Jump to content

Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.217.132.82 (talk) at 19:11, 7 January 2009 (→Article protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


FACTUAL MISTAKE - UNS - Ustaska NADZORNA sluzba

Somewhere in the text, there is a quite big factual mistake. While explaining how the camp was organized, the author(s) either unknowingly, or on purpose, made a factual mistake. It says that the camp was managed by UNS - Ustaska narodna sluzba, which is INCORRECT, since the UNS stands for Ustaska NADZORNA sluzba, not Ustaska NARODNA sluzba.

Ustaska NADZORNA sluzba stands for "Ustashe SUPERVISIONAL or CUSTODIAL service" 194.152.219.2 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

like Jews, Gypsies, and even Croats

This is stupid...AND EVEN Croats. Aprox. 12000 Croats killed just in Jasenovac.Half of the population was anti-fascist. Dalmatia,Istria,Zagorje and large parts of Slavonija were all anti-fascist.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic sources paragraph

Srboljub Živanović is a Serb nationalist and a Srebrenica Genocide denier.I think he should be excluded from this article. This is an article about him posted on a Serbian Propaganda website Srpska Mreza.http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/Not-a-genocide.html http://www.jasenovac-info.com/biblioteka/Intervju_Srba_Zivanovic_l.htm

Dr. Milan Bulajic is also a Serb nationalist and a Srebrenica Genocide denier.


--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasenovac, Omarska and the Serb Voluntary Guard Cabal in Wikipedia

Interesting.

Jasenovac is classified and described as a “concentration and extermination camp”, while Omarska is described simply as a “notorious war prison”? Other descriptions of Bosnian Serb concentration camps do the same: “was a detention camp”, “also referred to as prison”, etc.

Com on, people. Both Omarska and Jasenovac were concentration camps. Both had the same intentions.

Discuss before reverting

I think people need to remember to discuss changes before going to an administrator and complaining or simply reverting. This article has been regularly edited but no one has discussed on the talk page for almost three weeks now. Instead of falling into the cycle of reverting that will get this article protected, perhaps those interested in the shape and direction should come to the talk page and actually collaborate with each other. AniMate 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will agree that it is not possible to make massive rewriting of controversial article without discussion ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes are reviewed by several other editors - who made some corrections, too - (Tabletop, Don Luca Brazzi, Nikola Smolenski, A. Molnar, 205.174.252.26) which did not have any objections to the style, references, Wikipedia rules, etc.
    Rjecina's reverting Reason: Massive rewriting without discussion, writing of personal thinking, statements are not supported by sources which are speaking different, editorial style as given is utterly false
    - no massive rewriting is visible
    - all statements are supported by valid scholar references
    - editorial style is ok
    I would qualify Rjecina's revert as vandalism due to the fact that she removed references supporting some statements that were tagged by [citation needed] previously, as uncivilty - for attacking the anonymous editor baselessly--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If adding 24,000 bytes to article is not massive rewriting can you please tell me another name for 100 % article enlargement ?
I am sure that there we will not agree but user Vontrotta August version is established version of article because it is having only small changes from older versions which have survived 11 months.
Now in September-October 2008 we are having 2 SPA accounts which are saying:"Established version is not OK" ???? If established version of controversial article is not OK, then you need to start discussion on talk page and not massive rewriting and then discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For users which are interested about editorial style my proposition is to read article Belzec extermination camp. Using this article like source it is very ease to write Jasenovac article with OK editorial style which nobody can protest--Rjecina (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rjecina keeps baselessly disqualifying a good work of an anonymous editor - added text just complements previous version of this article. The additions are strongly supported by valid references. Also, the anonymous editor added some valuable references supporting the existing text i.e. eliminated some [citation needed]s. Another Rjecina's nonsense are 'SPA' accounts - used by her to harass other editors. User Rjecina is warned to avoid vandalizing this article again.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we look Wikipedia policy account Rjecina, Don Luca Brazzi and 79.176.224.2 are SPA accounts. Only difference is that first is protecting established version of controversial articles and other 2 are changing this version without discussion
I am calling RFC for this and article Magnum Crimen--Rjecina (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment about Jasenovac extermination camp

I will write "only" 3 problems in anonymous editor changes:

It is not possible to make massive rewriting of controversial article without discussion on talk page.

New version of article is not in line with the manual of style .

Must of new sources are not Wikipedia:Reliable source. We are even having confirmed genocide deniers like source of statements (Bulajić) ??--Rjecina (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go reverting anyone's edits here to my preferred version but I have had this page watchlisted for quite a while and I would like to offer my opinion on Rjecina's concerns.
1. It is not possible to make massive rewriting of controversial article without discussion on talk page.
  • Although it is greatly preferred that changes to an article, especially a controversial one, are discussed prior to a major re-write, it is most definitely not an absolute requirement. Per WP:BOLD: On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles.
2. New version of article is not in line with the manual of style.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a guideline, not a policy. As a whole, I don't see any flagrantly obvious differences in style between the new set of edits and the previous version of the article that would warrant the blanket removal of all new material. Perhaps there should be a more specific listing of perceived differences in style for any particular edit and, if the newly added material is found to be satisfactory, I don't see it as too difficult a task to convert the style and tone of the article to stay the same with the new information not being removed.
3. Must of new sources are not Wikipedia:Reliable source. We are even having confirmed genocide deniers like source of statements (Bulajić) ??
  • Again, I see this as an improperly applied blanket statement. While some of the sources may not conform to WP:RS, it does not justify the removal of the rest of the sources that do conform to WP:RS. If you believe Bulajić's work is unreliable, then remove or revert that part of the article that cites him, don't remove properly and reliably sourced edits such as this one which credits Israel Gutman and his work on the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.
Edits by 79.176.224.2 (talk · contribs) added a lot of new material to the article. But I wouldn't really call the effort a "massive re-write" because the material was added incrementally over a period of two weeks, it was always sourced and the edits removed nothing that was there or added anything new that's being challenged factually. Which brings me to my conclusion: Is anything here really being challenged as historically inaccurate or as a poorly sourced attempt at POV pushing or are the edits of the IP editor being completely discredited on a technicality that he didn't discuss his edits prior to making them? A few weeks ago, this article was teeming with citation needed tags. Citations were added and now they're being removed to be replaced with those same tags; I disagree that this is in the best interest of the article. Let's try to assume good faith here that the IP editor read this article, saw the many citation needed tags and took it upon himself to verify the claims made and provide the citations that were requested with those tags. As far as I'm concerned, the IP editor made a WP:BOLD set of edits that significantly improved the article and filled in quite a few gaps. His edits are a net positive for the article and, therefore, should stay and be further expanded and improved. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholeheartedly agree with SWik78's remarks. The IP's edits were a plus for the article and should not have been reverted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment is not necessary - blatant vandalism reverted.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it wasn't blatant vandalism. Personally, I agree with Swik78 and Alasdair. However, we don't go around calling every edit we disagree with vandalism, something you seem to do almost as frequently as Rjecina accuses someone of being a sock of a banned user. AniMate 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it was. Complete removal of huge sections of someone serious work based on an arbitrary pretext, then removal of references supporting the existing text - is an act of vandalism. Moreover, any removal of the sections must come after a discussion approving it - not before the discussion. There were five other editors who read the whole text and did not find any reason justifying Rjecina's removals.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By all means continue throwing the word vandalism around and he'll feel completely justified throwing the word sockpuppet around. Seriously, we are all (for lack of a better word) coworkers on this project, and one of the best ways to ensure a nontoxic environment is to stop using toxic language... or we can continue bicker and call each other names. AniMate 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see this "good" additions to article:
Sources:
Djuro Schwartz,"in the death camps of Jasenovac" is used like source 6 times. Google question about this book is giving 0 hits [1]
Cadik Danon, "The smell of human flesh" is used like source 4 times and google is giving only 2 hits [2]. Only place where it is possible to read this book is www.srpska-mreza.com
Avro Manhattan is used 4 times.
For the end can somebody please tell me why articles about Croatian war crimes must be "better" of articles about Nazi war crimes. In my thinking this is only possible reason why for example this version of Jasenovac article is having section "Living conditions". Everybody know that in Nazi Holocaust Extermination camps there has been quality food and best room service, but this Croats .....
Editorial Style
Then for other example I will use word slaughter. In this article it is used 9 times. In all 6 articles about Holocaust extermination camp it is used 0 times.
POV pushing
Then for last example I will use section of article Number of victims. Because in my thinking editor has not been happy with "low" victims numbers given by different Croatian, Serbian and international institutions he has used words:"The memorial puts estimations at minimum 85,000, and up to 100,000 or so. Former director, Simo Brdar, puts it at a minimal 360,000" Simo Brdar personal thinking is not for article or if nothing else it must take very small not important place in article like any other other similar fringe theory.
I will continue to "attack" this "good" "NPOV" version of article on saturday (not even close to ending my comments).--Rjecina (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't like the sources. We know. You don't like victim's statements being used as sources. We know. What sources do you like? What sources have you actually brought in for people to evaluate? You've been so busy complaining about everything that you haven't brought anything positive to the table in months. I know this is going to be hard, but instead of saying "I don't like..." try saying "I have this..." to back up your endless, repetitive complaining. AniMate 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Recognition of nations and foundation the the horrors of Jasenovac" is essay.
During last 2 days only comment has been about sources ???
All in all this version of article is writen against: Wikipedia:POV pushing, Wikipedia:Essay, Wikipedia:Reliable source, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:NPOV....
Animate I have writen my comments earlier. Editorial style of article must be similar to: Chelmno extermination camp, Auschwitz concentration camp , Belzec extermination camp , Majdanek , Sobibor extermination camp , Treblinka extermination camp. Please don't tell me that "our" article is better of others because all persons for Balkan are knowing that when our primeminister is speaking that our new laws will be better of European laws we are .....
I am waiting to hear comments about my criticism of this version of article. Can somebody please defeat my arguments ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, as an environment driven by collaboration and consensus, is not improved by attempting to "deafeat" each other's arguments; we're supposed to work together, not against each other.
If you would like my opinion on your arguments, here's what I can say without overly repeating what I said earlier:
  • The editorial style does not have to be similar to the other articles on related topics, it only needs to be consistent throughout this article. Basically, as long as the beginning, middle and the end of this article are written in a consistent style and tone, those other articles are not of much significance when it comes to MoS.
  • You should give some specific examples of edits that you think violate each of those policies/guidelines you listed above. It's hard for anyone to agree with a blanket statement like "the article violates policies 1,2,3,4,5..." without presenting us with a clear example of which edit actually violates which policy.
Don't get me wrong, I most definitely agree that the recent set of edits needs improvement and cleanup but deleting everything of value in order to fix the perceived issues does more harm than good. You're suggesting using an axe where we need to use a scalpel. As of right now, the article has about the same amount of problems that it did about a month ago but it has much more solid material which can be improved, something we didn't have last month. It's here, let's work with it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my 9 October edit with examples. This was Good faith mistake !?
Only real work of that "good" IP editor has been creation of new section which are all against editorial style used in articles about other extermination camps. I will be happy if everybody involved in discussion will read articles about other extermination camps so that we all can have discussion about editorial style--Rjecina (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that you're not accusing me of not assuming good faith with that question. Although I may disagree with you, I am assuming utmost good faith good faith from you and I'm not accusing you of anything.
If Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the crux of the issue here, the respective guideline says nothing about consistency of style across articles; they do not all have to look and read the same. If, as you mention in your October 9 comment, the only MoS issue you have with the new edits is the repetition of the word "slaughter", go ahead and remove some instances of it where you believe a different word should suffice.
Simo Brdar's estimate is mentioned only once and briefly so it actually does "take very small not important place in article" as you suggest that it should. There is no further elaboration on it nor is there any undue significance attributed to it. USHMM, in its Jasenovac article, specifically states that "Determining the number of victims for ... Jasenovac is highly problematic due to ...", therefore all we have ever had is estimates. Brdar's number is again just that - an estimate from a close source, no more significant (in all reality, probably much less significant) than the rest but an estimate nontheless when we lack an exact count. But still, if you believe it to be incorrect, misleading or unencyclopedic, remove it. For all our discussion here, we will not come up with a solution that can fix this all of this article's problems at once with a wave of a magic wand; let's fix it one broken sentence at a time. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about section "Living conditions" which is very, very misleading ?
This section is OK if Victims in german camps has recieved full room service, but if "life" in other extermination camps is similar......--Rjecina (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to appear as though I'm bestowing upon myself a role of an authority figure or a mediator so I'll let others ring in after this comment. But to answer your question, I don't think that the "Living conditions" section's purpose is to unduly present the living conditions of Jasenovac as being worse than those of Auschwitz or Majdanek, I think it's presented fairly and neutrally. If yourself and others disagree then you can feel free to remove it.
I just want to make sure that you understand that anything I've said is explicitly only my opinion and I will not try to attribute more importance to it than the same as what your opinion deserves. I could very well be wrong but that's my take on the situation. I don't have a magic solution for all of the article's problems, I just wanted to offer my comments as to what I think about the new version of the article and how we're better off in trying to improve it from here rather than reverting all of IP editor's changes and improving the article from its early September version.
I think I've said most of what I had to say so I'll let others join the discussion and let their opinions be heard as well. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am here pursuant to the RFC. I have no specific knowledge of Jasenovac although I have some reasonable knowledge of WW2 and Nazi death camps.

First off, the spelling, diction, and sentence structure is not adequate. Since I wanted to be helpful, instead of criticizing the English, I'll get started on a copy-edit, at least for the more obvious errors.

Clearly this is an important and valuable article. However, there is a slight problem with approach. A history article must be written as a dispassionate statement of facts. Words like "hideous murder" cannot be allowed. The facts will speak for themselves. It seems that one or more contributors have an emotional investment in some of the occurrences; this is understandable, since both national pride and the utter inhumanity that occurred in Nazi-occupied areas; however, articles must still be written using facts and well-respected commentary, not personal diatribe.

However, respected sources can be quoted if some inflammatory rhetoric is appropriate. Thus, it would be proper to put a limited amount of quoted sources, who might say something like:

Jason Brxazletttz, a noted historian of Nazi concentration camps, called these acts "among the most brutal and inhumane acts committed in Nazi death camps". (reference)

I do want to say this: There seems to be quite a bit of trouble about some of these articles concerning former Yugoslavia, especially Croatia and Serbia. Please remember that these articles are not essays. Apollo (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is not cool, Rjecina. I don't know to which RfC you're referring when you say that it's "clearly going that way" but this RfC right here does not have a single person yet agreeing with you that the edits by the anonymous IP should be reverted en masse. I completely understand that you firmly believe that you've put forth the only valid argument and that your opinion, therefore, trumps everyone else's but that's not how it works. Whether you agree with the opinions expressed here or the process by which we arrived here is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that every one of the editors who has participated in this RfC has agreed that the IP's edits should not be indiscriminately deleted rather that the article should be improved from its current state by fixing one issue at a time. What I think is very uncouth from you is not only that you reverted the article to your own preferred version but that you made that revert citing this talk page as an authority that agrees with you on some sort of a fundamental level when it's anything but. If you're gonna edit war, then go ahead and edit war without wasting our time by asking us for comments on an issue and then completely ridiculing and ignoring what we say. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else we all are having agreement that article is having multiple problems ?
Because of that I have added tags. For all added tags there is reason. It will be nice to anybody who will delete any of tags to write on talk page why, so that we can have discussion about why this tag is in article.--Rjecina (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the veracity of the article, I first wish to say that no edits were done as any sort of propaganda, or to support individual viewpoints, but to present the truth of Jasenovac, whilst relaying on reliable sources, and not on nationalistic propaganda. As for sources, "Djuro Schwartz, in the Jasenovac camps of death", is a witness testimony mentioned in a Yad-Va-Shem brochure, and it was not recovered in google search because it is translated to hebrew (as I mentioned in the first mention of the title) as "ג'ורו שווארץ, במחנות המוות של יאסנובאץ". Avro manhatten's book, as well as that of Admund Paris are considered reliable only for witness testimonies mentioned in direct, or for information that appears on other, more reliable, sources. The state-commission is to be considered generally reliable. As for, "forensic sources"- That paragraph is intended to refute the exagerrated claims of the forensic specialist, who estimated the overly great figure of some "700-800,000" victims.
As for living conditions, these are intended to specify the conditions that Jasenovac inmates had to adapt to, as did all other holocaust victims and camp inmates (including my own kin, so know I wish not to present the conditions as alledgly "rougher" than in other locations). In fact, food conditions in Jasenovac were in many times better than usuall in other camps, whilst the conditions of water supply and accomodations were worst than usual. As for the estimation of Simo Brdar and alike: that section shows the "proper" figures found in lists of victim names, and as these lists are obviously partial, to add the estimations that the lists' managers believe to be the true figures, based on those lists.
The general section presents several arguments that indeed show the rate of death and murder in Jasenovac. It is logical to suggest, even in an encyclopedian article, that a camp which existed for 4 years, in which systematic extermination of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and others took place on a area of 210 km, full of camps and mass-graves. One more thing: Jasenovac was an extermination camp (to differ from a simple concentration camp). 79.181.45.28 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is 1 small problem with witness testimonies: They are never accepted Encyclopedia style of articles. If somebody will be good enough to show us witness testimonies in articles about German extermination camps nobody will protest witness testimonies in Croatian extermination camp. Similar with this is situation with wikipedia users which are adding witness testimonies and writing about way of killings in Jasenovac. If they will start edit warring in all articles about extermination camps I and many others will believe that they are making good faith mistake, but if they are edit warring only in Ustaše related articles we are having many questions about users motives...--Rjecina (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step

Rather than spending time arguing about "big" issues, why not break it down into smaller steps? This will make it easier for both proponents of change and those that may have concerns. For an occasional visitor like myself, who just wants to see things clearly organized and presented, it becomes impossible to make a meaningful contribution when too many changes are presented at once.

Let's take victim testimony, for example. If it is properly cited, meets the notability criteria and is included in the appropriate section of the article, I think it can be useful. So my suggestion to Animate and the other proposers of change is to break it into pieces that can be easily reviewed on their own, and give us a little time before assuming that additions are agreed. With a little patience and extra effort on everyone's part, I think we can continue to improve this article.

As I have often said to my younger colleagues, it is easy to find problems, but it is much more satisfying to find solutions. Vontrotta (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I made several changes to the organization, without significant changes to the text. The intent is to simplify and unify the article essentially into three sections which I would describe as before, during and after. I will wait for comment before making further changes.Vontrotta (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have been speaking earlier my only demand is that this article is writen in style similar to articles about Nazi extermination styles. If this article is having different style, then we are having double standards..
Using this argument can you please explain me why Jasenovac article must have victim testimony and others are without that ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, but I can't answer it. I only copyedit one article at a time and look at any material included in a section based on my understanding of wiki standards. When I look at victim testimony in this article, the criteria that I would consider important is "notability" and substantiation. I have not reached that point yet, because I wanted to address the overall organization of the article, which I thought was confused. If there is consensus regarding the organizational changes, then I will look at additional copyediting on a section by section basis. I don't want to prejudge whether or not any particular victim testimony should be included until I get to the particular statement, and then would make the edit based on my understanding of wiki criteria. My hope is that by taking this step by step approach, we can narrow any issues so they can be agreed based on wiki standards.Vontrotta (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I staying with my comments that earlier version of article edited by you (this was my revert to your version) is not having editorial style like similar articles, but it is much better of this. It is possible to see that nobody has attacked with real wiki arguments, my comments about new version writen by 1 IP editor and 1 new edit warring SPA account (I do not know number of articles which are protected because of this account). If my thinking is wrong can somebody please explain my mistake with real arguments ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Testimony is simply unacceptable evidence. The same has applied with articles related to the recent wars as well.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutality and propaganda

The fact remains that catholic priests and nuns often were supporting the Ustasa movement. Books about this can be hard to get, but if you look up this movement you see that there were catholic priests involved with the murders. I am not pro or against anything, I'm just saying, catholic orphanages did take in children f.e. This is not propaganda against catholicism.

And just because the article is also about the murders in jasenovac it doesnt mean its not neutral. It's FACTS that they did cut the throats of babies, pushed mothers and father alive from cliffs into the water so they drowned, they cut out people's eyes (this was their favourite method besides throat-cutting), they thre babies up in the air and held up their bayonets so the babies landed on the blades and died, they hit people with hammers and threw them alive into a fire, they collected babies in big bags and threw into bonfires, they CRUCIFIED live men and boys, they even killed people with sledgehammers and stones. They even put rats under buckets on people's skin and torched the bucket so the rat dug itself out through the skin of the prisoner.

These are all FACTS, but it's hard to write it and make it look neutral, because most people read it and dont like it. How can we make this neutral? Because what makes jasenovac famous was these killings and tortures, if this had not happened, jasenovac would have been like any other WWII-camp. Jasenovac is INFAMOUS for the brutality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.97.172 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living conditions

I edited the section "living conditions", so that it would describe the conditions that Jasenovac inmates had to handle. Now that it is complete I hope that it would appear more proper to others. The idea is not the show any unique feature of Jasenovac, but to specify the conditions in this specific camp, a part of the system of concentration camps in Nazi occupation areas and influence zones. The part of "anxiety" might appear as slightly exgrated, but I believe it is indeed essential. Anyhow, it proved fine to the hebrew wikipedia standarts. The mentality is an important factor in a concentration camp, nonetheless important than the "phyisical" hardships. Now I would also suggest that the tagging be revised, now that the section is in its complete form. 79.177.245.41 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overtagging

Partly in reply to the IP editor in the section above, and partly to open up a section to listen to others' views on this, I agree that the article is horribly overtagged. While a few of them are justified, most are not; the person adding them has gone down the list of available tags trying to dream up any and every tag that he might get away with applying in an attempt to discredit this article. I won't charge around removing any, though, as we need to discuss this. What are your thoughts? Please enter them below. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support your point of view entirely. There is only one person who is adamantly putting tags without any rational explanation. That's the reason to remove these tags as long as we see that only one person is inserting them.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AlasdairGreen27 your comment is bordering with incivility. On wikipedia personal attacks are not accepted. Right way to question tags is:"In my thinking this articles is having too many tags. I am interested to hear comments of wiki community".
When I read article about Jasenovac on Britannica or USHMM and this on wiki my only comment is: Wikipedia version is writen in horrible non encyclopedic POV pushing style. In my thinking users which is thinking that this version if OK must ask themself if they are right and all others encyclopedia are wrong, or they are wrong and all others encyclopedia are right.
In this discussion I do not see any question, but only fishing in dark. If in somebody thinking 1 or more of tags is not OK he need to say: This tag is not OK, so that other users can understand and discuss problem.--Rjecina (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, no, my remarks were couched in terms of excruciating civility. I chose my words most carefully. If you would like to confine your comments to the matter at hand then that would be much appreciated. If, on the other hand, you would prefer to unnecessarily haul everything to AN/I, as is your wont, then you may do so. You, having so much to be modest about, would make arrogance a virtue. Most odd. Other editors, I suppose, will prefer to comment on the matter in question. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am late because of other things, but if it is not possible to see difference between encyclopedia style article and this I do not know what to say [3]. I am very interesting to hear what is wrong with that version of article which I have added and deleted ?
About tags I am seeing criticism but never comments which tag is not needed and why. On other side we are having on this talk page comments of different users which are saying that article is having multiple problems ??--Rjecina (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you praise your own point of view very much - which is not a valid answer to only comment is: Wikipedia version is writen in horrible non encyclopedic POV pushing style. Regarding 'which tag is (not) needed' - the burden of proof is on you - because you are insisting on those tags.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Rjecina, let me give you just a couple of examples.

  • coatrack - no idea what you mean here. Obviously not true.
  • unbalanced - no idea what you mean here.

Let's start with those and then move onto others? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack tag has been given by me to 2 sections (living conditions and another). Definition of Coatrack is:"The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful"
Unbalanced is connected with that.
Point about coatrack is that section living conditions is for article Extermination camps not for Jasenovac, or any other camp. All writen in this section about Jasenovac is copy of conditions in any other extermination camp.Food is similar, accommodations are similar, forced labor is similar, sanitation is similar, lack of personnal possesions is similar, anxiety is similar. Only difference is general lack of potable water. If this is not coatrack what it is ?
I am 100 % sure that this section can recieve tag essay because it is writen like essay.--Rjecina (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, sorry, but I don't happen to agree with you. If any other editors come forward to agree with you in the next few days, then that's fine, the tags can stay. If nobody comes forward to say that, well, the tags have to go, frankly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support AlasdairGreen27 disagreement with Rjecina. Saying 'All writen in this section about Jasenovac is copy of conditions in any other extermination camp' is an arbitrary attempt to disqualify numerous testimonies seen in the references provided in the article by other contributors.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is exceptionally well sourced, especially when we take into consideration the relative obscurity of the subject matter. Tags are clearly misused here, someone's POV almost certainly entered the equation at one point... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my thinking we all are too much involved in this. We are needing fresh mind/thinking of users which are not knowing anything about Jasenovac and Ustaše crimes.--Rjecina (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the end I must recognize that November changes of users 79.177.245.41 and 79.181.45.28 has made article much better of what it has been in October during last RFC. During heat of debate (reverts) I have not noticed that ..... Sorry--Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony issue

This article has entered a black hole of POV sourcing and of considering testimony as fact, which certain users are overlooking because of their own interests. Whatever, the case, the quality of this article has gone to nothing because of the following:

  1. Using extremist (anti-Catholic, anti-American, etc.) websites. "Reformation" and "Emperor's New Clothes" are the two main ones I see from a quick scan. Emperor's New Clothese is certainly an extremist website. It's even affiliated with the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic. Certainly not a source which can be taken seriously on an academic level.
  2. Unqualified "experts" on the subject. Carl Savich is not a distinguished historian, if a historian at all. He has no post-graduate degree in history and his studies are largely published in marginal Serb diaspora publications. As for Milan Bulajic, I believe I recall seeing one of his books in my library printed with the support of the Serbian Radical Party. Such extremist connections (if I can verify them) are very damaging. Bulajic is in turn the president of the Fund for Genocide Research which has published many of the more inflammatory accounts.
  3. Testimony. Testimony cannot be taken as fact. This is clear. I can find testimony from camp guards who attest to their good treatment of prisoners. Who's right? That's for reputable historians, commissions, governments, etc. to figure out.

Proposed remedy: Remove the most blatantly unreliable info as described above, and divide the page into what is certain, and what individuals claim to have happened. If editors are operating in good faith, they will agree to such changes.--Thewanderer (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All testimonies given by many Jasenovac concentration camp survivors are widely accepted as facts. "Reformation" and "Emperor's New Clothes" are not extremist web sites, no matter what might be your opinion here. Disqualifications of Bulajic could be seen no more than a bad talk about this man.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of testimonies is not ideal, but it is the best source related to such contemporary subjects, as you stated. You were too quick to call out with nationalistic viewpoints. As the one who has written and citated most of the material, I can promise you it holds no viewpoints, and I carefully picked my sources with the uttermost care. Indeed, "emperor clothes" and "reformation" are by themselves contemporary, but I mearly pointed location where eye-witness accounts are quoted. I found Carl Savic also to be reliable, but also, he is stated in relation to witness testimonies mentioned therein. All testimonies of gaurds consist of confessions to a certain degree. The only exception is Dinko Sakic (Nomen Memoriaque Morior)Sakic proudly addmitted his membership of the Ustase and his tenture in Jasenovac and Stara-Gradiska, and yet denied the fact that atrocities and maltreatment occured there. He mocked the witnesses and got the acute response of the court (During the testimony of Jakov Finci). When it was clear that evidence against him were solid, he suddenly addmitted of several crimes taking place, but casted the responsibility upon an Ustase Mile Sudar. He protected the "honor" of figures and institutions that are proven as malicious: Ante Pavelic, The Ustase organisation and even Maks Luburic! (N.M.M) This shows the exact weight of such testimonies, if you happen to find one or two of them that would contray the 100-odd witness testimonies. I found many reliable details at the writings of Milan Bulaijc, in spite of him clearly acute nationlistic views. Nevertheless regarding the "state-commission of Croatia", that is confirmed by any other witness testimony that exists, to the letter. I also feel I should protest against the vulgar accusations made against the respectable work of Dr. Menachem Shelach, who was claimed to be an antagonist of Croats. Menachem Shelach is of the most prominent of Jewish holocaust researchers in Yad Va-Shem. His book, "The history of the holocaust: Yugoslavia", is prefectly citated, and he actually takes steps to defy the viewpoints of contemporary researchers alike Avro Manhatten, Edmund Paris and alike. He has citated various documents and testimonies to prove the aid of the catholic church, the red-cross, the Italians and of simple Croats, who opposed the regime. I actually found him to be, in times, slightly soft in attitude towards people alike Stepinac or Julius Schmidllin, although his research has shed some light on the subject. Having said that, denial of a witness testimony is holocaust revision at it's uttermost pure form, for what source have you that is better, giving the circumstances of this particular subject? 79.178.42.238 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanderer, I take most of your points as correct, except that I'm not sure you are entirely right about Savich. It would appear that he does indeed have a post grad qualification in history - see here, although that is obviously a pro-Serb website, so I'd like to see independent verification of that profile. Meanwhile, regarding Bulajić, I've seen him scurrilously attacked around here on a number of occasions as "a genocide denier", as he took issue with the ICTY, being of the opinion that Srebrenica was too small scale to amount to genocide. A view I have some sympathy with, as Srebrenica was barbaric, appalling, ruthless, bloodthirsty, cruel, savage, merciless and inhumane, but probably not of sufficiently large scale to be termed "genocide", at least not in line with any definition of genocide that I am familiar with. Anyway, he is widely identified with pro-Serbian analysis so I would say yes, it is as you say it is - Savich and Bulajić are not, shall we say, impartial regarding these matters. If we are looking for reliable sources, Savich and Bulajić are just too controversial; if they are sufficiently generally perceived as partisan, then it matters little whether they are or not from any kind or encyclopedic perspective.
Analysis: This article, and others, notably Ustaše, are plagued by people who think that Wikipedia is the Historical Complaints Department, people who have no concept of what the basic elements of a good encyclopedia must be, and downright POV-driven fanatics determined to fight for their side.
Proposed remedy, to be applied to this and other articles (such as Ustaše): We must pursue quality, or the sorry edit wars will carry on ad infinitum. We must start by removing all the unsourced stuff. All of it. That can be deleted straight away. If it leaves parts of the article with holes in for a while, that does not matter. Next, we should also identify and delete the stuff that is solely sourced from unreliable or non-impartial sources. So if, for example, someone like Savich is too closely associated with, shall we say, "one perspective", then we should find a more reliable source for the information; if none can be found, then that poorly sourced stuff should go. So we start rebuilding the article from a sound base of well-sourced, well-documented material. Next, the language of the article is very POV in places, screamingly so, at times. Is this really an encyclopedia? Or perhaps just an airport novel? Check this out: "Therefore, the "Maks" Luburic devised a plan to utilize the crane as a gallow on which slaughter would be committed, so that the bodies could be dumped into the stream of the flowing river. In the autumn, the Ustase NCO's came in every night for some 20 days, with lists of names of people who were incarcerated in the warehouse, stripped, chained, beaten and than taken to the "Granik", where ballasts were tied to the wire that was bent on their arms, and their intestines and neck were slashed, and they were thrown into the river with a blow of a blunt tool in the head. The method was later enhanced, so that inmates were tied in pairs, back to back, their bellies were cut ere they were tossed into the river alive.
WTF kind of airport trash is that?? So, yes, I'm sure a major linguistic clean up is also necessary. I am willing to do it, but we'll need consensus or it'll just get reverted by the numerous IP editors that hang around these parts. If such an approach is supported by other editors, please let me know, as we'll need to go forward together. I am perfectly willing to implement it myself, but on the basis of agreement here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wanderer, Al. The way I see it, we shouldn't rush into any kind of mass text removal. Instead I propose that, if we're gonna do this right, we move section by section carefully weeding out the bull. Here's my view on Wanderers analysis:

  • Concerning Savich and Bulajić. They both have "radical connections" and are not strictly NPOV, however they are also both published professional historians. Because of this I would not simply strike everything of theirs from the article, but would take care of them in two steps: Step 1. We examine their claims in this article, i.e. the text supported by their source, and proceed to remove the more "extreme" claims. Step 2. We specifically name them in the article as the source for that text which remains after step 1. ("According to Serbian historian Bulajić,... etc.")
  • Concerning testimony. Unfortunately there are very few sources that would depict camp conditions other than eyewitness testimonies. They are not perfect, yes, but they're the best we can do, and I believe they are used in other concentration camp articles as well. Thewanderer, if you actually have those guards' testimonies, by all means bring them up as well (at least here on the talkpage). At most, a review of the more extreme claims may be warranted.

All in all, I'm for a more thorough examination of the disputed parts of the text. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the citations of witness testimonies are not intended to prove the point of a specific viewpoint. The idea is to use what might be the only reliable source related to this subject. I do not find the article to be biased, exaggerated or alike. The sources alike Bulajic, Savic, Jared Israel (in emperor clothes) are somewhat contemporary, yet they include reliable facts. Nevertheless, they are only mentioned in relation to testimonies mentioned therein.79.178.42.238 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the talk section was misleading. This is not a case of "Testimony vs. Fact", more like "Testimony vs. Nothing". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Testimony is useful if it can be verified. That is, if multiple people testify the same accounts, they can be considered accurate. In most cases in this article, an interview with one person is taken as exact fact. Would that apply to an article about the Bosnian War? Methinks not. Verifiability is not debatable. No other article about a WWII concentration camp resorts to using communist commissions (which nearly doubled the casualty rate from the war), nationalists (often admittedly so, or by association), individual testimonies, and extremist websites (with a list here of Emperor's Clothes's great "contemporary impartiality" in Balkan matters).--Thewanderer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me is hard to believe that genocide deniers Milan Bulajić [4] [5] and Jared Israel [6] can be used like source for any question about Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs ?
To make things about Jared Israel even better he has worked for defense of Slobodan Milošević:
" I have also done research work for Mr. Milosevic's defense case this spring at Mr. Milosevic's personal request." [7]
and he has created International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević ( http://www.icdsm.info/ )[8]--Rjecina (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned the article and found that nearly all substantial facts are not supported by a single testimony, but at least by two. "Emperor clothes" and quotes of Milan Bulaijc are not reliable sources on their own, but are mearly used as supportive sources to establish facts mentioned in various testimonies, or to show the reader some of the text of a witness testimony mentioned therein. Nevertheless, the very inreliability of these sources proves that, when dealing with such contemporary subjects, witness testimonies remain, alas, the only source that is reliable. I tried to supply first-hand recolections and confirmation testimonies, to improve the already disputed weight of such a source, so that it could be taken into account as an historical fact. I even screened testimonies or parts of such, that appeared unreliable, like a few "confessions" of accused Ustasas, and the statements of some inmates who aided the Ustasa, and were racists. what more seek you? name it, and it will be in the article soon enough. 82.81.123.45 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims

The lis as given is far from complete. Ustashe did not leave any bookkeeping evidence nor it was done by anyone. What makes sense - are just estimates of those who had (more or less) direct insight into this tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.132.140 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victims

Because I have seen many Serbian NPOV sources about victims my thinking has been to add famous croatian "historian" Franjo Tuđman and his thinking [9] + thinking of respected croatian historian of jewish origins Ivo Goldstein, but I do not see point.

In section Estimates by Holocaust institutions respected holocaust historian Menachem Shelach which "deathly hates the Croats" is having 10 lines. For me he is only dead holocaust historian, but for this article he is Holocaust institution !?

Then we are having Srboljub Živanović and his "Forensic sources". Our source (link) is saying that Živanović is claiming that in every mass grave there is 800 skeletons, but in 7 mass graves which Živanović has discovered there is "only":197, 48, 2, 8, -, 26, 3.

Then we are having numbers given by Jasenovac Research Institute, genocide denier Bulajić (which is CEO or something similar of JRI) and Vladimir Dedijer.

I will not edit, revert or anything similar because I am afraid of reaction

Nice NPOV work :)--Rjecina (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Tudjman is as unreliable as Milan Bulaijc or Srboljub Zivanovic, if not more. Not only is he an establised holocaust revisionist and pronounced anti-semitic, but he is also accused of financial corruption, racism and war-crimes. He is a nationalist, even boardering pro-fascist. His underestimated figures of the number of victims in Jasenovac and the NDH has been proved as utterly understated, and respected press, institutions and nations openly criticized him.
Menachem Shelach, however, is a highly respected holocaust researcher. I refuse to agree with any account that refers to him as a hater of Croats. In his book there are various accounts of Croats that complained of the Ustase atrocities. He goes against the widely-accepted "Serbian" opinion of the responsibilty of the Vatican to the atrocities. He shows Alojize Stepinac as a "Rightous amongst nations", and insists that the Italian fascists had pity for the Jews. He also wrote on the aid of the Red-cross to the Jews. Besides, the books mentioned are not written seldomn by Shleach: we must also mention Josef Lewinger and Israel Gutman. 79.182.18.84 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Franjo Tuđman, but this has been only example :)
Something has happened with Menachem Shelach thinking about Croats during his last years. He will declare in interview published by Israeli weekly Hotam (December 30, 1994), that he deathly hates the Croats (in Hebrew: sin 'at mavet) ???
Maybe he has started to believe in Serbia state propaganda (1988 or 89-95) against Croatia ??--Rjecina (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of Shelach's personal opinion of "Deathly hate of Croats"(שנאת-מוות לקרואטים, Sin'at mavet le'Kroatim), but it does not reflect in his books. But I find almost no problems with Shelach's account. Keep in mind that the quotated verses were viewed by Josef Lewinger and Israel Gutman. Shelach is quoted to illustrate the "larger figures"' in contrary to the minimalistic accounts of "USSM". His second quote is provided as a middle-way approach, which is more reliable. All in all, I think we can all agree that figures of victims in Jasenovac must exceed 100,000 but not 500,000, and surely not 700,000.
As for Srbolijub Zivanovic: his accounts are provided in order to refute his claims, not to approve it. I'll try to make that slightly more notable, and perhaps briefly compare with Franjo Tudjman.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is against wikipedia policy that we comment institution finding, but for sake of discussion my next comment is that nobody is attacking numbers of Yad Vashem and because of that this section is using double standards. We can write criticism of both numbers or not to write anything.
For example I know that USHMM archive is having better data of Yad Vashem, because Republika Srpska has given to USHMM must of archive, data and weapons taken from Jasenovac memorial in Croatia. I will find source for that.--Rjecina (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I have rewriten many statements which are trying to aviod Wikipedia NPOV rules.

My actions has been:

In article it has been writen Yad Vashem thinking about number of victims and then USHMM number. After that clearly NPOV part in section there has been another part which is attacking only USHMM claims. I have removed that POV part on right place.

Then we are having really surprising claim about state-commission's report where editor has started discussion with himself if this report is OK or not ???? (deleted)

About Živanović I have writen what is in our source.

In my thinking there is no need to explain 2 fact tag about attacks on Žerjavić but .... Both attacks are writen without source with only aim to declare his data not reliable. Similar editorial style from USHMM section when user is first writing number of victims which in his thinking is low and then he is attacking this data. This style of editing is against wikipedia policy.

Similar has been latter attack by unnamed "serbian critics". This critics are now having answer in easy confirmed statement about Bosnian census.

I have removed Milan Bulajic, Dedijer and Tuđman from article because nobody of them is reliable. Again it is interesting to notice that in older version we are having criticism of holocaust-revisionist Franjo Tuđman, but not of genocide denier Mladen Bulajić.

All in all article section which are speaking about number of victims have been clearly writen against wikipedia NPOV rules.--Rjecina (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a monologue which does not explain anything. Removing huge portion of text based on poor excuse shall be considered as vandalism. Removal of the Shelach's and Dedijer's works - of the two men who were WWII events witnesses and participants and world-renown historians - is a frivolous and the truth-harming act.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not write false claims on talk page. Shelach is not deleted but removed from section institutions to other place because definition for institution is:
"Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals"
and definition for individuals is:
"As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any specific object in a collection".
Wikipedia definitions are very clear and because Shelach is person he is individual and not institution !
About Dedijer work my only comment is that publisher of his book is not reliable by wikipedia standards--Rjecina (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not have any standards accepted by scholars nor obligatory to scholars. Moreover, this person (Rjecina) removed a lot of text from the article not giving any justification for it. All above 'talk' is a pure nonsense and not even related to the text she removed. --72.75.20.29 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About wikipedia reliable sources my advice is to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you do not agree with my thinking that Dedijer is not reliable source we can ask judgment of administrator about that.--Rjecina (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

Given the ongoing disruption to this article, I've renewed its semiprotection. Please discuss proposed edits - along with the sources that back them up - here on the talk page. Edit-warring on the article will lead to the involved accounts being blocked. Wikipedia's dispute resolution suggestions may also be useful. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the article protection to prevent editing by any non-administrator, following a discussion with User:SWik78 on my talk page. I agree that what looked initially to me like deliberately disruptive IP editing was, in fact, the results of a long-standing content dispute, and that the general consensus has been that the IP edits were beneficial to the article. If the article editors wish to select a previous consensus version of the article, I will be happy to replace the current wrong version with that, as I think an injustice has been done to the anonymous editor's contributions (and my decision to semi-protect has not helped). I offer my sincere apologies to anyone disadvantaged by my previous action, and hope that all editors will engage in good faith on the talk page here to resolve any content issues they feel the article may have. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The trut is - Wikipedia can remove some lies temporarily but they will be back due to the fact that Wikipedia cannot remove liars. Everyone is allowed to edit. The liars are omnipresent - among editors as well ass administrators. I wonder how it was not possible to see Rjecina's lies about other editors (everyone who is against her wishes is someone's puppet), about the text (not from reliable resource, not from reliable author, not neutral etc.). As long as this person (Rjecina) has protectors like EyeSerene and Ricky - this article will contain a lot of nacionalistic garbage. The protection comes always after Rjecina's revert - which is just a clear proof that some administartors are Rjecina's angel guardians.--66.217.132.82 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp&oldid=262582915"