Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

FACTUAL MISTAKE - UNS - Ustaska NADZORNA sluzba

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

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

like Jews, Gypsies, and even Croats

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

Forensic sources paragraph

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

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

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

Jasenovac, Omarska and the Serb Voluntary Guard Cabal in Wikipedia

Interesting.

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

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

Discuss before reverting

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

You will agree that it is not possible to make massive rewriting of controversial article without discussion ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The changes are reviewed by several other editors - who made some corrections, too - (Tabletop, Don Luca Brazzi, Nikola Smolenski, A. Molnar, 205.174.252.26) which did not have any objections to the style, references, Wikipedia rules, etc.
  Rjecina's reverting Reason: Massive rewriting without discussion, writing of personal thinking, statements are not supported by sources which are speaking different, editorial style as given is utterly false
  - no massive rewriting is visible
  - all statements are supported by valid scholar references
  - editorial style is ok
  I would qualify Rjecina's revert as vandalism due to the fact that she removed references supporting some statements that were tagged by previously, as uncivilty - for attacking the anonymous editor baselessly--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If adding 24,000 bytes to article is not massive rewriting can you please tell me another name for 100 % article enlargement ?

I am sure that there we will not agree but user Vontrotta August version is established version of article because it is having only small changes from older versions which have survived 11 months.

Now in September-October 2008 we are having 2 SPA accounts which are saying:"Established version is not OK" ???? If established version of controversial article is not OK, then you need to start discussion on talk page and not massive rewriting and then discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For users which are interested about editorial style my proposition is to read article Belzec extermination camp. Using this article like source it is very ease to write Jasenovac article with OK editorial style which nobody can protest--Rjecina (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rjecina keeps baselessly disqualifying a good work of an anonymous editor - added text just complements previous version of this article. The additions are strongly supported by valid references. Also, the anonymous editor added some valuable references supporting the existing text i.e. eliminated some s. Another Rjecina's nonsense are 'SPA' accounts - used by her to harass other editors. User Rjecina is warned to avoid vandalizing this article again.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If we look Wikipedia policy account Rjecina, Don Luca Brazzi and 79.176.224.2 are SPA accounts. Only difference is that first is protecting established version of controversial articles and other 2 are changing this version without discussion

I am calling RFC for this and article Magnum Crimen--Rjecina (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment about Jasenovac extermination camp

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

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

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

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

I will not go reverting anyone's edits here to my preferred version but I have had this page watchlisted for quite a while and I would like to offer my opinion on Rjecina's concerns.

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

• Although it is greatly preferred that changes to an article, especially a controversial one, are discussed prior to a major re-write, it is most definitely not an absolute requirement. Per WP:BOLD: On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles.

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

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a guideline, not a policy. As a whole, I don't see any flagrantly obvious differences in style between the new set of edits and the previous version of the article that would warrant the blanket removal of all new material. Perhaps there should be a more specific listing of perceived differences in style for any particular edit and, if the newly added material is found to be satisfactory, I don't see it as too difficult a task to convert the style and tone of the article to stay the same with the new information not being removed.

3. Must of new sources are not Wikipedia:Reliable source. We are even having confirmed genocide deniers like source of statements (Bulajić) ??

• Again, I see this as an improperly applied blanket statement. While some of the sources may not conform to WP:RS, it does not justify the removal of the rest of the sources that do conform to WP:RS. If you believe Bulajić's work is unreliable, then remove or revert that part of the article that cites him, don't remove properly and reliably sourced edits such as this one which credits Israel Gutman and his work on the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

Edits by 79.176.224.2 (talk · contribs) added a lot of new material to the article. But I wouldn't really call the effort a "massive re-write" because the material was added incrementally over a period of two weeks, it was always sourced and the edits removed nothing that was there or added anything new that's being challenged factually. Which brings me to my conclusion: Is anything here really being challenged as historically inaccurate or as a poorly sourced attempt at POV pushing or are the edits of the IP editor being completely discredited on a technicality that he didn't discuss his edits prior to making them? A few weeks ago, this article was teeming with citation needed tags. Citations were added and now they're being removed to be replaced with those same tags; I disagree that this is in the best interest of the article. Let's try to assume good faith here that the IP editor read this article, saw the many citation needed tags and took it upon himself to verify the claims made and provide the citations that were requested with those tags. As far as I'm concerned, the IP editor made a WP:BOLD set of edits that significantly improved the article and filled in quite a few gaps. His edits are a net positive for the article and, therefore, should stay and be further expanded and improved. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree with SWik78's remarks. The IP's edits were a plus for the article and should not have been reverted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• My comment is not necessary - blatant vandalism reverted.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Except it wasn't blatant vandalism. Personally, I agree with Swik78 and Alasdair. However, we don't go around calling every edit we disagree with vandalism, something you seem to do almost as frequently as Rjecina accuses someone of being a sock of a banned user. AniMate 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was. Complete removal of huge sections of someone serious work based on an arbitrary pretext, then removal of references supporting the existing text - is an act of vandalism. Moreover, any removal of the sections must come after a discussion approving it - not before the discussion. There were five other editors who read the whole text and did not find any reason justifying Rjecina's removals.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • By all means continue throwing the word vandalism around and he'll feel completely justified throwing the word sockpuppet around. Seriously, we are all (for lack of a better word) coworkers on this project, and one of the best ways to ensure a nontoxic environment is to stop using toxic language... or we can continue bicker and call each other names. AniMate 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see this "good" additions to article:

Sources:

Djuro Schwartz,"in the death camps of Jasenovac" is used like source 6 times. Google question about this book is giving 0 hits [1]

Cadik Danon, "The smell of human flesh" is used like source 4 times and google is giving only 2 hits [2]. Only place where it is possible to read this book is www.srpska-mreza.com

Avro Manhattan is used 4 times.

For the end can somebody please tell me why articles about Croatian war crimes must be "better" of articles about Nazi war crimes. In my thinking this is only possible reason why for example this version of Jasenovac article is having section "Living conditions". Everybody know that in Nazi Holocaust Extermination camps there has been quality food and best room service, but this Croats .....

Editorial Style

Then for other example I will use word slaughter. In this article it is used 9 times. In all 6 articles about Holocaust extermination camp it is used 0 times.

POV pushing

Then for last example I will use section of article Number of victims. Because in my thinking editor has not been happy with "low" victims numbers given by different Croatian, Serbian and international institutions he has used words:"The memorial puts estimations at minimum 85,000, and up to 100,000 or so. Former director, Simo Brdar, puts it at a minimal 360,000" Simo Brdar personal thinking is not for article or if nothing else it must take very small not important place in article like any other other similar fringe theory.

I will continue to "attack" this "good" "NPOV" version of article on saturday (not even close to ending my comments).--Rjecina (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• You don't like the sources. We know. You don't like victim's statements being used as sources. We know. What sources do you like? What sources have you actually brought in for people to evaluate? You've been so busy complaining about everything that you haven't brought anything positive to the table in months. I know this is going to be hard, but instead of saying "I don't like..." try saying "I have this..." to back up your endless, repetitive complaining. AniMate 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Section "Recognition of nations and foundation the the horrors of Jasenovac" is essay.

During last 2 days only comment has been about sources ???

All in all this version of article is writen against: Wikipedia:POV pushing, Wikipedia:Essay, Wikipedia:Reliable source, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:NPOV....

Animate I have writen my comments earlier. Editorial style of article must be similar to: Chelmno extermination camp, Auschwitz concentration camp , Belzec extermination camp , Majdanek , Sobibor extermination camp , Treblinka extermination camp. Please don't tell me that "our" article is better of others because all persons for Balkan are knowing that when our primeminister is speaking that our new laws will be better of European laws we are .....

I am waiting to hear comments about my criticism of this version of article. Can somebody please defeat my arguments ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as an environment driven by collaboration and consensus, is not improved by attempting to "deafeat" each other's arguments; we're supposed to work together, not against each other.

If you would like my opinion on your arguments, here's what I can say without overly repeating what I said earlier:

• The editorial style does not have to be similar to the other articles on related topics, it only needs to be consistent throughout this article. Basically, as long as the beginning, middle and the end of this article are written in a consistent style and tone, those other articles are not of much significance when it comes to MoS.
• You should give some specific examples of edits that you think violate each of those policies/guidelines you listed above. It's hard for anyone to agree with a blanket statement like "the article violates policies 1,2,3,4,5..." without presenting us with a clear example of which edit actually violates which policy.

Don't get me wrong, I most definitely agree that the recent set of edits needs improvement and cleanup but deleting everything of value in order to fix the perceived issues does more harm than good. You're suggesting using an axe where we need to use a scalpel. As of right now, the article has about the same amount of problems that it did about a month ago but it has much more solid material which can be improved, something we didn't have last month. It's here, let's work with it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You have missed my 9 October edit with examples. This was Good faith mistake !?

Only real work of that "good" IP editor has been creation of new section which are all against editorial style used in articles about other extermination camps. I will be happy if everybody involved in discussion will read articles about other extermination camps so that we all can have discussion about editorial style--Rjecina (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that you're not accusing me of not assuming good faith with that question. Although I may disagree with you, I am assuming utmost good faith good faith from you and I'm not accusing you of anything.

If Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the crux of the issue here, the respective guideline says nothing about consistency of style across articles; they do not all have to look and read the same. If, as you mention in your October 9 comment, the only MoS issue you have with the new edits is the repetition of the word "slaughter", go ahead and remove some instances of it where you believe a different word should suffice.

Simo Brdar's estimate is mentioned only once and briefly so it actually does "take very small not important place in article" as you suggest that it should. There is no further elaboration on it nor is there any undue significance attributed to it. USHMM, in its Jasenovac article, specifically states that "Determining the number of victims for ... Jasenovac is highly problematic due to ...", therefore all we have ever had is estimates. Brdar's number is again just that - an estimate from a close source, no more significant (in all reality, probably much less significant) than the rest but an estimate nontheless when we lack an exact count. But still, if you believe it to be incorrect, misleading or unencyclopedic, remove it. For all our discussion here, we will not come up with a solution that can fix this all of this article's problems at once with a wave of a magic wand; let's fix it one broken sentence at a time. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about section "Living conditions" which is very, very misleading ?

This section is OK if Victims in german camps has recieved full room service, but if "life" in other extermination camps is similar......--Rjecina (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to appear as though I'm bestowing upon myself a role of an authority figure or a mediator so I'll let others ring in after this comment. But to answer your question, I don't think that the "Living conditions" section's purpose is to unduly present the living conditions of Jasenovac as being worse than those of Auschwitz or Majdanek, I think it's presented fairly and neutrally. If yourself and others disagree then you can feel free to remove it.

I just want to make sure that you understand that anything I've said is explicitly only my opinion and I will not try to attribute more importance to it than the same as what your opinion deserves. I could very well be wrong but that's my take on the situation. I don't have a magic solution for all of the article's problems, I just wanted to offer my comments as to what I think about the new version of the article and how we're better off in trying to improve it from here rather than reverting all of IP editor's changes and improving the article from its early September version.

I think I've said most of what I had to say so I'll let others join the discussion and let their opinions be heard as well. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, this is not cool, Rjecina. I don't know to which RfC you're referring when you say that it's "clearly going that way" but this RfC right here does not have a single person yet agreeing with you that the edits by the anonymous IP should be reverted en masse. I completely understand that you firmly believe that you've put forth the only valid argument and that your opinion, therefore, trumps everyone else's but that's not how it works. Whether you agree with the opinions expressed here or the process by which we arrived here is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that every one of the editors who has participated in this RfC has agreed that the IP's edits should not be indiscriminately deleted rather that the article should be improved from its current state by fixing one issue at a time. What I think is very uncouth from you is not only that you reverted the article to your own preferred version but that you made that revert citing this talk page as an authority that agrees with you on some sort of a fundamental level when it's anything but. If you're gonna edit war, then go ahead and edit war without wasting our time by asking us for comments on an issue and then completely ridiculing and ignoring what we say. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else we all are having agreement that article is having multiple problems ?

Because of that I have added tags. For all added tags there is reason. It will be nice to anybody who will delete any of tags to write on talk page why, so that we can have discussion about why this tag is in article.--Rjecina (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the veracity of the article, I first wish to say that no edits were done as any sort of propaganda, or to support individual viewpoints, but to present the truth of Jasenovac, whilst relaying on reliable sources, and not on nationalistic propaganda. As for sources, "Djuro Schwartz, in the Jasenovac camps of death", is a witness testimony mentioned in a Yad-Va-Shem brochure, and it was not recovered in google search because it is translated to hebrew (as I mentioned in the first mention of the title) as "ג'ורו שווארץ, במחנות המוות של יאסנובאץ". Avro manhatten's book, as well as that of Admund Paris are considered reliable only for witness testimonies mentioned in direct, or for information that appears on other, more reliable, sources. The state-commission is to be considered generally reliable. As for, "forensic sources"- That paragraph is intended to refute the exagerrated claims of the forensic specialist, who estimated the overly great figure of some "700-800,000" victims.

As for living conditions, these are intended to specify the conditions that Jasenovac inmates had to adapt to, as did all other holocaust victims and camp inmates (including my own kin, so know I wish not to present the conditions as alledgly "rougher" than in other locations). In fact, food conditions in Jasenovac were in many times better than usuall in other camps, whilst the conditions of water supply and accomodations were worst than usual. As for the estimation of Simo Brdar and alike: that section shows the "proper" figures found in lists of victim names, and as these lists are obviously partial, to add the estimations that the lists' managers believe to be the true figures, based on those lists.

The general section presents several arguments that indeed show the rate of death and murder in Jasenovac. It is logical to suggest, even in an encyclopedian article, that a camp which existed for 4 years, in which systematic extermination of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and others took place on a area of 210 km, full of camps and mass-graves. One more thing: Jasenovac was an extermination camp (to differ from a simple concentration camp). 79.181.45.28 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is 1 small problem with witness testimonies: They are never accepted Encyclopedia style of articles. If somebody will be good enough to show us witness testimonies in articles about German extermination camps nobody will protest witness testimonies in Croatian extermination camp. Similar with this is situation with wikipedia users which are adding witness testimonies and writing about way of killings in Jasenovac. If they will start edit warring in all articles about extermination camps I and many others will believe that they are making good faith mistake, but if they are edit warring only in Ustaše related articles we are having many questions about users motives...--Rjecina (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Step by step

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

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

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

As a first step, I made several changes to the organization, without significant changes to the text. The intent is to simplify and unify the article essentially into three sections which I would describe as before, during and after. I will wait for comment before making further changes.Vontrotta (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I have been speaking earlier my only demand is that this article is writen in style similar to articles about Nazi extermination styles. If this article is having different style, then we are having double standards..

Using this argument can you please explain me why Jasenovac article must have victim testimony and others are without that ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good question, but I can't answer it. I only copyedit one article at a time and look at any material included in a section based on my understanding of wiki standards. When I look at victim testimony in this article, the criteria that I would consider important is "notability" and substantiation. I have not reached that point yet, because I wanted to address the overall organization of the article, which I thought was confused. If there is consensus regarding the organizational changes, then I will look at additional copyediting on a section by section basis. I don't want to prejudge whether or not any particular victim testimony should be included until I get to the particular statement, and then would make the edit based on my understanding of wiki criteria. My hope is that by taking this step by step approach, we can narrow any issues so they can be agreed based on wiki standards.Vontrotta (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I staying with my comments that earlier version of article edited by you (this was my revert to your version) is not having editorial style like similar articles, but it is much better of this. It is possible to see that nobody has attacked with real wiki arguments, my comments about new version writen by 1 IP editor and 1 new edit warring SPA account (I do not know number of articles which are protected because of this account). If my thinking is wrong can somebody please explain my mistake with real arguments ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Testimony is simply unacceptable evidence. The same has applied with articles related to the recent wars as well.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Brutality and propaganda

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

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

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

Living conditions

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

Overtagging

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

• I support your point of view entirely. There is only one person who is adamantly putting tags without any rational explanation. That's the reason to remove these tags as long as we see that only one person is inserting them.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27 your comment is bordering with incivility. On wikipedia personal attacks are not accepted. Right way to question tags is:"In my thinking this articles is having too many tags. I am interested to hear comments of wiki community".

When I read article about Jasenovac on Britannica or USHMM and this on wiki my only comment is: Wikipedia version is writen in horrible non encyclopedic POV pushing style. In my thinking users which is thinking that this version if OK must ask themself if they are right and all others encyclopedia are wrong, or they are wrong and all others encyclopedia are right.

In this discussion I do not see any question, but only fishing in dark. If in somebody thinking 1 or more of tags is not OK he need to say: This tag is not OK, so that other users can understand and discuss problem.--Rjecina (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding only comment is: Wikipedia version is writen in horrible non encyclopedic POV pushing style. - please, elaborate what exactly is 'non encyclopedic POV pushing' here.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I will show example of my thinking on 30. November around 22:00 hours. --Rjecina (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I am late because of other things, but if it is not possible to see difference between encyclopedia style article and this I do not know what to say [3]. I am very interesting to hear what is wrong with that version of article which I have added and deleted ?

About tags I am seeing criticism but never comments which tag is not needed and why. On other side we are having on this talk page comments of different users which are saying that article is having multiple problems ??--Rjecina (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see that you praise your own point of view very much - which is not a valid answer to only comment is: Wikipedia version is writen in horrible non encyclopedic POV pushing style. Regarding 'which tag is (not) needed' - the burden of proof is on you - because you are insisting on those tags.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Coatrack tag has been given by me to 2 sections (living conditions and another). Definition of Coatrack is:"The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful"

Unbalanced is connected with that.

Point about coatrack is that section living conditions is for article Extermination camps not for Jasenovac, or any other camp. All writen in this section about Jasenovac is copy of conditions in any other extermination camp.Food is similar, accommodations are similar, forced labor is similar, sanitation is similar, lack of personnal possesions is similar, anxiety is similar. Only difference is general lack of potable water. If this is not coatrack what it is ?

I am 100 % sure that this section can recieve tag essay because it is writen like essay.--Rjecina (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, sorry, but I don't happen to agree with you. If any other editors come forward to agree with you in the next few days, then that's fine, the tags can stay. If nobody comes forward to say that, well, the tags have to go, frankly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I support AlasdairGreen27 disagreement with Rjecina. Saying 'All writen in this section about Jasenovac is copy of conditions in any other extermination camp' is an arbitrary attempt to disqualify numerous testimonies seen in the references provided in the article by other contributors.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• This article is exceptionally well sourced, especially when we take into consideration the relative obscurity of the subject matter. Tags are clearly misused here, someone's POV almost certainly entered the equation at one point... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In my thinking we all are too much involved in this. We are needing fresh mind/thinking of users which are not knowing anything about Jasenovac and Ustaše crimes.--Rjecina (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In the end I must recognize that November changes of users 79.177.245.41 and 79.181.45.28 has made article much better of what it has been in October during last RFC. During heat of debate (reverts) I have not noticed that ..... Sorry--Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Testimony issue

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

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

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

• All testimonies given by many Jasenovac concentration camp survivors are widely accepted as facts. "Reformation" and "Emperor's New Clothes" are not extremist web sites, no matter what might be your opinion here. Disqualifications of Bulajic could be seen no more than a bad talk about this man.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• The use of testimonies is not ideal, but it is the best source related to such contemporary subjects, as you stated. You were too quick to call out with nationalistic viewpoints. As the one who has written and citated most of the material, I can promise you it holds no viewpoints, and I carefully picked my sources with the uttermost care. Indeed, "emperor clothes" and "reformation" are by themselves contemporary, but I mearly pointed location where eye-witness accounts are quoted. I found Carl Savic also to be reliable, but also, he is stated in relation to witness testimonies mentioned therein. All testimonies of gaurds consist of confessions to a certain degree. The only exception is Dinko Sakic (Nomen Memoriaque Morior)Sakic proudly addmitted his membership of the Ustase and his tenture in Jasenovac and Stara-Gradiska, and yet denied the fact that atrocities and maltreatment occured there. He mocked the witnesses and got the acute response of the court (During the testimony of Jakov Finci). When it was clear that evidence against him were solid, he suddenly addmitted of several crimes taking place, but casted the responsibility upon an Ustase Mile Sudar. He protected the "honor" of figures and institutions that are proven as malicious: Ante Pavelic, The Ustase organisation and even Maks Luburic! (N.M.M) This shows the exact weight of such testimonies, if you happen to find one or two of them that would contray the 100-odd witness testimonies. I found many reliable details at the writings of Milan Bulaijc, in spite of him clearly acute nationlistic views. Nevertheless regarding the "state-commission of Croatia", that is confirmed by any other witness testimony that exists, to the letter. I also feel I should protest against the vulgar accusations made against the respectable work of Dr. Menachem Shelach, who was claimed to be an antagonist of Croats. Menachem Shelach is of the most prominent of Jewish holocaust researchers in Yad Va-Shem. His book, "The history of the holocaust: Yugoslavia", is prefectly citated, and he actually takes steps to defy the viewpoints of contemporary researchers alike Avro Manhatten, Edmund Paris and alike. He has citated various documents and testimonies to prove the aid of the catholic church, the red-cross, the Italians and of simple Croats, who opposed the regime. I actually found him to be, in times, slightly soft in attitude towards people alike Stepinac or Julius Schmidllin, although his research has shed some light on the subject. Having said that, denial of a witness testimony is holocaust revision at it's uttermost pure form, for what source have you that is better, giving the circumstances of this particular subject? 79.178.42.238 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wanderer, I take most of your points as correct, except that I'm not sure you are entirely right about Savich. It would appear that he does indeed have a post grad qualification in history - see here, although that is obviously a pro-Serb website, so I'd like to see independent verification of that profile. Meanwhile, regarding Bulajić, I've seen him scurrilously attacked around here on a number of occasions as "a genocide denier", as he took issue with the ICTY, being of the opinion that Srebrenica was too small scale to amount to genocide. A view I have some sympathy with, as Srebrenica was barbaric, appalling, ruthless, bloodthirsty, cruel, savage, merciless and inhumane, but probably not of sufficiently large scale to be termed "genocide", at least not in line with any definition of genocide that I am familiar with. Anyway, he is widely identified with pro-Serbian analysis so I would say yes, it is as you say it is - Savich and Bulajić are not, shall we say, impartial regarding these matters. If we are looking for reliable sources, Savich and Bulajić are just too controversial; if they are sufficiently generally perceived as partisan, then it matters little whether they are or not from any kind or encyclopedic perspective.

Analysis: This article, and others, notably Ustaše, are plagued by people who think that Wikipedia is the Historical Complaints Department, people who have no concept of what the basic elements of a good encyclopedia must be, and downright POV-driven fanatics determined to fight for their side.

Proposed remedy, to be applied to this and other articles (such as Ustaše): We must pursue quality, or the sorry edit wars will carry on ad infinitum. We must start by removing all the unsourced stuff. All of it. That can be deleted straight away. If it leaves parts of the article with holes in for a while, that does not matter. Next, we should also identify and delete the stuff that is solely sourced from unreliable or non-impartial sources. So if, for example, someone like Savich is too closely associated with, shall we say, "one perspective", then we should find a more reliable source for the information; if none can be found, then that poorly sourced stuff should go. So we start rebuilding the article from a sound base of well-sourced, well-documented material. Next, the language of the article is very POV in places, screamingly so, at times. Is this really an encyclopedia? Or perhaps just an airport novel? Check this out: "Therefore, the "Maks" Luburic devised a plan to utilize the crane as a gallow on which slaughter would be committed, so that the bodies could be dumped into the stream of the flowing river. In the autumn, the Ustase NCO's came in every night for some 20 days, with lists of names of people who were incarcerated in the warehouse, stripped, chained, beaten and than taken to the "Granik", where ballasts were tied to the wire that was bent on their arms, and their intestines and neck were slashed, and they were thrown into the river with a blow of a blunt tool in the head. The method was later enhanced, so that inmates were tied in pairs, back to back, their bellies were cut ere they were tossed into the river alive.
WTF kind of airport trash is that?? So, yes, I'm sure a major linguistic clean up is also necessary. I am willing to do it, but we'll need consensus or it'll just get reverted by the numerous IP editors that hang around these parts. If such an approach is supported by other editors, please let me know, as we'll need to go forward together. I am perfectly willing to implement it myself, but on the basis of agreement here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The title of the talk section was misleading. This is not a case of "Testimony vs. Fact", more like "Testimony vs. Nothing". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Testimony is useful if it can be verified. That is, if multiple people testify the same accounts, they can be considered accurate. In most cases in this article, an interview with one person is taken as exact fact. Would that apply to an article about the Bosnian War? Methinks not. Verifiability is not debatable. No other article about a WWII concentration camp resorts to using communist commissions (which nearly doubled the casualty rate from the war), nationalists (often admittedly so, or by association), individual testimonies, and extremist websites (with a list here of Emperor's Clothes's great "contemporary impartiality" in Balkan matters).--Thewanderer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For me is hard to believe that genocide deniers Milan Bulajić [4] [5] and Jared Israel [6] can be used like source for any question about Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs ?

To make things about Jared Israel even better he has worked for defense of Slobodan Milošević:

" I have also done research work for Mr. Milosevic's defense case this spring at Mr. Milosevic's personal request." [7]

and he has created International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević ( http://www.icdsm.info/ )[8]--Rjecina (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the article and found that nearly all substantial facts are not supported by a single testimony, but at least by two. "Emperor clothes" and quotes of Milan Bulaijc are not reliable sources on their own, but are mearly used as supportive sources to establish facts mentioned in various testimonies, or to show the reader some of the text of a witness testimony mentioned therein. Nevertheless, the very inreliability of these sources proves that, when dealing with such contemporary subjects, witness testimonies remain, alas, the only source that is reliable. I tried to supply first-hand recolections and confirmation testimonies, to improve the already disputed weight of such a source, so that it could be taken into account as an historical fact. I even screened testimonies or parts of such, that appeared unreliable, like a few "confessions" of accused Ustasas, and the statements of some inmates who aided the Ustasa, and were racists. what more seek you? name it, and it will be in the article soon enough. 82.81.123.45 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of victims

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

Victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franjo Tudjman is as unreliable as Milan Bulaijc or Srboljub Zivanovic, if not more. Not only is he an establised holocaust revisionist and pronounced anti-semitic, but he is also accused of financial corruption, racism and war-crimes. He is a nationalist, even boardering pro-fascist. His underestimated figures of the number of victims in Jasenovac and the NDH has been proved as utterly understated, and respected press, institutions and nations openly criticized him.

Menachem Shelach, however, is a highly respected holocaust researcher. I refuse to agree with any account that refers to him as a hater of Croats. In his book there are various accounts of Croats that complained of the Ustase atrocities. He goes against the widely-accepted "Serbian" opinion of the responsibilty of the Vatican to the atrocities. He shows Alojize Stepinac as a "Rightous amongst nations", and insists that the Italian fascists had pity for the Jews. He also wrote on the aid of the Red-cross to the Jews. Besides, the books mentioned are not written seldomn by Shleach: we must also mention Josef Lewinger and Israel Gutman. 79.182.18.84 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about Franjo Tuđman, but this has been only example :)

Something has happened with Menachem Shelach thinking about Croats during his last years. He will declare in interview published by Israeli weekly Hotam (December 30, 1994), that he deathly hates the Croats (in Hebrew: sin 'at mavet) ???

Maybe he has started to believe in Serbia state propaganda (1988 or 89-95) against Croatia ??--Rjecina (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of Shelach's personal opinion of "Deathly hate of Croats"(שנאת-מוות לקרואטים, Sin'at mavet le'Kroatim), but it does not reflect in his books. But I find almost no problems with Shelach's account. Keep in mind that the quotated verses were viewed by Josef Lewinger and Israel Gutman. Shelach is quoted to illustrate the "larger figures"' in contrary to the minimalistic accounts of "USSM". His second quote is provided as a middle-way approach, which is more reliable. All in all, I think we can all agree that figures of victims in Jasenovac must exceed 100,000 but not 500,000, and surely not 700,000.

As for Srbolijub Zivanovic: his accounts are provided in order to refute his claims, not to approve it. I'll try to make that slightly more notable, and perhaps briefly compare with Franjo Tudjman.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia policy that we comment institution finding, but for sake of discussion my next comment is that nobody is attacking numbers of Yad Vashem and because of that this section is using double standards. We can write criticism of both numbers or not to write anything.

For example I know that USHMM archive is having better data of Yad Vashem, because Republika Srpska has given to USHMM must of archive, data and weapons taken from Jasenovac memorial in Croatia. I will find source for that.--Rjecina (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

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

My actions has been:

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

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

About Živanović I have writen what is in our source.

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

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

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

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

• This is a monologue which does not explain anything. Removing huge portion of text based on poor excuse shall be considered as vandalism. Removal of the Shelach's and Dedijer's works - of the two men who were WWII events witnesses and participants and world-renown historians - is a frivolous and the truth-harming act.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not write false claims on talk page. Shelach is not deleted but removed from section institutions to other place because definition for institution is:

"Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals"

and definition for individuals is:

"As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any specific object in a collection".

Wikipedia definitions are very clear and because Shelach is person he is individual and not institution !

About Dedijer work my only comment is that publisher of his book is not reliable by wikipedia standards--Rjecina (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not have any standards accepted by scholars nor obligatory to scholars. Moreover, this person (Rjecina) removed a lot of text from the article not giving any justification for it. All above 'talk' is a pure nonsense and not even related to the text she removed. --72.75.20.29 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

About wikipedia reliable sources my advice is to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you do not agree with my thinking that Dedijer is not reliable source we can ask judgment of administrator about that.--Rjecina (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

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

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

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

What is exactly protected???

This text was removed by Rjecina without any explanation

"Some six hundred thousand people were murdered at Jasenovac, mostly Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and opponents of the Ustase regime. The number of Jewish victims was between twenty thousand and twenty-five thousand, most of whom were murdered there up to August 1942, when deportation of the Croatian Jews to AUSCHWITZ for extermination began." (Entry in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, edited by Israel Gutman, vol.1, 1995, pp.739-740)

Logically, the number of casualties in Jasenovac is affected by several factors:

• the camp's size: Jasenovac was a complex of various camps, including Krapje and Brocice, Ciglana, Stara-Gradiska, Sisak, Djakovo, Jablanac, Mlaka, Draksenic, Gradina and Ustice, Dubica, Kosutarica, Jasenovac's tannery. These camps and mass-grave yards covered 120 square miles. This fact is also important since in the list of names found in the Jasenovac memorial, only 4000 victims are of Stara-Gradiska, which points just how partial the list really is.

• The length of the camp's existence: Jasenovac stood since mid-August 1941 to May 1945. Mass-extermination took place in mass in the whole of 1941-1942, and again in the second half of 1944. From March to December 1943, a "lull" took place when almost no mass-atrocities took place, whilst death due to health impairment or individual slaughter (to wit, that any guard could kill any inmate at any given time) continued.

• The camp's classification: besides being a concentration camp, Jasenovac was an extermination camp. For comparison, Belzec and Kulmhof, both small and both existed for a significantly shorter period of time, exterminated over 300,000 and 128,000 accordingly.

• The camp's population: Jasenovac housed and used as a place of extermination for Serbs, Jews, Roma, Sinti, Slovens and other ethnicities, whereas in all extermination camps only Jews and Roma were exterminated, therefore, the number of casualties should be in accordance.

Additionally, Crematories were constructed in Jasenovac as back as January 1942, due to difficulties of burial, thus implying the massive death rate at hand there. The same goes for gassing that also took place in Stara-Gradiska later that year, in both chambers and vans.

This text is added by Rjecina and has no relation to this article - related to Menachem Shelach, historian and scholar

but in final year of life he will declare for Israeli weekly Hotam that he "deathly hates the Croats"

---

Bottom line - the 'protection' is aimed to protect vandalism and frivolity.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask the IP conspiracy theorists to re-read my post above. If you do, you will notice that I have offered to revert the article back to an earlier consensus version, which will then remain in place for the duration of the protection or until the content issues being discussed here are resolved. Perhaps it would also help for you to read Wikipedia's protection policy, which states "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version..." Protection is not an endorsement of the version protected.

If you have suggestions you'd like to make to improve the article, and can supply reliable sources and do so without indulging in invective and bad-faith speculation, please feel free. EyeSerene^talk 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • First of all, learn how to respect other editors and scholars. I am not indulged in invective and bad-faith speculation - your support to Rjecina is clear and evident. Also, Menachem Shelach is respected and world-renown scholar which contribution to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is evaluated by an international editorial board of historians and university professors. Here Shelach is disqualified by an anonymous editor (Rjecina) and a formidable and most omnipotent source (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust) is disqualified too. EyeSerene is calling upon a consensus??? Which one??? Consensus of you and Rjecina???--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec - reply to IP)No, you just proved the exact point of protection. Yourself and Rjecina have firmly entrenched opinions on this matter and those opinions are highly opposed to one another. When two editors with opposing views both firmly believe that their opinion is the correct one and that it is in Wikipedia's best interest that this opinion be expressed in an article, that's when edit warring breaks out and any hope of those editors getting back to the drawing boards for a civilized discussion dwindles. Unless one is forced to do so, it's hard to accept compromise when one believes they are right and that their opinion agrees with absolute fact. Although I don't ever expect that you or Rjecina can do or say something to change each other's mind on this matter, protection forces discussion and, hopefully, produces a solution that we can all live with. If all our efforts are spent on the current disputes, how can we improve anything else in this article?

By the way, I only arbitrarily used "you" and "Rjecina" in my example; I don't mean to imply that either one of you are guilty of anything. You can just as easily substitute the names of two other editors with opposing views but I formatted my example as a response to your previous statement in which "you" mentioned "Rjecina", that's all. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You will be surprised SWik78, but I am reasonoble person which is always when it is possible look for compromise. For example you need to see Template:The Holocaust which is writen against all Holocaust scholar sources (and any encyclopedia), but edit war has ended. There is not point in saying my thinking about that compromise, but edit war has ended.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. When in any article we are showing 2 different positions of any "problem" we must take neutral position and show both position in similar light and not attack only 1 position or side of story. In my thinking discussion about this wikipedia policy is not possible and anybody who is thinking different is having POV problem.

In my thinking easiest way to solve this edit warring problem will be removing of all historians from this dispute and leaving comments about number of Jasenovac victims to institutions. We are having USHMM "small" numbers, Yad Vashem "great" numbers, Belgrade museum and Jasenovac Memorial Area victim list (they are very similar), Yugoslav 1945-6 number of victims, Yugoslav 1965 number of victims, Germany number of victims (last 3 are more or less speaking only about total victims numbers in WWII). What more is needed. With all this data there is no need for questionable historians ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that anyone here is unreasonable, including yourself. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Although I agree with the sections that include logical assertions, or the denial of the claims made by Vladimir Zerjavic, Srboljub and others, I also agree that they are not "encyclopedic" in nature. They belong in essays more than in an value in wikipedia. Nevertheless, I found no proof of the "hate of Croats" related to Menachem Shleach. Besides, the quotated verse is edited by the chief researcher Israel Gutman. Menachem Shleach is highly respected as a neutral historian. Milan Bulijac is also a revisionist, and he is not highly reliable, but his essays include some reliable facts, not few actually. Anyhow, the article can survive without it. Yad-Va-Shem is the biggest authority in holocaust research. Indeed, some of the researchers there have a tendency to illustrate greater figures, but I think that USSM's minimalistic approach is proven incurrect when confornted not only by the estimations of various historians and the Yad-Va-Shem institute in general, but also by the Simon-Wiesentall center and other establishments. The only "institute" that concures with USSM is the Jewish virtual library. I think we can all agree that the figures quoted in the USSM writings are slightly understated. Although it was removed from the article, we could at least keep in mind, during these disscussions, the logical assertions brought up: I do not believe that an extermination camp, open for 4 years, spreading over 240 skm, and recieving hosts of inmates of so many nationalities and ethnicities, would consume such a little amount of people. I do believe that the quote of the "encyclopedia of the holocaust" should be quoted nigh that of USSM. 84.110.192.136 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am saying all along that Menachem Shleach is respected Holocaust historian, but we are having small problem with his last statement.

For me it is funny to hear that Bulajić is writing reliable facts. Bulajić has been declared guilty by Jewish Holocaust historians for writing false witness statement in his books and he has pleaded guilty for that !?

About question who is having better data about number of victims in my thinking closer to truth is USHMM. Why ? Because they have recieved full Yugoslav Jasenovac Memorial Museum archive after it has been plundered by Serbian forces. They have recieved archive from Republika Srpska and latter they have returned archive to Croatia. For me it is very hard that after looking own arhive and Yugoslav archive that they have made so great mistake.

Second reason why in my thinking Yad Vashem data are wrong is Bosnian census. For example The Federal Bureau of Statistics in Belgrade composed a figure of 179,173 persons killed in the WWII in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We will agree that number of killed has been higher, but between this number and Yad Vashem number of killed in Jasenovac 600,000 (50 % of NDH territory has been Bosnia and Herzegovina) ?? In year or two nobody of nationalistic editors has explained how is possible that number of Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina has gone up for 178,000 between last prewar and first postwar census. In my thinking this is not possible for homo sapiens ! Can you please explain me this census problem ? Maybe I am wrong ?

Article Auschwitz concentration camp is having 16 lines about number of victims. Jasenovac is having more of 80. Something must be done about that and must simple things is to write numbers of Holocaust institutions and not of supposed NPOV historians. Your thinking ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The long disscussion about the number of victims related to Jasenovac is because of its problematic nature. The number of victims in Jasenovac will never be determinded exactly. However, I do think that the number could be roughly determinded amidst 100,000 and 500,000. About the census, see the corpus in the article, and you can also look in the books of Shelach and of Jasa Romano (in spite of Romano's utterly exaggerated figures). About Bulaijc, he is contemporary, but there are reliable facts related to his writings. Anyhow, the article can exist without his estimation. Perhaps USSM have more documentation, but I've seen their archived material and I can determind it revloves around inmate tools and clothing. Their estimations derive directly from the estimations of the Jasenovac memorial (wheras Yad-Va-Shem's estimation come from the state-commission). In times, the USSM estimation appears minimalistic even in comparison to the Memorial's estimations. I think we can agree that they "play safe" with the figures all too much, in order to be "politicaly currect and inoffensive". The deleted verses were perhaps not "encyclopedic", but nevertheless we must keep it in mind during disscusions. Do you believe that only 9,000 Croats were killed in Jasenovac? there was a broad partisan movement in the NDH, and besides them, the Ustase also imprisoned Atheists, Muslims (Bosniaks and Albanians), Lutherans, Orthodox people, Slovens, Montenegrians, Russins and many more. When they killed gypsies, that did not distinct, as did the Nazis, between Roma and Sinti. With the Jews you also have mischlinges, which were not usually listed in reports, and also the freemasons and Jovah-Witnesses. Moreover, The regime's catholic approach didn't render catholics immuned of deportations. On the contrary, it made the regime supervise the zeal of people. Thus we find father Franjo Rihar sent to immediate liquidation in Jasenovac for mearly refusing to host a "Te Deum" on the Poglavnik's birthday. We also find a Bishop called Donkovic. Of these, pronounced communists and partisans were immediatly liquidated upon arrival to camp.

Furthermore, the camps operated for over 4 years, and therefore such small estimations cannot be considered. One must also think of the range of the complex. in many accounts, historical and historiographical, Stara-Gradiska and Sisak are counted off and apart from Jasenovac. But when looking at the entire complex, we find Krapje, Brocice, Ciglana, Stara-Gradiska (main camps) and also Mlaka, Jablanac, Gradina, Ustice, Draksenic, Dubica, Kozara (camp IV, "the tannery"), Sisak, Kosutarica, Djakovo and even Lepoglava (appended to Jasenovac as a transit camp in 1944). Inmates were also killed en route to camp or on the full lengh of the banks of the Sava river, or burnt to ashes (and not only in the Brick-kilns). This makes small accounts of victims as does of USSM impossible. But even beyond all of that, I have substantial evidence that the Ustase began to incinerate inmate in the brick kilns in January 1942, but that there were so many corpses, that furnaces had to be constructed in both the Ciglane and in Gradina, and all of that was as back as early 1942. Later, pyres were often used in Gradina, as was lime. The same goes with the gassing that took place in Stara-Gradiska. This shows the rate of killings at hand, contrary to the claims of USSM.79.180.226.223 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To make long story short users are not having right to comment or attack sources in article. Because of that I have never attacked in article (talk page is another story) Yad Vashem data. Similar thing must be valid for USHMM. On saturday I will write proposition for section victims numbers, but for now my question is who is Djuro Schwartz ? Google books are not having anything about his book ? [10]--Rjecina (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Djuro Schwartz is a respectable witness to the atrocities of Jasenovac, his memories are written in the 25th collection of Yad-Va-Shem, Dated 1994. Or in hebrew: ג'ורו שווארץ, "במחנות המוות של יאסנובאץ",קובץ מחקרים כ"ה (יד-ושם, 2004) .עברית . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.226.223 (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to attack sources, you say, and yet you "evaluated" the work of Menachem Shelach and Israel Gutman, respected historians, in the "encyclopedia of the holocaust". Wikipedia articles must have evaluation of sources, which should be limited not to mearly remove all "questionable" sources, but to selectivly pick facts and assertion from a wide resolution of sources, and to evaluate the facts, and introduce different sides. Yad-Va-Shem or Shelach's estimations are brought against those of USSM to show the sides in the debate. Your point on Shelach's alledged inreliability is interesting, but a deeper interpolation proves it is not serious, Shelach's estimations are none the less founded than those of USSM. They are, in fact, a newer form of the Croat/Yugoslav debate on the figures.If you intend to propose any sort of new form to the section, make sure it does not sway in the calculation towards the political plain. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

witness statement are never accepted on wiki because they are by default POV

Now I again must use sarcasm...

I understand your point. Shelach is institution and because of that he is writen in section institutions :)

I am still waiting answer on simple question:

"How is possible that number of Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina has gone up around 15 - 20 % between last prewar and first postwar census if 500,000 of them are killed only in Jasenovac (not speaking about other NDH parts) ?" Question is very simple.--Rjecina (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of victims

Number of victims is very controversial. During Yugoslavia Jasenovac has been taboo like any other discussions about WWII victims. With raise of nationalism many very different numbers has been published. Low numbers are given by Yugoslav general and historian Franjo Tuđman which is speaking about 20,000 victims [11] and high numbers are given by Velimir Trezić another Yugoslav general and historian which is speaking about more of milion Serbs victims in Jasenovac [12]. Only difference between 2 generals is that first is Croatian and second Serbian.

Situation with international institutions is very similar. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Jewish virtual library are speaking about 66,000 to 99,000 victims, but The Yad Vashem center is speaking about 600,000 victims.

Only victim list about which there is more or less agreement is about victims names. Jasenovac Memorial Area in Croatia is having names of 72,193 victims and Serbian Museum of the Holocaust keeps a list of the names of 80,022 victims

Because this text is small we can add quotations from Yad Vashem and USHMM. Can somebody tell me if something will be wrong if we exchange today 40 lines of problematic text with this ?--Rjecina (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"prombelmatics" is in the eye of the beholder, yet this piece of text is overly brief to express the full scale of the debate in the figures of dead in Jasenovac, and it would be nothing but utterly arrogant to attempt to express it in so few words and even foolish, perhaps malicious. The entire debate in the above text is presenting all sides and claims as if falling in two categories, for Franjo Tudjman's account does not reflect the entire "minimalistic" side in the debate, whereas there never was any sort of concensus about Velimir Trezlic. It would also be a rude generalisation to present the opposite claims as mearly "Croatian" and "Serbian". For if such is the case, Yad-VaShem is parallel to the exaggerated Serbian accounts, while USSM is alledgly, god forbide, parallel to Tudjman's figures. The State-commission, the most important historigraphical source at hand, is not even mentioned. Furthermore, Lo: "Only victim list about which there is more or less agreement is about victims names.". This assertion is utterly foolish: for this sentence means, in terminology, that the best victims'-name list is a victims' list, but furthermore, name-lists are clearly minimalistic: it is clear that these lists are only partial: the aformentioned list is derived from Yugoslav documentation, and it is known to be partial, and therefore there are estimations within the Memorial as for the "true" number. But even if it would be complete, could it be that all victims, including those whose whole families were lost, be recorded and listed? The mentioned list is (hopefully by mistake) the smallest, for the Belgrade Museum occupied around 80,000 names. The list in the memorial also contains only some 8,000 names of victims from Stara-Gradiska, thus illustrating it's minority. And there no definite concensus about the memorial's account. look in the citated sources and tell me: is the removal of mallets and knives from the display relevant? Zuroff, the German ambassador, and even the Croatian president admmitted its problematic nature. The same goes for USSM.

You argue with statistics and censi, yet are they mentioned therein? Nay, for such sources invite rather brutal denial by any with even the most meagre knoledge in statistics, thus implying openly on the mockery within these sources. But the true amazment to me is the lack of any direct historical accounts, but mearly using the official accounts of institutions. A true scholar and academic awarded man told me today: "many words are the base of academic speech", why fear you such a lengh, that is all justified by the problematic nature of the subject, written in a reliable encyclopaedia? It is mandatory, and has always been so. You silently question a wide resolution of sources that, whether in large or completly, reliable. Wikipedia should contain the whole debate, and not attempt to demonstrate a fictionate concensus, as comfty as such a "concensus" may be to some of us.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe is best that my answer is writen in similar utmost non civil way.

It is utterly arrogant and even foolish, perhaps malicious to use in Jasenovac article 88 lines about number of victims when only 65 lines are used in articles Treblinka, Auschwitz and Belzec together.

Wikipedia is encyclopedia and it is not place for essays. About long discussions in articles right place for reading is Wikipedia:Article size rules (guideline).

Your argument about need to write data for war victims in Yugoslavia is good, but there will be another long discussion in article. Which data is good ? Yugoslav in 1947, American in 1950s, Yugoslav in 1967 or Žerjavić-Kočović ? 3 out of 4 of this data are similar, but I am sure that somebody will start nationalistic POV and demand that we write this data number 4.

We will really need to find somebody which will make decision which source is OK and which is not--Rjecina (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"לך, לך יא פלצ'פן" (Lech, Lech, Ya-Paltschefan)

Fine then, let us shorten the article, but not so drastically as in the above version. Wikipedia is a flexiable encyclopaedia, and if you wish to stick so hard to 'Ordnung' and strick rules, and compare with other articles, have a blast doing so. But try not to force such a vandal change upon the editorial style of other editors. So what if such is the situation regarding Auschwitz and Belzec (where my kin and family died, so I have no specific interest in Jasenovac [to which's victims I carry no link by blood] over them)? Jasenovac is Jasenovac, not KZ Lublin, and it should be dealt with accordingly, by the wishes of the editor. I personally find strick bounderies rather tiersome, for creativity and intuition, more than obedience to predoctorinated rules, makes life, and obtainment of knoledge, far more enjoyable. Perhaps you imply that in the magnitude of detail in Jasenovac, when compared to the articles upon other concentration camps, is intended to create a "pro-Serbian" image of the camp and of the number of victims. I can truelly say that this is not the case. I fail to see the point in the removal of material, which's corpus was installed prior to my edits, and whose style was incorprated into wikipedia in various languages, without complaints.

Nota Bene: when replying, try not to dissaprove or ignore points that are difficult for you to answer, and reply such a well-stated arguement with a short reply. for I may say my case in many words, but you say nothing in so few ones whereas thy changes to the article are massive in shortage of content. 79.176.251.61 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am asking again and again and again how is possible to number of Serbs in Bosnia has gone up around 17 % if so many of them are killed in Jasenovac, but there is no answer. ?

Sorry, but for me is very hard to believe that there is no specific interest in Jasenovac Gratius Pannonius edits are edits of typical Jasenovac SPA account.

About sources and statements in article for example I see that Cadik Danon is used many times, but I do not see his statement that guards in Jasenovac are Croatian Ustaše and Hungarian Nazis ? Why ? (Danon is unreliable source)

Problem with all this guys (Danon, emperors-clothes , Jasenovac-info, Živanović, Bulajić) that they have been on Milošević payroll during Yugoslav Wars and it is very ease to show that they are not trustworthy. Maybe it will be interesting to you reading of "Globalizing the Holocaust: A Jewish usable past in Serbian Nationalism" [13] ?

Can you please write on talk page your proposition for victims section of article ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

More arrogant, however, is the suggestion to ignore, so light-headedly, of all sources that derive from witness-testimonies or from so-called "contemporary Yugoslav and Serbian sources". For it is not uncivil, but vulgar to say on a man that anlyzes and recollects his tydings such an elegant and intelectual way alike Schwartz, that he is not reliable suitable to wikipedia, especially when there is always a corroborating statement. The alleged "uncivil" style of my answer evolves from the feeling of talking to a brick wall, and by being utterly offended by your tendency in writing. I am pationate regarding the truth, and I think its foolish to try and remain cool-headed when the truth is hidden. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am asking again and again and again how is possible to number of Serbs in Bosnia has gone up around 17 % if so many of them are killed in Jasenovac, but there is no answer. ?

Sorry, but for me is very hard to believe that there is no specific interest in Jasenovac Gratius Pannonius edits are edits of typical Jasenovac SPA account.

About sources and statements in article for example I see that Cadik Danon is used many times, but I do not see his statement that guards in Jasenovac are Croatian Ustaše and Hungarian Nazis ? Why ? (Danon is unreliable source)

Problem with all this guys (Danon, emperors-clothes , Jasenovac-info, Živanović, Bulajić) that they have been on Milošević payroll during Yugoslav Wars and it is very ease to show that they are not trustworthy. Maybe it will be interesting to you reading of "Globalizing the Holocaust: A Jewish usable past in Serbian Nationalism" [14] ?

Right question about truth is which truth is hidden. My, yours or ?

If there is only 1 user I will ask this user to write always with only 1 name because using 2 account is against wiki rules. similar to this meat puppetry is against wiki rules--Rjecina (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Inaal Abuk Alabudjabak!". My interest in Jasenovac is purely academic, and is not swayed by any other thought. I have no agenda in globalizing the holocaust or other Nazi genocides (The Serbian "ciscije" is nothing like the holocuast or Porrajmos), nor do I find a need to listen to the propaganda of either self-righteous Croats or of nationalistic Serbs. I deal with the manner in logic, and the extent of my writing within the article is intended to clearly show that wikipedia does not deal with exaggerations. As for Cadik Danon, he is a respectable and reliable eye-witness to the horrors of Jasenovac. He mentions hungarian Nazis, that were probably present in Stara-Gradiska, or in Ciglana during winter 1942, when they were vigilant there, he also speaks of the Herzegovinian ethnicity of many of the chief Ustase, yet he is reliable for the description of the horrors he witnessed as a Jewish boy of 18 years of age. Bulaijc, Emperor-clothes and Jasenovac-info are provided mearly to provide the average online reader with an instant citation of a statement. When I citate Ivanovic, for an example, I give a link to where a "lazy" user can go and see the original data. Claims made by Bulaijc himself or by the others should not be held canon. Zivanovic is explicitly mentioned to illustrate such sort of "nationalistic Serbian" exaggerations and to defy its claims. I cannot help myself but grow angry of what personally appears to me as lies, yet I can manage my temper. It is the slander brought upon poor victims and survivors that makes me realy iritated, I find it lame and malicious. These testimonies have juridic value, than why shouldn't they be incorprated into wikipedia? especially when different witnesses corroborate every claim that another has made. (N.B. the talking out of two different accounts is purely accidental.)Gratius Pannonius (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If Serb victims numbers given by Bulajić, Emperor-clothes and Jasenovac-info are right can somebody please explain me how is possible that number of Serbs in Bosnia has gone up 17 % ? Question is very, very simple .......--Rjecina (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I say I find Bulaijc's account of killed Serbs canon? The number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac and in the NDH in general is evidentally smaller than those accounts, yet I do believe it's greater than that which is given by Croat commentatores. I do not aim to prove the 600-700,000 figures (I estimate something around 300-400,000). The issue of the Census appears in the books of both Shelach and Romano. Sinisa Djuric also deals with it (well, Djuric and Romano are not so completly reliable, yet they are more satisfying than Zerjavic in that context.)Gratius Pannonius (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

GeoHive gives a list of census data for every country. See http://www.geohive.com/earth/census.aspx. In line with almost all countries, the population of Bosnia rose between last census before the Second World War and the first census after it. This general population rise is on record and obvious in just about every country in Europe, even Germany, which indisputably lost millions of dead during the war. The one country which notably and enormously bucks this trend is Serbia, whose population fell by a stunning 2.6 million between 1931 and 1948. Now, a good deal of this must have been due to outflow for a variety of reasons rather than just deaths. However, I would say to Rjecina, who keeps asking, that global populations were rising everywhere in the period in question. Despite this, the population of Serbia fell by more than 2.6 million. Can you explain how this is possible? Question is very, very simple .......--AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Our disscusion revolves primarly around the NDH, rather than Serbia proper. Yet we must also keep in mind, that the NDH does not includes Croatia proper seldomn (nor is it composed mearly of Bosnia, so the point is incurrect), but it is comprised of Croatia (Slavonia therein), Bosnia (Herzegovina therein), Montenegro, parts of Srem, Serbia, Albania, Slovenia and Macedonia. There is also "zone A"- Dalmatia, which was graduatly overtaken by Italian fascists, and yet many Serbs and Jews that lived therein were already killed, while the rest were saved by some of the Italian generals.

This diversity of ethnicities and territories inside the NDH also proves another point, that with the shift of bounderies there was a shift of population. Many ran from Serbia and Hungary into the NDH, while others were deportated from it. The Nazis had the Slovens deportated to Croatian territory to be liquidated, or even sent captives from Serbia there. Nevertheless, the population of Yugoslavia divides according to both soil and ethnicity, that is: Serbs in Bosnia differ from Serbs of Serbia or Croatia, and Djuric named the first as most quick in thier rate of population growth. This also brings out another point: The NDH had a very vast category of undesirable people: for many Bosniaks, Montenegrians, Slovens and alike were herded into camps. Thus, with so many minorities to exterminate, could the figures of liquidated people be so small as 80-100,000 in Jasenovac? Gratius Pannonius (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you're getting at, GP. If the "discussion revolves primarily around the NDH", I don't quite see why Rjecina keeps pointing out "that number of Serbs in Bosnia has gone up 17%". He repeatedly asked a question. I answered it. The populations of just about every country went up in that period, despite war losses. Even in Germany. I also pointed out that, shockingly, the population of Serbia proper fell by 2.6 million, and asked Rjecina how he thought this could have happened.
Regarding victim numbers for this article, I'd recommend you all to read Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945, chapter 17. Part of it is on Google books - here. Lastly, I would remind all here that it is not your job to come to any conclusion about this, simply to report the various estimates, quoting reliable sources. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a meare, non-offensive, note. My personal estimations are not related to the article itself, but mearly for the sake of disscussion. Good point with that population growth. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice book. Can you please read "Globalizing the Holocaust: A Jewish usable past in Serbian Nationalism" [15] ?

I will not even comment good faith mistake about 2,500,000 Serbia victims in WWII.

About Yugoslav war victims in my thinking best source is U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1954). The Population of Yugoslavia. Washington D.C. which is speaking 1,000,000 victims.

I do not believe that statements like "...Slovens deportated to Croatian territory to be liquidated..." and "...for many Bosniaks, Montenegrians, Slovens and alike were herded into camps...", are good faith mistakes but it is not important.

AlasdairGreen27 can you please write on talk page proposition of section Victims numbers ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The overall number of people killed in Yugoslavia is originatly 1,750,000. The number is overlly exaggerated, but there is no need to downplay it as much as one million. Other version, which I find far more reliable, as that of Josef Lewinger, speaks of 1,350,000 victims or so. The deportation of Slovens from German-occupied territory is a fimiliar fact, and a known operation coordinated with the NDH minister Turina himself. Slovens are mentioned very often as victims in Jasenovac, whether in testimonials, the state-commission, or in the lists of victims. Bosniaks are also fimiliar victims in Jasenovac. Not all of them aided the Ustase, not by far, and it is a mistake, or the fruit of propaganda, to assume they were integraly in league with the Ustase, or that Ustasas thought them all to be pure-blooded Croats, or that they found Islam legitimate.As for Montenegrians, Dr. Milan Boskovic himself in a Montenegrian, one of many. All these minorities were persecuted, rather then being viewed as Croats. Although they were not collectivlly essambled to deportations, they were often sent to camps. I also have several tales of cooperation between Ustase and Nazis, to a degree where Nazis brought in to the hands of the Ustase captives from Serbia.

It would be foolish to presume I have a desire of Globalizing the holocaust. The Holocaust is a Jewish tragedy, according to the agreed definition. There is the Porrajmos, a not so vast yet nonetheless ideological Genocide, whereas the "Cisicnije" or "ethnic cleansing" of Serbs by the Ustase in WWII is also somewhat of a Genocide, it lacks of the aformentioned Nazi Genocides.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Slovenes victims of Jasenovac is less of 1 % and number of Muslims (Bosniaks) is around 1.5 %.

Ustase have tried genocide of Serbs, but they have failed (lucky for me). In my thinking this has been "ethnic cleansing", because they have killed in massacres "only" 10 - 15 % of Serbs in NDH. Others (around 10 %) have been killed fighting for partisans or chetniks. Again this is only my thinking because of that it is not important for wiki.

Sorry but number of 1,350,000 can't be right. We are having Yugoslav 1946 number of 1,700,000 which everybody now accept that it is false. We are having USA which is saying 1,000,000 and for the end we are having Yugoslavia 1964 number which is speaking about 597,323 people killed in different ways + deficiency (all people in villages are killed so victims are unknown) which is estimated at 20-30% by Yugoslav Federal Bureau of Statistics. we are again having 1,000,000 victims.--Rjecina (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I run into these figures all the time. Both 1,700,000 and 1,400,000 are quiet fimiliar and known. This need for an "Ipcha Mistabra" is foolish, it shows the antagonist nature of the researchers in disscussion. 1,000,000 simply seems overly low for the waking reason of mind. Besides, these are part of the somewhat questionable claims of Zerjavic, which relied on the fact that most killings in Yugoslavia somehow occured outside of the NDH, and that most killings therein were not inside Jasenovac. Jasenovac was clearly the central camp within the boarders of Yugoslavia, and the only camp within the NDH that performed as an actual concentration and death camp. Other camps were smaller and substantially shorter-lived, and yet took a strong toll of victims, yet somehow most killings, to that opinion, happened in those camps.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is time for small sarcasm....

Yes Zerjavic, Srboljub Živanović, USA (from 1950s) number from 1950s and Yugoslav Federal Bureau of Statistics numbers are somewhat questionable, but 1947 number which has been declared invalid even by author is OK :)--Rjecina (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Neither are acceptable. Thus I use the 1,400,000 figure, that is citated by Josef Lewinger. Shelach also illustrates this issue: "The Yugoslav historiography dating of the first few years past the war tended to exaggerate in figures of casualties."("History of the holocaust: Yugoslavia", p. 45, n. 2). Truelly, the figres are too high, but is it reasonable that they differ of the real number by 700,000 in Yugoslavia, and in 500,000 in Jasenovac?! The local Jewish community has its own documentation that contains more reliable figures, that are not all so much different from Yugoslav figures. Moša Pijade and Edvard Kardelj used the 1,700,000 figure, but Alexander Arnon stated in the Eichmann trail 500,000 at Jasenovac (instead of Srboljub's 700,000), and the Union of Yugoslavia's Jewish communities in 1963 also used that figure, of which 20,000 were Jews (Whereas Zerjavic calculates a ridiculous 14-17,000 Jews).Tomasevic himself states that the state-commission report originally held 400,000 victims, that figure (300-400K) seems quite reasonable, with 1,400,000 victims in Yugoslavia alltogether. Or are these sources all false, and Zerjavic is not?! Zerjavic's calculation is known to be inaccurate, and can shift by 30% in any direction, and that is without presuming he is even slightly mistaken, thus misleading us (or, better to say, you) by atleast 50,000? Gratius Pannonius (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here, this looks better, not so quite one-sided as claimed before.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Together I and Wikipedia reliable source rules are asking very simple thing:"That we do not use like sources rasists, Milošević man and Fringe theory supporters. I know that this is hard but can we try ??--Rjecina (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC

Again, I do not approve Avro Manhatten, Milan Bulaijc and alike. whenever they are citated as sources, it is mearly when I found therein a reliable eyewitness account that was quoted, and therefore gave a link for the 'lazy reader', which would prefare to find the transcript online instantly, rather than to purchase a book and go looking. I would gladly link to a source without anti-Croat associations, if such would be at reach.I am also sorry for the use of first-party eyewitness account. It's not ideal, yet it is better than any alternative.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another good question is how can Bulajić have reliable eyewitness account when he is declared guilty by Jews community for writing false eyewitness accounts ??--Rjecina (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not all that important since I don't think we citated him all that much. There are instances where Bulaijc or Savic are citated in regard to aspects in which they shouldn't be questioned. I don't think that there's harm in quoting Savic on the appointment of Ivica Matkovic, where we can relay on him; has he an inappropriate interest in such details? I don't think so. As far as the atrocities or numbers of victims, they are not citated.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivica Matkovic

{{editprotected}}

I came across a recently created article for Ivica Matkovic while going through Uncategorised people, and I was going to wikilink his appearance in this entry. Can you do that? It would be great if others familiar with the subject could check my category choices as well, which right now are Category:Holocaust perpetrators and Category:People from Croatia Scarykitty (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

article in question is part of this controversy and we need to wait.--Rjecina (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Controversy or not, there's nothing wrong with adding a wikilink to a relevant article.--Aervanath (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have not done anything with the categories, since the Ivica Matkovic page isn't protected.--Aervanath (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unserious misspellings

This article has so many miss-spelled words in english, so many typing mistakes, etc. Some admin needs to really look this article through. The way it is now, it has almost a non-serious tone because of all the miss-spelled words and stuff.

Pictures !?

Why dont You let to put pictures of all those attrocities made by croat Ustashas regime !? They are on other Wikipedias. Can someone explain that ? --92.37.7.14 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for image inclusion

Jasenovac memorial.

File:Serbian children from KZ camp Jasenovac.jpg

Serbian children at Jasenovac concentration camp.

File:Ustasaguard.jpg

Ustase guard in mass grave at Jasenovac concentration camp

Ustase militia executing people over a mass grave near Jasenovac concentration camp

Wiki commons images proposed for inclusion are at right. All are taken from other Wikis in various language versions of this article. The pictures on the Croatian language article aren't part of Wiki Commons. If these are public domain in U.S. and in Croatia, they could be uploaded to Wiki commons and used in this article. Also propose inclusion of Wiki commons link.Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Butchered were thrown into the river.

File:Otroci s Kozare.jpg

Children at Jasenovac concentration camp

document, apparently in Croatia, appears to be an order or report relating to the deportation of Jews.

File:Comander of Jasenovac KZ camp.jpg

Ustase commander of Jasenovac concentration camp

Can the editor Unlock this page for adding pictures ? --92.37.7.14 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Language and grammar

While I don't endorse how it was noted earlier, there are some serious issues with grammar, spelling and language style in this article, which I happened upon after readings elsewhere. This small sub-section is a good example:

Serbs consisted the majority of inmates in Jasenovac. In several instances, inmates were immediately liquidated for confessing of their Serbian ethnicity and considering it to be the reason of their imprisonment. The Serbs were predominantly brought from the Kozara region, where Ustasa captured areas in quallor with partisan guerrila. These were brought to camp without sentence, thus being almost completely destined to immediate liquidation, which had to be accelerated via use of a machine-gun.

Perhaps:

The majority of inmates at Jasenovac consisted of Serbs. On several occasions, inmates were immediately killed after admitting their Serbian ethnicity, considering it the reason for their imprisonment. The Serbs were predominantly from the Kozara region, where Ustasa captured areas in [what is this word? quallor?] with partisan guerilla. They were taken to the camp without being sentenced, making them subject to immediate execution, expedited by use of machine guns.

Rather than just remove blocks of content that was added, is there some reason why a cooperative effort wasn't made to fix the language errors in the content? Little of this has to do with any of the discussion I skimmed through in the above dispute, but reflects poorly on the article. Since this article has been protected now for nearly 4 weeks, and no progress seems forthcoming to resolution, perhaps you might request dispute mediation to come to a consensus on issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't even tell what the dispute is about.Mtsmallwood (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The wrong grammar and miss-spelled words are massive in this article. Someone from England or USA needs to read this through and correct it. Some admin or anything. This article is very dumb the way it is now, so many wrong sentences.

Photos and reference

I noticed two things

- removal of the prof. Shelach's text

- photo's removal

I've put back both. Removed only the knife - it is already visible inside srbosjek article, no need to repeat it here.

As to the prof. Shelach's text - it comes from the very reputable reference - Encyclopedia of the Holocaust - validated by a formidable panel of scholars. Photos are the one coming from the Jasenovac concentration camp archives.--Remind me never (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear 71.252.55.101. I know that my english is bad but try to understand that person can't be institution. I am starting to think that other users in this discussion are having english language problems.--Rjecina (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The above was not my post! Please, stop playing dirty tricks on me!--71.252.55.101 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for mistake. Article is having too many newly created accounts. Again sorry.--Rjecina (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Menachem Shelach's works (value in "Encyclopedia of the holocaust", "history of the holocaust: Yugoslavia", etc) are all published by Yad-Va-Shem, which is, latest time I checked, not only an institute, but also the most canon holocaust research institute in the world. Indeed, US museum holds some artifacts and information from Jasenovac itself, but I do not know if we can realy determind which is to be prefered. This I leave to the readers. As for photos: I believe that it is Wikipedia standarts that dictate to improve article quality by visual content, and that such should be used accordingly. It's up to the user to determind how much such an article is in need of pictures. I believe that the existing version is fine.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos and reference

I noticed two things

- removal of the prof. Shelach's text

- photo's removal

I've put back both. Removed only the knife - it is already visible inside srbosjek article, no need to repeat it here.

As to the prof. Shelach's text - it comes from the very reputable reference - Encyclopedia of the Holocaust - validated by a formidable panel of scholars. Photos are the one coming from the Jasenovac concentration camp archives.--Remind me never (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

I see that the images that were added into the pages were removed, replaced, and removed again. I will replace them by undoing the most recent deletion unless someone can give an explanation of why the images are objected to. Please note that all images appear to be in use in various Wikipedia articles on this camp in languages other than in English.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not removed images but ....

Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, are having 0 pictures of victims and Treblinka for sake of discussion 2. Now there is proposition that article Jasenovac is having 4 pictures. This is double of all 6 major extermination camps. I am sure that we are having small problem with NPOV perspective !?--Rjecina (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Each article must be judged on its own. Deficiencies or perceived deficiencies in other articles should be addressed on the talk pages of those articles. However, on the point of zero photographs of victims at certain camps: there are no PD images to my knowledge in existence of victims at Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka, or Sobibor. There may very well be no photographs at all in existence of such victims. I would be glad to post any such images to those articles, however I believe that for historical reasons, none will ever be located. The reason for this was may be that the Nazis murdered immediately practically everyone who arrived at the Operation Reinhard camps. The traces of the camps were destroyed, or at least there was attempt to destroy them, in Sonderaktion 1005. Refer also to Rumbula massacre (written by me) where the Nazis murdered 25,000 in two days, yet no photographs of these murders have surfaced (and I have diligently searched for them on the web and elsewhere). The fact that for some reason more photographs exist of Jasenovac murders than at other death camps is an insufficient ground to object to their inclusion in the article.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are facing with group of people coming from Croatia whose hurt nacionalistic pride cannot stand seeing these pictures here. These people want only to destroy this article - if not completely then just as much as they can. This is a consequence of Mr Wales' idea that everybody can contibute knowledge - which makes this and other articles unprotected against malice and ignorance.--71.252.55.101 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's immaterial to me what anyone's nationality is. So far, no one has cast any doubt on the provenance of the images or otherwise shown any good reason not to include them.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

About pictures my comment is staying and because of that you are wrong. It is not problem to find pictures... I have needed 3 minutes to find picture of victims in Majdanek. Picture is called : "Remains of inmates in front of a crematorium at the Majdanek camp". Sorry but we can't use double standards in similar articles.--Rjecina (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest then that if Majdanek article requires additional images that you add same. Perceived shortcomings in other articles do not justify the exclusion of relevant material in this or any other article.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not make/create similar things. You will find many users which will tell that I am Croatian biased editor because of wrong reasons. I am having strong moral code because of which I never write about massacres or add victims picture. For me is is very hard to imagine people which are doing that and you can't imagine how much this things is in Balkan related articles.--Rjecina (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And I thought we were actually getting somewhere. :(

There is no need to go so low. plain and simple: each of us has a direction when writing in the article, but there is a far-cry amidst scholar opinions and personal thought, and bais. I believe I stated my case in a neutral and acceptable way and form. User Rjecina pulled his way slightly more drastically, but I do not belive we should not assume good faith and call Croat-nationalist bais (although that is more consideration than I was given). Instead of being skeptic and look for flaws in the article in either way, let's call it quits, end with a concensus and finish this "ושלום על ישראל". Gratius Pannonius (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am more or less editing only articles about Croatia and because of this I am not happy and I am biased, but if we want to be honest users which are writing about crimes of only 1 nation can be many things but NPOV is out of question.--Rjecina (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it the scent of an accusation that I smell in the air? I dealt with you in far greater patience than you did contra versa, and yet I assumed that you speak of good faith. Long have I justified you Rejcina, truly believing that you are not acting of simple bias, but simply being skeptical of such a contemporary subject. But slowly is the vale cast back, and the raw nationalist is exposed, ashamed utterly. Make sure such faith will not be your own. Anyhow, I do not see why we should look as-though-if with a candel or a floodlight for flaws in the article. If it is fine, less or more, than leave it be. I find it hard to see any manipulation or anti-Croatian venom in it. And if, over all I said to assure you I do not aim for manipulation, you would question my motives, than my words are spent utterly and in vain.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Images are gone again: will flag as biased article

If people don't quit taking the images out of this article without a good explanation, I am going to flag this article as biased.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that article is biased :)--Rjecina (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Removed potential WP:OUTING violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Zerjavic

This man was a HDZ party lines writer. Without proper academic background and education. Finished just two-year college (economy) - not recognized as a scholar at all. My proposal is to remove any of his writings - referenced in this article and the text based on those writings. We have more reliable sources available.--72.75.14.202 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, he must be deleted. Can you please show us source ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Vladimir Zerjavic is an M.A. or Dr. for statistics, he was brought to the stand in the trail of Dinko Sakic as an historian, so I am not sure he should be deleted, while his estimations, however supported by Bogliub Kovcevic, should be somewhat questioned. He's not an irrefutable source, and he is indeed a baised researcher and a revisionist. He's also suspected at holocaust revisionism. I don't know how much that account is based of propaganda, but I do know that in his research he citates Franjo Tudjman all the too much.

There is yet another point related to these researchers and the trail of Dinko Sakic altogether: The witnesses and information by other means, brought to the interest of the panel, proved that the magnitude of crimes in Jasenovac is bigger than the claims of these revisionists (how much bigger, I shall say not), while all historians, save perhaps Ivo Goldstein, downplayed the atrocities drastically. One of them even testified in favor of Sakic's defense. Sakic himself also claimed that in the camp there was only a minimal amount of executions and death of natural causes. Since Sakic was proven guilty, we can falsify his testimony, and therefore all elements resembling it other testimonies ( a Judicial term known in the Thalmud as "Hazama"), such as Franjo Tudjman, which supported Sakic, and on who's writing Sakic relayed to verify details of his defense. A good example of Sakic's nonsense is that he initially denied that the hanging of "group Boskovic" never occured, whereas when evidence began to grow solid against him, he suddenly admitted that the event occurred, but he, camp administrator, did not commit it, but it was NCO Lt. Milan Sudar.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• About Zerjavic who was not only uneducated but also a plagiarist - see http://www.hic.hr/bleiburg03.htm Katalinicev je rad ostao dosljedno presucen. Jedini koji ga nije presuti o i koji je Katalinica smatrao "svojim najozbiljnijim kriticarom", bio je Bogoljub Kocovic, Srbin koji je cetiri godine prije Zerjavica u Londonu objavio raspravu "Zrtve drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji". Kocovica i njegovu metodologiju (istodobno se gradeci da za nj ne zna) Zerjavic je slijedio u tolikoj mjeri, da ga je Katalinic s pravom prozvao za plagijat.
  Bit ce da je i to diranje u "dvorskog statisticara" (u sto se Zerjavic prometnuo ponajmanje svojim zaslugama) pridonijelo sutnji o Katalinicevoj raspravi. --72.75.14.202 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me see. You are saying that this Vladimir Žerjavić is not reliable source ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not reliable, of course. Wikipedia is disqualified as a reliable resource by American high schools, colleges, and universities. All what might be seen in Wikipedia - must be supported by valid and reliable sources--72.75.14.202 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we please see source which will confirm that Vladimir Žerjavić is "Without proper academic background and education"--Rjecina (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • He was brought to the stand in the trail of Dinko Sakic, thus we can rest assure he has an academic backgrond. The indictment reads his academic degree: B. Eng. Regardless of his degree, I do not believe that his word be trusted too rushly. And is Tudjman not of doctor's degree? Indeed, Zerjavic is not so disputed as to be removed from the article completly, but doubts should be placed nigh his claims. Moreover, his occupation is statistics, not history. This shows his true nature.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• B. Eng you say??? When that degree comes out a two year community college in Croatia???--138.88.110.250 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Holy smokes, what is this all about?Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you suggest, therefore? Shall we remove him from the article? And what of Vladimir Kocovic?Gratius Pannonius (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue seems to be that Žerjavić has been criticized as an untrained and biased historian. Outright removal seems too extreme, as there seems to be no showing that he is completely discredited, as perhaps one might say of David Irving. Without reference to English-language sources on the Žerjavić controversy, there doesn't appear to be a ready way for non-Serbo-Croatian speaking editors to attempt to further resolve the issue. Under the circumstances, the solution seems to be to incorporate sourced criticisms of Žerjavić into the article, and let the readers of the article make the decision as to whether Žerjavić is to be relied upon. If as it appears the references to the criticism of Žerjavić are solely in the Serbo-Croatian language, then the editors who speak that language may judge whether the criticism of Žerjavić is properly sourced.Mtsmallwood (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • As I was saying. Zerjavic's claims can remain, alongside criticism. I think some of his criticism is already within the article. Anyhow, the very debate shows that there is a question mark on Zerjavic. He has been accused of holocaust revisionism. I do not know by how much such is the result of propaganda, but I do know he used the books of Franjo Tudman as sources all the too much. Sinisa Djuric comments on Zerjavic's findings in the introduction he gave to the state-commission. This is not the best source, but I believe there is a point in reading it.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest Zerjavic's removal completely. Kocovic, not - as we see above Zerjavic is a plagiarist - even disqualified by Kocovic - see in the article the proper reference.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Article in question for which we are having link ( http://www.hic.hr/bleiburg03.htm ) is saying that Katalinić has called Žerjavić plagiarist of Bogoljub Kočović all Katalinić right words are:"Žerjavić has worked with Kočović methodology in that way that it is possible to call him plagiarist"
    • Life of Vladimir Žerjavić: born in 1912. finished economic university in 1934. Between 1945-58 he is working in Yugoslavia ministry of industry. From 1964 Žerjavić is expert of United Nations in economic commission for Afrika and after that he is economic consultant for different states in Afrika, Asia and Amerika. --Rjecina (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Please, learn better English. Do not invent stories - use references.--

141.156.253.196 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Zerjavic is not an ideal source: As a ditlant in history he relies on Franjo Tudjman and Josip Pecaric often, while his own work is as though if an "indictment": "lies of Milan Bulaijc", "manipulations in Yugoslavia", "Serbian agression". The man gets up in the morning and seeks something to criticise, a consensus to break or a preception to renew, best be if it is related to Serbs. Something about such an approach renders me skeptic. His a plagiarist, it seems. But unlike Kocovic, he went forth and tried (How, I do not know) to calculate the exact number of dead in Jasenovac via statistics. Djuric says he actually first reached 70,000 and artificially inflated it to 80,000, in order to be more reasonable. In the indictment of Dinko Sakic, Zerjavic is mentioned making even more detail calculations as for how many died in Jasenovac itself, or in it in 1944. Such numbers cannot be achieved with statistics. In the indictment, Zerjavic also claims he increased the figures and still it might be higher. The man manouvers in such a contemporary fashion between larger and smaller figures, that is is rediculous. Even if we mark criticism of him as "propaganda", as it is partially, there is no smoke without a flame. The very debate shows the problamtics of the source. Not

And yet I'm in doubts. Must we remove him completly because of these flaws? He's not nearly perfect, yet he's not so utterly refuted as Srboljub or Tudjman. Do we criticise him within the article, or remove him and leave Kocovic solo? --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Total number

Can somebody please explain give sources for this statements:"The first figures to be offered by the state-commission of Croatia ranged around 500,000 and even 600,000. Official estimate of the number of victims in SFRY was 700,000. Forenstic evidence and calculations done in the 60s gave numbers in the range 700,000-800,000."

Another thing is text for picture:"Memorial signs with Serbian claims of victim counts, situated on the Republika Srpska side of the Sava river" About this text we are having old consensus !--Rjecina (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No "POV pushing" about it, I promise. It's mearly an "abstract" of the whole section, for have you yourself not said it was too long? We all know of the numbers issued forth by the State-commission and by Srboljub Zivanovic. The other edits are not mine, yet I found them less-or-more fine.

No offence, but please don't look with a flashlight for problems within the article. If it is fine, as I see in the opinions gathered thus far, than leave it be. I hardly see any accusations brought against anyone within it. It's based, neutral and well-citated, I believe. Imagine, a concensus regarding Jasenovac, wouldn't that be something... :) --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• To Rjecina What consensus? 'Old consensus' never existed. Stop reverting the other people's contributions. Start discussing instead reverting.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There. This is better, I believe. I think we can agree of the "frame": between 85,000 to 500,000. Personally, I would put it at 90,000-400,000, but that's just my personal estimation. --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this silence be (finally) considered a Consensus?79.182.230.86 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of question.

Only possible agreement is that we use for lower number low number of USHMM and for higher Yad Vashem. --Rjecina (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

USSM and Vad-VaShem figures does not include all reliable options. Besides, the figures have a substantial gap, so the reader must have surround explaination and examination of all facts and reliable assertions related to the subject, so that the reader would judge for himself. Perhaps you are angry because this somewhat "rehabilitates" the higher figures, which were completly denied by some institutions (mostly Croatian) lately. Yes, this article shows that the "higher" figures are not so completly refuted because they are not. Still, I do not support inflation of the figures, and I can't see any bais in the article. It's fine. Even more, it's a damn good article, if I might add. Why look around for issues? Because it deals with Croat/Serbs relations? I looked deep into that prior to writing anything, It's completly NPOV. But you, I believe now, are looking for problems in the article. As I said, Let's just agree, it's actually a good thing. :) --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This 2 our must important scholary institutions about Holocaust.

If this article is so good why around 10 % of sources are reliable ?

Template if out of question because of earlier consensus. I will now remove template. If it will be restored it is time for good old administrators. Now everybody in this discussion if informed about consensus. I have lost too much time today on wiki. Bye--Rjecina (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to remind you that 1) consensus can change and 2) the administrators have nothing to do within a content dispute. I don't quite understand why you're so quick to try to involve administrators when there's no need for administrative intervention of any kind. When it comes to a content dispute, the word of an administrator does not hold a single ounce of weight more than the word of any other equally knowledgeable editor. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is possible to created new consensus, but until new consensus is created old is OK.

What is point in creating consensus if anybody can edit like consensus do not exist ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the way things are done here. If consensus changes, the article can change. But first we must find the current consensus. That is what all the processes at dispute resolution attempt to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So, have we made a solid and agreed article? (I didn't quite manage to gather). Also, to Rjecina, never have I attempted to issue forth a POV article or to accuse Croats in anything. I just wrote the truth: not 'Serbian propaganda', neither Croatian apologetics or revisionism (no generalization, but refering directly to specific sources like Tudjman). I would rather not citate "emperor-clothes" and alike at all. If the verifiable information held therein would appear on another website, I would gladly citate that site instead.(Perhaps someone can do that?) No need to argue furthermore. --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust template

Before the edit war between User:Rjecina and User:138.88.15.10 over whether to include template:The Holocaust continues, I would like to start a discussion. First, while this discussion, that doesn't mean we cannot discuss it again and reconsider. Consensus can change. My feeling is that since the templates has changed to include a link to this article, it would be almost absurd not to include the template on this article page. We should not rehash the arguments about whether or not Jasenovac belongs on the template here (including whether or not Jasenovac is a part of the Holocaust, unless we are discussing particular language in the article), so I hope we can avoid that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• My point is quite clear - Jasenovac Concentration Camp is a Holocaust term. There is a fully elaborated entry in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust about this camp - written by the notable historian and the holocaust survivor Israeli scholar M. Shelach and approved by a broad editorial board (24 world renown scholars and university professors) of this encyclopedia. Rjecina is falsely calling upon non-existent decision (of whom?) from 2007 year. Comments of a small group of people are not obligatory nor consist any consensus.--138.88.15.10 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion is linked above. Again, I don't think it's productive to dispute whether Jasenovac is a Holocaust term. That discussion belongs at the template. Let's avoid it. The way I see it, quite simply, since this article is linked to at the template, the template should be here. If someone disputes whether it should be at the template, then go there. Here, the template exists as it is right now and we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler". This is definition of Holocaust. Because Serbs are not Jews we can't have template.--Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)At this point, I would support the inclusion of said template in this article. From a practical standpoint, if the template has a link to this page then it would only make sense to include the template in the article. The same would apply should Jasenovac ever be removed from the template but that's a different debate, one which I sincerely hope we don't enter but one which I also fear certain editors will not be able or willing to avoid. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ricky can you please explain your 2 different positions about 1 problem. On 1 side Adolf Hitler is in template Holocaust, but in you thinking "He's not directly related to that subject matter" and because of this template can't be in Hitler article. On other side about Jasenovac your position is "that since the templates has changed to include a link to this article, it would be almost absurd not to include the template on this article page" ????--Rjecina (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, you are correct. I honestly didn't see that Hitler was linked at the bottom of the template and I was wrong. I thought the template was more on the organizations in charge. I've changed my opinion at the Hitler article. Thanks for notifying me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end compromise is possible but we will need to have massive articles rewriting. We can say that all articles for which we are having links in template will have holocause template, but by default articles which are without link in Holocaust template will be without template. OK ?

I will like to wait around 7 days before new consensus will become officials (because of latter massive rewritings)--Rjecina (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Holocaust articles too numerous to accommodate on one navbox, doesn't mean they aren't related to Holocaust.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mtsmallwood. Consensus is clear now. Waiting a week to see if we should go back almost a year and a half isn't necessary. We can just follow the template pretty easily. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't agree with Mtsmallwood so we are not having consensus. Reason ? Only articles with links inside Holocaust template are having Holocaust template + articles about Croatian mass murderers of WWII because of IP editing (vandalism ?). This is POV and we must find 1 very simple consensus. Or only articles for which we are having links inside template will have Holocaust template or all articles about concentration camp personal and Baltic, Croatian, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Serbian and Slovakian officials will have template. 3rd solution is not possible, because it is not possible that all officials and guards of 1 state are having template and others are not having. --Rjecina (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. Frankly, I think the template belongs on the article. It's ridiculous to link the camp through the template but not include the template in the article. AniMate^talk 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have not noticed (in that case I am surprised) but problem is in this--Rjecina (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This debate was aimed to decide whether or not the template belongs in this article. Inclusion of the template in other articles or problems with non-cooperative editors should not really be taken up here, even if that non-cooperative editor was the person who insisted that the template be added here to begin with. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Only point for insertion of template is that Jasenovac is in Holocaust template. It is not maybe easier to solve everything on 1 place ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You're trying to bring up a separate issue again by wanting to discuss whether or not Jasenovac belongs in the template. We're not concerned with that at the article level, all we're trying to decide is whether or not the template - as it currently stands - belongs in this article, not any other. The consensus is that it belongs and that's where this debate needs to end. Other concerns are separate issues and bringing them up here does not neccessarily serve to help this article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What's this dispute about? Jasenovac is related to the holocaust template. The holocaust template belongs in Jasenovac. End of disscussion.

User Rjecina was accurate with the definition of the "holocaust" and yet has two errors: The term refers to the extermination of Jews by Nazi Germans and their associates, and Churban is also Hebrew, not Yiddish. Regardless of Serbs and alike, Jews were systematically exterminated in Jasenovac. Those whose names are listed in name-lists are considered in Yad VaShem as victims of the holocaust. Jasenovac is a value in the "Encyclopedia of the holocaust". Let's not sway to talk about other articles alike Ljubo Milos or Petar Brzica, which have the template therein. I didn't put it there, but I see no harm in it, nor do I see the point of comparison. Besides, is it so important? --Gratius Pannonius (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Settlement of the article

I call upon user Rjecina to settle this article once and for all. If something, for any reason, isn't to someone's liking, speak before editing. The immediate reason for this is, what else, edits done specifically by user Rjecina without any prior disscussion, and which are full of bias. Rjecina most elegantly removed the respectfull account of Josef Lewinger regarding the figures of casualties in Yugoslavia, carefully moved Menachem Shelach and Israel Gutman's account from our most canon source "encyclopedia of the holocaust", and determinded, as though if without question, that only 1,000,000 people died in Yugoslavia, thereby also minimilizing the figures of casualties in Jasenovac. I have an idea, let's decide we don't like Shelach because he hates Croats, don't like Lewinger because he's old, don't approve Gutman because he is a Jew, and what are we left with? Zerjavic, so somehow we reach the grotesque and manipulated decision that 70-80,000 people died in a horrible camp that existed for 4 years, not even mentioning the attempt to exclude Jasenovac from the frame of the holocaust! All because some Croats (refering to specific people, unlike others) feel somewhat guilty since the fathers of their nation are fascist killers of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. Ukrainians also aided the Nazis. What do they do? they apologize, build up memorials and take shame of that stain in their past, and thus no one collectivly accuses them. But what do some Croatian users do? they falsly shorten the extent of crimes committed by those Ustase.

Still, I never accused modern Croats of anything, nor does the article. But Croats (with aid of Muslims and Nazis of other nationalities) did do the atrocities and did kill the enormous numbers of people in question. Therefore, I reverted the none-the-less malicious edits of the aformentioned user, in true belief that this article is both well-sourced and also completly un-bias, so there is no point in bringing up ridiculous claims or any cause to "look" for flaws. I rest my case. If you're really skeptic and you're looking for flaws you will find some (or make them up). Stop doing so. It's a good article. Try to agree. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really tired of this

1) Menachem Shelach is discussed earlier. He and Israel Gutman are not institution and they can't be in section institution. All in all they are used only to defeat USHMM statement. My advice for interested editors is to look definition of word institution.

2) In section about number of victims we are having data of state-commission of Croatia, then weasel words about Croatia in 90s (I agree with part of statement so I have not deleted), then again we are having weasel statement "The estimates vary...." which I have not deleted (see wikipedia:weasel) and for the end we are having Yugoslav statistic data. Maybe I am wrong but official state data ( Croatia 1 time, Yugoslav of 1947 and 1964) are in 1 league and book History of the holocaust is lower league and have deleted only that.

3) Section Forensic sources is writen around only 1 person controversial statements, so right name is Živanović forensic sources.

4) With Josef Lewinger writing in History of the holocaust we are having again number point number 2. First we are having in article Kočović and Žerjavić data which are explained, but Žerjavić is attacked because of court statement which is in line with USHMM numbers ? (I will delete this attack) Then we are having Unknown Commentators (again weasel) in Serbia which are attacking work of Kočović and Žerjavić (with explained reasons). After that there is Yugoslav Federal Bureau of Statistics data from 1964 and for the end there is Josef Lewinger to defeat this data. Only numbers in section which are not explained are of Josef Lewinger and because of that they are deleted.

For the end I will like to say that I am very nice :)

If I want to make jokes about sources it will be very ease. For example Cadik Danon in book "The smell of human flesh" which is used 9 time like source of statements is saying that camp guards are Ustaše and Hungarian Nazi !? Why this is not writen in article. We are having reliable, honest, NPOV source and this has been discussed earlier :) --Rjecina (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will answer in the same style:

1) Menachem Shelach is not brought to "defeat" USSM, but to illustrate the opposite opinion. The "encyclopedia of the holocaust" is published by Yad-Va-Shem. It is equal to saying: "Yad Va-Shem gives the following account". The simple reader sees the integral citation from USSM, and that's what he remembers. Thus I also added another block, so that the article be NPOV. 2) Why should I accuse you of things you did not delete? But simply determinding that one million people died in Yugoslavia is POV. There are atleast two other acceptable figures. 3) Is it just me, or is the title "Zivanovic forensic sources" sounds bad? "contemporary" sounds just as well. 4) You're right that the account of Josef Lewinger was misplaced in "statistical sources", so you just might notice I've moved it to a more "neutral" and "appropriate" location in the text. That is, before it was changed once more.Gratius Pannonius (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)