Talk:Ante Starčević/Archive 2

It won't be continued

It was difficult for me to understand the reason of this person signed up as Mir Harven - to mercilessly delete somebody's artice contributions leaving only polit-commissary's labelling of the removed text as beginning of a major edit; deleted usual Serbian propagandist rubbish or rv, trolls with usual Serbian mis- & disquotation disease- to a reader. Even not noticing (or willing to notice) that the whole article contribution (Purger's) was exclusively based on the very Starcevic's works and findings of the Croatians scholars about this man!

I spotted this sentence in the latest Mir Harven change

Starčević's main influence in the area was that of a polemicist who first broke the silence about Greater Serbian ideology dressed up in the dialectological guise, as promulagated by Vuk Karadžić and his followers

What it shall be? Google searching "Mir Harven" I found a very interesting "talk" about the very nature of language this person had on sci.lang. I am quoting just two responses - for they are completely sufficient and reasonable - for this purpose:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/browse_frm/thread/af3c09f950ef084b/1314a27e1d160990?tvc=1&q=Mir+Harven#1314a27e1d160990

From: Brian M. Scott - view profile Date: Mon, Jun 18 2001 2:29 pm Email: [email protected] (Brian M. Scott) Groups: soc.culture.croatia, hr.sci.jezik, sci.lang, soc.culture.europe Followup-To: soc.culture.croatia,hr.sci.jezik,soc.culture.europe

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:08:45 GMT, [email protected] (Mir Harven) wrote:

[...]

>I don't know about Afrikaans & Dutch, but couldn't help noticing that no one has answered MG's rational argumens on nationhood, statehood, ethnicity, language etc.

Possibly because this is sci.lang. Possibly because no one finds them articularly rational or interesting.

[...]

Note followups.

Brian M. Scott

From: Peter T. Daniels - view profile Date: Sat, Jun 16 2001 4:43 pm Email: "Peter T. Daniels" <[email protected]> Groups: soc.culture.croatia, hr.sci.jezik, sci.lang, soc.culture.europe

1. "The Story of English" is NOT a "great book."

2. Chauvinistic quibbling over "language" vs. "dialect" is not welcome at sci.lang.

3. If you're going to expect a reply from the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, you should keep your communication short, to the point, and grammatical.

Peter T. Daniels [email protected]

As to the Karadzic's work and his time, and for those who might not know anything about him, here is the Goethe's opinion, also:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_July/ai_5148917

In Vienna he met a Slovene scholar, Jernej Kopitar, who encouraged him and introduced him to such leading European writers and thinkers as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jacob Grimm, Leopold von Ranke and Friedrich Engels. Karadzic's first collection of epic poems, published in 1814, brought him to the attention of an educated readership. In addition to his many other activities, he devoted his life to the collection and publication of works from the Serbian oral literary tradition, notably in "Serbian Folk Tales' (1821), "Serbian Folk Sayings' (1836) and, above all, the multi-volume "Serbian Epic Poems' (1814-1866).

http://www.richardwolf.de/latein/goethe.htm

In dem Aufsatz "Serbische Lieder" findet sich auch eine Passage über Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic.

Alles dieses war jedoch von keiner Folge, wenn nicht ein tüchtiger Mann, namens Wuk Stephanowitsch Karadschitsch, geboren 1787 und erzogen an der Scheide von Serbien und Bosnien, mit seiner Muttersprache, die auf dem Lande weit reiner als in den Städten geredet wird, frühzeitig vertraut geworden wäre und ihre Volkspoesie liebgewonnen hätte. Er benahm sich mit dem größten Ernst in dieser Sache und gab im Jahre 1814 in Wien eine serbische Grammatik an den Tag und zugleich serbische Volkslieder, hundert an der Zahl. Gleich damals erhielt ich sie mit einer deutschen Übersetzung, auch jener »Trauergesang« fand sich nunmehr im Original; allein wie sehr ich auch die Gabe werthielt, wie sehr sie mich erfreute, so konnt ich doch zu jener Zeit noch zu keinem Überblick gelangen. In Westen hatten sich die Angelegenheiten verwirrt, und die Entwicklung schien auf neue Verwirrung zu deuten; ich hatte mich nach Osten geflüchtet und wohnte in glücklicher Abgeschiedenheit eine Zeitlang entfernt von Westen und Norden. Nun aber enthüllt sich diese langsam reifende Angelegenheit immer mehr und mehr. Herr Wuk begab sich nach Leipzig, wo er in der Breitkopf-Härtelischen Offizin drei Bände Lieder herausgab, von deren Gehalt oben gesprochen wurde, sodann Grammatik und Wörterbuch hinzufügte, wodurch denn dieses Feld dem Kenner und Liebhaber um vieles zugänglicher geworden. Auch brachte des werten Mannes Aufenthalt in Deutschland denselben in Berührung mit vorzüglichen Männern. Bibliothekar Grimm in Kassel ergriff mit der Gewandtheit eines Sprachgewaltigen auch das Serbische; er übersetzte die Wukische Grammatik und begabte sie mit einer Vorrede, die unsern obigen Mitteilungen zum Grunde liegt. Wir verdanken ihm bedeutende Übersetzungen, die in Sinn und Silbenmaß jenes Nationelle wiedergeben.

Am 20. Dezember 1823 schrieb er in einem Brief an Karadzic:

Ew. Wohlgeboren haben mir durch die Übersendung einer wörtlichen Übersetzung vorzüglich schöner serbischer Lieder sehr viel Freude gegeben, sodann aber solche durch Grammatik und Lexicon verdoppelt und verdreyfacht. Ihre bedeutende Sprache hat hiedurch sich auch bey uns den Weg gebahnt und unsern Forschern die Pflicht auferlegt, sich emsig damit zu beschäftigen.

In short, if we want to have a readers respect towards Wikipedia's articles we have to remove 'contibutions' like the one I am writing about.

Despite desperate Serbian trolls's efforts, the page will be continued

The "user" wants to tell you a few very simple things: a) do not act as a supreme power b) your knowledge about subject does not supersede the knowledge of other people about the same subject

It does, for the particular subjects. But, this is not an issue. The issue is a pathological Serbian Croatophobia, which is the chief cause of this continuous vandalism. Sebian chauvinists like you actually don't know much (or-anything) about Ante Starčević. You're just ignorant copy-pasters, obssessed with hatred.Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

c) what shall be selected as a reliable reference is not a matter of labelling those you do not like as "pan-Serbian way"

"Srpska mreza" (or, "pavelicpapers") are sites exuding mental illness. Moreover, there is not a quote on Starčević as such on these sites. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

d) the references used here to describe the Starcevic's racism and anti-Semitism are his own works and studies of renown Croatian scholars.--Purger 16:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No-they do not. The best authority on Starčević, Mirjana Gross, did not proclaim him any a "racist" of any sort. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop distorting the truth! See this in the Novi list article Ante Starčević - između liberalizma i rasizma or [1] No, ima gorih i od Židova. To su Slavosrbi. Kako to u svojoj monumentalnoj studiji opisuje Mirjana Gross u poglavlju o »slavorpskoj konstrukciji« kod Starcevica, pojam »Slavosrba« je najprije politicki: to su politicki protivnici, koji se »prodaju tudinskoj vlasti«. Zatim, to su svi oni koji s naklonošcu gledaju na ujedinjavanje Južnih Slavena, a da ih sve ne smatraju Hrvatima. Danas bi pravaši takve opisivali kao »unitariste« ili »jugonostalgicare«. No, i tu pocinje kljucni problem, Starcevic se s godinama sve više priklanja poimanju »Slavosrba« kao posebne etnicke skupine, i cak rase odnosno pasmine. »Židovi su manje škodljivi nego Slavosrbi. Jer Židovi gledaju samo za se i za svoje...a Slavosrbi su uvek samo za zlo: ako nemogu sebi pribaviti korist, oni gledaju da naškode dobroj ili pravednoj stvari, ili onim koji su za nju.« Sam Starcevic upada u proturjecja. Cas kao dobar liberal tvrdi kako je razlicitim »prokletim pasminama« cinjena nepravda, što je ove još više pokvarilo i ucinilo da su se dali »na osvetu proti svojim tlaciteljem«, cas kao pravi rasist naglašava kako »prokletim pasminama«, tj. nižim rasama nipošto nije trebalo dati ulogu u javnom životu. M. Gross spominje kako Starcevic pod stare dane poistovjecuje Srbe sa pasminom slavosrpskom, i ruga im se za njihove davne poraze. Ove je rasisticke ispade pravaš Erazmo Barcic godine 1894., kako navodi ista autorica, opisao kao »nabacivanje blatom i najprostijimi infamnimi pogrdami«. S pravom.--Purger 18:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A classic of misrepresentation. Nenad Miščević is a well known pro-Yugoslav propagandist and vocal enemy of Croatian independence (good that we got such people to remind us, perpetually, what stench this Yugoslavia exuded). His words, in this article-pamphlet, are again an example of rather sloppy reasoning-a purpose is, I guess, easy to ascertain: Starčević had coined the terms Sclavus/slave and Servus/serf to designate slavish mentality of his political opponents. The main "Slavosrb" was bishop Strossmayer who, no doubt, could not have any ethnic link with anything Serbian in the modern sense of the word. Miščević's contention is simply a pamphleteer's generalization: shuffled at the end of the article, "corroborated" by the statement of a political and cultural non-entity no one has heard of. It is true that Starčević never accepted Serbian national affiliation of Orthodox Vlachs in Croatia and Bosnia. It is also true that to call his "racist" for that is plain stupidity, since his mother belonged to the Orthodox Vlachs, so he would be, according to the Miščević's concoction, a self-hating "racist". Starčević was a fierce enemy of Serbian national idea in Croatia and Bosnia, there is no question about it. It can be argued that he was wrong about it. But, to associate quasi-racial tags to it is pure distortion of the past in order to change the future.Mir Harven 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you won't be ashamed even if I offer photocopied pages of the M.Gross book as a proof. As of the nonsense claimed above accepted Serbian national affiliation of Orthodox Vlachs - learn the very first thing: national affiliation of each living man is a personal matter of that man - accepted or not by some 'notables'. Not a single Austro-Hungarian census of the 19. or 20. centuries (years 1869, 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910) ever mentioned any 'Orthodox Vlachs' Starcevic talked about and invented. --Purger 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In her monumental monograph there are no such passages. Even those writers not friendly with Starčević's ideas (and, biased, for that matter-the writer Mario Strecha admits that few will agree with his interpretation of Gross's book) do not presume this: http://www.zarez.hr/56/kritika2.htm. Strecha (not Gross) has failed to address the issue: how come that virtually all Croatian intellectuals, from Antun Gustav Matoš and Frano Supilo to Miroslav Krleža and Tomislav Ladan have been infatuated with Ante Starčević ? Are these people all idiots, racists or both ? And Croatia was in need of a certain Mario Strecha to lift a veil ? It is very, very obvious that this Serbian chauvinism has got one single goal: to defame the founder of modern Croatian ideology in order to show that racism, exclusivism and-why not, genocide- are the cornerstones of Croatian nation and contemporary Croatian state-hence, all Croats are, more or less, "genocidal", one way or another-from Ante Starčević to Franjo Tuđman, from Antun Gustav Matoš to Tomislav Ladan. The means is a selective misquotation "industry". Sorry, your edits are not motivated by spreading information. Nor do they stem from any knowledge- this is just a Greater Serbian crap polluting cyberspace for some time 8as can be seen on http://www.hic.hr/books/analysis/ or http://wap.macedonia.org/myth/. Sickos, as usual. Mir Harven 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well-where is the answer to this ? What about Starčević's admirers, from Matoš to Krleža ?Mir Harven 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes! One thing more - here is more about Vuk Karadzic. I found it following the link given by the "user":

During his lifetime Karadzic achieved a European reputation. In 1823 he was the guest of Jacob Grimm in Kassel and of Goethe in Weimar; the same year he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jena. In 1824 he became a member of the Turin Society for Antiquities and, in 1825, of the Gottingen Learned Society. In 1842 he was awarded a gold medal for his scholarship and literary achievements by the Russian Academy of Sciences. He became a corresponding member of the Viennese Academy in 1848, the Berlin Academy in 1850 and the St. Petersburg Academy in 1851. He was also a corresponding member of the Paris-based African League for Combat Against Slavery.

It is apparent that European perception of the Karadzic's personality and work was above the one your hero Starcevic was tried to sell. Looks as "pan-Serbian way", isn't it?--Purger 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This "user" would like to delete information about Ante Starčević and the formation of his ideological credo. In the typical pan-Serbian way, (s)he has delved into issues they actaully don't understand, and which do not belong to the article proper.

So, let's enumerate a few things (I'll use mainly English and German sources):

1. there is no way to distinguish between standard languages and dialects- something that has been addressed at sci.lang (strangely, this copy-paster has "ovelooked" the following exchange).

http://groups.google.hr/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/b8933bab0db8037/08fde40f422c5568?q=Mir+harven&rnum=1#08fde40f422c5568

Mir Harven - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 13:13 Email: [email protected] (Mir Harven) Groups: sci.lang

Not yet rated Rating: pokaži opcije

On 25 Mar 2005 19:31:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

><rant>I have in my hand a piece of paper from Kaiser Permanente (a >large hospital chain), giving the numbers to call if I have questions >about my billing. They give a number for English, no number for >Spanish, surprisingly, given that I'm in Southern California, and a >number for "Chinese Dialects." Now, my question is, what language are >they referring to? Probably Mandarin, right? As far as I understand, >Mandarin and Cantonese aren't mutually intelligible, so how useful >would this really be? </rant>

>Scratching my head, >Kevin P. Miller

It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for anything ? I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". So, why is Chinese *one* language ? Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell. Period.

....

Od: Ruud Harmsen - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 16:26 Email: Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> Groups: sci.lang

Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: [email protected] (Mir Harven): in sci.lang:

>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for >anything ? >I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually >intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". >So, why is Chinese *one* language ? >Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, >genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much larger extent than the spoken languages.

For the same reason (together with a religious one), Arabic is one language.

>Period.

Semicolon; ..........

Od: Mir Harven - view profile Datum: Mon 28 Mar 2005 23:50 Email: [email protected] (Mir Harven) Groups: sci.lang

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:26:48 +0200, Ruud Harmsen

<[email protected]> wrote: >Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: [email protected] (Mir Harven): in >sci.lang:

>>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for >>anything ? >>I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually >>intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". >>So, why is Chinese *one* language ? >>Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, >>genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

>Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much >larger extent than the spoken languages.

True, that's one of my fave arguments re Chinese. But- it somehow deals a blow to the sci status of linguistics. You can have one criterion for one kind of languages & a different one for another. Script is, we all know- not a linguistic essential (see Turkish after Kemal pasha reforms, or contemporary Latin script-drift of Turkic languages in former Soviet Union). But, in the case of Chinese, script is so intimately interwoven with language that usual marginal position ascribed to it (Turkish, German Gothic, double-script Serbian) doesnt hold water.

Anyway, it's always about emotionally charged question: what & which is a language ? Hindi ? Urdu ? Malay ? Indonesian ? High & Low German ?

In the case of northern German languages (Scandie-south), we got:

1. genetic criterion: 2 languages (High & Low German) 2. contact between idioms (dialects galore) 3. typological-structural criterion: 4 languages- Dutch, High & Low German, Yiddish

And, "non-scientific", but rational criterion: 3 languages: Dutch, German, Yiddish.

I guess a language is much more than basic grammar or intelligibility. ...........

Od: Peter T. Daniels - view profile Datum: Tues 29 Mar 2005 03:34 Email: "Peter T. Daniels" <[email protected]> Groups: sci.lang

Mir Harven wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:26:48 +0200, Ruud Harmsen > <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:52 GMT: [email protected] (Mir Harven): in > >sci.lang:

> >>It boils down to: is mutual intelligibility *the* criterion for > >>anything ? > >>I guess it's a 19th century concept. Swedish, Danish etc. are mutually > >>intelligible, but there is no "Scandinavian language". > >>So, why is Chinese *one* language ? > >>Because 1.2 M people want it to be- intelligibility, phonetics, > >>genetic linguistics or typological-structual nuances may go to hell.

> >Because the written language _is_ mutually understandable, to a much > >larger extent than the spoken languages.

> True, that's one of my fave arguments re Chinese. > But- it somehow deals a blow to the sci status of linguistics. > You can have one criterion for one kind of languages & a different one > for another. > Script is, we all know- not a linguistic essential (see Turkish after > Kemal pasha reforms, or contemporary Latin script-drift of Turkic > languages in former Soviet Union). > But, in the case of Chinese, script is so intimately interwoven with > language that usual marginal position ascribed to it (Turkish, German > Gothic, double-script Serbian) doesnt hold water.

> Anyway, it's always about emotionally charged question: what & which > is a language ? > Hindi ? Urdu ? Malay ? Indonesian ? High & Low German ?

> In the case of northern German languages (Scandie-south), we got:

> 1. genetic criterion: 2 languages (High & Low German) > 2. contact between idioms (dialects galore) > 3. typological-structural criterion: 4 languages- Dutch, High & Low > German, Yiddish

> And, "non-scientific", but rational criterion: 3 languages: Dutch, > German, Yiddish.

> I guess a language is much more than basic grammar or intelligibility.

The question of language vs. dialect is not a question of linguistics, it is a question of politics; it has nothing of "sci." about it. .......

Od: Brian M. Scott - view profile Datum: Tues 29 Mar 2005 03:52 Email: "Brian M. Scott" <[email protected]> Groups: sci.lang

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:57 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in <news:[email protected]> in sci.lang:

[...]

> The question of language vs. dialect is not a question of linguistics, > it is a question of politics; it has nothing of "sci." about it.

Take it to sigh.lang?

Brian

........

So much for language.

Let's see the role of Vuk Karadžić:

http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/karadzic.htm

Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864) was a linguist and writer who travelled throughout the Balkan lands studying the various languages and dialects and collecting folk songs. He wrote widely on linguistic subjects and problems, and published many grammar books and a dictionary. He is rightfully considered the founder of modern Serbian language reform and Serbian culture in general.

One of the main themes of his work is that all speakers of the Stokavian dialect are Serbian (even though most Croatians speak a form of this dialect as well). This line of thinking is seen quite frequently in Karadzic's work, and influenced Serbian attitudes toward other Balkan nations. The article "Serbs All and Everywhere", first published in the book "Treasurebox for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths" in 1849, is a typical example of Karadzic's views on the language and ethnicity of Serbia's neighbors. He also tries to negate the existence of any significant number of Croats, distorting historic and linguistic facts to prove his arguments. At this time, the Croats, along with the Bulgarians, were seen as the biggest obstacle to Serbian dominance on the Balkans. In this way Karadzic, either consciously or unconsciously, fits into the scheme of Greater Serbian ideology quite well. ......

Other examinations of Vuk Karadžić's role van be found, for instance, on the following sites:

http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/magisterarbeit_grcevic.pdf

http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/izdavalastvo/FOLIA.pdf

Or, in Croatian:

http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik3.html Miro Kačić .........

POLITIKA U ZNANSTVENOJ SLAVISTICI ILITI POLITIČKO JEZIKOSLOVLJE

........

1. Nemali dio takozvane serbokroatistike temelji se na onome što je rekao, tj. napisao Vuk Stefanović Karadžić

Ideje J. Dobrovskoga i P. J. Šafaržika prihvaća Vuk Stefanović Karadžić i tako nastaje njegov članak Srbi svi i svuda. Već iz samoga naslova članka vidljive su političke namjere Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića. To je programski politički članak (11) u kojemu se htjelo uvjeriti svijet da su svi Srbi štokavci, kajkavci su Slovenci, a Hrvati su tek čakavci. Tim člankom koji tako napisan dovodi u sumnju sve što je Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (12) napisao, tim više što je on u kontradikciji s Vukom Stefanovićem(13) koji u predgovoru svoga rječnika u prvoj rečenici prvoga izdanja (1818. god.) piše: “Već ima blizu iljada godina kako Srblji imaju svoja slova i pismo, a do danas još ni u kakvoj knjizi nemaju pravoga svog jezika!” (Vuk 1818:111).

Zatim navodi: »Dva su velika uzroka ovoj nesreći našega jezika, i ovome (prije nečuvenom na ovom svijetu) pokoru našemu: prvo, što su naši spisatelji sve samouci u Srpskom jeziku: zašto mi nemamo još ni Bukvara Srpskoga, a kamo li što više« (Vuk 1818: V).

Dobro je poznato da je i rječnika i knjiga bilo koji su se na štokavskome temeljili. To je činjenica koje se treba svaki jezikoslovac držati. Jer kako reče A. Meillet: »La science ne vit pas de verites, elle vit de preuves (14)” (citirano prema Guillaume 1973: 50). Ili kako bi to rekao O. Guillaume: “La methode que je preconise en linguistique, et d’une maniere generale en toute matiere intellective, est 1’observation fine du concret rendue plus fine sans cesse par la reflexion profonde.” (Guillaume 1973: 50). A samo u svjetonazorima postoje “istine bez dokaza”, znanstvena se istina temelji na činjenicama i dokazima. Jasno je da Vuk Stefanović Karadžić nije mogao reći u vremenu kada je pisao rječnik da su knjige koje su do tada napisane bile srpske i da je jednostavno trebalo preuzeti, i to iz najmanje tri razloga:

a) tada se dobro znalo da su knjige (i rječnike) koje su već postojale pisali Hrvati,

b) naišao bi na još jači otpor svojim idejama unutar Srbije i među Srbima u Vojvodini, koji bi mu prigovarali da im nameće hrvatski ili barem hercegovački,

c) njegov rad onda ne bi bio “pionirski”.

Napisati to trideset godina poslije bilo je nešto sasvim drugo. Iz navedenoga slijedi da sve što je Vuk Stefanović Karadžić napisao treba dodatna proučavanja, i to posebnom metodologijom, kako bi se jasno razdvojilo što je u onome što on piše srpsko, a što nije. To nam potpuno zamagljuje znanstvenu istinu kojom bi nam bilo jasno što je srpski jezik u to doba uistinu bio. Tim više što se iz njegovih polemika i spisa jasno vidi da je malo tko osim njega znao onda srpski kakvim je on pisao. Put koji se nekritički temelji na Karadžićevim postavkama bio bi dakle politički odabir, jer je polazište Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića, poglavito u razdoblju poslije 1818. godine, ishodišno političko, a prije toga razdoblja njegovo je ishodište znanstveno nedovoljno jasno. Tim više što je sveukupni Vukov projekt pokrenuo Kopitar, a njegovi su motivi bili izrazito politički, što je u mnogim radovima pokazano. Da je u stvaranju samoga Rječnika sudjelovao i Kopitar jasno je iz navoda: “Što se tiče ovde Njemačkoga i Latinskoga jezika, o tom sam radio s G. Kopitarom, dvorskim bibliotekarom; ali opet ako se đe nađe, da su koje riječi rđavo prevedene, tome sam ja kriv, što mu nijesam znao pravo značenje kazati, a ne on, što ga nije znao Njemački ili Latinski istolkovati.” (Vuk 1918: VIII).

The page will be reverted & further elaborated upon. Mir Harven 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Purger's edit hardly follows the NPOV principle. This edit makes about 75% of the article about Starčević's supposed anti-Semitism.

I am not familiar with Mirjana Gross, nor with this book, but I am sure it mostly deals with politics.

If you are not familiar - that's fine. But, then, avoid passing any judgement about her and her work.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While this anti-Semitism may have been real, it shouldn't constitute three quarters of an article about a hugely important Croatian politician. There is obviously some POV agenda, since nothing about his politics or lasting legacy was contributed from a source book about the Party of Rights' "Ideology, Agitation, Movement".

I am not interested in the matter mentioned above - his politics or lasting legacy. Leaving it to some other people.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We can work out a compromise, but this edit cannot stand as is. --Thewanderer 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add more text about him - not related to his racism and anti-semitism and make this text you are targeting to be a contribution say of 30% only. Also, I do not think that Starcevic is more than a provincial politician - from the European prospective and this is the English language Wikipedia edition.--64.18.16.251 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Starcevic's anti-semitism and racism is described by his own words

As to the scholarly work of the three renown Zagreb University historians, M. Gross, I. Goldstein, and Pavo Barisic:

- their findings about Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism are not scholarly questioned by any serious scholar/historian

- to describe Starcevic's racism and anti-semitism these historians used Starcevic's own words - literally copied from the Starcevic's works and correctly interpreted

- these Starcevic's words are correctly translated into spoken English inside this article

- this racist and anti-semitic attitude of Starcevic is nurtured and maintained inside his Party of the Rights for more than 60 years - in order to explode, in the most villainous way, in the years 1941-45 annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent people of the wrong "breed".

Therefore, marking their findings about Starcevic as questionable - is frivolous and groundless and, in all subsequent edits of this article, shall be ignored. --64.18.16.251 13:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Come on, people, stop reverting this article!!! Lets discuss about the content first! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am very serious about discussing this, but I see noone wants to discuss it, because the people, who are constantly reverting the page to the short text that was written long ago, don't have good arguments for denying the fact that Ante hated Jews and Serbs, and wrote articles about it. What are you guys trying to hide?? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I made the article a little bit more in the style of "Historians claim he was... this and that...", so it's more neutral, and don't revert anymore. There is no reason for that, everything that is left is Historian's analysis and Ante's own quotes. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are being reverted because they are POV.--Adam ^(talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV??? I just wrote what ANTE WROTE!!! Prove me wrong! Also, why do you think it's POV to write about the Historical findings about his political ideology? Do you even know anything about this guy?? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On chronic Croatomania afflicting not few Serbian wiki contributors

Let's see. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is a pattern is behavior of some Serbian wiki users (I think I could pick up Purger (whatta idiocy), Bmalagurski, Milant, Mylan, Esta..whatever, they all look the same to me. Not to be confused with Miloš, Duja etc.). Their "contribution" and activity consists mainly in spreading anti-Croat propaganda in the following ways:

• put out a distorted translation of quotation from some Serbian propagandist site

• insist on drumming upon of "negative" aspects of Croatian history & try to extend it, by projection, to the contemporary Croatian society and culture (main obsessions: Jasenovac, Ustaše, Homeland war,...). Avoid trying to explain why this right extremism had appeared at all, minimize Četnik atrocities, maximize (or, insist on absurd fihures) the Ustaše atrocities, keep silent about Croatian participation in WW2 partisan-Communist movement, ..

• keep us posted on ICTY indictments against Croatian generals in the Croatian liberation war 1991-1995, while simultaneously whine about ICTY's partiality against Serbs. Looks like the ICTY is "right" when it indicts Croats, but wrong when it releases Kosovo Albanians

• insist on the trait Slaven Letica has called "pathological Serbian possessiveness": try to appropriate to the Serbian cultural and historical heritage the bulk of Croatian literature, architecture, historiography, history,..mainly in regions like Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Slavonia, Bosnia, coastal Montenegro/Boka, Herzegovina

• quote out of context, even misquote the sources. Find Croatian self-haters (for instance, journalists like Jelena Lovrić). Avoid quoting those who can be termed authorities in the field.

• as regards the page on Starčević-it will be continued, don't worry. Without quotes from "srpska mreza" and similar "sources". It will be said that Starčević, along with other 19th century writers, shared racialist (not racist) worl-view that considered one ethnicity superior (in a more distant past, Shakespeare's English as a "happy race"), and others inferior or detestable. This was a world-view of Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Marx, Engels, Thackeray ("you are a French-beating animal"), Henley, Hegel, Schelling, Pushkin, Clausius, Nordau,...As for the alleged anti-Semitism: Starčević simply didn't care about Jews. He'd got a low opinion about them, as did virtually everyone in the Western world from the Ancient Greece on, which can be seen on the wiki page on anti-Semitism, or on linx that, although one-sided, give an array of not very favorable opinions on Jews (Voltaire, T.S. Eliot,..): https://www.tightrope.cc/jewquotes.htm, http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-gentile-whatotherssay.htm (never mind the biased nature of the site-the quotes are real), Such quotes may be found everywhere. So-what ? Where is Starčević different from others ? Mir Harven 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little shocked by what you've admitted. You said that the homeland war is a negative aspect of Croatian history. Do you realize what you have said? Also, you put quotation marks for the word "negative" when reffering to Jasenovac, Ustase... Why the quotation marks? Are you saying that it's a joke? --serbiana - talk 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was just a typo with brackets omitted (a frequent case with the longer sentences or those involving a few disparate concepts. Also: the quotation marks were intentional, because ustaše were not negative (nor positive): it was a historical reaction of the part of the Croatian nationalist movemnent to the years of the Serbian oppression. To define it as "negative" would be as absurd to define Soviet Communism, the most murderous regime on earth as "negative" or "positive". Those Croats and Bosnian Muslims who volunteered to take part in the Ustaška vojnica-more than 40.000 people in 1943.-cannot be labelled as war criminals, nor as traitors, as anti-Croat propaganda would have it in the Communist Yugoslavia period. The pathological murderers like Maks Luburić or totalitarian dictators like Ante Pavelić cannot cast the shadow on all the participants in the Ustaša military forces, any more than Joseph Mengele or Adolf Hitler can contaminate the memory of German soldiers, particularly Waffen SS who fought in the WW2. This is even more true about ordinary people or intellectuals who participated in the NDH regime (for instance, Adolfo Bratoljub Klaić, the author of famous dictionary of foreign words, or the sculptor Augustinčić, who made a bust of Pavelić, but later switched sides. Do I have to repeat ? The NDH was a quisling state. The vast majority of people involved with it and working for it were neither quislings nor criminals. And, this is just the NDH talk. Let's not forget that, as far as resistance movement goes, the Croats were the majority both in leadership and in fighting forces who were not forced to join the resistance (like the Serbs in the NDH), but did it out of ideals. And, in the percentage of participation, heavily outnumbering other nations in ex-Yugoslavia-except, pehaps, Montenegrins: http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/ww2.html Hmmm...I haven't seen anything that would refute the claim that Serbian propagandists are vandalizing not a few wikipedia pages, solely with the aim of spreading anti-Croat chauvinist hatred. Mir Harven 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just read the first few sentences where you said that the Ustashe were not negative, and it just makes me sick. My Grandfather was killed by the Ustashe, his head was cut off, and his guts were nailed to the roof of his office at work.

And ? Ustaše atrocities are not denied-as are Četnik or Communist ones. The above statement just corroborates what I've already said: your agenda is anti-Croat chauvinist one, since you claim (as far as I have read from the text) that all Ustaša soldiers were sadist murderers. Well, that would be ca. 40.000-70.000 people. Your statement reveals a sick state of mind. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And this is just one, out of the hundreds of thousands of Ustashe murder stories.

There are hundreds and thousands of Četnik and Communist murder stories. http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=138257, http://nemacenzure.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3466 Also, these are investigated in scholarly works, like http://www.sveznadar.com/knjiga.aspx?knjiga=63983 Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The sole purpose of the Ustashe was to exterminate the Serbs, unlike the Soviet Communism, which didn't have genocide as the goal of a nation.

The sole purpose of the Ustaše leadership was to establish a Croatian state, which they did first as Mussolini's, and then as Hitler's puppets. As for many thousand members of Ustaška vojnica-and, as I said, they numbered between 40.000 and 70.000, the central goal was to defend their ethnic areas from Četnik and Communist intrusions and massacres. Another members of the Ustaše-led bureaucracy, like Bratoljub Klaić, writer of the 1944. etymological orthography, or Zvonimir Remeta, one of the best Croatian novelists of the 20th century, did not participate in any bloodshed, nor did they plan any. And this is a good litmus of what the entire thing is all about: those Croats and Bosniaks who participated in the Ustaša movement, more than 100.000-150.000 in 4 years, are stigmatized as murderers and criminals by default, by Serbian chauvinists. Well-no sane mind will ever accept this.Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am half-Croatian, and I know that most Croats are very nice and intelligent people,

I doubt they are, but, this is not the point. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

but I can't say anything nice about the Ustashe, they killed innocent people, pardon, not just killed, tortured and then killed innocent people.

Members of the Ustaše movement, and the part which can easily be catalogued, did commit atrocities and war crimes. But-the bulk of ordinary members of the Ustaša military forces-as I said, ca. 50.000 fightrs-were not war criminals any more than ordinary members of Četnik royalist or partisan communist movemensts. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ustashe were not just Croats who were provoked by "Serb oppression", they were sick, deeply mentally sick fascists, and there is absolutely nothing positive about them.

This claim is, per se-sick. No wonder you guys spill your venom on wiki, or your "Armies" fled, whenever stumbling upon even slightly armed adversary during 1991-1995 wars- frightened by images of your own propaganda on diabolical, bloodthirsthy Croats in black shirts who enjoy licking blood of Serbian children and cut throats just for fun. You live entrapped in your own perverted mind. Mir Harven 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

--serbiana - talk 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)