Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Srbosjek/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tag trolling by Croat nationalists (neutrality etc.)

• • • removed personal insults ***

Let's repeat what we have learned from the above discussion threads, so that everybody understands it:

The knife was described by Dr. Nikola Nikolic, a physician and Jasenovac inmate, who was a colleague of famous psychiatriast Nedo Zec. Nikolić's account was published in Dedijer's Jasenovac book and probably elsewhere (what about Antun Miletić's Jasenovac monography?). So there definitely is at least one reputable source for it, regardless of the veracity of the fact: the knife might be an invention of Yugoslav communist propaganda, but you would have to provide reputable sources saying so (like, for instance, David Irving disputing the authenticity of Hitler's political testament). See also this edit, which sounds very credible to me, it mentions a few more sources.

AFAIK no independent research has been conducted on the German side, if or where this type of knife had been manufactured. But the claim does not seem totally unlikely, since "Grevizo" appears to have manufactured pocket knifes for the Hitlerjugend (see the RfD discussions on the German Wikipedia). Any help in researching this further would be greatly appreciated.

So to sum it up: the description of the knife can be traced to its primary source, Dr. Nikolic, a physician and Jasenovac inmate, who appears to have been respected even by the Ustaša. This is quite unusual for Wikipedia standards as of today: usually tertiary or quinary sources are quoted, and rarely does someone know the original source of a particular statement. But there are secondary and tertiary sources citing Nikolic's findings as well (see the few hits at Google books) so there seems to be some consensus on the knife's existence.

On a side note, this discussion reminds me a bit of the discussion in the German Medjugorje article, with some Croatian nationalists persistently denying reputable sources by means of (poorly conducted) WP:OR. It is also worth noting that Rhun successfully filed a RfD for this article on the German Wikipedia (see the Rfd of January 15, 2007, the article has been repeatedly deleted there). If you want to play Wikipedia on a hard level, try writing this article for the German Wikipedia ;) --El Cazangero (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on the German Wikipedia was deleted after a long, unbiased and constructive discussion. You and other serbian authors were asked to provide citations/translations from the books that you so actively reference, but you refused, and just kept providing more and more and more century old serbian texts using the word srbosjek (which actually is remarkable, considering its allegedly a croatian word) which practically nobody reading the article can ever reliably check. For such a serious issue (holocaust), especially in an international wikipedia, providing only century old, internationally unchecked home brewn texts isnt enough. The serbian-croatian conflict was accompanied by loads of similar propaganda. Just picking some of the WW2 propaganda pieces and presenting them to the international readership as facts without anyone from the international scientific community _ever_ documented such a object, is hard to take serious, especially when you at the same time keep calling other authors names (clerical nationalists). --Rhun (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed the following section from the article:

External Links

• Photos from the Jasenovac museum

• http://www.un.org/icty/transe9/021206ED.htm

See also

• Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat: Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964
• Dave Hunt: Die Frau und das Tier Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft der römischen Kirche © 1994 by Dave Hunt, Herausgegeben von Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon - Das Abschlachten der Serben Chapter, pages 289-301
• The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan Ozark Books 1988 or online
• 44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu by Egon Berger Publisher: Graficki Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb 1966

I think that articles should include only selected and relevant weblinks, and not just any weblink mentioning the subject. If you need to include them, please quote something from these works. Egon Berger's account is already mentioned as a source in the discussion. --El Cazangero (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with you - the references above are contextual references which role is to give the broader highlight of the Srbosjek term. Therefore, I will put it back for not seeing your explanation rational enough. --71.252.83.33 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead, if you must, but please consider the following:

• Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat: Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964

I have ordered this book and will skim it. If it contains any references to the knife, i will add it, with the exact page numbers.

• Dave Hunt: Die Frau und das Tier Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft der römischen Kirche © 1994 by Dave Hunt, Herausgegeben von Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon - Das Abschlachten der Serben Chapter, pages 289-301

What's this book good for in an article about a knife? There are so many works covering the topic of "Abschlachten der Serben" during WW2.

• The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan Ozark Books 1988 or online

This one would be better suited in an article about either the Holocaust or the Vatican. Again, all these sources ultimately quote either Nikolic, Zec or Egon Berger, so what's the point in using them? It only serves to bloat the references list.

• 44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu by Egon Berger Publisher: Graficki Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb 1966

This looks like a very good reference, but do you own it or have you actually read it? If yes, then you can surely write one simple sentence quoting something interesting from the book, and enter it under "references". Why the "see also"? You can put anything under "see also". --El Cazangero (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Photos from the Jasenovac museum

Why not find out the photo source and upload them to commons? There is already a picture of it in the article.

• ICTY transcript

The only thing that looks relevant here ist the mention of the JNA military police finding a "Srbosjek" knife in Pisari in the spring of 1992. But was that an original "srbosjek" from WW2 or was it a modern replica? If it was a modern replica, who made it and where? Are there any contemporary knives similar to "srbosjek" today? --El Cazangero (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• • OK - but why you are removing from See also a reference before reading it? Following your logic - any person can remove anything form the references claimining - 'I did not read it yet'. As to the ICTY transcript - it simply echoes memory on the real srbosjek knife and therefore worthwhile mentioning. As to the rest of references - they are simply contextual ones - helping to better understand the time related to the srbosjek knife existence and use.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider me a bit radical, but I'm very critical of "see also" sections, because they often serve as a cointaner for random associations. They also bloat the article, and I try to keep disputed articles short. If you had checked the sources, it would not have been necessary to include them under "see also", you could have quoted and referenced them in the main text, and no reasonable author would have disputed it. Of course I can't check every source, there's always some potential for error, but if you stick to the rules and keep your facts short (as opposed to hiding them in a cloud of text), those errors can be quickly found and corrected. Sorry for the mistrust, but I wasn't sure about your identity either, and I thought that those sources are either of limited relevance or that they need some additional checking. Plase do not consider it as a sign of disrespect for your research on the article, which I consider valuable. There is always the possibility of using the talk page for pointing to further sources. The talk page is not a "second class citizen", and disclosing a valuable potential source on the talk page is nearly as good as quoting it in the main article. Do not be discouraged by the tactics of some people to maunder around on the talk page, without offering substantial sources or clear explanations. --El Cazangero (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I noticed that you have created your own criteria and then concluded they are not met: ICTY link - you asked several questions which are not answered - after deciding to remove the link. That way you can remove anything - for it is always possible to find questions which are not answered; See also - nobody put under this title NBA finals or Roland Garros - whether the titles under this section are better suitable somewhere else - I did not put them there for reading absolutely all of them before - I simply noticed that some of them were in this article and were removed without discussion. Definitely, a number of contextual references is always welcome - for the reason of shedding a broader light on the subject of this article. If you want to remove something from the article - first check it (read it) as you advised it to me then put a note (the reason for removing or keeping it) here on the talk page before removing it. From my side - I ordered three of the books (Broszat, Nikolic, Berger) - for which I have to wait 4-6 weeks in order to get them. After getting and reading them - I'll put my note here and possibly alter the article.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a middle way

a) As to the Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat - this book shall be in See also due to the fact that all Wikipedia articles that might be referenced as a support to this subject(Ante Pavelic, Independent State of Croatia, Ustashe) are badly damaged and useless.

b) As to the ICTY testimony - it shall be here as an echo of events happened forty or more years ago (measuring from the time of the event described in the testimony)in the same area where people were horrified hearing about this type of knife.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting to see NPOV internet link --Rjecina (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the one http://books.google.com/books?id=c4nuGwAACAAJ&dq=Jasenovacki+logor+smrti. Learn how to use the Google search engine - and contact the library that owns this book or any other book.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this links is very good because it is writen that Srbosjek knife has been used by Chetnik forces to kill Serb communists :))--Rjecina (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Troll-tagging again (neutrality, sources)

I beg you to quote just one reputable source which disputes the knife's existence, for example Franjo Tudjman calling "srbosjek" "an example of the Serbian Jasenovac myth" in his books, or anything else, by a well-known or reputable author, and I will gladly add it to the article myself. The fact that you disagree with the described topic does not empower you to add neutrality tags to the article at will (it took me a while to realise that myself). So if the article is written from a "dominant" POV as found in selected reputable sources, then it is your task to provide selected reputable sources that prove the opposite. When dealing with disputed topics, it helps to keep the article short and to the point. Please avoid playing tricks like trolling with tags, excessive writing (text smokescreens), selective quoting or reference bloating, because it will hunt you down sooner or later. Try to explain things in a way so that everybody can learn by reading the discussion. --El Cazangero (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection.

J.A. Comment asked me to unprotect the article; I've gone ahead and done it, but if anyone has any problems with that, let me know. · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• As to me - whoever inserts tags on the top of this article - is obliged to justify it here. As per explanation above - adding External links and See also.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From 17 May I waiting to see internet links which will show that this knife has existed.
  • Where are this links ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You got many - why not start reading them? Civilty, knowledge, and politeness are mandatory here - which you do not follow at all.

http://books.google.com/books?q=Srbosjek&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Serb+cutter%22&btnG=Search+Books

http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=QbcMAAAAIAAJ&dq=dedijer+jasenovac&q=noz+za+klanje&pgis=1#search

--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I have been saying all along. Ulmost all this books are speaking that Srbosjek knife has been used by Chetnik forces to kill Serb communists. Only 1 is speaking that knife has been used by Ustaše.--Rjecina (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are telling that books are speaking about Ustaše crimes. Sorry but books shown here are not speaking that (only 1 is speaking that)--Rjecina (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I removed both tags {Disputed|date=May 2008} and {Refimprove|date=May 2008} for two main reasons

- accuracy is not disputed - supporting references are reputable and available in libraries of academic institutions around the world

- need for any additional citations is not elaborated; moreover all the text of this article is fully covered by the references.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting

Reasons for deleting are very simple:

• Recreation of deleted article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek]
• Failed verification

Because first reason is very simple I will write about second. It is possible to see that original reason for deleting is failed verification and with this version nothing has changed. From May 2008 I am asking for NPOV internet sources for this article, but only answer to my question are obscure books which are not even saying is knife is used by Ustaša.

If we look sources in article only source is funny book "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs During World War II by Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey L. Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books (July 1992)" which has failed verification. When I say that I want to say that this book can't be source for wikipedia because publisher is not respected source but it is publishing dissenting books [1](English language publisher) or it is publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense [2] (German language publisher)--Rjecina (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one question. I have no opinion, but why do you want this article to be deleted? I mean, the butchery and savagery of the Ustaše is well known and well documented. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules.

This article is not having any data. It is not writen when knife is produced, it is not showing any evidence about NDH government special order and there is no evidence that this knife is ever produced in Gebrüder Gräfrath. For me this article is typical example of user Velebit POV pushing or you can say croatophobia.

Ustaše are guilty of many crimes (around 350 000 killings), but there is no reason allow mythology to enter wikipedia.

Please next time do not write: "butchery and savagery of the Ustaše" because there has been interested comment on RFC about Jasenovac: "this one article uses the word "cruel" more than The Holocaust article and all of the Extermination camp articles put together (5 times in this article, and 3 in the other seven)" [3]. From that comment you can see that Ustaše crimes in wiki are having problems with POV pushing. I am wiki fundamentalist about NPOV rules--Rjecina (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy tiger. Don't forget that we are all sockpuppets of some greater god, some days Afrika Paprika, some days N. 13, some days somebody else, fuck knows, so take it easy, don't shit in your own garden. Since you are asking me to put this up for AfD, I think it's OK for you to answer my questions in a polite way, isn't it? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I am too nice with you we will be next in line for checkuser test :)--Rjecina (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All who oppose Irridentist bullshit up against the wall? Fuck, we'll die side by side. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• User who claimed verification can be easily disjudged. I can get photocopied pages of the citations and referenced pages.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can, provide them. Give us verifiable proof or let us continue, this thing dragged on for long enough without adhering to Wiki standards. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The book library search shows [4] that 308 academic libraries has this book - among them: Yale, Princeton, Duke, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge Google scholar test [5] shows that Dedijer's book is referenced 108 times. The Library of Congress World War II Companion By Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn. Copy of the page relevant to this article is here [6]. The book library search shows [7] five libraries in the USA keeping this book. The book is referenced here [8]

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since this article is currently nominated for AFD, the appropriate AFD page is the proper place for deletion to be discussed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is it just me or no preview for the The Library of Congress World War II Companion is available? David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne & Susan Reyburn are certainly not writing this alleged Jasenovac testimony from their own first-hand experience, but are referencing someone else. Whom? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor rewording

Note, I did not remove any references nor change the meaning of the article. I simply listed other victims of the knife and noted that it was used on concentration camp prisoners. If someone would like to prove that it was used elsewhere, please provide refs to that effect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note that your re-wording is wrong - the partisans were not Coratian partisans - rater Tito's partisans, from Bosnia, too. most of them - Serbs and Muslims. Also inserting 'allegedly' cast unnecessary doubts in the references.--66.217.131.112 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your uncompromising attitude and edit-warmongering does not make sense to me. Serb Partisans are already mentioned in the short list of Jasenovac victims, under the "Serbs category". The fact that imprisoned Croats, and there were many imprisoned Croats, are mentioned as mostly being Partisans is merely an explanation of the cause of their imprisonment. Noone is alleging that Partisans in Jasenovac were exclusively Croats. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding. :)
Bear in mind that I conducted a few sentence structure and translation improvements that have nothing to do with the dispute. I suggest you refrain from editing until while discussion is on, however, if you must edit please do not simply click undo, but edit the small parts that are actually in dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I could support the anon user to the point of removing 'Croatian' and 'reportedly'. 'Croatian' - Yugoslav partisans is ok, 'reportedly' - does not make sense here - there are at least five independent sources about that event. Citation for the different name of the same knife today - is indeed needed.--J. A. Comment (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove "reportedly" if you like, its not really that big of a deal, but once again I do not see the point of replacing "Croatian" with "Yugoslav"? I repeat, there were both Serbian and Croatian Partisans in the camp, but the Serbian Partisans were held under the "Serbs category" (blue), while Croatian Partisans were held under the "Communists category" (red).
In other words, read the sentence:
"...for the speedy killing of ethnic Serbs, Jews, and Roma, as well as significant numbers of Croatian Partisans imprisoned in the concentration camps of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia (NDH),..."
The two words "Croatian Partisans" are here instead of the word "Croats", to explain the reason for the Croatian nationalists' imprisonment of ethnic Croats. It explains the ideological reason. The word "ethnic" is here to denote the fact that Serbs, Roma, and Jews were held on ethnic grounds. Can I be any clearer? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ICTY link

I'd just like to make an observation about the ICTY link. Božo Ninković, a member of the “Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Šamac Crisis Staff” was on the witness stand being questioned by one of Milošević's defence lawyers about events in the area in May 1992. He was in the witness box for about two weeks. At one point he made a passing reference to the srbosjek. He was not cross examined by any prosecution lawyer regarding the knife. He mentioned it, he said what it was, his evidence moved on. If this is supposed to be a 'scholarly reference', well, standards must be slipping somewhat. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This link is against consensus about Yugoslav Wars and because of that need to be deleted. See talk page of that article--Rjecina (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gebrüder Gräfrath

I added a clarifyme template to the statement that the Gebrüder Gräfrath are now known "under a different name" - what is it? If it is known that they still exist, it should be known as what. --Leviel (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this really needs clarification, or it could be removed. I'd like to call on whoever posted it in the first place to get involved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken over in 1961 by Hubertus Solingen [9], but seem to be some kind of subsidiary, as searches for them still bring up company data, although clicking on the links redirects you to Hubertus Solingen [10][11][12]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gebr. Gräfrath GmbH & Co. KG (Solingen, Germany) is selling knifes and tools under the brandname "Gräwiso". 91.33.240.21 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is POV article!

Images are from Germany/Poland in the 1940's not from Croatia or any part of former Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatel (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The original image (see image history) is from jasenovac holocaust museum. Apparently it was replaced by a clearer image; the first image of srbosjek is certainly not from Germany/Poland, but from NDH. There are extensive references here, have you read them at all? You should before putting such wild claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petatrox (talk • contribs) 10:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• From second nomination

1. Taborišče smrti--Jasenovac by Nikola Nikolić (author), Jože Zupančić (translator) Published 1969 Založba "Borec":
2. The knife is described on Page 72: 'Na koncu noža, tik bakrene ploščice, je bilo z vdolbnimi črkami napisano "Grafrath gebr. Solingen", na usnju pa reliefno vtisnjena nemška tvrtka "Graeviso"'
3. Picture of the knife with description is on Page 73: 'Posebej izdelan nož, ki so ga ustaši uporabljali pri množičnih klanjih. Pravili so mu "kotač" - kolo - in ga je izdelovala nemška tvrtka "Graviso"'--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• So everything is clear!--71.252.55.101 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Vandalism of 71.252.55.101 See User talk:71.252.55.101

This article contans ethnic or racial bias. Peoples were killed by other weapons. See Holocaust Srbosjek is just Milosevic-Propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.18.212 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Milosevic was not quoted at all! Please, avoid false accusations!--141.156.253.196 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)