against Serbs and Jews is Gilbert's The Righteous. It says, "The Cardinal Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, who in 1941 had welcomed Croat independence, subsequently condemned Croat atrocities against both Serbs and Jews, and himself saved a group of Jews in an old age home.15" Footnote 15 says, "Information provided by Mordecai Paldiel, Yad Vashem Righteous Among the Nations Department, notes for the author, 25 April 2002; International Catholic—Jewish Historical Commission, ‘The Vatican and the Holocaust: A Preliminary Report’, October 2000, page 11." That document is available online at jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

The only reference to Stepinac in the 2000 report is item 13 in the list "Questions arising from particular documents", which says, "Many unanswered questions also surround the Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, beatified in 1999. While in 1941 he initially welcomed the creation of a Croatian state, he subsequently condemned atrocities against Serbs and Jews and established an organization to rescue Jews. Are there any archival documents or materials from the beatification process that can illuminate this matter?".

So the only actual source claiming that Stepinac condemned atrocities against Serbs and Jews is either a footnote asking whether there are any archival documents to support that claim, or the vague "Information provided by Mordecai Paldiel". Are either of those usable sources?

Also note there's no claim that he condemned them publicly. We already have sources saying he condemned them privately, in letters to the Ustasi; but the implication here seems to me to be that he condemned them publicly.

I would also like to know whether Stepinac rescued any Jewish Jews, or only (as was Catholic practice at the time, and the policy of Pope Pius XII) Jews who converted to Catholicism.

Philgoetz (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

According to Tomasevich (2001) p. 557, on 31 October 1943 Stepinac gave a sermon in which he made his most direct and strongest attack on the Nazis and by implication, the Ustashas, condemning "all injustice, all murder of innocent people, all burning of peaceful villages, all killings..." and was reproached immediately by Makanec, the minister of education. The sermon was picked up by Allied propaganda and widely disseminated. A sermon given in front of the cathedral, therefore publically. I suggest you read Tomasevich (2001) pp. 551–568, which you could obtain from WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes Tomasevich praises Stepinac for speaking out on human rights, but also criticizes Stepinac for not doing enough. The historian Ivo Goldstein notes that Stepinac’s initial protests sought to exempt only converted Jews from persecution, while he used Ustase terminology (calling Jews “non-Arians”) and proclaimed agreement with key Ustase goals (e.g. excluding “non-Croats”, i.e. Jews and Serbs, from politics and commerce). He initially did not oppose sending Jews to concentration camps, just asked that they be sent more “humanely”. Later Stepinac spoke more forcefully against human rights abuses and tried to save individual Jews (often without success). But his 2 public speeches were made before limited audiences, unlike his pastoral letters against the Communists which he had read in every Catholic Church across Yugoslavia. His main public speech came on October 31, 1943 when the Ustase genocides against Jews, Serbs and Roma had already been largely completed, Italy had surrendered, the Allies were marching toward Rome and everyone knew the Nazis and the Ustase would lose. And despite his speeches, as Tomasevich notes, Stepinac and the Croatian Catholic Church from the beginning until the very end publicly supported the Nazi-installed, Ustase puppet-state which committed all these atrocities. While Stepinac performed a Te Deum celebrating the anniversary of the NDH on April 10, 1945, that same NDH still had Race Laws on its books, and was carrying out the mass-murder of the last Jews, Serbs and Croat anti-fascists at the Jasenovac concentration camp. Thus historian Robert McCormick writes that Stepinac’s support for the Ustase state was “tantamount to accepting Pavelic’s policies”, regardless of what he refers to as his “hand-wringing” Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is all correct, but I am making the point that he did condemn the policies etc, which was being questioned. Obviously the material regarding this needs to reflect due weight, and his acquiescence towards and support of the Ustashas should be given more weight than the sermon I mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone found documentation on how many people heard Stepinac’s 1943 speech, which was given at the end of a procession, after he first condemned “scandalous” women’s fashions, which he blamed for WWII, then attacked all who criticized the Church for not doing enough, next condemned the Communists by name, before finally getting around to condemning crimes, using generalities, and never calling out the Ustase by name (according to what Tomashevich and others write, this pretty much illustrated his order of priorities). If Allied propaganda made use of the speech, more may have learned of it, but still far, far fewer than the millions who witnessed Stepinac’s enthusiastic public embrace of the Ustase Nazi-puppet state, when everyone knew exactly who both the Nazis and Ustase were, his many photo-ops with Pavelic and other Ustase big-wigs, his Te Deums for the Ustase state, his acceptance of a medal from Pavelic at the end of 1944 (for “as an archbishop and military vicar, exposing the outlaws [i.e. Partisan resistance] both at home and abroad”), his role as Vicar of the Ustase army, with yet more photos of him blessing Ustase troops, etc, - all of which Ustase propaganda made extensive use of. As Tomasevich and others write, he and the Croatian Catholic Church were by far the most important players in providing legitimacy to and propping up the criminal Ustase regime. McCormick calls Stepinac “a silent partner in the NDH”. Based on the great majority of Stepinacs’ public actions, he was much more than just a silent partner Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Condemnation of communist government

Another piece of text that has been repeatedly deleted is that from Bunson, that Stepinac "publicly condemned the new Yugoslav government and its actions during World War II, especially for murders of priests by Communist militants." As this action preceded his arrest and trial by the Yugoslav authorities, it is an important part of the post-war context. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence I deleted is followed by another "Yugoslav authorities indicted the archbishop on multiple counts of war crimes and collaboration with the enemy during wartime." The juxtaposition is crafted to give an impression that Stepinac was accused because the Yugoslav authorities wanted revenge since he condemned them and that the war crimes and collaboration accusations were just excuses. The truth is a bit different. Yugoslav communist authorities (led by Josip Broz Tito, who himself was a catholic and a Croat) sentenced Stepinac very lightly. As I said before: Indeed, there was a strong opinon in Yugoslavia that the trial was biased for Stepinac, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, while hundreds of thousands of victims of the Ustashi army of which he was the Supreme Vicar received a rope and a bludgeon.

I have removed the text "... especially for murders of priests by Communist militants." because one gets an impression that these were innocent priests murdered by nasty Communist militants. The truth here is also a bit different. There were around 130 catholic priests that served as military chaplains in the Ustashi army, under Stepinac who was their superior as the "Supreme Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi army". It is also true that many other catholic clergy in NDH have distinguished themselves by killing and instigating killing. Filipovic had many colleagues that committed horrible crimes that deserved punishment. I would agree to preserving this text in this form "Stepinac has especially accused Yugoslav government of killing catholic priests, many of whom instigated and committed crimes with the Ustashi forces."

Erosonog (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, no sources, just bare assertion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help me here. What exactly to you consider to be a "bare assertion" here? Since this is a discussion on the Talk page, not the material on the page, and since you profess knowledge in the subject, I assumed you would be familiar with certain facts. I may have been mistaken. Which of these you need the reference for: that there was a strong opinion that the sentcence was light, that Stepinac received 16 years, that hundreds of thousands of Ustashi victims received a rope and a bludgeon, that 130 catholic priests served as Ustashi chaplains, that Stapinac was their superior, that many other catholic clergy killed and instigated killings?

Erosonog (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So, if I understand you, your claim is that Stepinac's post-war statements about communist actions in WWII are irrelevant to his later arrest and trial, and that's why they should be deleted? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained my position, however I am willing to repeat my words with more explicit explanations, for your benefit: The juxtaposition (of the two sentences, the first of which is about Stepinac's post-war statements about communist actions in WWII) is crafted to give an impression that Stepinac was accused because the Yugoslav authorities wanted revenge since he condemned them and that the war crimes and collaboration accusations were just excuses..

Erosonog (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, come up with reliable sources to compare and contrast with that material, don't delete it or refactor it to read the way you think it should read. Simple, really. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Depiction of trial in the West

A further piece of reliably sourced text that has been repeatedly deleted is: "The trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial", however, some claim the trial was "carried out with proper legal procedure". In a verdict that polarized public opinion both in Yugoslavia and beyond," Again, this deletion appears to be aimed at ensuring only one version of the trial is included in the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence gives impression that the overwhelming opinion ("the West") was that this was a "show trial" while only a minority ("some") thought otherwise. I am fine with replacing the text with this: "While some in the West depicted the trial as a typical communist "show trial", there was a strong opinion that Stepinac was lightly sentenced, given that he received only 16 years, most in house arrest, even though he was the Supreme Vicar of Ustashi army which was responsible for a genocide against Serbs, Roma and Jews in NDH."

Erosonog (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And what would be your source for that material? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are repeating the same question as before. As I already answered above, please enlighten me with what do you need the help with? As I already said: since this is a discussion on the Talk page, not the material on the page itself, and since you profess knowledge in the subject, I assumed you would be familiar with certain facts. I may have been mistaken. Which of these you need the reference for: that there was a strong opinion that the sentence was light, that Stepinac received 16 years, that Stepinac was the Supreme Vicar of Ustashi army or that Ustashi army was responsible for a genocide against Serbs, Roma and Jews in NDH?

Erosonog (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear, I think. In the first part, I am asking you what sources you are relying on for your assertion that the trial wasn't depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial". What are those sources? In what way do they outweigh the sources that indicate it was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, you appear not to have read what I wrote. I did not assert that the trial wasn't depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial"

Erosonog (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you agree the trial was depicted in the West as a typical communist "show trial"? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. Simple, really.

Erosonog (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Latin Correction

Complex legacy, and I won't wade into it. However, I will offer an easy correction. The Latin motto "In te, Domine, speravi" is incorrectly rendered, "I place my trust in you my Lord" [sic]." The perfect ending "-avi" connotes an completed or "perfected" prior activity. Thus, a better translation - and the one favored generally - is "In you, O Lord, have I trusted/ I have trusted." You can see this, for instance, on Benedict XV's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV: he had the same motto) or on the page for the Te Deum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Deum), the Latin hymn from which this motto is taken (or the Vulgate translation for Psalm 30(31) v1, where the hymn gets the phrase). In any event, I hope this helps at least resolve one issue on this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.225.148 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Source quality

There are a lot of exceptional claims being added to this article from marginal online sources, such as Vijesti and Danas. Given the highly contentious nature of ASs wartime actions and statements, this is completely inappropriate. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I will shortly begin removing such material and recommend that editors use only academic quality books for such content. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I added citations from a newspaper article, authored by an academic, Zagreb University history professor, Hrvoje Klasić, on newly available letters from Stepinac to the Pope. He even cites the Italian original language for some of the passages in the letters in the article Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No doubt promoting a book he has written or is writing based on his research. The article hasn't been peer-reviewed or published in a journal afaik, newspapers have very poor reputations for closely examining what they publish when it is from an academic, and he is a fairly controversial Croatian scholar. He needs to be balanced with other academic sources that say different things about ASs actions etc. A bit of nuance is needed here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Below are links to 2 articles by Jure Kristo, who edited books on Stepinac's letters. He confirms all the direct quotes, just adds his own "spin". For example Klasic makes no interpretation of Stepinac's words, that under the Pavelic, whom he widely praises to the Pope, "the shizmatics will be liquidated from Croatia". Kristo spins this as Stepinac meant he will just make the Orthodox "disappear" from Croatia (although the Italian for this is "scomparire" not "liquidare"). Kristo also notes that the Serbian translation of this was "erase the schismatics from Croatia". So others can quote Kristo, that Stepinac was just praising someone who merely wanted to make the Orthodox Serbs "disappear" or "erase" them from Croatia. Although in the article Klasic says Stepinac was not a criminal, and calls no one else criminal, Kristo falsely claims he called the Ustase criminals, and Kristo says this is a false, "subjective" judgement - i.e. per him the Ustase were obviously not criminal. He also praises Stepinac's support for the NDH, because this was "a Croatian state", while per Tomasevich, it was a Nazi-puppet state, with its own Race Laws, which pursued genocidal policies against Jews, Serbs and Roma, which Kristo fails to mention. So people can freely quote Kristo's interpretations of Stepinac's letters, which in my view just further reveal Balkan nationalist ideologies

Links to Kristo's articles:

https://www.bitno.net/academicus/znanost/jure-kristo-hrvoje-klasic-alojzije-stepinac/

https://www.bitno.net/academicus/znanost/jure-kristo-covjek-crkve-i-sin-domovine-drugo-stepincevo-pismo-papi/

Thhhommmasss (talk)

I think you are missing my point. That doesn’t look like a good source either. Reliability requires the author, publisher and material to be reliable, and even if the authors are, the publishers are not very high quality here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So Ester Gitman, with no academic post, cited in an interview from the Stepinac-hagiographic Vecernji list semi-tabloid, the extreme right-wing columnist Tihomir Dujmovic, and right-wing Croatian economist and politician, Slaven Letica, writing in something called “The Croatian World Network” - all cited in the Stepinac article - are high quality sources? But a University of Zagreb history professor, writing for mainstream media is not legitimate source? A history professor from a leading US university, writing an article for mainstream media would not be a legitimate source? Kristo’s book is also already cited as a source in the article, and widely cited by other academics. We have a history professor at a leading university and the most cited author of Stepinac's writing agreeing on the content of the cited letters.

The Vatican has finally opened its archives. Once the pandemic passes, scholars will be pouring over these, particularly anything Pius XII wrote on WWII. First there will be comments by scholars and perhaps articles by scholars in mainstream media on the contents. Will citation of these on Wikipedia be similarly be off limits, until multiple years pass for this to appear in books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles? I also checked the Wikipedia Trump article - 850 citations, it looks like nearly all media sources, haven't found a single scholarly source so far. Per same rules this wikipedia article would not exist, until some years or decades in the future, when enough scholarly material finally accumulates 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

On claims of 200,000 Catholics converting to Orthodox Church, pre WWII

Article quotes as fact that “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.” Yet Tomasevich citations (p.524) show this claim came from extremely unreliable sources, first made in 1943 (after the mass slaughter and forced conversion of Serbs) by the priest and Ustashe member, Ivan Guberina, of whom the Catholic bishop of Mostar wrote that he came to Mostar that same year and gave a "threatening and bloody speech. It would be inconvenient if even the most extreme lay nationalist spoke like that ... opponents will say, the Church approves of all those massacres [of Serbs]". The second mention of the number was by Stepinac, in defense at his trial, when confronted with the forced conversions of 250,000 Serbs in the NDH

So we have the claims of a violently anti-Serb Ustashe, while Stepinac is as reliable on the Orthodox Church as he is on Protestantism and Freemasonry. It’s significant that Tomasevich appears to have found no prewar quotes from Stepinac on this issue, when one would’ve thought this would've certainly been at the top of his many anti-Orthodox grievances, were it indeed real. Second, the claim contradicts other facts. Tomasevich notes that under the Croatian ultranationalist bishop Ivan Saric, the Catholic Church in Bosnia was aggressively expanding - building churches and adding converts (p.527) Demographic data shows Catholics in Bosnia in fact grew faster than Orthodox, While this data shows Catholics in Croatia (i.e. serbo-croat speaking Catholics) increased as a percent of population in 1921-1931, while Serbs (serbo-croat speaking Orthodox) slightly declined. Can’t find it now, but other sources state there was also conversion from Orthodox to Catholic during the 1930s depression, because Catholic Church had stronger charity organizations

All this contradicts the extremely unreliable sources for the claims. I think verbiage should reflect that this came from a violently anti-Serb Ustase source, and from Stepinac, another highly biased and unreliable source on the matter, and only after the war, during self-serving attempts to defend himself against Catholic Church role in forced conversions of Orthodox Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NDH - salute.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Then this should also be moved to later

This part of the sentence is clearly from Tomasevich:

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,

In footnote 26 on p.524 Tomasevich clearly states that the 200,000 claim came from the Ustase priest, Guberina, published in a 1943 book by the Nazi ratlines priest and Ustase functionary and propagandist, Krunoslav Draganovic, which Stepinac then repeated the same year. Tomasevich does not quote a single pre-WWII source with such claims, not Stepinac, not anyone else (in fact data in the WP article "Demographics of Croatia" and WP Bosnian demographic articles on the contrary show a small relative growth of Catholics compared to Orthodox in both Croatia and Bosnia, while Tomasevich notes the Catholic church in Bosnia agressively expanded in interwar years, adding 17 new parishes, and Mostar Catholic Bishop, Misic, also noted many prewar converts from Orthodox to Catholic)

Tomasevich states clearly the sources for the prewar conversion claims, and given that both cited sources are highly biased, same should be called out here. If chronology is key, then this should also not be mentioned before sections discussing the Ustase state in 1943, since that is the timing and source of the claims (as with many such claims from biased Balkan sources on all sides, the figure just happens to be similar to the 250,000 Stepinac was citing at the same time for Orthodox forcefully converted to Catholicism in the NDH, and contrary to Vladko Macek and others, was also claiming the prewar conversions of 200,000 to Orthodox were also done by force. He did this at his trial, no doubt to justify the Ustase forced conversions)Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in. I am surprised that Tomasevich would say “well aware of the fact” when it was an Ustasha individual that solely claimed this. Not sure why he worded it that way but saying 200,000 were forced to convert as a “fact” is not RS if coming from only one source, that being a fascist one. If one skips the footnotes, the reader of the book would think it was just a well known piece of info. How to word this in the article I do not know. As for how many Catholics converted to Orthodoxy or Orthodox to Catholics, I don’t know. Pretty sure both ways happened. Could you cite some stats just for personal knowledge in the future?OyMosby (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the exact quote from Tomasevich is: "All together an estimated 200,000 Roman Catholics, primarily Croats, converted to Orthodoxy during the interwar period" and then in the footnote he cites the 1943 claims by the Ustase priest Guberina and Stepinac himself as sole sources. Certainly the prewar Yugoslav regime was very repressive, but when Vladko Macek, head of the largest Croatian political party, who spent time in jail vehemently fighting that same regime, also per Tomasevich's quote can’t think of a single instance of discrimination against the Catholic Church, then these belated claims made by Ustase priests and Stepinac of hundreds of thousands of supposed forced conversion, that apparently no one noticed before 1943, are doubly doubtful. It’s like claims of 500,000 and more Bleiburg victims, in response to claims of 700,000 Jasenovac victims. And just like in the case of Bleiburg and Jasenovac, it is important to clearly state who is making those claims Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I thought when you quoted “ 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,” that you were saying this was how Tomasevich wrote it. And yeah, these things to this day are often used as talking points by ultranationalist Croats. The Ustashe also claimed they were reacting to oppression but nothing remotely violent as the Ustashe regime occurred in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I think even Tudjman mentioned lower figures for Bleiburg. How that place is still memorialized and visited as a holiday is beyond me. Also Macek is the same guy Ustashe hated as he also rejected being a German puppet, right? Did he serve prison time during WWII? OyMosby (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Italic text

Macek, like his predecessor, Stjepan Radic (killed by a Serb nationalist), was a very decent politician, that’s why he’s so credible. He tirelessly opposed the prewar regime, was a genuine democrat, fought for Croat equal rights, but never fell into the trap of extreme Balkan nationalism. His one negative is that at the very start of the occupation he told Croats to obey their new Ustase overlords, but unlike Stepinac, never enthusiastically embraced the NDH, didn’t pose for photos with Ustase criminals, didn’t celebrate Te Deums for the criminal state. In fact the Ustase later shipped Macek off to Jasenovac, and I’ve not seen a single claim that Stepinac ever intervened to get Macek out of Jasenovac. On the contrary, in a letter to the Pope Stepinac claimed that the “best part of Macek’s party” abandoned him and joined Pavelic, when in fact per Tomasevich it was a small part. And by the end of the war Tomasevich writes most of Macek’s party supported the partisans, while again per Tomasevich, Stepinac publicly supported the Ustase regime until the bitter end. In fact, I’ve seen claims by Croatian historians, that the Lorkovic-Vokic conspirators, who toward the end tried to switch the NDH to the Allied side, were hoping for Stepinac’s support, yet the same sources state Stepinac remained noncommittal. That was the opposite of the Croatian Bishops’ Conference's very public letter of support to Pavelic’s NDH, written in part by the Ustase at their behest, that Stepinac had read out loud in all the NDH Churches on March 25, 1945, while the same Ustase still had Race Laws and were at that moment exterminating the final 3,000 prisoners in Jasenovac, including the last 700 Jews Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, this is just nonsense. Tomasevich clearly accepted it, which is why he didn't state it was a "claim". We don't conduct original research by delving into a reliable source's footnotes and make our own assessments of the primary information used by that reliable source. We don't know what other sources Tomasevich used for this material, the book isn't exhaustively footnoted like Wikipedia articles are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reading and citing information in a footnote of that same author is “original research”? Is there a WP rule that states so? Particularly since part of that footnote is already cited in the article, i.e. Tomashevich's statement that the conversions to Orthodoxy were to advance one's career. Also, contrary to the sentence in the article, Tomasevich nowhere states that prior to WWII "Stepinac was well aware of the fact that an estimated 200,000 mostly Croatian Catholics had converted to the Serbian Orthodox Church". That is an invention by the editor. Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is some WP rule against citing info in footnotes, I believe a fair summary of Tomasevich on this matter would be: “Tomasevich cites the Ustase priest and official, Ivo Guberina, and Stepinac himself for 1943 estimates of 200,000…” As noted, Tomasevic further cites info from Macek and Bosnia which contradicts these claims, plus widely available demographic data from reliable sources indicates the opposite, i.e. a slight shift to Catholicism, but at least the above sentence would provide the same relevant info that Tomasevich also provides Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know all the WP rules nor have as much experience as Peacemaker, but your summary seems fine by me. I think it works. Gives context to the 200,000 claim. OyMosby (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Except as I said, you don't know that they are the only sources Tomasevich used for that information. You can't use the footnote exclusively and assume they are the only sources he used. He is the reliable source who weighed up all the material and wrote what he wrote. It is OR to assume that the only sources he had for that information are the ones in the footnote. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I will just edit the article, as this is pointless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s no doubt Orthodox Church held a privileged position in Kingdom of Yugoslavia, similar to Anglican Church in U.K. (although I don’t think Yugoslav King was head of Serb Church), or for that matter, the Catholic Church in Ireland, Italy plus many other countries. Regarding cited religion percentages from Ramet, demographers cite only a 1921 census, with no mention of 1923, so this is likely a mistake. Also as Zerjavic and other demographers show, population growth rates varied greatly across Yugoslavia, with poorer Orthodox-majority banovinas having much higher natural growth rates than the mainly wealthier, Catholic-majority banovinas (e.g. Zerjavic shows Orthodox-majority, Drinska banovina, had population growth 3.7 times greater than Dravska-Slovenia and more than twice that of Savska and Primorska, i.e. the Croat-majority areas). Per these data from Zerjavic, the changes in overall percent of Catholics vs. Orthodox that Ramet cites, are likely to a large extent due to such differences in overall population growth. This is confirmed by data on more similar sub-areas, like the WP article “Demographics of Croatia”, which cite a Hungarian demographer and expert in Balkan ethnicities, and instead shows that in Croatia proportion of Catholic Croats increased relative to Orthodox Serbs in 1921-1931. Same for WP articles on Bosnian 1921 and 1931 censuses – Catholics grew faster than Orthodox, consistent with citations in Tomasevich that Catholic Church in Bosnia aggressively expanded in interwar era. In any case, on these matters Reliable Sources are the demographers, and those should be cited (incidentally, Zerjavic discusses many factors impacting demographics - internal migration, emigration, etc - nowhere have I seen him mention significant religious conversion as a factor) Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, we can’t use original research of comparing population changes. There have been editors who used such stats to inflate or downplay the number of victims of the Ustashe. But were stopped as a cited source needs to come to such conclusions. Like Tomasevich who compared stats of number of victims killed in various atrocities and genocides. We should be going by what the historians deducted about conversions of Catholics and Orthodox Christians. OyMosby (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know about the misuse of statistics. Many who deny Ustase crimes and genocides cite prewar vs. postwar total data on Orthodox/Serbs to falsely state there were no mass crimes against Serbs, since Orthodox/Serb numbers grew faster than Catholics/Croats. But that is precisely due to ignoring the wide differences in natural growth rates across Yugoslavia, which Ramet ignores in citing total numbers of Catholic vs. Orthodox, while these types of factors are accounted for by demographers like Zerjavic and the cited Hungarian demographer for interwar Croatia figures. Citing the latter denographers is not original research. Ramet is a good historian, but not a demographer Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So your position is that regardless of what reliable sources like Tomasevich and Ramet say on the issue, Catholics didn't convert to Orthodoxy in large numbers in the interwar period. Even through Ramet refers to 100,000 converting in just one year. Good luck with arguing that in a RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No my point is that professional demographers, like the Hungarian demographer and specialist on Balkan ethnicities, cited on WP "Demographics of Croatia" in fact show number of Catholic Croatians rising slightly relative to Orthodox Serbs in 1921-1931. That is contrary to the Ustashe priest/official and rabidly anti-Orthodox, Stepinac, who Tomasevich cites, and for the latter also states is plain wrong on claims on forced conversions. I also trust the superbly well-informed Macek on this matter, also cited by Tomasevich. Casting further doubt on these claims is fact that there appear to be no sources making these claims prior to 1943, plus the fact that Zerjavic who researched interwar trends in religious affiliation down to each county level, mentions no such trends (although he most certainly would've seen them if true), nor do there appear to be any other credible demographers making the claims. I have no issue with citing Tomasevich or Ramet. I extensively cite Tomasevich myself. I knew the man personally since he was a close family friend, and in addition to being a superb historian, he was a great human being. Overall his objectivity and thoroughness is incredible, but that does not mean that he is entirely flawless on everything. For similar Ustase claims of mass killings of Croats in interwar period, similarly made to justify Ustase crimes, he goes through them thoroughly, and in detail debunks them. Why he chose to cite these claims by extremely biased sources, without providing any further reasons, I do not know. In any case the cited Demographics of Croatia data contradicts such claims, as do Macek and Bosnia trends cited by Tomasevich, the latter coming from infinitely more reliable sources. Unless there are some specific WP rules to the contrary, I do not see any reasons not to cite additional info from Tomasevich himself (i.e. as to the sources of these claims), or being able to cite professional demographers who directly contradict these claims Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It is NOT for editors to determine which reliable source is right or wrong. Where reliable sources disagree, we compare and contrast what they say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: it is a part of editorial discretion to assess veracity of the source, as well as due weight of the material. When sources disagree, we do not necessarily compare and contrast – the other option is simply to omit the material; for example, you probably remember the lengthy RfC at Talk:Bijeljina massacre/Archive 4 that you opened yourself, questioning the "fact" repeated by multiple supposedly reliable sources. In this case, I tend to agree with Thhhommmasss that claims of mass conversion to Orthodoxy are outstanding, and "outstanding claims require outstanding evidence"; they are not corroborated here by any other evidence. I do agree that contrasting that comparing population changes would constitute OR, but the other option is simply to omit the material. No such user (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tomasevich and Ramet are not RS? If there isn’t also apposing RS sources why omit material? Also what categorizes something as “outstanding claims”? Wheather per Thhhommmasss or Peacemaker’s take in the conversion, conversions are common place…is it outstanding that? I ask for clarification for future edits, learning from this example. OyMosby (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And where did I say that Tomasevich and Ramet are not RS??? That does not mean they are infallible. And yes, I think that the claim that fact that an estimated 200,000 mostly Croatian Catholics had converted to the Serbian Orthodox Church in the interwar period qualifies as "outstanding" – both because of the apparent source and because it contradicts what I knew about the interwar situation. If that amount of purported conversions so well-known, surely it would not be a problem to find a stronger evidence than a passing mention in a book by an admittedly outstanding historian, but attributed to a hearsay from a biased source? No such user (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say you claimed them not to be RS but questioned why two sources from pretty reputable historians would not be enough. I agree that it would be ideal to have more sources. Sure no one is infallible. But that hoes for any source on Wikipedia. I wouldn’t call Tomasevich a “biased source”. Fair enough about it being substantial. I thought outstanding meant the aggressiveness oh which I don’t think violence was used in the way for example the Ustase used on Serb Orthodox Christians via violent massacres and threats. However not being wildly known or discussed doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I propose perhaps a middle ground. To specifically state the names of sources making the claims and countering the claims. That way Wikivouce is not used to state it as indisputable fact. Thoughts? OyMosby (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I did not state that Tomasevich was biased, but his informants on the issue – Guberina and Draganović; I would agree that attribution is needed. No such user (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker- I certainly did not say that I should determine that Tomasevich or Ramet can’t be quoted, on the contrary I said I cite Tomasevich extensively and anyone can certainly cite anything in Tomasevich and Ramet. However, it seems that you are the one determining which info from Tomasevich can or cannot be quoted (e.g. the sources he mentions for his info, which you deleted), and also which other RS cannot be quoted, like the Hungarian demographer and expert on Balkan ethnicities, who contradicts Tomasevich and Ramet, and whose citation was also previously deleted. Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did a fairly thorough search on hrcak.srce.hr, the main repository for Croatian scientific articles, and found numerous articles on forced conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, during the NDH, but none that cite any kind of mass conversions from Catholicism to Orthodoxy in interwar period. There’s an article by the Franciscan priest and professor at the Catholic Theological Faculty in Zagreb, Daniel Patafta, based entirely on the Croatian Catholic press from pre-WWII Yugoslavia (which is like Serb Orthodox priests, professors at Orthodox Theological Seminaries, citing the Serb Orthodox press on actions by the Catholic Church). Patafta no doubt shows discrimination against the small Greek-Catholic Church, primarily Ukrainian colonists brought in by Austro-Hungary, per the author quite likely as part of a strategy to “Catholicize” Bosnia in particular. Since they followed the Eastern rite, the Orthodox Church deemed them Orthodox, also part of an Austrian effort to turn the Orthodox toward Catholicism, and post-WWI local Orthodox priests and others pressured Greek-Catholics to join the Orthodox Church, but without evidence of much success in this effort

Same author lists discrimination against Catholic Church – e.g. much more money going to Orthodox Church than Catholic (although later adjusted), Catholic property confiscated in 1920 in Vojvodina, restrictions on Catholic priests being able to teach religious studies in schools in Vojvodina (but for latter he does not indicate if this was part of general policies affecting all religions, or discriminatory, or if it persisted after 1921 when religious relations were more codified). As for Catholic to Orthodox conversions, searching the pre-WWII Catholic press he finds “the most famous” case of such conversions on the island of Vis in 1920, when post-WWI Italy was grabbing parts of Dalmatia. At the time there was considerable pro-Yugoslav sentiment in Dalmatia, and it appears a few locals on Vis decided to join the Orthodox Church, even though for a long time they did not have an Orthodox priest. Sources indicate this was “a very small number of locals”, yet even these small numbers of conversions created a major dustup in the Catholic press, with lots of accusations and coverage. However, reviewing the pre-WWII Catholic press, the author does not cite one single other mention of any type of mass conversions from Catholicism to Orthodox. Thus, it appears the first such claims of mass conversions to Orthodox appeared in the Ustase state in 1943, during forceful mass-conversion to Catholicism, with the claims coming from an Ustase sources, plus Stepinac, who apparently never noticed or mentioned these “forced” mass conversions prior to 1943 Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to elaborate a bit more on the Patafta article, since I believe it’s instructive on pre-WWII Yugoslav government stance toward Catholicism, even though it relies entirely on a non-critical rehashing of the Croatian Catholic press (which as mentioned is as “NPOV” and “RS” as someone relying entirely on the Serb Orthodox Press to get a sense of Croatian and Catholic policies). Except for the controversy over the Concordat, all of the actions Patafta mentions occurred prior to 1925, and a number (e.g. confiscation of Church property, prohibitions on priests serving as religious instructors in schools, non-approval of a new Catholic school) appear to have occurred only in Vojvodina. Why this was the case he does not state, nor does he give the pretext for these actions (e.g. was confiscation of Church properties part of agrarian reforms). Some of these acts in Vojvodina appear to be targeted at all religions – e.g. the proscription against priests as religious instructors in public schools appears to be to also have applied to Orthodox priests. He does mention that the Vojvodina authorities approved a new Jewish school, while denying a new Catholic one, so at least this seems discriminatory. Some more general restrictions on religious schools, he says were reverted after opposition. He writes that in 1926 the Catholic Church got 1/3 of state funds (he doesn't mention later years when other sources say gap was further reduced) As noted, given that Patafta states that the “most famous case of conversion” was a handful of locals on a remote island in 1920 apparently voluntarily converting, the claims of mass conversion to Orthodoxy appear to be total, invented bunk (further contradicted by RS demographic data).

How discriminatory all this was, people can judge for themselves. The ardently Catholic-clericalist Slovene People’s Party served in a number of governments in the late 20’s and 30’s, with its leader the Catholic priest, Korosec, serving as Minister of Interior, Minister of Education and for a time even as Prime Minister. These were no Catholics-Lite, instead they were heavy-duty fundamentalist Catholics. Thus, I personally find it difficult to conceive that at that time (i.e. from late 20’s onward), they would’ve countenanced any systematic discrimination against the Catholic Church, which may be the reason why, per Tomasevich, Macek also stated there was none (although he too may have been referring to the post-1920s’ period) Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw here is how Biondich describes Guberina, the source of 1943 claim of 200,000 converted to Orthodoxy: "Guberina and Magdic became propagandists and leading apologists for the Ustasa regime. Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)