Talk:Ivo Rojnica/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be your reviewer this week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus I've read the article and left some notes below on what needs to be addressed before this meets the good article criteria. It's very well written, there are mostly just a few places where clarification is needed. I see that your activity is off-and-on, so I'm willing to leave this open for a few weeks if need be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for taking the time for this review. Please take a gander at the changes I have made and let me know what you think. Regards, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus All right, for the most part it looks good. I've replied to a few points below with further thoughts and clarifications. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made additional changes to the article and addressed some of the points you brought up below. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm satisfied with your responses and I believe all six criteria are now checked off. I'll go ahead and promote the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General:

Check for MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues. When two links are next to each other without being separated by any words or punctuation, it's hard to tell that they're separate.

I have removed two of three instances of side-by-side links. However, I believe that such linking in the opening sentence should remain for the sake of brevity and flow. After all, MOS:LINKSTYLE does contain the proviso "When possible..." I hope you will find this acceptable.

I don't believe there's justification for two non-free images of Rojinica. The one of him with Tuđman probably needs to be removed.

I would argue that the image significantly increases a reader's understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, as provided for by WP:NFCCP. It isn't an image of Rojnica, but rather an image with Rojnica. This isn't a mere semantic distinction. While the infobox image is a front-facing portrait used to illustrate Rojnica as an individual, the photo of Rojnica and Tudjman is used to illustrate something altogether different – the relationship between two significant historical figures. According to WP:NFCCP, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The infobox image shows only an elderly man in a suit, it does not convey what the image of Rojnica and Tudjman does.

To quote WP:NFCI, "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." With this in mind, I will note that this is the only known photo of these two historically significant figures and illustrates the close nature of their relationship. The resulting scandal was what brought Rojnica into the public eye and most of the sources used in this article reference Rojnica in relation to it. Were it not for the scandal, it is doubtful that this article would have met the WP:NOTABILITY criteria to even be created. Finally, the photo is only used in this one article and its low resolution certainly doesn't infringe upon a potential copyright holder's commercial rights. For these reasons, I am confidant that the image serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and should be retained.

Lead:

The lead is a little long relative to the article. Not a high priority issue, but it might be worth condensing some events down and trimming some of the minor details.

Agreed, I have shortened two of the paragraphs by removing some finer details.

Early life:

No issues.

World War II:

It's unclear how or why he was working for the German Abwehr if he was in Croatia.

The Abwehr was Nazi Germany's equivalent to the DIA or GRU. This is analogous to how a foreign DIA or GRU asset can work in a country besides the US or Russia, for example. Given that the passage explicitly states that the Abwehr was "Germany's military intelligence service", I don't believe that a lay reader would be confused by this or that it would be a foreign concept to them.

Some of the details in this first paragraph don't seem relevant to Rojinica's life, especially Budak's comments on the situation. The important detail here is that the NDH received Dubrovnik and Rojinica became its commissioner.

Somewhat disagree here, I find that Budak's comments lead rather neatly into the passage which discusses how Italy took over much of Dalmatia, which is very important context given Rojnica's subsequent appointment in Dubrovnik. However, if you have more specific suggestions about which portion of Budak's remarks are irrelevant, I'd be happy to hear them.

I'm of the opinion that everything sourced to Pavlowitch (1985) can be removed. What Budak thought about it doesn't affect the sequence of events and as far as I can tell didn't affect Rojnica's decision making or course of action.

OK, I have removed Pavlowitch completely.

One notable such atrocity took place – "atrocity" puts a value judgement in wikivoice instead of maintaining an impartial tone.

OK, I've replaced it with massacre.

It doesn't say why Rojinica was removed from his post.

The source says the following: U Dubrovnik je 12. prosinca 1941. stigao novi ustaški stožernik Vlado Herceg, poručnik Poglavnikove tjelesne bojne. Na tom položaju zamijenio je Ivu Rojnicu. ("The new Ustaše commissioner Vlado Herceg arrived in Dubrovnik on 12 December 1941. He succeeded Ivo Rojnica in this position.") "Removed" may be too strong a word here, so I have reworded this passage to state that his tenure lasted until 12 December 1941.

Exile:

It's unclear when he tried to keep his identity a secret and when it became widely known who he was.

If you are asking when the woman recognized him as a war criminal and reported him, I don't believe any of the sources provide a specific date or month, but obviously it was at some point between May 1945 and May 1946, when he was arrested by the British.

What about when he was in Argentina? Was it widely known that he was fleeing to Argentina and public information when he first got there?

The section titled "Exile" goes into some detail regarding this. The Yugoslav authorities sent a comprehensive dossier to the British detailing the allegations against him, so at least a small number of people knew he was on the run. However, he probably wouldn't have made a very good spy if he was a public figure, so with regard to your first question, I would say—no? When he arrived in Argentina, he did so under a false name, so I'm more comfortable also answering no to your second question. In 1954, he petitioned to have his name be recognized as Juan Rojnica. This would be the equivalent of Josef Mengele living under the name José Mengele, or the like. So, I would say he started living pretty openly within less than 10 years of the war ending. This was before the Internet, after all. He would have largely been forgotten had it not been for the 1993 ambassador nomination scandal. I hope this helps.

It doesn't say why his wife was kidnapped. Presumably it was because of the ransom, but should say if that's the original reason and whether she was specifically targeted.

Camarasa says the following: En 1973, sin embargo, su tranquilidad pareció quebrarse. El 23 de noviembre de aquel año, mientras caminaba por una calle del barrio de Palermo, su esposa Ana fue secuestrada en un hecho nunca esclarecido, y ocho días más tarde liberada tras el pago de un rescate de 70 millones de pesos de la época. ("In 1973, however, his peace seemed to be shattered. On November 23 of that year, while walking down a street in the Palermo neighborhood, his wife Ana was kidnapped in an incident that has never been clarified, and eight days later she was released after the payment of a ransom of 70 million pesos at the time.") So, the source doesn't say. Still, this is a very important episode in any person's biography and is notable enough to be included.

It might be worth saying in the article that the incident wasn't clarified.

Done.

Breakup of Yugoslavia:

It looks like only the first paragraph of this section is about the breakup of Yugoslavia.

I have made the section title more specific.

he accompanied him on an official visit – Grammatically, it's unclear who is "he" and who is "him".

Good catch, fixed.

Nikolić doesn't seem relevant.

As mentioned in one of the earlier sections, Nikolić was a prominent benefactor of Rojnica's financial largesse, so the fact that he too was given a government position around the same time as Rojnica is definitely relevant. In any case, I have placed this passage under a footnote.

The quote personally handing over the post to his successor doesn't seem to add anything to the article.

Yeah, this doesn't add anything, I've replaced it with a more generic line.

he was granted an audience with the mayor of Dubrovnik – The article doesn't say why this is important.

A former collaborationist administrator of Dubrovnik meeting with the then-current mayor of Dubrovnik is certainly important. If you think a lay reader would find it difficult to appreciate the significance of this, I would be very grateful to hear how the wording may be improved.

Does the source make any comments about how this legitimized Rojnica's actions or any other explanation? If so, that would be worth saying explicitly.

I'm afraid not. Here is a verbatim quote: "In 1996 Rojnica was officially received by the mayor of Dubrovnik, Ivo Obuljan [sic]." That is all it says.

Later years and death:

Rojnica's name was notably absent – "notably" might be editorializing.

Removed.

to the sizeable financial contributions former Ustaše had made – "former Ustaše" threw me off, I'm wondering if "former Ustaše members" or something similar would be clearer.

Added.

he was subjected to threats – Should say by whom if possible.

I could add "by Rojnica's supporters", which is almost certainly who it was, but the source doesn't explicitly say. All it says is, "This led to threats against Mesić and the “Civil committee for Human Rights,” which supported the Wiesenthal Center in Zagreb."

Sources:

[5] Pavlowitch (1985) p. 123 – it would have to accept a member of the Italian House of Savoy as its monarch, but he would merely be a figurehead. As for Dalmatia, is pretty clear plagiarism of she would have to accept an Italian prince for her king, but he would be a mere figurehead; as for Dalmatia,. Also not sure if "Italian House of Savoy" is directly supported by "Italian prince". The source also doesn't indicate that "no need to worry" is an exact quote, or that it's "cryptic".

Changes have been made, please have a look.

[9] Ivančić (2018) – Good. Checked all four uses.
[19] Macdonald (2002) p. 137 – Checked both uses. According to the source, it looks like he was citing those numbers as evidence that no eradication was taking place, which isn't conveyed in the article. And it's possible that I missed it, but does this confirm the year of publication for the memoir?

Yes, these were Rojnica's assertions regarding the number of expulsions and forced conversions. I'm wondering does the article not make this clear? As for the memoirs, this actually stems from footnote 23, which is a review of the book in the Feral Tribune. I have removed this sentence until I can get access to the source or another source appears verifying this statement.

It can be inferred, but it might make the article a little easier to read if it says it outright. Something as simple as "He justified this by..." or something to that effect would be helpful.

OK, I have made the addition you requsted.

[25] Hockenos (2003) pp. 270–271 – Rojnica also established a recruitment and training centre in Argentina for mercenaries willing to fight for Croatia. is very similar to He also set up a recruiting and training operation in Argentina for mercanaries who wanted to fight in Croatia. Also it doesn't support The breakup of Yugoslavia and the outbreak of the Croatian War of Independence in the early 1990s had galvanized the Croatian diaspora in Argentina, which by 1991 numbered around 100,000. Did a different citation get dropped there?

The wording of the first passage has been changed. If you are referring to the size of the Croatian diaspora in Argentina, the source says, "There are an estimated one hundred thousand ethnic Croats in Argentina." If you are referring to the part that says that the breakup of Yugoslavia prompted Croatian Argentines to support Croatia, this statement is self-evident given what the footnote and this section's subsequent paragraphs discuss.

[29] Hockenos (2003) p. 80 – Checked both uses. Mostly good, but I'll nitpick the "until 2001" since I don't actually see that in the source itself.

I believe this particular passage was added by another user, after which I slightly modified the wording and made it a footnote. Changed to "At the time..."

[30] Codrescu (1993) – Good.
[37] Jerusalem Post (2007) – Good.

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.