Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatian Spring/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2021 [1].

Croatian Spring

edit
Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a period in history of Yugoslavia and Croatia marked by a peak in a wider and longer-lasting conflict between centralisation and decentralisation of Yugoslavia. The period saw a rise in Croatian national sentiment and nationalist forces framing their objectives around economic issues of (de)centralisation. At the same time, those advocating decentralisation embraced (to a degree) support from the nationalists. Actions of the leadership of the Socialist Republic of Croatia drew response from Croatian Serbs and caused ethnic tensions. The period ended when the Croatian leadership was removed from power following an intervention by Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito. Croatian Spring and associated events had a significant impact on the final years of Yugoslavia. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg: the given source doesn't seem to match up with this image. When and where was this first published?
  • File:Deklaracija.jpg: the Croatian tag wouldn't cover the artwork in the middle of the page, and it's unclear why PD-self would apply
  • File:Savka_Dabcevic_Kucar.jpg is tagged as lacking description
  • File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Dolazak_Hrvata_na_Jadran.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg, File:Milka_Planinc.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I plan to quickly fix those images that are comparably simple to get in order and (temporarily) remove others until issues concerning them can be addressed. I need some feedback though for a couple of them:
(1) Would it be better to cut out just the non-PD artwork from the Deklaracija.jpg and keep the rest of the page in the image or cut the image in such way that only the relevant article and newspaper title are in it? Apparently the artwork is not a part of the article.
If that is possible that would fix the Croatian tag issue. The PD-self issue is still a question. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly possible. I believe the uploader misunderstood the "self-made" work as referring to the uploaded file. I see no other reasonable explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Oton Ivekovic...jpg has in its description the year of publication of 1905 and according to the Croatia PD notice works of known authors who died before 1949 became PD in 1999 (i.e. after 50 years). Iveković died in 1939, so the 50-year period expired on 1 Jan 1990 or at least on 1 Jan 1992 after the 1991 Croatian Copyright Act came into effect - in time not to be covered by 1 Jan 1996 URAA application. I see the commons page has the two PD tags and 1905 date, so I'm not sure what else needs be added in that case. Could you please advise?
Is 1905 the year of publication, or the year of creation? If the former, in which country was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's year of creation (in Austria-Hungary at the time). In 1905-1908 Iveković worked as an art teacher in a Zagreb high school and then moved on to lecture at the Art Academy of the Zagreb University, and it is reasonable to assume the work was created and first exhibited in Zagreb considering his academic position. Since it is an oil on canvas, what would constitute its publication?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law exhibition alone does not constitute publication - there's an explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks, that clears up things a bit. If I understand correctly Circular 1 referred to in the document you pointed out, specifically "How Long Does Copyright Last?" on p.4, a non-published, non-pseudonymous/anonymous, not-made-for-hire work receives US copyright protection for a period of author's life plus seventy years. Pseudonymous/anonymous or works-for-hire receive 95 years protection starting from publication or 120 years protection from creation (whichever is shorter) in the US, but this is not such work since author is known and the work was not commissioned. If I got everything correctly, that would make this particular work US-PD since 1 Jan 2010 because Iveković died in 1939. (Under Yugoslav copyright law, the copyright expired after life+fifty years so the work became PD on 1 Jan 1990 in Yugoslavia.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this work non-published? What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what instances of (presumably lawful only) publication can be found. I have no idea right now - not even sure how would any successor to the copyright go about it in communist Yugoslavia. Perhaps they published in the West. I'll get back to you on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check - I should be looking for an exhibition catalog or an art review containing a reproduction/photo of the painting, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more digging: According to Circular 40 publication of a work of art is achieved only when multiple reproductions are created and publicly distributed. While the particular painting (and others of similar topics by Iveković) were likely reproduced in late 1960s and early 1970s due to their popularity, I'm not aware of any participation of Iveković's heirs in that, none of it has any impact under Article 103(a) of USC Copyright Law or Article 3 of Croatian Copyright Act unless done lawfully, i.e. with consent of the copyright holder. Considering the Circular 40, that would mean the work of art is unpublished unless demonstrated otherwise - and I can find no evidence of any lawful publication. Consequently, per Cicular 1, the work became PD on 1 January 2010 under the US law (and 20 years earlier per Yugoslav copyright law).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg is a better quality version of a PD image - I've updated the Commons info in that case. Could you please take another look at that one?
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to others shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Tuđman image with a different one of him. While I'm convinced the photo in the JNA uniform was taken pre-1967, I'm unable to reliably determine if it was published at all. Until this changes, another image will do, I trust. Also replaced Planinc image with image of the monument/bust in Metković since it is explicitly mentioned in the prose. Moreover, after some searching of images of Milka Planinca, I'd say the image previously used in the article was taken in 1980s and could not have been PD - although I could not reliably determine its publication date.
I'll fix the Deklaracija image (under 1 above) (by cropping) and Savka Dabčević-Kučar description shortly (after some more googling it) and get back to you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped the Deklaracija image. I have also located another image [2] which I'd love to use instead of the existing image of Dabčević-Kučar. I spotted it in this [3] newspaper article, and if its caption is right, it was taken in 1969 or 1970, but I have not been able to find its publication date yet, but I'm working on that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief description of Dabčević-Kučar image for now. My local library does not have a copy of the above book so I'll see if I can get a Zagreb-based editor to check that source. I'll wait for the the verification before swapping the images of course.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Gog the Mild, I have removed the two images altogether. They're not really necessary for better understanding of the article anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This is 18 days in and showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes considerably by hte three-week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild we don't really have a lack of consensus, we have a lack of interest, because only images were reviewed so far, nothing else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but as a coordinator I can't archive a nomination for lack of interest/reviews. I can archive for "consensus for promotion has not been reached". I accept that this is frequently a matter of semantics. You could try sending neutrally phrased requests for reviews to anyone whom you think may be interested in the topic or to editors whose nominations you have previously reviewed (and so may be sympathetic), but I suspect that this may be a little late for this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no harm done I suppose - if there's no interest, there's no helping it. I was hoping for feedback on how to improve the article some more, so that's a bit disappointing. At least image licensing was sorted out thanks to Nikkimaria's comments.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you re-nominate the article in two weeks. Sometimes when it gets bogged down in image review, people are less likely to comment. This is an important topic so it should get its fair share of reviewer attention. Unfortunately, I do not have time to review right now. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire

edit

Nice work, looks overall solid to me.

"The complaints initially concerned economic issues such as the retention in Croatia of a higher proportion of hard currency earnings by companies based in Croatia rather than their remittance to the federal government."

In general, I'm quite sympathetic to using technical language in technical topics, but if there's one area to ELI5 it, it's the lede section. Also, this is really describing a proposed policy change (keep more cash here), not a "complaint" directly. Maybe something like "Complaints initially concerned economic nationalism. The reformists wished to reduce transfers of hard currency to the federal government by companies based in Croatia."?

Good point. I revised this along the lines suggested. Actually this is very helpful advice - I'll make sure to look out for that in other articles too. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the Slovenes advocated in favour of the People's Republic of Slovenia—a constituent republic of Yugoslavia—the Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to less-developed republics, including the People's Republic of Serbia.

"Advocated in favour of" is a bit vague (maybe increased centralization would be good for Slovenia, from some perspectives!). They were specifically advocating for more devolved powers, right? Also, is this saying that Serbia was economically backward in this era? Say so outright if so. (Although it's a little surprising since other sections talk about the banks from Belgrade being rich & powerful & expanding.) "The Slovene delegation advocated for devolving power and authority to the constituent republics. The Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to economically lagging republics; this would benefit the People's Republic of Serbia."?

True, the financial power of Belgrade-based banks in the 1960s was disproportionate to the "average" level of development of Serbia for two reasons. Most importantly, the most powerful banks had little to do with Serbia directly. Those were federal banks authorised to handle all of Yugoslavia foreign payments and foreign credit as well as distribute certain federal funds protected from competition by law. They were based in Belgrade since it was the capital of Yugoslavia. As far as the level of development is concerned, Slovenia and Croatia were most developed Yugoslav republics in 1945 (in terms of GDP per capita and most other economic indicators) and the gap from the least developed areas only increased throughout the following four and a half decades. I have tweaked the above sentences along the suggested lines, but I'm wondering if other readers will conclude that the banks being based in Belgrade means "Serbian bank", so I tweaked that bit in "Grieavances" to make it clearer. The other reason for the disproportion was, of course, that Serbia was never uniformly developed with Vojvodina and Belgrade itself being considerably ahead of other areas in Serbia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She attributed this to years of economic austerity, political repression, unsuccessful investments in underdeveloped regions, broken promises, and to a form of protest against the dominant role of federal officials who were generally considered in Croatia to represent Serbia's interests.

Okay, but is Batjer actually correct on anything here to be an authority worth citing? Economic austerity might make people unhappy, but why would it spark nationalism? (Catalonia is arguably one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, the Basque Country one of the poorer regions, and yet both are pretty separatist, for one example.) For that matter, shouldn't political repression have reduced nationalism? Considering what happened after the repression stopped, with an explosion of nationalism and separatism.... Every government everywhere has "broken promises" and bad investments, the causal link to increased nationalism isn't obvious at all. The one thing that does link up is anger at officials perceived to represent Serbia's interests. I don't want to misrepresent Batjer's views, she was on the ground and I wasn't, but... eh. (Feel free to say I'm wrong and Batjer was probably right, just raising the issue - I'd be okay with citing Batjer just for the increase in Croatian nationalism and skipping her diagnosis of the reason behind the rise myself.)

I see your point. I agree it is difficult to determine if Batjer was right or wrong (and by how much). However, I still wanted to include her view, and clearly say it was hers, as a non-casual observer on the ground at the time whose reports were likely read by governments abroad. I think nationalism was always present (at least it was in a considerable measure since at least 1920s) and disappointment with austeriy measures/broken promises is easily channelled to nationalist goals if there's someone to blame: in Yugoslavia/Slovenia/Croatia it was the "Serb-dominated federal government" and there was no shortage of officials/public persons with access to media to make this claim publicly. I doubt that anyone read a taxation reform proposal and went on to become a die-hard nationalist that afternoon, but if one reads about being economically exploited as a group (or as a nation) in media constantly for few years, they'd probably be more likely to listen to a nationalist speech blaming a particular nation for all ills thinking "this makes sense". All this being said, I don't think Batjer's diagnosis actually adds much to the article: I'd say everything included in the "diagnosis" is already represented in some form elsewhere in the article, so the "diagnosis" may well go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SKJ discussed the failures and blamed the Serbian leadership for resistance to the reforms.

Is the discussion really that relevant? If so, keep as is, but otherwise, "Reformists in the SKJ blamed Serbian members of the leadership." or the like.

You're right. Edited accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The June 1968 Belgrade student demonstrations erupted against authoritarian aspects of the Yugoslav regime

I have to ask since the timing is so close - was this inspired / related at all to May 68 in France? Or just a coincidence? (Maybe off-topic since this is happening in Serbia anyway.)

It appears from Madigan Fichter, Student Rebellion in Belgrade, Zagreb, and Sarajevo in 1968, [4] that it would be fair to say that the students drew inspiration about the method of fight/tactics, and organisational structure from May 68, and the article cites examples of use of same slogans as used by students elsewhere in Europe including absurd ones - for example a slogan against German publisher Springer which was not present in Yugoslavia at all. Perhaps it would be unfair to link the protests to May 68 specifically, but I added a reference to Protests of 1968.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SKS leadership assembled around Petar Stambolić was removed on Tito's initiative for failure to prevent the demonstrations

I assume that Stambolic's "side" was the strong central government pro-communist / Praxis protesters, but you never know, sometimes people get removed just for being unlucky. Can Stambolic's affiliation be clarified? Apparently Nikezić and Perović were on the reformist side from later events, but it's not clear that Stambolic was a centralizer, so maybe this was just some chair-shuffling within the reformist faction.

Both Stambolić and Nikezić were communists - there was no other way to be in power. It is certanly true that Nikezić favoured reforms more than Stambolić. According to Miller (cited in the article now) Stambolić held views blending communist dogmatism and Serbian nationalism, while Nikezić was (as already noted) a reformist. I have added a sentence to explain this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thanks for the clarification, although now I guess we're in "be careful what you wish for" territory - the article now spends even more text on what's essentially a detour to Serbian politics. Not sure if that's easily fixable. Also, can you clarify "assembled around"? Does this mean that Stambolic was removed and the SKS leadership rallied around him anyway, or that Tito fired both Stambolic & SKS leadership allied with Stambolic? SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to clarify - Stambolić and few others were sacked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes Stambolić affair is tangential, but the protest and consequent removal of Stabmolić led to appointment of reformist leaders in Serbia who activelly cooperated with the SKH leadership. This is significant because Serbia always played major (if not decisive) role in Yugoslavia. Not that dissimilar grievances were raised by Croatian leadership in 1990 - with two major differences: no all-powerful arbiter (Tito) and no like-minded leadership in Serbia (Milošević instead of Nikezić/Perović). I edited the paragraph a bit to shorten it - trimming off information not really contributing to understanding of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the situation was worsened by a genuine perception among Croatian nationalists of cultural and demographic threats to Croatia from the following policies

Apologies on this one, I am not trying to troll here or light nationalist fires, but... the word "genuine" seems a bit loaded here. They perceived these cultural and demographic threats, and this was accurate in that yes, things like Serbs intermixing in Croat lands were real threats to Croatia? I'm personally not a fan of "genuine" in that case - just stick to perception/belief. Or move the word "genuine" to the actual events that were really happening. (Cards on the table here, I'm an American, things like "This neighborhood used to be inhabited by ethnic group X, now it's inhabited by ethnic group Y, and that's terrible" aren't very convincingly a true "cultural threat".)

No apologies needed, reviews are meant to point out what's wrong. I meant to say they actually thought the threats were real, but I said it wrong. I'm not a native speaker of English, so... well, I removed "genuine".--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" a campaign to make Croatian language more like Serbian,"

This might be an English varieties issue, but shouldn't this be "the Croatian language"? Also wasn't there officially no distinctions between Croatian & Serbian at all as far as the government was concerned in this era, i.e. they'd already shotgun marriage'd them into Serbo-Croatian, per the later section? So it'd be more like "a campaign to standardize Serbo-Croatian in a way that favored Serbian dialects", perhaps? Feel free to adjust the wording.

I have edited this sentence along the lines of your suggestion. The official position was not that there were no differences between Croatian and Serbian (omission of the noun on purpose), the dispute was if the differences were sufficient to qualify them as separate languages or not with the latter implying that there is only one standard dialect of the language. The first national authority to promote and codify the latter was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a means of achieving Yugoslav national unity. The project was apparently abandoned in 1945 when new Yugoslav constitution omitted naming any official language(s) even though it was read in the Parliament in four different ones when it was adopted. The Serbo-Croatian was an aspect of Yugoslavist campaign undertaken in late 1950s and early 1960s. The dictionary project was started then and Serbo-Croatian introduced in the constitution as the official language in armed forces. The Yugoslavist campaign (in political terms) was abandoned in mid-1960s, but the dictionary project went ahead. First published in 1967, it favoured Serbian expressions over Croatian ones, echoing the policy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on the matter defining Serbian as the standard form of Serbo-Croatian and everything else as dialects.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hrvatski tjednik [hr] (Croatian Weekly), which adopted a particularly radical editorial policy.

Radical how? "Radical" can mean a lot. I checked the Google Books preview, so maybe "Hrvatski tjednik, which enthusiastically promoted Croatian nationalism", perhaps?

Yes, that's better. Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SKH factions

To be clear, this is not a criticism, but there's a lot of names here. I'm not sure there's any good spin-off article to stick this in, as the list of people Zanko denounced in his article is surely relevant to stick somewhere, but this article is definitely trying to give a crash course on the Sabor & the SKH leadership in two paragraphs.

Also, it might be worth discussing more explicitly Tito's role in this. In December 1969, he orders Zanko's arrest, where Zanko is a communist denouncing others for nationalism. But then he's ordering the arrest of students in December 1970 and non-communist challengers to student positions, as well as someone Zanko denounced? If Tito changed his mind and decided to support the communist faction at some point in the middle of 1970, this is surely worth talking about explicitly.

There are several points relevant for Tito's role and changes of position: (1) Žanko criticised the SKH leadership and Tito criticised him back. I think it is reasonable to assume Tito approved or otherwise accepted the recently appointed SKH leadership and he could have interpreted Žanko's words as indirectly criticising his poor judgment. If that happened, Žanko's removal would be unsurprising. Unfortunately I have no source that would allow me to write this explicitly, but it sounds reasonable. (2) Tito requested arrests of student leaders on 20 April 1971 and backed down later. The SKH adopted an action programme to combat nationalism in August (noted in the article) and discussed it with Tito in September when Tito expressed his satisfaction with the work of the SKH. (also noted in the article) (3) Brijuni Islands meeting with Brezhnev call to imply potential Soviet intervention (noted in the article). (4) There are July 1971 talks Tito held with Tripalo (noted in the article) offering him a federal government position; (5) Bugojno meeting 12-15 November where Tito is persuaded to act against the SKH (discussed in the article), and of course (6) Karađorđevo meeting on 1 December (also in the article). I wish there were more on the student arrest demands in April, but I found nothing so far. I would not expect many details on day-to-day governing by the federal government since the federal government was hardly involved in this - being the League of Communists matter and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia generally consisted of republican communist parties which largely kept away from the matter. Tito was nearly 80 years old by that point and lack of day-to-day involvement in politics does not surprise me. In addition to the above, there were state visits to USSR in September and US in October.
Fair point on Tito's age. Would it be fair to adjust the Infobox's "leadfigures2" to something like "Josip Broz Tito (December 1970 – 1971), though? It really seems like he was not actively helping the centralizing side earlier. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is already included in that field - although with "(from November 1971)" note. Would it really be fair to say he was helping the centralists in December 1970? I wouldn't add him to the column before the student elections (3 April 1971) or the arrest request (20 April) at the earliest. There was also his intervention against Veselica and Đodan, but that was even later - in July.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I somehow missed the "(from November 1971)" part - I'm used to seeing such dates on the same line rather than above, that's on me. Feel free to revert to the old version if you like, or keep it the changed style if Tito notably changed policy in April. SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The predominance of Serbs in these positions led to widespread calls for their replacement by Croats.

I realize that hard statistics dividing Serbs & Croats likely weren't kept in the era (nor are they clear when there's intermarriage, travel, etc.), but are there at least wild guesses as to how disproportionate Serb representation was in this kind of role? i.e. was this just nationalism (about the same proportion as Serbs in Croatia), a slight overrepresentation, or a major overrepresentation?

There are some figures available in reliable sources and I have just added them. The Croatia-specific figures actually pertain to 1980, so I did not specify exact figures because they might have been a bit different though. Army figures pertain to 1971, and civil service to 1969.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, interesting. From afar, since Tito was not a Serb and the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated in the civil war, I really assumed that Socialist Yugoslavia would have been far less Serb-dominated than it seems it turned out by the 60s. My only suggestion: is there really a significant digit to the tenth of a percent? I have to assume that ethnicity measuring was not a super-exact science, so maybe going with "accounting for 67% and 9% of civil servants respectively" might be more reasonable than 66.6% / 8.9%. Same with the other added figures. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Rounded off now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This decision made Dabčević-Kučar very popular in Croatia.

Wait, she defied a direct order from Tito and told people about it and wasn't removed from her position? (Well, not until another two years passed, at least.) Not sure if there's room, but that sounds like an interesting story.

True, but there's very little in terms of sources to allow such an expansion. The student body elections were in April 1971 and she was removed in early December. A similar delay may be observed in removal of Stambolić (June–November 1968). I'm not sure if that's coincidence, at least sources do not say.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Serbian philosopher Mihailo Đurić said that the constitution of Croatia only specified Croatia as the national state of Croatian nation and failed to mention Serbs. This remark sparked another series of public arguments in March 1971. The SKJ responded by bringing charges against Đurić and imprisoning him. Matica hrvatska proposed an amendment to the constitution further emphasising the national character of Croatia. The SKH dismissed the proposal and drafted its own amendment specifying that Croatia is the national state of Croatian nation, the state of Serbian nation in Croatia and the state of minorities living in Croatia

This story has some holes...? Why is a Serbian philosopher spouting Croatian nationalist lines then getting imprisoned for it - or did he mean that statement as a criticism, and that the Constitution should mention Serbs? The Mihailo Đurić article seems to imply he got imprisoned for opposing the 1971 amendments, not his statement about the existing Croatian constitution. The last sentence is very unclear, and seems to dive into linguistic quibbles that would fly over people's heads. Politically, what was the SKH pushing with this amendment? Which faction was happy? Not the extreme nationalists if Matica hrvatska's proposal was declined, but moderate Croatian nationalists? Communist centralizers? Nobody and the amendments didn't help?

As regards the Đurić remark: Yes, he meant to say it should mention Serbs in the same context as Croats. I edited the passage to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Đurić's imprisonment: Ramet (2006, cited in the article) at p.239 says "The [Đurić's additions to the amendments] made explicit the rights of the Serbs in Croatia, but they also compromised the national status of the Croatian republic. Djurić's intervention was not welcome to the LCY [League of Communists of Yugoslavia] establishment, however, and he was put in prison as a result." Indeed Đurić made the remark about Croatian Constitution at the time of debate on June 1971 Amendments to the Yugoslav Constitution (later largely preserved in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution). Republican constutions (each of six had one) were normally amended shortly after the federal constitution - and Croatian Constitution was amended in February 1972. I have edited this to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As regards who was happy with the amendments: Centralists certainly had nothing to be happy about because the 1971 amendments and a new 1974 constitution left the federal government in control of defence, foreign affairs and very little other than that. Nationalists did not get their way with the proposed amendment because the Croatian 1972 constitution introduced that complicated sentence on Croatia being the national state of Croats and state of Serbian nation in Croatia. Unsurprisingly, the sentence became very hotly debated in the run up to the Croatian War of Independence in 1990–1991 as people argued it granted the Serbs living in Croatia the right to block Croatian independence from Yugoslavia, or break away variously defined territories from Croatia, that it meant nothing at all, and several interpetations falling somewhere in between those. I have edited the passage in an attempt to clarify what was meant and that the amendment was designed as a compromise between Croatian and Croatian Serb positions. Since that particular amendment was not that significant to the (de)centralisation I'm unsure if that aspect should be emphasised here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition. I suspect that the actual linguistic parsing will still fly over the heads of most people not familiar with the politics of the area, but these disputes about how exactly to phrase the status of X in Y can be very important (Filioque for one example that Catholic Croatians & Orthodox Serbs could argue about), so fair to include. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
following the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Nit: Might be worth saying "1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia" - casual readers may assume this was a contemporaneous event rather than one a few years earlier.

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Serbs called for the constitution of Croatia to be amended to make Croats and Serbs of Croatia equal, and create a Serb committee in the Sabor. Those ideas, as well as other forms of revanchism, were defeated by Grbić

Does this really qualify as "revanchism"? I'd think revanchism would be, say, denouncing deposed Croatian nationalists and taking their stuff. Merely asking for equality and representation sounds like something they'd ask for normally, not some special revenge for the Croatian Spring.

Oh, I meant something different and this came out wrong. Equality in terms of representation or civil rights was not the issue here. I meant to say that there were calls to redefine constitutional (political) position of Croats and Croatian Serbs (i.e. revisiting the complex sentence in the amendment debated in 1971) by Croatia being defined as the national state of the two or dropping the national adjective. I've edited this passege to clarfy.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian Spring was the most significant event in Croatia's history under Communist rule,

I think a powerful claim like this is going to require more than one citation to show it's not one eccentric academic who thinks this. Do other Croatian historians agree with Bing?

I saved this for the last to let me think some more about it while addressing other issues: While I'm confident I could turn up few more sources explicitly supporting the claim, I'm also sure I could find others disputing it. Remembering that superlatives are difficult to determine unless measurable in an objective manner (and this is not such an example), I think it should suffice to leave the second part of the sentence saying the event was significant for the entire Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you on this one. As another alternative, since it is a spicy catchy line, can always attribute it - "According to historians XYZ and ABC, the Croatian Spring was the most significant event", etc. But it's certainly also powerful to just directly note its influence on the rest of Yugoslavia. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea. I'll look into further sources supporting or disputing the claim first thoguh.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maspok: A portmanteau of masovni pokret meaning mass movement[1]

After reading through this article, was this really an accurate term? This article spends an overwhelming amount of time on political machinations in the SKH (and to a lesser extent, the SKS and SKJ), but the only time it really gets into a "mass movement" is the pro-nationalist strike in 71, and things like high rate of subscribership to nationalist newspapers I guess. Were there other "mass movementier" events happening that got glossed over? Or just that the SKH leadership was perceived as favoring decentralization precisely because of its popular support, rather than of their own initiative?

I just added a bit more on popularity of the SKH leadership to the previously existing note of a 200.000 strong rally in Zagreb by noting their rallies drew large crowds. Unfortunately the source does not specify at least approximate number of such rallies. Regarding the second part, the SKH seems to have genuinely pushed for greater decentralisation at least in the banking sector. It is pure guesswork to deduce how much of that was meant as a bargaining position considering they were removed from power.
As regards accuracy of the term maspok - multiple sources back it up. It is actually not that uncommon in Croatia. Of course "mass movement" will be fairly small in a small country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't questioning the term, just curious if there were any mass rallies similar to the November 1971 incident. Fair enough. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for any mistakes in my knowledge of Yugoslav history. A very interesting read. SnowFire (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire thank you for taking time to review this article. I am confident it will be improved as a result of this. I think I have addressed all of the above issues in my comments here and I have edited the article in relation to most of them - noting what was edited in the comments above. Could you please have a look at the progress? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. I made one tiny grammar edit, feel free to adjust / revert. Made a few replies above, but overall looks good, will presumably support after the last set of replies. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I addressed the remaining questions and commented briefly at relevant places. Could you have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • I'll review soon, hope it can delay archival, and give more time for other reviewers to arrive. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, Croatian language seems to be WP:duplinked in the intro.
  • Not crucial to me personally, but it is recommended that images of people are aligned so they face towards the text rather than away from it.
FunkMonk thanks for the comments. I have removed the overlinking and moved a couple of images as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from peanut gallery: Not a big deal, but I don't agree on the Croatian language link - it's linked in the infobox once, and it was linked in the lede once, but infoboxes are explicitly separate in the Duplink guideline. So I'd argue the link in the lede should be restored, and it is not problematic. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the infobox link wasn't counted. The language is the very first link in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see where you're getting that from, the {{lang-hr|Hrvatsko proljeće}} link that doesn't come up from CTRL-Fing the source. IMO, such links shouldn't "count" for duplinks (as they're essentially like footnotes, most readers will naturally ignore this, yet a link to Croatian language is Actually Relevant later in "content"), but this is a wider issue than just this one article, so I won't derail any further here. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As another thought, perhaps the earlier link could be replaced with {{lang-hr|link=no|Hrvatsko proljeće}} to avoid the link there, and then restore the link to the later section of the lede where it is more relevant IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be far more useful to have the link at the place where readers are more likely to look for it, i.e. in the prose. However, it follows from MOS:REPEATLINK that the link should be at the first instance. MOS:LEADLANG says nothing on whether to link the term in the template or otherwise, but the example of the template used there has the link is suppressed. All in all, I have no idea if the link should be moved or not. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say this is an issue I feel strongly about, so I'm fine with whatever outcome, but nice if the discussion can bring clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, apologies for derailing on a comparatively trivial issue here - took up the discussion elsewhere, we'll see if people have thoughts there, but it's fine no matter what solution is picked. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more terms in the infobox could be linked? Such as Croats and Croatian orthography?
Done. I just linked the two terms you pointed out as well as Culture of Croatia and federation --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a date in the caption for the newspaper article shown in the infobox?
Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more names and terms at first mention in image captions?
Linked as suggested. I've omitted repetitions of terms within captions though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a federation according to its constitution" Could it be stated here, perhaps in parenthesis, what the member states were?
Added as suggessted and wikilinks to the six moved to this (now first) mention.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistent use of WP:engvar, with both UK and US spellings, ise/ize, while words like favour would indicate UK spelling. ize is accepted in UK English too, but then you should be consistent throughout, so the entire text should be checked for this.
I ran the Peer reviewer for this one and it found several instances -izat- and -ize- in the prose and a couple in the reference titles. I fixed the prose and left the reference titles as-is. I also checked few other typical searchable AE/BE pairings and I think this issue should be ok now. I'll re-read the entire thing though once again though after I fix other issues you raised here and get confirm here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were inspired by the protests of 1968" You could add "worldwide".
Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language was announced in the Telegram, a contemporary literary newspaper." Give date in caption?
Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to standardise the Serbo-Croatian in a way" Missing "language" after Serbo-Croatian?
Correct, un-piped a piped link left over in error.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Šegedin accused the Yugoslav government of attempting to assimilate Croatia" Assimilate into what, if it was already part of Yugoslavia?
The accusation was made about cultural assimilation. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify and linked the term there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many people in Croatia believed these to be substantive threats intended to weaken the republic, and rejected alternate explanations of them as economic phenomena or results of modernisation." Missing "such as" before "economic phenomena"? Or does the current wording convey the intended meaning?
I edited the relevant sentence to clarify. What is meant that the changes were explained (by some/a minorty) as economic phenomena and/or results of modernisation, but most people believed otherwise. Could you please take a look at the revised wording to see if it is any clearer?
Clearer, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within days, there were also several denunciations of the declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language from the SKJ within days." Starts and ends with "within days".
True. Removed (the first) one as redundant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The works of Oton Iveković (Arrival of Croats to the Adriatic Sea depicted) gained popularity during the Croatian Spring." Give date for the artwork for context?
Specified in the caption now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oton Iveković's paintings, depicting events from the national history, became very popular." Likewise, could give a rough time ran e of when these were from.
I have given years of birth and death for Iveković as relatively simple to implement. Most such works he produced in 1900–1910 but there are also his earlier and later such works. This particular one is from 1905. I have provided a reference (Batović, 2007, p.162 for the date range, but it also supports the year of the work (shown in the caption, see above).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and outnumbered the Yugoslav flag by ten to one" Where, in what context?
It is meant to say that on average or overall there were ten times as many flags of the Socialist Republic of Croatia flown in Croatia at the time than the federal Yugoslav flag. The flag usage laws at the time required government institutions to fly three flags on bank holidays (Yugoslav, republican (Croatian in Croatia), and the flag of the League of Communists), but in civilian use (including the use by state-owned shops etc.) it was also possible to fly one flag - Yugoslav or Croatian, and the bulk of these in Croatia were Croatian and not Yugoslav. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that I'm left wondering is when and by who the term "Croatian Spring" was coined? During the events, or retroactively?
Good point. I have added now a short passage on the matter. Unfortunately it appears impossible to trace the term to a particular person - other than to say it was preferred by those took a favourable view of the events, while the opposite is true for "maspok". Could you take a look at this please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predominantly ijekavian, or an ekavian-ijekavian blend, to predominantly ekavian" Should such names be capitalised?
True. Fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the state of Serbian nation living in Croatia" A bit oddly worded? But not sure what the alternative should be.
I'm afraid there's no obvious way of helping there. The matter concerned precisely the convoluted wording of the amendment and the definition it contained. The specific wording, being differentiated by addition of the word "national" and specifying it refers to Serbs "living in Croatia" and implicitly not to others living elsewhere became a legal issue in the run-up to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s. SnowFire already touched upon this in their review comparing the matter to Filioque - certain to be too technical for some readers, but the point of the issue is this "technicality". I have tried to clarify the issue then, but at one point it is impossible to further clarify without a broader explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the relevant passage, hopefully making it clearer. FunkMonk, could you please take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were anyone killed during these events?
There appears no verifiable information linking any fatalities directly to the events - a least to the time frame until 1 December 1971. There is some information of few civilians taking up arms, but it appears nothing specific came from that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add a trantlation of the titke Lijepa naša domovino?
That's certainly possible, but the term is wikilinked to the anthem's own article. I'm not sure if the translation would be useful for understanding of this article either. Should there be a translation?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this led to a month of skirmishes" Perhaps add "deadly" if people were killed during them?
Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any word on how this influenced the later Balkan wars? Mention the Croatian War of Independence?
As far as I can tell from the sources used in the article, not directly. It played a role in weakening the federal power or at least co-existed with the same political powers that contributed to greater decentralisation of Yugoslavia, replacement of one set of political figures with others etc. Some Croatian Spring figures took up politics again in the run up to the Croatia's independence too. Both these aspects are included in the article, and there does not appear to be anything reliably sourced beyond this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but is it worth mentioning that Tito himself was from Croatia? One might think this could have had an effect on non-Croats in Yugoslavia?
I added a Ramet's remark saying that Tito became the ultimate arbiter in disputes not otherwise resolved by the republics. There was, actually still is, a perception among a certain share of population (I have no idea about exact proportion) of Tito pushing anti-Croatian agenda among the Croats, and anti-Serbian agenda among the Serbs. I did not get the feeling this had anything to do with the place of birth, but with perceived preference/disliking/hatred/etc. for the particular ethnic group. I could look up if there is a published work on the topic, but wouldn't that be slightly off-topic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything relevant to this particular subject, otherwise probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Croatian Spring as the term was" A bit oddly worded, perhaps say "the term Croatian spring was"?
Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spot checks not done but the source formatting seems consistent. The accusations of historical revisionism in Ivo Banac make me wonder if we can use him as a source. Antun Vujić was apparently involved in the events and the sentences cited to him seems like they might need a more neutral source. A bit the same question for Latinka Perović. Most of the sources look reliable but there are Croatian institutes cited where I don't know enough to judge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at this. Regarding your concerns:
  • Perović is cited only once, to back up a claim in the prose attributed to her specifically (on her opinion when the Croatian Spring started). I believe this is appropriate use of the source.
  • Vujić is referenced only once to back up use of the term "Croatian silence" for the period after the Croatian Spring. I believe this is quite non-controversial. If you prefer, I can look up an additional source to back this up.
    Yeah, I would prefer since the source currently also supports lasting until the late 1980s, during which the public kept its distance from the unpopular imposed authorities which is quite a bit more than just a name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as Banac is concerned, the referenced web article in Ivo Banac says that its contents are taken from Požega Diocese website "retelling" (as stated explicitly in the cited source) Banac's words. The report takes issue with the fact that Banac did not speak about atrocities committed by the NDH. I would trust that claim much more if it was reporting directly rather what another source said - which may or may not have omitted a part of the lecture. For what it's worth, I would not be surprised if it were omitted from any retelling of the lecture. Specifically, there is a reference to pre-modern "ustaštvo" (meaning insurgents, rebels, outlaws etc in pre-modern context), than reported silence on NDH and then talk about damage from communist regime. I cannot say what was said there, but it appears that something is missing. I'm certain there would be another source claiming his revisionism other than Požega Diocese.
  • Another point raised by the wikipedia article on Ivo Banac is misrepresented by omission. It says "Banac also blamed World War II in Yugoslavia on the King Alexander dictatorship and stated that Communism caused much greater damage than fascism" where the source says "...naglasivši da je ustaški režim trajao vrlo kratko u odnosu na komunistički režim, koji je Hrvatskoj i Hrvatima prouzročio puno veću štetu" (emphasising that the Ustaše regime lasted very briefly compared to the communist regime which caused much greater damage to Croatia and the Croats). Some will certainly find that statement also debatable, but much less so than of it were referring to harm done to non-Croats.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I assume index.hr reported truthfuly what was reported by the diocese at its website, but I find it plausible that the diocese found it more interesting to retell the lecture by emphasising wrongdoings of the communist regime. Maybe something else was said, maybe not - I don't expect the index.hr's explicitly stated source and its method of reporting (relying on diocese report instead of being there in person) to qualify as a reliable beyond information that Banac held a lecture there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

Having a read through now. Not my area of expertise so mainly focusing on prose, and no finding much to criticise.

  • Tito requested that Dabčević-Kučar order the arrests of Šegedin, Marko Veselica, Budiša, Čičak and Đodan, however, she declined "however" is a word to watch, and a simple "but" would be better here.
  • Newspapers published in Serbia and Croatia How about "Serbian and Croatian newspapers" for brevity?
  • referred to in the programme as 'national movement' Why the quote marks, and why single quotes? If it's a quote, they should be double quotes ("); if they're scare quotes they should be removed.
    • It was maeant as a quote, changed to double quotes. (T)
  • Croatian traditional patriotic songs—some of them banned the link to music censorship is a bit of an Easter egg. I was expecting something about prohibition of those songs in particular.
  • it was always paired with the Croatian one. The latter were also multiple ("were") or singular ("was")? You switch between the two.
  • Finally, Prosvjeta's Rade Bulat demanded the establishment of an autonomous province for the Serbs of Croatia. His call was followed by requests to grant autonomy for Dalmatia as well Could easily combine those two sentences to eliminate redundancy and improve readability
    • Done, I think. Just to clarify, those were two different autonomy requests - one nation-based, the other regional. (T)
  • The Serbian philosopher Mihailo Đurić said that the constitution of Croatia only specified Croatia as the national state of Croatian nation Three "Croatia"s in less than a dozen words.
    • Replaced the central one. I could remove the first mention too, but I'm afraid it might lead to confusion if this was in reference to Yugoslav or Croatian constitution (the federation and all constituent republics had separate constitutions). (T)
  • resignations were tendered in I don't believe "in" follows "tender"; one normally either "hands in" or "tenders" one's resignation.

Not much really. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to look at this. I think I have addressed all the points you raised above. Could you have another look at the two points with remarks added above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Support. Nicely written, and informative without being overly verbose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Croatian_Spring/archive1&oldid=1058673671"