Talk:Miroslav Filipović/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Laicization

In a 2002 review in First Things, Ronald J. Rychlak claims that Filiopvic was removed from his positions of Catholic priest, contrary to the assertions of Daniel Goldhagen, who published an essay in The New Republic. His review states that "He [Goldhagen] charges that Pius XII never reproached or punished Franciscan friar Miroslav Filopovic–Majstorovic for his evil actions in Croatia, when, actually, the so–called "Brother Satan" was tried, laicized, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war even ended (in fact, before most of his serious wrongdoing)." [[1]] The Previous unsigned comment was posted by Freder1ck 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Semi-protection

Now that the article has been protected, I'd like to discuss the recent attempts to change the article. There have been attempts to minimize or outright deny historically accepted facts about Filipović in complete disregard for our policy of writing from a neutral point of view. If there are some valid arguments for the changes being made, you can make them here and back them up with reliable sources. AniMate 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information and linking

I searched Wikipedia for Miroslav Filipovic and because it did not have the accent over the 'c' nothing came up. Is it possible to create a Miroslave Filipovic page which then redirects to this page? I'm afraid I would create it but I don't know how. Also I think that it should be mentioned that a favoured torture tactic of the Filipovic's was to tie 'captured Serbs to haystacks and [burn] them alive, all the while asking them if they believed in God'. The quote is from a article by Robert Fisk on the 19th June 1994 in the Independent called "Following the devil's tracks". I wanted to first see if anyone objected to my placing it in the article under his second world war activity area? --Cook006 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The letter "ć" in the Croatian/Serbian language is pronounced "ch" and is very different from "c" which is pronounced "cz" (never "k" as in "cake", like in English and many other languages). The thing is that Croats are Slavs which use the Latin alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet like Russians, so the names are not correctly spelled as they are pronounced, again like in Russian (for example: Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky), but are instead properly spelled with the diacritics ("ć", or "č"). "Miroslav Filipovic" would be pronounced in English "Miroslav(e) Filipovick" instead of "Miroslav Filipovich", which is completely wrong. Having explained the situation, I think a redirect page would not be a problem, but would be using an incorrect spelling for the title. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rjecina, I know the guy's banned, but shouldn't this stuff be added? By us if not by him? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not having problem with data but I want that this data is confirmed by NPOV internet links of by Yugoslav Encyclopedia which is given to us by Pax. It is important that we can check this data because we can't trust word of banned user--Rjecina (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for NPOV sources and answer is this link (USHMM) to write his true story :). It is wrong to use books for writing article if you are having respected internet sources !--Rjecina (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen Reference

About

Magnum crimen: pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj by Viktor Novak Zagreb: Nakladni Zavod Hrvatske, 1948

Google book test - referenced [2] 263 times. Google scholar test - referenced [3] 62 times

Available in [4] 43 libraries around the globe - of which the most notable are: Cornell, Princeton, Columbia, University of Chicago, Yale, Harward, McGill, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Berkely, Bayerische Staatbibliotek. --J. A. Comment (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, Magnum crimen is a well known, respectable work. I have to say I agree with Comment here. I did not want to get into this discussion earlier, but I do not support the removal of that reference. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither for nor against citing Magnum crimen as a source, but do we really need these long, graphic quotes making the majority of the article? I mean, we don't even have such things in the Josef Mengele article! Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a little wary of Magnum crimen myself. It's a controversial, divisive work, and while the basic facts are not disputed, many of its assertions are believed to be gross exaggerations. We can probably do better. AniMate 18:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We will have translation from latin of church documents about Miroslav Filipović and Drakulići massacre[5]. We are having documents on croato-serbian but if I am translator we will have many questions--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Latin translations

I've been asked to interpret a number of Latin texts that apparently relate to this article. My translations are fast and loose, and are not of the first water, in that some of the legal terminology seems relatively obscure, but I was able to get the gist of the reports.

The first and meatiest one is here.

This is addressed to the provincial minister of the Franciscan Order of "Silver Bosnia", dated May 12, 1942.

The Provinical Definitory of this Province, in its meeting on April 28 through May 1 1942, dismissed Father Tomislaus Filipovic, a priest of this province, from the Order according to rule 653 of the Codex Iuris Canonici.

(note: I presume this is the 1918 version)

The named Father joined a military organization from the month of February of this year against the express prohibition of Father Guardianus of the monsatery of Petricevac, some 3 km. Distant from the city of Banjaluka, and went to Zagreb, there, without obtaining the prior consent of his Provincial to join the military.

On Feb. 6, 1942, at 9 PM, Father Tomislaus came to the aforesaid Guardianus asking for permission to go to the city of Banjaluka, who denied permission. Notwithstanding that prohibition, Father Tomislaus nevertheless went to the city of Banjaluka at night from Feb. 6 to 7, and he accompanied certain belligerents (in Croatian: Ustase) who were were conducting a penal expedition against the Orthodox inhabitants of the rural regions Drakulic, Motike, and Sargovac. In this expedition, more than 1600 Orthodox were killed.

In a canonical visitation, which began at the beginning of April of this year, and which I conducted at the monastery of Petricibac, these things were ascertained for certain. Father Tomislaus was present on this expedition, his own affidavit affirmed that. Father Tomislaus should not have joined this expedition. A Colonel Servaci (a Serbian colonel?) who was present on behalf of the state was examined by Father Guardianus. Father Tomislaus lent him assistance. It is allowed that it is uncertain whether he killed anybody, but because of the religious motivations (discrimine religionis) he caused a great scandal and caused great harm to our province: that much more so, because the other members of this Province in these events and times always acted most correctly.

I most humbly ask that this matter be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See according to the tenor of rule 653 of the Codex Iuris Canonici.

Father Angelus Kaic

The second is much briefer:

From the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Religious

This Sacred Congregation, having considered at length the report concerning the dismissal of Father Tomislaus Filipovic from the Franciscans of the Province of Bosnia, having heard all the things done in this cause, has issued the following opinion and judgment:

"THE SENTENCE OF DISMISSAL OF FATHER TOMISLAUS FILIPOVIC MAY BE CONSIDERED PROPORTIONAL AND IS AFFIRMED."

This is signed by L. H. Pasetto, secretary.

The third is here, and I am not bothering to translate it. This is Father Filipovic's affidavit: and a handwritten note at the top indicates that the Latin text is a verbatim translation of the South Slavic text also found in the document. I gather that at least some editors here can read the original.

A few notes:

The legal case seems to be concerned, not with the defrocking of Father Tomislaus as a priest generally, but rather from his dismissal from the Franciscan Order. Defrocking goes by another name (degradatio), according to Stelten's Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin.

Canon 653 of the old CIC can be found online at http://www.geocities.com/catholic_profide/codex.htm. According to the website, it says:

Can. 653. In casu gravis scandali exterioris vel gravissimi nocumenti communitati imminentis, religiosus statim potest a Superiore maiore cum consensu sui Consilii vel etiam, si periculum sit in mora et tempus non adsit adeundi Superiorem maiorem, a Superiore locali cum consensu sui Consilii et Ordinarii loci, ad saeculum remitti, habitu religioso illico deposito, ita tamen ut res per ipsum Ordinarium aut per Superiorem maiorem, si adsit, Sanctae Sedis iudicio sine mora subiiciatur.

Loosely: "In case of grave exterior scandal or most serious imminent harm to the community, a monk or nun may be immediately be stripped of their religious habit and secularized: either by their greater Superior in concert with his Council, or, immediately, if there is danger in delay and there is not time to go to a greater Superior, by the local Superior with the consent of his Council and Ordinaries: nevertheless the matter must be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See without delay."

The statutory language is tangled in the Latin as well. The first report seems to be the submission in accordance with this rule. The canon does not deal with the defrocking of a priest, but rather with removal as a brother from the monastic order, in this case the Friars Minor.

Father "Guardianus" may be Guardiano or some other name in its original form. Guardianus is the Latinized version.

I hope this helps somebody. I apologize for whatever ethno-political hornets nest I might be stirring by offering these translations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding. The current Code of Canon Law section that corresponds is section 703. Its official English translation is: " In a case of grave external scandal, or of extremely grave and imminent harm to the institute, a member can be expelled forthwith from the house by the major Superior. If there is danger in delay, this can be done by the local Superior with the consent of his or her council. The major Superior, if need be, is to introduce a process of dismissal in accordance with the norms of law, or refer the matter to the Apostolic See." The actual text is:

In casu gravis scandali exteritoris vel gravissimi nocumenti instituto imminentis, sodalis statim a Superiore maiore vel, si periculum sit in mora, a Superiore locali cum consensu sui consilii e domo religiosa eici potest. Superior maior, si opus sit, dimissionis processum ad normam iuris instituendum curet, aut rem Sedi Apostolicae deferat.

- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 edits

I don't particularly support the version restored by Koljicic but it is better than Rjecina's recent edits. Rjecina should not be too concerned about how children came to be murdered in their classroom during the night, because that part of the spree took place during the conventional school day. He should remember that the whole operation was somewhat hampered by more than a meter of snow, and that the killers had to accomplish their task without the use of guns. (Gunshots might have alerted neighbours to the peril. All dogs had been poisoned a few days beforehand on the orders of the Ustaše, on the pretext that there had been an outbreak of rabies.) So although the slaughtering began in darkness between 04,00 and 05,00, it continued until after mid-day.

Killings at the school and the coalmine, in addition to those in the three villages, brought the total dead to well in excess of 2,000. A figure of 2,300 is sometimes cited, and also 2,730 (but this may be a corruption of 2,370). Jovan Babić, a respected journalist living in Banja Luka, has researched the subject extensively. His book "New Age Draculas" is available in a superb English translation here: http://www.serbianunity.net/culture/library/Drakulici/en/index.html His work is not citable as it is a fictional account, but he does list names and birth years of many hundreds of the victims. A handful of people who escaped the slaughter and have good (ie bad) recollections of the day are still alive in Banja Luka, Motike, etc.

Soon I will get round to writing this episode into Wikipedia in some detail, with proper references, but in an article specific to the 7 February 1942 atrocities rather than in the Filipović article. In the meantime please note that the main village involved - now virtually a suburb of Banja Luka - is (in the nominative case) Drakulic, not Drakulići. And Rjecina, you know by now that if you carry out sweeping changes you should have the courtesy to explain them. Kirker (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"My" version is having sources for every important statement. I do not see that other version is having sources for statements ?? Maybe I am mistaking but wikipedia is asking for sources ?

I am NPOV wiki fundamentalist. Please see article about Rudolf Höß commander of Auschwitz concentration camp and Miroslav Filipović commander of Jasenovac extermination camp. I do not see in article about Rudolf Höß any "eyewitness reports" from any book. Because of that in my thinking writing "eyewitness reports" from any book in Miroslav Filipović article is POV (or we will have 1 rule for Nazi crimes and another for Ustaše crimes ??)--Rjecina (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, the fact that there are no eyewitness reports on the Rudolf Höß article is not because of some Wikipedia rule, noone simply thought of it, I suppose. Adding eyewitness reports from a published source is not prohibited by policy, nor is Magnum Crimen in violation of WP:V in any way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel is having 32 articles. You will never find "eyewitness reports" of crimes. I will ask again if Ustaše crimes need to have special status on wikipedia ? If answer is Yes then "eyewitness reports" can be in article if answer is no then we will edit this article like articles of other WWII criminals. Maybe I am mistaking wikipedia is having editorial consensus about this ??

Magnum Crimen is in violation of WP:V. You need to read links in article of this book--Rjecina (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not "special treatment", noone is discriminating against the Ustaše. If you like you can add eyewitness reports to each and every one of those articles, there is no rule prohibiting it. There is also no policy stating that all articles about WW2 war criminals must be treated equally. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see I need to start change all other wiki articles so that they will become similar to this (and others of this user) ???

All in all this article is not problem. I can add so many words from church action against Filipović so that citations from Magnum Crimen will became funny :)

Please read this:"POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view." In this and similar J. A. Comment edited articles this point of view is about sadistic Croats. I will not even comment how many times he has write sadistic, bestial and similar. This is NPOV or POV pushing ?--Rjecina (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I did not mean that you should now edit all the WW2 criminals articles so that they become like to this one. My point was that if someone wanted to add eyewitness reports to this article, then he can do so, the fact that other similar articles do not have eyewitness reports is completely irrelevant. You can't say that an article is "POV" because it is different in some way from other similar articles, each article is separate.

Only Wikipedia policy can ultimately prevent someone from adding something with a valid, WP:V source. WP:NPOV cannot possibly apply here because these are simply quotes from a source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Magnum Crimen a reliable source?

No, probably not. However, the "eyewitness reports", as we've chosen to describe them, from the book are just that: statements of people. Though presented in the POV context of a politically influenced book, these statements/reports stand. The only question we have here is were those people lying? Now, that is not for us to judge, but the reader, so we should caution him, while including the reports. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article will be funny.... I will add citations from church commision about massacre they will write from Magnum Crimen and we will have ...????

I will like in reality that somebody explain me very slow so that I can understand 2 "facts":

Massacre has started during night. How is possible that children are in school during night ?

Who is witness for class killings and how this witness has survived (if he has been in class) ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina your obsession with drawing comparisons between different Wikipedia articles is not constructive. You know the way this place works. We can all do what we like - even break the rules, if we are that stupid - so of course some articles will always be better than others. All we should be concerned with on this talk page is how to make the Filipovic entry as good and as fair as possible. Any problems you have with other articles should be pursued on the talk pages of those articles.

The first of your two questions above was answered already at the start of what I said in the "July 2008 edits" section above. I am sorry if it was not "slow" enough for you. But read this report from Ustaše HQ in Banja Luka, to Eugen Kvaternik (Slavko's son) on February 11 1942: "A detachment of the Ustaše army under the command of first lieutenant Josip Mislov, accompanied by friar Vjekoslav (sic) Filipović, on February 7 at 4am took control of the Rakovac mine and killed 37 orthodox miners with pick-axes. They continued killing men, women and children with by pick-axe and axe in Motike where 750 were killed and Drakulici (sic) and Šargovac, where 1,500 were killed. The killings were completed by 2pm on the same day. Since then our troops have been transporting food, cattle and furniture of the victims to our storehouses. Signed, Great zupan Colonel Aleman." (BiH Supreme Court Archive, B.I.I.k171-13/15-1) The school was at Šargovac, as I expect you realise Rjecina.

A follow-up report stated that the operation started at the coalmine when orthodox miners were singled out from the rest at the end of the night shift and killed with pick-axes. Similar treatment awaited those arriving for the morning shift. This report carries a small correction to the earlier report: 37 was the number of miners buried, but in fact 52 were killed. This reports that 60 miners of orthodox faith worked at the mine but a few escaped to the woods. Ustaše returned to the mine at 3pm the same day "but nobody was killed on that occasion." (This last detail chimes with what I have been told by Nikola Vukelić who lives in Motike and was a 16-year-old employed at the mine at the time of the atrocity. (He had been suspended from work for wearing a kokarda but the pay clerk had told him to call and collect oustanding wages on February 7. (The mine was still run mainly by Serbs, but under some degree of Ustaše supervision.) He was walking towards the mine that afternoon when he met a colleague who had escaped. He was told what had happened and was warned to stay away because the Ustaše had returned.)

Glaise-Horstenau also reported the Drakulic episode to German HQ: "In Šargovac there was also a massacre. A Catholic witness says that in one school 53 schoolchildren were killed. (Vasa Kazimirović, NDH u svjetlu njemačkih dokumenata, Nova kniga Narodna kniga, Beograd, 1987.) Glaise-Horstenau also reported that a meeting took place at the Franciscan Petričevac monastery the evening before the massacre. It was attended by the great zupan Dr Viktor Gutić, the Banja Luka court president Dr Stilinović and several catholic priests, including "a certain priest Filipović." (Same BiH supreme court reference as above.)

To answer your other point, one witness who survived was a teacher called Dobrila Martinović who suffered a mental breakdown afterwards. By 1955 she was teaching again and started to tell colleagues what she had witnessed. Her recollections are published in Jasenovac: System of Croatian Ustasha Camps of Genocide 1941-1945, a collection of papers published bz the Secretariat of the Second International Jasenovac Conference, Banja Luka 2001 (I am using the English-language version which was published in a limited edition). In all, 38 people are thought to have survived the events of February 7 1942. Among them was another teacher from the Šargovac school, Mara Sunjić, who gave evidence at Filipović's trial. You may also like to look up Jasenovački logor smrti, Oslobodjenje, Sarejevo, 1985 by the (Croat) medical doctor, Nikola Nikolić, which is I believe (it is not quite clear) a reprint of what was probably the first published eye-witness account of Jasenovac horrors. Drakulic survivors are also quoted in "Priest and Ustaše Slaughterers" by Lazar Lukajić. I have only ever seen one copy of that book, and it was before I was making serious notes and I have no further details. I would be grateful if any Serb/Croat speaker could track it down. I have an address for Lukajić in Novi Sad but it will be a long time before I can get there, and I don't even know if he is still alive.

I have not put this stuff into articles yet because it is so reliant on non-English sources, and I don't have enough confidence in my translations. (Supported by the eye-witness testimonies I have heard, it is however persuasive enough for me to use in the novel I am researching.) Kirker (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we will put citations from "book" nobody can question if we put citations from church documents about Filipović role in massacre ! Can we agree about that ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, I'm not an English professor, but your mastery of the language seems perfectly adequate. I can't understand your reservations about posting all this information. As I said, I'm not a professional translator or anything, but I will do my best to lend a hand if there's any problem. Please don't hesitate to post the stuff should you feel you have the time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, DIREKTOR. But my problem of course is my poor grasp of Serbian/Croatian. I don't always appreciate the significance of what I am reading in archives etc, so I actually overlook material that I should have written down and properly translated later, and sometimes I just make glaring mistakes. Also I don't think it's acceptable for articles on English-language Wikipedia to be dependent on sources that exist only in other languages. Kirker (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh :P I misunderstood, of course you use English perfectly, in either case, since I know Serbian/Croatian I'd be happy to lend a hand should you decide to post the stuff. I was just taken aback by the details you've presented in this matter, and I really think it needs to be written up. See you around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, Kirker just corroborated the authenticity of the report on the Drakulići incident, why did you remove it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Under question is role of Miroslav Filipović in this massacre. Documents (see section Latin translation) from time of incident are saying that he has not killed. Can somebody please tell me how is possible that controversial book is stronger evidence of official documents ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an eyewitness report stating that he did kill, and even if he did not, those men were under his direct command. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that in Kirker edit ?? I see only "A detachment of the Ustaše army under the command of first lieutenant Josip Mislov, accompanied by friar Vjekoslav (sic) Filipović". Accompanied is not commanded ? Can you please show me where it is writen that Filipović has commanded or killed ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, he didn't command, but the eyewintess report is valid. It says he killed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources which I see and which anybody can see are this church commission and you can say Filipović confession in which he is clearly saying that his killing spree is started in Jasenovac. If somebody can find that Filipović has been declared guilty of killing in Drakulići by court I will accept that but other things... Until now only source for his killings is book Magnum Crimen and similar POV serbian sites.

Can we if nothing else agree that it is hard to defeat church 1942 documents about this event ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So you believe a mass murderer talking about his killings over a traumatized school teacher who needed years to recover from the psychological damage of seeing her school children slaughtered? The church documents? LoL The church is even today trying to cover up the criminal activities of its priests (like the numerous pedophilia scandals), and even if we agree that the church is even a reliable source, what you have there is a criminal denying his crime. If you want, we can add a sentence stating that, but his word should definitely not be the cause for the removal of the teacher's testimony. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

About citation I will like to ask for WP:ARBMAC decision, but I do not know where to ask for that.

When we speak about Filipović and incident in question we are having 3 sources. First is of church council about his removing from the monastic order and second Filipović defense before this council and last is his discussion with friend (before WWII friend) in Jasenovac. Near death (in 1975 or 76) this friend has writen about his discussion with Filipović where this monster is telling when and how he has started to kill.--Rjecina (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its really simple. We have an eyewitness report from a schoolteacher (it is irrelevant where it happened to get published) stating that Filipović killed a child on the teacher's desk. Very detailed and believable, since the teacher needed years of psychotherapy to bear actually saying all this. And we know that this mass murderer, known for slaughtering innocent victims, was undoubtedly there at the time.
On the other side there's the testimony of that same killer denying his own crime, probably to avoid getting kicked out of an order he liked so much he kept wearing the robe afterwards.
What's the problem? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Church finding in 1942 has been "Father Tomislaus was present on this expedition, his own affidavit affirmed that. Father Tomislaus should not have joined this expedition. A Colonel Servaci who was present on behalf of the state was examined by Father Guardianus. Father Tomislaus lent him assistance. It is allowed that it is uncertain whether he killed anybody, but because of the religious motivations (discrimine religionis) he caused a great scandal and caused great harm to our province...." (translation from latin)

If we will believe to witness statements then we will accept fact about JNA finding of Srbosjek knife in 1992 ? We are having witness statement about that ! I will like that we extend consensus about Yugoslav Wars on WWII articles.

In my thinking situation is simple....Official documents are stronger of so called witness statements and "our" official documents are saying that it is not clear if he has killed anybody. I do not know what is problem with writing this in article ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So they didn't find that he hadn't killed anyone, they just concluded that its "uncertain" wether he killed. LoL, come on Rjecina, where's the discussion here? Your only argument is a (possibly quite biased) church finding that does not really conclude anything. We have an eyewitness they apparently "missed", a Drakulići schoolteacher going insane from what she saw! Rjecina, stopping Serb nationalist demonization of Croats is one thing, but defending the Ustaše is another, and this guy is probably the worst maniac they had on their pay roll. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes this source is biased but it is hard to say that other sources are not biased. Problem in this and similar articles (example Petar Brzica) is that we do not know what is reality and what is myth. During last hour I have seen many documents about his crimes in Jasenovac, but not even 1 about his killing in Drakulici.

We are still having problems about citations ??--Rjecina (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not that they are biased anymore, the Church doesn't matter at all anymore since they did not find anything. All you have is his statement, and that we can completely disregard. Why would the schoolteacher be biased against one particular Ustaše, especially if he "did not kill" as you say? In other words, why would she want to lie about one specific Ustaše? What? you think he was the only one there who didn't knife children and she just wanted to accuse him because she's mean and he had an ugly nose or something? Think about it, Rjecina, the authenticity of the eyewitness reports is totally acceptable, "beyond reasonable doubt". We can add the Church findings as well, but we must caution people concerning the possible bias. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that we can find compromise but with this sort of citations:"Tomislav Filipović, entered the classroom during class with 12 Ustaše, imitating Jesus Christ and his twelve apostles." this is not possible ! I am 99.99999 % sure that this "citation" is myth. Your thinking ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think he's crazy enough to kill a classroom of children, but not crazy enough to imitate Jesus? Besides, he was a friar, and Jesus is "imitated" every day in church. Think about it, it actually makes sense: "The existence of these degenerate Serbs is a sin against God, so by taking their life I am taking that sin upon myself. I will go to hell for killing another by taking upon myself the sin of their existence. The children are innocent, they have no other sins, so I will only take the sin of their being." Why would it be a myth? he was a fanatical catholic friar and a psychopath, it would be strange if religion had no impact on his pathology (trust me, I studied this crap ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me see this Ustaše situation....

• 1 picture: friar is killing with imitating Jesus Christ ?
• 2 picture: Speedy Peter is winner of the bet by killing the largest amount of prisoners ? I have asked on talk page of this article who has taken second place ? Maybe Not so speedy Adam ?

Earlier version of article is having 40 lines which are taken from books and 30 lines (39 if you take data about his birth and beginning of article) of article. I am only which think that this is not OK ???--Rjecina (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So the article has a lot of citations, big deal, does that mean its "Serb propaganda"? It just means we have a lot of citations about this guy, and they are valid and believable beyond reasonable doubt. As for Petar Brzica, he was well known for that contest. How do you think he got his name? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me see Wikipedia and POV pushing. It is clearly writen:"POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view" and "It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics"

If "victims" citations (I say "victims" because of source) are taking even 10 % or article this is POV pushing because it disproportionately show one point of view. I think that this is clear enough ?

You maybe need to read again our consensus about Yugoslav Wars and sources ?

There is no problem to write text from both sides so that we have neutral article but victims citations is POV pushing--Rjecina (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, how are you going to make an article about a serial killer without him turning out bad? The article is not supposed to be 50% "he's a good guy" and 50% "he's a bad guy" if he killed dozens of people. Read all of WP:NPOV. We can include all your sources about the Church findings and make the text more neutral, but the citations should definitely stay. (Also, this has nothing to do with the Yugoslav Wars, whatsoever.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am think that somebody else need to read WP:NPOV: "You won't even need to say he was evil (about Saddam). That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary".

This is now second example why citations can't be in article ! It is time that you show me place where it is writen that similar citation are OK because I am having 2 wiki rules which are on my side in this discussion. Which wiki rule support your position ?

In the end I will give you 3rd and 4th example. In articles about Holocaust and all Nazi extermination camps words cruel, bestial and similar are used 5 times (information is from November 2007). In this article it is writen 2 times !!! There is not even 1 article about Nazi criminals where it is writen ways in which they have tortured, massacred and killed prisoners. If you put this to together he alone is guilty of 40 % of all WWII crimes and he (and other Croats) are only person which has tortured, massacred and killed prisoners. This is funny statement

We will write in article about his role in Drakulići massacre and Jasenovac but without "witness" (because of book where are published) statement ?

Show my any citation of any wiki rule which is saying that you are right or you must stop your POV pushing--Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Its simple:

• The citations are reliable enough.
• Somebody added the citations.
• You do not have the right to remove these edits because you personally believe the article does not have enough "good things" about the mass murderer to make it "NPOV".
• I do not care what other articles look like, each article is seperate. You do not have the right to remove citation paragraphs because citations are not so frequent in similar articles. That's nonsense.

Do you honestly think we should remove paragraphs from articles just to make the "balance of facts" 50:50? That is not making the article NPOV, that's vandalism. A completely blank article would then be 100% NPOV, wouldn't it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me see you are saying that wikipedia rules (NPOV, POV pushing, WP:V) are not important and because somebody has earlier edited this article against wikipedia rules ?? You are serious ?? You know that I will call RFC about this and your position will be defeated ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I said. How did you extrapolate that? What I said is this:

• the testimony citations are not in violation of any policy.
• the article is not POV if it's not similar to other articles, and its not POV if there is a lot of data on the mass murderer's murders.
• baseless removal of these citations is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Once again: do you honestly think we should remove paragraphs from articles just to make the "balance of facts" 50:50? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You need again to read my citations from wiki rules about POV pushing and NPOV policy !

We need to write articles dispassionately. It is not possible to claim that article with this citations is writen dispassionately or you are claiming something different ?? There is no need to tell anything other about this (POV pushing).

If you delete citations article will be OK and it will show Filipović in right NPOV light (this is answer on question about 50:50)

My only question for you is: article is writen dispassionately with this citations ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The citations are written dispassionately. They state very simply what the witnesses saw the guy do. They do not draw any conclusions, they simply retell an event. Your problem is that you think the events described by these dispassionately written citations make the article biased. They do not.
Let me be as clear as possible. If it is established that these witnesses and their reports are real and reliable (and, thanks to Kirker, it has), you CAN NOT remove them. For no reason.

• You cannot remove them because some other similar articles do not have citations.
• You cannot remove them because of WP:NPOV. You just can't. If the article states only facts (dispassionately), and the eyewitness reports are facts, it is NPOV. I don't know what else to say. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget WP:NPOV, you can't remove reliable, sourced facts and paragraphs to make the article "NPOV", that is complete and utter nonsense. In other words, this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV and is in accordance with it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming funny.... In editing article you can't forget WP:NPOV !! About reliable sources my answer is :)))) Magnum Crimen is reliable source ??????? Citation from consensus version of article Magnum Crimen:"The book has been criticized for exaggerating the atrocities that occurred at Jasenovac concentration camp in an attempt to slander the Catholic Church" . If this is reliable source for writing about catholic priest then we can declare Mein Kampf OK source for articles about Aryan race.

Because Magnum Crimen is not reliable source citations from books are not reliable source. Maybe you want to tell that Dr. Viktor Novak has writen POV books but he has been honest in citations ? He has not changed citation to be more POV pushing ?? This is your thinking ??

Please DIREKTOR stop this. You are destroying your reputation with this discussion. Please stop.....

Because I do not want to destroy your reputation in near future I will not answer. My next comment will be after somebody else write his thinking about our dispute --Rjecina (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

FFS! Rjecina, I assure you, you are the one acting in an unprofessional and personal way. The things you suggested here are so nonsensical I would not have expected them from you. Like suggesting that citations need to be removed because other simmilar articles you happened to look at do not have citations, come on... This is obviously a personal matter for you, you've been edit-warring with these Serbian guys for a while and you've imagined somehow that this is "anti-Croatian propaganda". You know that I am not the one to accept that kind of stuff, try to be objective.

Anyway, lets start a fresh organized discussion. Removal of text needs to be justified by policy. These are the policies you listed:

• WP:V. Are you forgetting Kirker's above corroboration of the eyewitness reports? Furthermore, I do not care about the "consensus version" (you helped write) of the Magnum Crimen article, Wikipedia is not a source. And even if we agree that Magnum Crimen is "not a reliable source" I do not care where these citations were published, they are still statements of eyewitnesses of this maniac's killings. Its one thing to call something "not entirely POV" and another to call it a forgery. The citations are reliable and verified by Kirker. They are WP:V. That means you CAN NOT remove them. For none of the (rather strange) reasons you stated above.

• WP:NPOV "Forget NPOV" that's an expression, you naturally can't "forget" any policy when editing. We're obviously not communicating here, what I meant was, and I said it a million times now (see my previous post above): "In other words, this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV and is in accordance with it." The accounts of the events that occurred are written in a completely encyclopedic tone. They just state the events completely "dispassionately", as you stated.
  • The article is NOT POV if it's not similar to other articles.
  • The article is NOT POV if we include a lot of data on the mass murderer's murders.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008: Rjecina's edits

Rjecina, with your recent revert you re-installed a version which describes Magnum crimen as an "infamous propaganda-documentary." Is this your opinion? It is obviously someone's opinion and you know perfectly well that it should not be in Wikipedia. Also you have preferred the account of an acknowledged murderer (who was almost certainly deranged) over evidence from eye-witnesses, local Ustaše reports and a report by the senior Wehrmacht officer Glaise-Horstenau. Do you think this is a reasonable balance?

Your vendettas against alleged banned users and their sockpuppets have become obsessive and are sometimes counter-productive. Too often you "throw out the baby with the bathwater," making a poor article even worse - as you have done in this case. You are obviously not short of time and energy. Why not use some of it to go and look up the sources? They are mostly in your language, nearer to you than me, and I've given you a few pointers on this page. That way you might be able to help improve articles instead of being so negative all the time. Kirker (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned users are not having right to edit !

You need to read consensus version of article Magnum Crimen. My thinking about book is not important and I have writen here only what sources are speaking about this book (without my opinion)

I am for neutral version of this article, but need to be writen without citations because of POV pushing.I am sure that we can find compromise solution but without citation ! In reality this is my only demand--Rjecina (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to cool down/move forward

Right now it appears that we're stuck. Rather than arguing back and forth, shouldn't we be seeking some outside opinions. Has anyone thought about filing an RfC to get some fresh eyes? That seems much more productive than this back and forth. AniMate 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When I file it, I was thinking of something along the lines of:Are eye witness accounts from a controversial work, Magnum crimen, considered reliable sources? Sound okay? AniMate 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute is on Croatian noticeboard. Our question is simple: citations ?

My position is that we must remove citations because:

• they are never used in non Croatia related WWII articles (or Holocaust articles)
• because we can't use them in Yugoslav Wars (consensus)
• because of POV pushing (see citation from POV pushing article on this talk page)
• because of NPOV policy (see citation from NPOV policy article on this talk page).--Rjecina (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you just wrote addressed anything I said. Again, it's time to get some outside eyes on this, not time for Rjecina or Direktor to make the same arguments we've already read. AniMate 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed it. Hopefully, those who participated in the above discussion will allow others to weigh in, as your opinions are clearly and repetitively stated above. AniMate 00:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that they are. Felt kind of stupid, myself... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Magnum crimen be cited

Are eye witness accounts from a controversial work, Magnum crimen, considered reliable sources?

Discussion by outside editors:

Discussion by regular editors:

Note: to avoid any misunderstandings, the issue is not whether the book itself is NPOV in its ideology and message, but rather the witness accounts published therein. To understand the issue please do not forget to read the rather lengthy post by User:Kirker above [6]. (Rjecina, this is only a clarification of the issue, not an attempt to influence the outcome.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not having dispute if book Magnum crimen is reliable source but if we can use citations in article. I have writen many times on this talk page that citations and not book are problems (last time on 00:40, 3 August 2008) so only because of Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy I will think that this sort of RFC which will not solve any problem is good faith mistake. This sort of RFC need to be on talk page of article Magnum Crimen and on talk page of article Miroslav Filipović  !--Rjecina (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think things are being lost in the translation, RJecina. This RfC isn't about the reliability of Magnum crimen, but about the first hand accounts that are quoted in the article and sourced from the book. Please read more carefully. AniMate 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, the question you have put suggests that you have misunderstood Rjecina's farcical point, which is that documented eye-witness comments (not Magnum crimen) should be disallowed.

All that can be said about the present storm in a teacup is that DIREKTOR showed remarkable tolerance in managing to remain civil. I have been reluctant to tamper with the article itself because so much about it is unsatisfactory, whichever version is used as the starting point. And it would be like opening a can of worms in that I would then feel obliged to rewrite the Magnum crimen article, then the Petar Bzica article... etc. But in view of the present chaos, I have deicided I WILL give this article a fresh start. The new version will be partly information (including documented and persuasive eye-witness accounts) for which I will provide sources, and partly information retained from the present versions. Where I retain content that is not sourced, I will tag it according, even if that means tagging every second word. At present I am NOT going to start reworking related articles, which also contain rubbish, because I have other things to do. If that upsets Rjecina, let him sort them out. Kirker (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are having my support in rewriting article, but I am afraid that we will again have "witness" citations and you both are forgeting this wiki rule :

"When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject." With this quotations you are defeating so many wiki rules......

In the end today I am not writing here because of this RFC (which is funny and misleading) but because another user has on my talk page declared suspicion that Kirker is puppet of banned user. This user is having good arguments, but I will not start this action because of my problem with known puppets of User:PaxEquilibrium--Rjecina (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, would you support an article version that includes everything this one does, but without actual quotes? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. After writing version without quotes we will have agreement about 90 % of article and in my thinking problem will be solved !--Rjecina (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Magnum Crimen" as "reliable source"???? That bundle of used toilet paper?
That book is a propagandist work and "Mein Kampf" of anti-Croat ideology. "Magnum Crimen" is the anti-Catholic pamphlet. Here's a little bit about that book (article is in Croatian [7])
"Magnum Crimen" is heavily compromised book, so using it as a reliable source 'll damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Kubura (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the lengthy discussions above. I hardly think that having two quotes is problematic in terms of the policy or guideline quoted above. The question is whether they add anything to the quality of the article. I think that since the article principally concerns this man's actions, first hand eye-witness accounts are helpful. If the source (namely Magnum Crimen) has come in for some criticism (from weighty reliable sources, not just some guy in a bar) then after the quotes then this could be mentioned in one or two sentences (along the lines of "However, it has been claimed that this book is..." citing the source of the criticism). If we're looking for where this article falls down, it's far more to the point in my mind to look at the number of adjectives used in it - "malicious" "bestial" "harsh" and "barbaric" leap off the page. These are absolutely unencyclopedic. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to editiorialise. Simply say what, as far as is known, happened, without adjectives, and leave the reader to form their own conclusions. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking we need to write new version which will be compromise between "my" and "DIREKTOR" version (but without quotes about which we are having agreement). "My" version is having official church documents about Drakulici massacre and Filipović statements about his killings. We will agree that this documents must became parts of new article version ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to be sure you understand, Rjecina. What I propose is that we take the info from the quotes and rewrite it in a non-citation form. Is that ok?

Kubura, the issue is not the book, but the eyewitness account of a school teacher that went insane for years because of what she saw. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My proposition is that you rewrite part of article Ustaše chaplain and then we will discuss that. In my thinking this policy of small steps is best for finding solution of our problem.

DIREKTOR you are now speaking like Pax. His position in 1 of our discussion has been (example): page 56 of book is source of statement in article (Pax statement). After reading that book I have added statement which is having source on page 92 of this book. Pax statement has been this is not OK this is POV and he has deleted my statement. Book can be NPOV or book can be POV but it is not possible to claim that statement on 1 page is NPOV (school teacher that went insane) but book is POV.

I am having another problem with this teacher. Book is writen in 1948. Teacher has became "OK" in 1952 (or something similar. see earlier discussion on talk page) so it is not possible that he has given statement for the book if he has been insane during book writing.--Rjecina (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, I'm starting to lose my ever-present charming demeanor ;). In particular, the cracks about me "ruining my reputation" are really wearing down my nerves. I'm afraid I'll have to stand firm here: the eyewitness accounts stay as there is no basis for their removal, whatsoever. They are fully, completely, and indisputably in accordance with Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. And this is what I have been telling you all this time. A couple of questions for everyone, lets hope this solves the matter:

1) Is anyone of the opinion that the eyewitness accounts need to be removed because citations are not frequent in simmilar articles?

2) Is anyone of the opinion that adding these eyewitness accounts is too much information depicting the negative personality aspects of this particular psychotic serial killer?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

3) Is anyone of the opinion that adding these eyewitness accounts is against Wikipedia Quotations policy ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you got there with the verb Rjecina - "is" is correct :-)

I am surprised that you see any merit in Kubura's snide insinuation about me on your talk page, but believe what you want to believe and I'll deal with Kubura on his/her talk page.

Really I wouldn't waste your time trying to put this article right. On the question of Dobrila Martinović's "insanity," I would say that DIREKTOR is putting it a bit too strongly, at least on the evidence I have seen. My impression is that the teacher was seriously shocked by the Šargovac school experience - enough so that she did not give evidence at Filipović's postwar trial and did not resume work for some years afterwards. (And "she" is correct by the way.) This would not mean she was so insane that she could not describe what she had seen. But as DIREKTOR asked, why would she implicate Filipović without justification? As you will see when I revise the article, she knew the man already and had previously thought him friendly.

Some of the details that Novak atrributed to her are obviously over the top, (the stuff about poking out eyeballs and putting them into slit tummies etc) ,and I would be inclined to blame Novak rather than her for that. Novak brought a wealth of information together in Magnum crimen, mostly valid, but undermined his own credibility with absurd exaggerations drawn seemingly from his own imagination. (The Brzica episode is another example.) Later Martinović gave an account that is rather more measured and persuasive.

Neverthelesss there IS a problem about dates: the Magnum crimen article says the book was "commissioned" to support the "show trials." But Novak began the book long before the war (the article says so) and it was published only two years after the trials of Stepinac, Draža etc. Kirker (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On 1 August I have asked advice about citations problem on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Question and answer is possible to read on this link. I am now going on short wiki vacation.--Rjecina (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a pile of quotes deteriorates the quality of article. Especially in heated topics.
Second: there were witnesses (true ones) and "witnesses" (liers). Many "witnesses" have told all kind of lies and have shown incredible imagination, just to earn the money on the tragedy of their people.
Have in mind that many of those witnesses were supporters of anti-Croat cause (supporters of chetniks, royal Yugoslav gendarmery in actions against Croats, voters for Serbian hegemonists parties in Kingdom of Yugoslavia...). Telling a lie in order to make a damage to a nation (and even more, get the money for that) and country they disliked was a joy for them.
So, using risky sources for so sensible topics is very dangerous thing. We don't want to damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Kubura (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Kubura, you think the teacher is a lier. However, please accept that that is only your own opinion, and is not supported by actual events. I am aware that there are many "liers" in these sort of things, but this person went insane from her experience. If that was all to gain a few measly coppers from the writer, then I am finding it hard to believe. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking

In my thinking section of article Ustaše chaplain need to be writen in this way:

"Against church orders, Miroslav Filipović has joined the Ustaše military where he has became chaplain assigned to the 2nd Poglavnik Bodyguard Brigade (an Ustaše military formation) in Banja Luka. On 7 February, 1942, the brigade raided the Serb Orthodox villages of Drakulići, Šargovac and Motike located near the city because of collaboration with the rebels. [8]. During the massacre, more than 1,600 Ortodox faithful were killed [9] and school teacher which has became massacre survivor has declared that Miroslav Filipović has started killing of school children (reference:Magnum Crimen ?). Because of his role in massacre German forces has demanded that he is arrested and church has started action against him.

In the end church finding has not been that he is guilty or not for killings but that there is no enough evidence but because of his role in massacre he is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church [10].

Miroslav was court-martialled by the German occupiers, not only due to a simple despise of the crime, but primarily in order to avoid provoking strong resistance on the behalf of the Croatian and Serbian civilians. He was imprisoned, according to the Yugoslav state-commission, and sent to Jasenovac where he was a "free inmate" and "informer" who assisted the Ustaše soldiers.--Rjecina (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This can all be included, but the eyewitness accounts must be included as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the eyewitness accounts can be incorporated into the article as citations rather than as full quotes. I see no reason why we cannot actually write about the events and use the quotes as supporting information. AniMate 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there isn't a reason... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sensible. We can summarise the quotes, then, if anyone wishes, the quotes themselves can be put in as footnotes. I've used that style before, and it seems to work quite well. The good thing here is that we have sufficient eyes on this now to sort the mess out, and, yes, as it stands now, the article is a mess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But why should we do that!? There is no reason to stick them in the footnotes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant I had no objection if anyone saw any benefit to doing so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I was supporting, though Alasdair said it more eloquently. We have two long block quotes and that seems unnecessary. We can write our own text, user Magnum crimen as support evidence in addition to other sources. By delving outside of MC we put the validity of the information beyond doubt and shut down any criticisms. AniMate 22:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We could, but these are quoted eyewitness statements. And I for one would feel pretty stupid trying to rewrite the same stuff in different words. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Isn't that mostly what we do at Wikipedia? Rewrite stuff in different words? Considering everything we write technically should have a source, our "job" is to report what those sources say in an encyclopedic manner. I'm fairly certain most of the articles aren't just collections of verbatim quotes, but are articles written with sources cited as supporting evidence. AniMate 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but actual statements from eyewitnesses? I see no point anyway, its perfectly allowed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously a mood to accommodate Rjecina's obsession. This need not be too restricting. I am fairly confident that the rewrite that I hope to do today or tomorrow will not only leave no doubt about Filipović's hideous crimes but also leave Rjecina with no excuses to dilute it. Kirker (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking somebody else is having obsession because this is in my thinking only possible reason why this sort of article must have different editorial style of all other articles.

Because in my thinking we will never come to consensus my proposition is for another sort of consensus. We will ask 1 member or former member of Arbitration Committee for his thinking and we all will accept his decision and this will be new consensus about quotes. I am sure that in the end this will come to Arbitration Committee and this proposition is shortcut so that we do not loose days and days in heated debate without possibility for consensus.

My proposition is that we ask former Arbitration Committee member User:Mackensen which has 1 time earlier entered other Balkan dispute. To make thing easier for him I will write 3 points (1 line each) against quotes and DIREKTOR or Kirker will write 3 points (1 line each) for quotes.

On his talk page we will write: During heated discussion about quotes in article Miroslav Filipović we have come to agreement. Our consensus is that we will write 3 lines for and against quotes and then you will write your thinking which will became our consensus.

Do we have agreement about this ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You DON'T have my agreement, and please don't tell me how many lines to write about anything. I have already said I am going to re-do the article and that you will not have anything to complain about. You can't be bothered to track down the facts yourself, so just leave it to those who can. And in the meantime, please try to calm down. Kirker (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, all right. Kirker will redo the article and then we'll discuss (and probably all agree) on the version. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have not noticed I am not interested in this article but about use of quotes in all article (I am telling this again and again and again). Even if you write OK version of article we will need to "fight" again and again about other articles.--Rjecina (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude is less than helpful, and I think you need to read things more carefully as you clearly don't comprehend what is being written. The article is going to be rewritten so you won't have the long quotes you're so upset about. Also, there are steps of dispute resolution for a reason. You don't get to hand pick someone to settle your differences, and frankly arbitration isn't a foregone conclusion as editorial consensus seems to be firmly against you. If you're still unhappy after Kirker's rewrite, why not try posting at the Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Also, you should be aware that Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars exists so we won't necessarily "need to "fight" again and again about other articles". Both of these are better options then jumping to arbitration and certainly better than thinly veiled insults or insinuations about sockpuppets on user talkpages. AniMate 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Total rewrite, August 2008

Here at last, somewhat delayed by persistent hardware crashes, is a complete rewrite of the article. Others will no doubt want to knock it around (without prejudice I hope) but it is a better starting point than what was there before. As the subject matter is so contentious I have tried to provide references for absolutely everything. Where I have failed I have highlighted the lack of a source. The one or two unverified items I have left in are ones for which I’m fairly sure I’ve seen sources but I haven’t had time to track them down just now. Maybe I will do that eventually if no-one else does. Once or twice I have cited internet sources that are obviously polemic, as they are entitled to be, but which as such are not ideal for an encyclopaedia entry - in particular Emperor's Clothes, but it is only referencing a fairly small and uncontentious point. Maybe others will find stronger sources.

So that there is no ambiguity about what is being referenced by what, I have departed from the usually preferred style of putting references only at the end of sentences. I hope no-one will object to that in this case.

I have left out the Serb-cutter photo. I hope no-one will want to put it back as there are much more relevant photos around, for instance showing Filipović variously in Ustaša uniform and in clerical robes. At this stage photos were not my first priority and they are not really my territory. (I suspect one or two have been faked, but others will know about that better than me.)

The website Jasenovac: Diverse Interpretations (http://www.annualreports.eu/jasenovac/?page_id=11) though overtly pro-Catholic, and hostile to the Croatian war-crimes commission, is nevertheless forthcoming about Filipović’s crimes. It has links to several relevant and potentially useful documents in Croatian. Maybe someone with good Croatian/Serbian could look at them and incorporate their content in the article as appropriate. (I’ve had enough of struggling with that language for now.) Likewise perhaps someone could take a look at the Župančić statement of 1981 which obviously has some useful info, particularly concerning pre-1942.

I've just noticed I've left out the categories. Just an oversight. But omission of External Links is deliberate, simply because I don't like them. If others do like them, put some in! Kirker (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Truly excellent work, Kirker! I particularly like how you've kept to the sources as much as possible, kudos :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. A fine piece of work. A masterclass in how to turn a crappy wiki article into something authoritative. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe a Barnstar is in order... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, whatever one of those is. Does it come with any financial award? LOL. Also thanks, folks, for tidying up after me. I had run out of stamina. Just a detail: I tried to put in a wiki link to Matković, hoping it might encourage someone to create a short article about that monster. But it went to an article about a guy with the same name. Is there any way round that? Kirker (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, to redirect Ivica Matković to Ivica Matković (football coach) and start a new article on Ivica Matković (xxx), filling in xxx with 'military leader', 'politician' or 'monster', as preferred. You'll need to have a Ivica Matković (disambiguation) page too. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another trick is to use one of the templates here. I'm not sure a disambiguation page is needed when there are only two subjects, so choosing one of these templates to put on top of Ivica Matković might be better, and then you could create a new article at Ivica Matković (***). AniMate 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We will never agree about quotations because in my thinking how wikipedia is working we need to put wikiquote template in article and then put this quotations on wiki quote Quotations related to Miroslav Filipović at Wikiquote. I can't understand if you are right why this hostility toward calling members of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or if nothing else administrators to listen who is right.

Let say only for example that you two are right about quotations so I will now write criticism of this article:

• 1 We are having internet source which is saying reason for Ustaše attack on Drakulići.
• 2 We are having different victims numbers for Drakulići massacre.
• 3 If Quotations are OK we can have court statement of Mara Šunjić but not 10 years latter statement of Dobrila Martinović. Statement of Mara Šunjić and it is 1 of reasons for Filipović death sentence, but Martinović .... ??
• 4 Quotations in Jasenovac camps part of article is overkill and minimal 1 can't be accepted.

My only wish is that article is similar to articles of other extermination camps commanders (this is easy to find) or monsters (for example Charles Manson)--Rjecina (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with, and everything in favour of, using quotations sensibly and sparingly in articles. Many many biographical articles use quotes from the subject. You are not correct about the template. As to your other points, well, I'm afraid I don't quite understand them as the English is not the best I have ever read. Can you explain what you want to say more clearly? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

About which point ??--Rjecina (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All four of them, actually. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1 Drakulići are attacked by Ustaše because of collaboration with the rebels [11].

2 During the massacre, more than 1,600 Ortodox faithful were killed [12] (this is document from 1942)

3 We willl all agree that 1 thing is court statement of Mara Šunjić and another thing are book statements of Dobrila Martinović.

4 Nothing to say about that in my thinking it is clear enough.--Rjecina (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Look Rjecina, the quotes used aren't just allowable but they are welcome and encouraged. I'm sorry you cannot understand this, but consensus on this page is firmly against you. If you want to try and get administrators or arbiters to look at this in order take some sort of action, then you're welcome to do so. However, I can almost guarantee that they'll say this is a content dispute and no admin action is required. Please read WP:Consensus and understand that the consensus here is against the changes you are demanding. And frankly, we've heard your arguments ad nasuem and there's seems to be an agreement that your changes aren't necessary. AniMate 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking today about that because of Kirker protest against my invitation to administrators for seeing article and comment about Wikipedia:Quotations (15 August events). After that I will stop looking editorial changes in this article for very long time. If I start any new action this will not be about this article but about use of quotations in articles. In the end we will have decision.--Rjecina (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but in my thinking there is no consensus. Until now vote is 4:1 (against me) but we will wait Kubura vote and then it will be 4:2 (because of his protest about sources).--Rjecina (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look Rjecina, everyone (except you) thinks that Kirker has done a brilliant job with this article. It is a tremendous improvement. I have got very little idea what you want to say regarding the quotes. I think you want to disallow them via some technicality. As far as I can tell from your garbled mangled English. My advice is to drop the point as a) you are trying to find a technicality to disqualify content from an article (never a good idea, in my experience; it just makes people suspicious about your motives); and b) you have singularly failed to contribute anything positive to this article in all the time it's been on my watchlist. I won't even venture into c), which is the daft allegations of socking against Kirker. Now, if I were you I'd walk away from this article, as it is becoming increasing clear to me that your interest here is a Croatian nationalist POV. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • • 1) I am not having problem with article but only with Quotations. Until now nobody has given good enough reason why this article need to have different editorial style of similar non Balkan articles
      • 2) I have not edited this article 12 days until I have been called by Kirker to edit and I will not edit in near future. Maybe for you links which can be used link sources of statements are not important but this is your opinion.
      • 3) Like I have been saying earlier you will not see me here in near future and when I start action this will not be for this article, but for editorial style and quotes.
      • 4) Staying with my earlier comments that Kirker is not puppet but Croatia WWII related SPA account.
      • 5) This version of article is better of old, but not even close enough to be good.
      • 6) Decision of all administrators (there has been really great number of adminstrators) is that I am NPOV account.
      • 7) Bye --Rjecina (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll ever understand your problem with the quotes, but for the record the article on Rudolf Höß, who was the commander of Auschwitz, has four block quotes in it. Additionally, one of those is a direct quote from him. So, this article actually is similar to another extermination camp commander (one of your complaints above) and is non-Balkan. You shouldn't have any more objections. AniMate 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, what you're trying to do is complete and utter nonsense. The current version cannot be altered for any of the ludicrous reasons you listed. I'm not going to go into this any further, take this where you like. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It might help if I explain here, as I explained to Rjecina, WHY I put in the lenthy quote from Filipović re Stara Gradiška. (The other quotes are self-explanatory.) I did it because I thought it would be helpful for potential readers to hear him in his own words. There are passages I could have chosen instead in which he talks about greater atrocities, but the one I used does show his readiness to admit his part in serious crimes. I was just trying to be fair. Animate has found comparable usage in an article of comparable subject matter, but in any case quotes are perfectly allowable in principle, and we do not need to be concerned here with how other articles have been put together.

Re the figures, I believe (without having access to my books just now) that 1,600 was the total given by some sources for those killed at Drakulić alone. I don't know whether this would explain the figure given in Rjecina's source. The source I used (listing full names and birth years of more than 2,300 victims) is likely to be the more reliable, but Rjecina is entitled to modify the article to acknowledge that other figures have been cited. (It might be worth noting that Rjecina had previously restored versions citing 2,730 vicitms.)

I agree with Rjecina that the Šunjić trial evidence would help, but so far I have only found it in Magnum crimen which is an understandably contentious source. I hope someone will track down the transcript and, if appropriate, modify the article accordingly.Kirker (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

His other problem seems to be that in Category:Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel the subjects don't have victim statements like those of Dobrila Martinović and Mara Šunjić in this article. He's correct, almost none of those article contain victim statements, and since this one does he says it constitutes "Balkan POV editing". What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that those articles, for the most part, are awful. Most have no inline citations and those few that do are either of vague origins. I'm not sure if he'll be able to appreciate this, but we'll see. AniMate 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Having followed the link provided by AniMate above, I understand better where Rjecina is coming from. He says - and clearly believes - that there is one rule for the editors of articles about Nazi war criminals and another for people editing Balkan articles. But if Rjecina wants to take his argument any further, whether here or anywhere else, he will need to say what rules he is talking about. As far as I can see, it is not because of any rule that quotes are not missing from those other articles. And when I put quotes into the Filipović article it was neither in breach of nor in conformance with any rule. Differences in the use of quotes between the articles fall entirely within the scope allowed by Wikipedia for contributors to use their own discretion. Rjecina, do you accept this point, or is there a rule that I have overlooked?

By the way, Rjecina, I did indeed suggest that you might want to improve the article. But when you say you did not edit the article again "until invited by Kirker" this is not true, because you have NOT edited it again, even now. Specifically I was hoping you might be prepared to read some Croatian-language sources to which I referred above, and incorporate them into the article as appropriate. For the record, I would also appreciate it if you, or anyone else, could contribute any additional sources, again modifying the article if that's what the additional sources require.Kirker (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have further underpinned the statement that "more than 2,300" were killed in the massacres at Drakulić. It seemed hardly necessary as I had already put in a credible source, but obviously Rjecina was not convinced. I am sure he will consider the Ustaše themselves an admirable source.Kirker (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina's latest contribution

Here is an egregious example of what Rjecina contributes to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miroslav_Filipovi%C4%87&diff=235855316&oldid=235312511

When I rewrote this article in August I could find no firm evidence about Filipović's birth date. So the date I put in was presented NOT as a fact but as a claim, which I attributed to the one website I had found which made that claim. Because Rjecina has a personal objection to the website in question, he simply removed that attribution. At the same time he has converted a claim that may be open to question into a firm statement of fact - even though he knows NOTHING about the matter himself, and provides no source at all!

Quite apart from such behaviour being thoroughly unconstructive, does Rjecina or any other individual have the right to decide which sources are acceptable and which are not? If he had bothered to discuss the matter, I would have argued that the Pavelić Papers website has put into the public domain significant documentary evidence relating to the NDH. In doing this it has served a useful purpose, no matter how unpalatable some of the evidence may be to Rjecina. Some of the website's articles are unquestionably polemic, but those articles are usually signed and it is easy to distinguish between fact and opinion. The website has been cited often on Wikipedia, especially before it ceased to exist under its own name, and that seems quite reasonable to me. Kirker (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is having "right to decide which sources are acceptable and which are not", but we are having Wikipedia:Reliable sources and if we are looking this rules site "Jasenovac - Donja Gradina: Industry of Death, 1941-45" is not reliable source.

Real problem is question of books in Balkan related articles because books are reliable sources (if publishers is respected source), but in Balkan related articles they are many, many time used for POV pushing and writing false informations which is not in books in question.

There is no need to worry about my edits. All my edits are controled by Balkan related administrators. My proposition for any user which is having bad thinking about my edits is to look my reverts in April-May 2008 during period in which I have been banned from reverting--Rjecina (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the source, please spell out why. But regardless of that, to upgrade a questionable claim (supported by only one source, clearly specified so that readers may judge for themselves) into a firm statement of fact for which you provide no source at all, is just stupid. If you can't understand that, please just leave English-language Wikipedia alone and find something to do that you can understand. Kirker (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Discussion about this site has been on other talk page.

For all questions about site it is enough to look first assembly of foundation Jasenovac-Donja Gradina [13] . Members of foundation council are: Genocide denier Milan Bulajić (his statements about Srebrenica genocide) and Arie Livne corrupt member of World Jewish Congress. I can again check other council members but it is enough that genocide denier is council member so that this is not reliable source.

About his birth date you can write with different editorial style.--Rjecina (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, it was you who turned the date of birth into a statement of fact. Either provide a source or undo your edit. I am not here to tidy up after your negative meddling. Kirker (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have changed statement only to be reverted by another user. My job here is done.--Rjecina (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)