Talk:Croatian Democratic Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

I have made changes to the article which I hope make it more neutral (i.e. all the references as to why the party has been elected in the first place, as well as why it was defeated in 2000 have been either rephrased or left out for the above mentioned reason. Also the reason which has been offered as to why it won the 2003 parliamentary election has been again left out as many might disagree (after all this article should be depoliticised).

That is a fair idea, but omitting any mention of the quite apparent tycoonization is unwarranted censorship... --Joy [shallot] 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've restored that, and other information. I can understand that someone will want to avoid a comparison with SDS and loaded terms like "ethnic cleansing", but why avoid mentioning completely factual information about what the Sanader HDZ government did in the last year? That can't be classified as irrelevant or as hearsay... --Joy [shallot] 00:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should also note that I've restored the notes about patriotism, nationalism, and political movement. All these things are pretty much either completely embedded in their political program or widely discussed as such. --Joy [shallot] 00:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made the following changes: "[the hdz] owed its popularity chiefly to renewed patriotism in Croatia" -> there were other parties that addressed the general sentiment you mention (such as the HDS and at the time prominent Mr Veselica) which fared badly in the 1990 election. Hence, some may argue that it may not be the main reason why the HDZ won the election.

As for the controversial privatisation cases, it should be noted that some of those who are generally described as tycoons are linked or associated with the Social Democratic Party. The notable examples include Mr Todoric and Mr Fizulic (the latter was an HSLS minister in the Racan cabinet) of whom both claim to have earned their riches in the liberalisation processes of the late 80s. In any case, it is a paragraph that some might find contentious.

The comparison with the SDS was scandalous and I was at a loss as to why would anyone who purports to be objective put such a thing on this page. I am perfectly fine with any such reference on the SDS page (if there is one), but such comments had no place here. It was precisely this kind of nonsense that made me realise some changes were in order. We may disagree politically but our impressions or convictions should be left out.

One last thing, I have changed the bit on the ICTY cooperation as, at least technically, the people who left for the Hague were not extradited (i.e. delivered to the legal jurisdiction of, in this case, the ICTY). The government insisted it was a legal issue. Those who left did so of their accord accompanied by their own lawyers.User:Antun1

People who were indighted by ICTY went to Hague under HDZ government of Mr Sanader. If that is not co-operation, I don't know what is it. We must have in mind that many Croatians are very skeptical about foreign court judge Croatian citizens abroad, even though Croatia was one of the founders of ICTY.

Why Union and not Community?

I know that community is not normal in English as a designation for a political party but that does seem a better translation. What are the reasons for prefering Union? Dejvid 12:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because on they website says Union: http://www.hdz.hr/ --Marko Jurcic 13:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Updates to article

Changed

Despite such humble beginnings, the party quickly benefited from the loosening of Communist control. Tuđman and other HDZ officials travelled abroad and gathered large financial contributions from Croatian expatriates. Many of these expatriates held extremist views, displaying a favourable opinion of the Independent State of Croatia and Ustashe ideology, and this, in return, was reflected in the HDZ platform, which, among other things, called for the establishment of "Croatia in its historical and natural borders" - a euphemism for a Croatia that would extend to the river Drina and include Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as sections of today's Serbia and Montenegro.

to

Despite such humble beginnings, the party quickly benefited from the loosening of Communist control. Tuđman and other HDZ officials travelled abroad and gathered large financial contributions from Croatian expatriates with this reflected in a more nationalist HDZ platform.

because the the pro-Ustasha element in dijaspora is overstated and given undue weight - also the notion of incorporating all of BiH and sections of Serbia and Montenegro is a myth and contradicts the evidence in the ICTY cases. Such territorial notions was more likely a part of a scare campaign by the Serb elite in an attempt to mobilise support for their program - see Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Also changed

In practice, this policy was an excuse for the rehabilitation and implicit justification of Ustasha ideology, especially after powerful defence minister Gojko Šušak, head of the HDZ hardline faction, won Tuđman's favour.

to

In practice, this policy saw the powerful defence minister Gojko Šušak, head of the HDZ hardline faction, win Tuđman's favour.

because the satetment, an opinion, represents original research. The departure of Mesic and Manolic had more to do with BiH policy and loss of power in the HDZ structure. It also fails to view the anti and pro-Yugoslav views outside the simplistic Partisan-Ustasha paradigm.

iruka 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Marinko, you're expressing POV one-sidedness right now. :) Present one logic view here, and a totally contradicting one (a bit Croat POV?) at Talk:Croatian War of Independence. Everyone knows that this party was/is democratic conservative nationalist, and in the age of Tudjman (before Ivo Sanader reformed it) used extreme nationalism & propaganda. Although not to that extent as the Croatian Party of Rights or the Serbian Radical Party, much more extremist than the nationalist Socialist Party of Serbia, for instance. --PaxEquilibrium 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your mistaken:

• The adjustments involved removing sweeping generalisations that reflected POV are were not supported by citations or sources. The changes are documented and explained on this talk page, and overlooked factors are highlighted.
• The changes I have suggested on the Talk:Croatian War of Independence are supported by independent sources such as the ICTY [[1]], the EU's Badinter Arbitration Committee report, as well as a host of media/thinktank sources including the BBC, pbs & IWPR.
• By what criteria do you make the assessment that the HDZ was more extremist the Milosevic's party? You forget that beyond the intital multiparty elections, Croatia was dominated by a government of national unity for much of the war. You also forget that the HDZ was more a movement and did not become a clear cut party until later in the war. The HDZ was a mishmash of different political and social groups. BY virtue of this fact, I would not call it extremist - nationalist and later on authoritarian, perhaps, but not extremist. iruka 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

Can someone list some sources for some of the information here? Thanks

Abbreviation question

Should Croatian politicians on the English Wikipedia have their abbreviations in English (CDU) or Croatian (HDZ)? The typical Western association with CDU is Christian Democratic Union, which is basically the same party as the HDZ anyways...

Vandalism

I have reintroducted a my precedent intervention COMPLETELY REMOVED by someone stating that the 2009 elections, the forming of a second Sanader government and the SDP being defeated were "Untrue". This VANDALISM it also grave considering that in such a manner it erased any reference relating any event happened from 2007,on, so damaging not only me but, the article as well. So if in the future someone would find any part of my interventions not neutral or also scandalous (as the fact that according to Croatian costitution, Croats living abroad share the same voting rights that mr. Milanovic got), can freely change (not erase) it, but have to left the rest in its place . Marcellogo (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)