Talk:Brezovica pri Borovnici

Mass graves

A recent edit removed sourced historical information about graves in Brezovica pri Borovnici. If you believe the graves are not in Brezovica pri Borovnici, please explain why. If you believe that the graves deserve a separate article, you are welcome to create one. Doremo (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the map. Closest village to this grave is Pikovnik and Kržišče. Access to this grave is closer from Rakitna as it is from Brezovica. Grave is in forest called Pruh. Better than writing about this things in Brezovica article, you should write about Mass graves in one article. Otherweis we can write only about graves around villages and believe me that there is much more of them, than just this one.--Grabyton (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a map. The Krim Cave Mass Grave is in the southeast part of Brezovica pri Borovnici, and not in Pikovnik, Kržišče, or Rakitna. Doremo (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted material

The following sourced historical material (+ 2 images) was deleted from this article without consensus. I suggest that it be restored:

Brezovica pri Borovnici is the site of a mass grave associated with the Second World War. The Krim Cave Mass Grave (Slovene: Grobišče Krimska jama) lies in the woods south of the settlement. It contains the remains of an unknown number of Slovene civilians from neighboring villages murdered by a battalion of the Partisan Krim Detachment in 1942. Some sources estimate the number of victims to be around 300. On 28 June 1942, Italian forces were transporting a large number of men from the Ljubljana region to internment camps using livestock cars when the train was attacked by Partisan forces near Verd. Over 300 were freed and given the choice to join the Partisans or return home. Those that chose to return home were separated from the rest, murdered as traitors, and thrown into the shaft. The cave was used during the war by the Partisan Ljubo Šercer Battalion to dispose of other victims liquidated by the Partisans. It was investigated by Home Guard forces on 9 September 1942, and again with a journalist and a photographer on 23 March 1945, confirming the presence of human remains in the cave. After the war, the entrance to the cave was dynamited in 1947, and again in September 1948.

Doremo (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I do feel that it would give undue WP:WEIGHT to this small part of the village's history. Describing it so thoroughly shifts the scope from the village to the narrative of "evil Partisans" completely. I also doubt whether the Zaveza could be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards - especially on such a sensitive topic. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is correct that the grave, which received extensive press coverage, is probably more important than the otherwise relatively insignificant village. Perhaps the best solution is an independent article for the grave and a simple mention of it in the village's history. I do not see why the reliability of Zaveza would be questionable; none of its details contradict those in any other sources. Doremo (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that reliability of Zaveza is very unreliable source. Source: Javornik, Mirko. 1944. Črne bukve: o delu komunistične osvobodilne fronte proti slovenskemu narodu, shows that author contained a lot of hatred to one political party, despite the fact that Liberation Front of the Slovene Nation was created by several groups, not just communist party. No matter what, this topic does not belong to this article. It can be mentioned and have a link to other article about mass graves, but certainly not as novel which would represent this village. --Drevoveren (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This objection to the content sounds like WP:JDL. Doremo (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Zaveza is simply a gazzette of a politically profiled society, and not a scolarly source in any way. If the same details were published by other, reliable, sources, then those should be cited instead. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a source has a political profile does not make it unreliable. Many of the contributions to Zaveza are by recognized scholars, and the content is not contradicted by other reliable sources. Doremo (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That fact alone no, but the combined facts that it is highly profiled and not subject to any peer review make its interpretations of history dubious at best. Absence of contradition can simply mean that it is too obscure to be even noted in its field. Its articles should therefore be regarded opinion pieces (even if by experts, although many are not even signed) and avoided for our purpose. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement for peer review for venues of sources (the same criteria cited above would disqualify most Slovenian and other media: Mladina, Finance, etc.). In the concrete case at hand, the article is clearly attributed to Janko Maček, so that is not a relevant issue here either. Doremo (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should be more careful because this issue is contentious and sensitive, so better-quality sources are needed for the summary of events to be accurate and neutral. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The addition of more sources would be very welcome, of course. I don't think it's contentious (in the sense of existing, being located in Brezovica pri Borovnici, and how it was created; this is all very well documented). It is sensitive in that some people wish to avoid the issue for various reasons; however, WP:CENSOR is fairly clear that avoiding a topic in an attempt to conform to social norms (sensitivity) is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Doremo (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as sources are concerned, the deleted paragraph was already better sourced than the rest of the article. However, plenty of additional sources are available, such as a detailed article in Naš časopis (27 Feb. 2012, p. 14, published by the Municipality of Borovnica), a 2012 letter on regulating the site (from the Slovenian Ministry of Labor, Family, and Social Affairs), the 2008 Slovenian government committee report, the 2005 book by the scholars Ferenc and Naglič, etc. These all corroborate the details in the paragraph that already have sources. Doremo (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't advocate avoiding the topic, but putting it in perspective and using quality sources, both lacking here. Using the sources you mentioned now would give the paragraph much more credibility, to begin with. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting that the topic should be censored. However, recent suggestions here and elsewhere to single it out as a topic to avoid, or one that needs extra-special references, would certainly raise this question. The sources already cited can certainly be amplified with additional sources. Adding "perspective" (unless based on sources) would involve original research and/or personal opinion. Doremo (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant the sources already cited are unreliable and should be replaced instead by better ones. Not extra-special, but ones at least resembling professional quality, being careful not to overstate what they corroborate. You found some, so I don't understand where's the problem. Otherwise, yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, this is a common principle. I meant "perspective" as in more info about the place's history, of course based on sources, to avoid undue WP:WEIGHT. The surrounding area has had known historic activity dating back to the pile-dwelling culture ([1] [2]) at least, so implying that this one day in its history is the only one meriting any mention is quite the WP:OR. Therefore I agree that the mass grave should have a separate article and a more modest mention here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The existing sources are not unreliable (in fact, Javornik is remarkably reliable, given the circumstances under which it was created). However, I have no objection to adding additional sources. The grave site is also not an extraordinary claim; it is clearly there and its origin is clearly known and clearly documented. If you agree, I will restore the deleted material and add the additional sources. Doremo (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Further regarding the sources: Javornik's Črne bukve is used as a reliable source by scholars: e.g., Gregor Joseph Kranjc (To Walk with the Devil ; Toronto, 2013), Wayne S. Vucinich (Contemporary Yugoslavia; Stanford, 1969), Jozo Tomasevich (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia; Stanford, 2001), Tamara Griesser-Pečar (Razdvojeni narod; Ljubljana, 2007), Tone Ferenc (Dies irae; Ljubljana, 2002; Prikrito in očem zakrito; Celje, 2005), Božidar Jezernik & ‎Jože Dežman (Struggle for Survival; Ljubljana, 1999), etc. Zaveza is also used as a reliable source by scholars: e.g., Gregor Joseph Kranjc (To Walk with the Devil; Toronto, 2013), Justin Stanovnik & Anton Drobnič (Slovenija v senci; Ljubljana 2008), Mitja Ferenc & Ksenija Kovačec Naglič (Prikrito in očem zakrito; Celje 2005), Jože Rant (Slovenski eksodus leta 1945; Buenos Aires 2008), France Nučič (Zamolčane žrtve; Velike Lašče 1999), Milko Mikola (Dokumenti in pričevanja; Ljubljana 2008), etc., or is mentioned as a resource without any qualifiers about reliability: e.g., Leopoldina Plut-Pregelj & Carole Rogel (The A to Z of Slovenia; Toronto 2010), Jože Dežman et al. (Slovenija: duhovna domovina; Ljubljana 2010), Heinz Fassmann et al. (Kulturen der Differenz; Vienna 2009), Lidija Wagner (Slovenske bibliografije v letu 2000; Ljubljana 2001). They are reliable enough for these scholars and presses, and are reliable enough for Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the addition of other historical information would be very welcome. Information is added gradually to WP by different editors, and so there has been never been an implication that the grave is the only historical event in the village. It is no different from Zabočevo, where there are obviously more structures than one church, and describing the church there is neither undue WP:WEIGHT nor WP:OR. Doremo (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I still object returning such an extensive description, for the reasons stated above. The "extraordinary claim" argument of course doesn't refer to the existence of the mass grave itself, but to interpretation of events. Sorry, but a contemporary source published by political enemies of the side accused here of war crimes cannot be taken at face value, neither can a gazzette of an amateur society that doesn't even try to hide its agenda of counter-revolutionary apologetics. So to be clear, we should replace those sources with better ones, not add the others. No WP:OTHERSTUFF argument will change this, especially not a far more neutral example. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are introducing political prejudices into your argument. The sources have been accepted as reliable and as worth using by established scholars publishing with mainstream presses. There is no need to replace, censor, or blacklist these sources. Doremo (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I also fail to see any "interpretation" in the text. Some Italians were transporting some civilian prisoners, some Partisans attacked a train, some people were murdered, some more people were murdered later, some Home Guard guys photographed it, and then some people dynamited the site after the war. Nobody has written anything interpretive: about what was justified or not, about who was good or evil, or about who should be punished for what. It's just the straight narrative from the sources. Doremo (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What political prejudices? I just find it hard to believe that any mainstream historical publication would cite Črne bukve... or Zaveza as a source at face value (but could be persuaded if you give me some examples). I presented reasons why both should be treated as primarily political propaganda, so we should let more competent people than us finding what's true in there. It is irrelevant if Zaveza authors also publish elsewhere. — Yerpo ^Eh? 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave examples above. Legitimate scholars (Kranjc, Griesser-Pečar, Ferenc, etc.) cite Črne bukve and Zaveza as legitimate sources in legitimate studies, but you've characterized both sources as inherently illegitimate (e.g., Črne bukve in Griesser-Pečar's footnote 137 here and here, and citations in Ferenc here; similar citations for Zaveza are, e.g., Kranjc's footnote 3 here and here (no snippet) and various citations in Ferenc here). The political prejudices lie in a priori rejection of the sources as produced by "political enemies" with "counter-revolutionary apologetics." If you agree that these scholars (Kranjc, Griesser-Pečar, Ferenc, etc.) are "more competent people than us" in their fields, then their use of these sources should also be respected and accepted. Doremo (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You proved your point, thank you. What I still don't understand is why you insist on using these sources when there exist ones that are a level better (i.e. scholarly work by reputable publishers). Shouldn't we strive for the highest possible quality of referencing? Citing Zaveza and Črne bukve adds nothing of value in this case. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this topic. Zaveza and Črne bukve have important documentary value; the former because it includes eyewitness accounts, and the latter because it is a contemporary source. Because many of the other available sources (more recent scholarly work by reputable publishers) also cite them and rely on them to provide unique details that may not otherwise be available, it is important to acknowledge them. As long as they are used for factual data (names, dates, locations, etc.) and not potential subjective ideological content, they are not problematic. Conversely, communist historiography also often contains subjective ideological content, but is equally useful for names, dates, locations, etc. Using all of the sources available gives us the best basis for quality referencing. Doremo (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A speculation in sourced text ("Tiste, ki so se prijavili za povratek domov – menda jih je bilo 12 – so takoj ločili od ostalih in močneje zastražili, saj so jih obsodili za izdajalce. Čeprav do danes za to ni dokaza, se sklepa, da se je njihova pot končala v Krimski jami.") was stated as a fact in the article "Those that chose to return home were separated from the rest, murdered as traitors, and thrown into the shaft" so I tried to adress this. --Sporti (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the source and correcting the information. Doremo (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel that mentioning the train heist episode itself is superfluous, now that its only link with the cave has been removed. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The hypothesis is reasonable, but it is simply a hypothesis. I've removed the two sentences about the train and have reassigned the reference to the following sentence. Doremo (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brezovica pri Borovnici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629011556/http://www.zaveza.si:80/index.php/revija-zaveza/174-zaveza-t-25 to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/revija-zaveza/174-zaveza-t-25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brezovica pri Borovnici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305072909/http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/arhiv-e-novic-nsz/273-junija-1942-kako-se-je-zaelo to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/arhiv-e-novic-nsz/273-junija-1942-kako-se-je-zaelo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)