Talk:Croatian privatization controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV?
The article is ideologically biased. It violates wikipedia NPOV standards by asserting disputable claims as if they were facts. Also, for many claims the article does not reference any sources.
1. For example, regarding privatization the article states: "this was far from transparent and fully legal".
However, if we put aside some indisputable minor irregularities, how many people have been validly convicted for supposed privatization crimes? Without relevant data and references, assertions like this one remain a mere opinion, not a proven fact. On the contraty, it seems completely plausible that the privatization was generally carried out lawfully (apart of already mentioned minor irregularities). It is another question whether these laws were "just", I grant that here the diversity of opinions is possible, but that's completely different discussion.
2. The article states: "The fact that the new government's legal system was inneficient and slow, as well as the wider context of the Yugoslav wars caused numerous incidents known collectively in Croatia as the "Privatization robbery" (privatizacijska pljačka)."
The term "numerous incidents" is imprecise. Many of those so-called "incidents" were artificially created and exaggerated by leftist media, but have never been proven as criminal. The term "robbery" is tendentious.
3. The article states: "This proved very lucrative for the new owners, but in the vast majority of cases this (along with the separation from the previously secured Yugoslav markets) also caused the bankruptcy of the (previously successful) firm, causing the unemployment of thousands of citizens, a problem Croatia still struggles with to this day."
Fist, socialist firms were generally not successful (especialy not on the free market) and each of them had a lot of its own problems even before the war. Second, it is not enough merely to claim that they bakrupted simply due to the privatization. It remains to be seen what was the main reason for their bankrupcy and subsequent mass unemployment, a lot of factors have to be taken into account: socialist heritage of unsuccesful mastodont and birocratized companies, direct and indirect war damages, loss of ex-yugoslav market, etc. Moreover, the complete economy of the nation was under heavy pressure due to the facts such as: mass of workers was mobilized in the army; the state had to take care of many hundreds of thousands of refugees (from Bosnia as well as from Croatia); complete absence of tourism-related incomes (which are major incomes for Croatia) during the war years as well as during the few subsequent years, etc. Now, we may disagree about the relative importance of all those factors for total condition of Croatian economy, but it is certainly not fair to simply impute all evils to privatization, without even considering other factors. Serious assessment has to take them all into account and try to estimate their relative importance, but it seems that this haven't been done yet. It is easier to parrot leftist demagogy and propaganda.
4. The article states: "It is also beyond doubt that not few shadowy figures who moved close to Tuđman, the centre of power in Croatian society, profited from this enormously, having amassed wealth with suspicious celerity."
Well, if it is really "beyond doubt", than it shouldn't be a problem to prove it. To me, this phrase resembles the oft repeated but never proved (or even argumented) thesis about "200 richest families" supposedly favored by Tuđman. Leftists based a lot of their rhetorics in the end of 1990-s on those mythical 200 richest families, and even promissed to make public their names, but have never done so.
5. The article states: "the majority of Croats are of the opinion that Tuđman could and should have prevented at least a part of these malfeasances because nothing similar has happened to Slovenia with who Croatia has been inside Yugoslavia."
While it is probably true that "the majoritiy of Croats are of the opinion", this is nevertheless a clear example of the "argumentum ad populum". Also, the opinion of this "majority of Croats" is clearly influenced by dominant leftist media. Where is the proof that the "majority opinion" is right?
Etc, etc...
PinkPantherZG (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the article does need work, but your approach to the matter appears to be biased as well. You do not attempt to improve the article by finding sources about the privatization controversy, you try to diminish its existence. There indeed was a privatization controversy, with names such as Kutle or Pašalić immediately springing to mind, and it resulted in the unemployment of just under 400,000 people. WEe should not be trying to diminish its impact on Croatian society. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The very subject of the article as presented in the intro seems to be POV. First, it limits the article to a more specific controversy than the article's title suggests (ie. privatization controversies are ongoing in Croatia, so the subject cannot be limited to just the Tudjman era). We should move this to the more general Privatization in Croatia, where it can be given a wider and more balanced treatment. It doesn't seem fair to have a "controversy" article without a "general" article.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Quite frankly, it is POV to want to focus on the controversial parts of the process. From WP:NPOV: Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Like I said, I know what you mean, but "controversy" isn't necessarily POV. There is no POV conclusion that can be drawn, there could have been maleficences, but there also might not have been, that's a controversy. The title is not "Croatian Privatization Robbery", that would be POV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly the kind of thing I am objecting to. You mention Kutle and Pašalić. But the court found Kutle not guilty ([1]). Pašalić, AFAIK, has never even been charged. But leftist media had its own agenda and convicted those people without trial, ruining their reputation, probably forever. Those media shaped public opinion and now "everybody knows" these people are "criminals", and to doubt it is probably as useless as to fight with the windmills... PinkPantherZG (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, we may agree or disagree about the effectiveness of Croatian courts, but if we are talking about guilt and crime, we certainly need some more objective criteria than some vague public opinion, shaped by sensationalist left-wing media. You can not just declare somebody is a criminal, without any proof. Usually everybody is considered innocent untill the oposite is proved. PinkPantherZG (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, maybe I misunderstood your point. In that case, I apologize. But in that case it is not clear in what context did you mention Kutle and Pašalić? And why didn't you react earlier, when I responded that their guilt has never been proved? You then aimed your criticism at Croatian courts, rather then at my alleged misunderstanding, which should have already been apparent at that time.
Anyway, in discussing the "privatization controversy", I think we should clearly distinguish two aspects: (a) lawfulness of privatization, and (b) its economical effects. It should be obvious that these are two different things (though they might be related). Moreover, when talking about lawfulness in context of privatization, we should distinguish: (a.1.) lawfulness of the act of privatization itself, and (a.2.) lawfulness of subsequent actions of new owners (after the privatization). Regarding the effects of privatization: while it is undeniable that Croatian economy had (and has) a number of problems during and after the privatization, to ascribe all those problems to privatization would, in my opinion, constitute a logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There is simply no evidence that the privatization itself (and not other factors, mentioned earlier) caused those problems (or even that it was the main factor in their emergence). PinkPantherZG (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, maybe I misunderstood your point. In that case, I apologize. But in that case it is not clear in what context did you mention Kutle and Pašalić? And why didn't you react earlier, when I responded that their guilt has never been proved? You then aimed your criticism at Croatian courts, rather then at my alleged misunderstanding, which should have already been apparent at that time.
-
