Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Glina massacres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glina massacres[edit]

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I feel that it could benefit from undergoing, and meeting the standards required by, a MILHIST A-Class review. I've expanded this article four or five-fold and feel that it is now ready. I will be available to address all constructive comments and criticism. 23 editor (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

"The Glina massacres were genocidal massacres": repetition
"The Glina massacres were genocidal massacres of Serb peasants in the Croatian town of Glina during World War II. Described by journalist Tim Judah as being amongst the most infamous of the early atrocities perpetrated": Too much. We know that massacres and genocide are bad; "perpetrated", "infamous" and "atrocities" weaken rather than strengthen that point.
"under 2,000": This isn't idiomatic in the way that "over 2,000" is. "just under 2,000", maybe.
"alight": "on fire" is a little better.
"In response, the Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, sent a letter of protest to Ustaše leader Ante Pavelić after receiving news of the massacre.": One of "in response" and "after receiving news of the massacre" should go.
"However, he failed to condemn the atrocity publicly.": I wondered what the significance of this was until I read the text. I recommend adding: ", and was later tried for collaborating with the Ustaše by Yugoslavia's new Communist government."
"after being deceived into thinking they would be subjected to a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism.": after being invited to celebrate a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism.
"A man named Ljubo Jednak was the only survivor of this massacre. He went on to testify against Stepinac at his 1946 collaboration trial and against ...": Ljubo Jednak, the only survivor of this massacre, testified at both Stepinac's 1946 trial and the 1986 trial of ...
"he committed suicide by slitting his wrists with a razor blade.": Probably more detail than is needed for the lead. "he committed suicide", or at most, "he committed suicide by slitting his wrists"
"the facility was devastated": the facility was demolished
I got down to the end of the lead section. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dank. I've addressed your comments with this edit . All the best, 23 editor (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) ~~(I'll get started shortly)~~[reply]

an initial comment regarding the two massacres per se. Given the massacres listed here occurred in mid-May and very late July/early August (ie about ten weeks apart), what is the connection between the two that links them (other than the location)? There are some significant issues about the second massacre that I will go into later, but the first massacre is very well sourced and the numbers are reasonably consistent. For the second one, the sources are not anywhere as as good. I would consider splitting this article into two, one for the first massacre, and one for the second.
try to avoid citations in the lead, either the massacres were genocidal and this well supported by multiple sources in the body, or it is not. If it is not, get rid of the "genocide" reference in the lead, and if it is, make sure it is well cited in the body, but get rid of the citation in the lead.
The Stepinac mention in the lead doesn't follow. Why would we introduce him there? Was he involved? The answer is no. So he is really there to support a particular POV on the atrocities of the Ustase (ie the Catholic vs Orthodox angle). He had no role in the massacres, so he should be relegated to the body, as his involvement was after the fact.
Communist in the lead is not a proper noun, ie no initial cap.
the estimates of Grandits and Promitzer have been given prominence in the lead, why? The overall estimates range from 960-2,417? Seems incongruous given the range.
the last para of the lead mentions independence and then "after the war". This needs more explanation, I believe you are referring to the war of independence?
also in the last para of the lead, there are references to a monument, a marble plaque, a memorial, and a memorial pavilion. It isn't clear if these are all one and the same, different things or what exactly, needs clarification.

(done to bottom of lead, more to come)

Hi, Peacemaker. I'll try to address your comments as best I can. I'll start with some of the smaller points: I've removed Stepinac from the lead, I've removed the cap in communist, the "genocidal" reference I've removed because although sources agree that the anti-Serb campaign was genocidal, only one source suggests that the massacres themselves were. I've removed Grandits and Promitzer from the lead and provided a range used by historians instead. I think I've clarified the monument/marble plaque/memorial/memorial pavilion story. Give it a look and tell me what you think.

Now for the most important point, the actual scope of the article: It would appear that I've set the structure of the article up wrong. Making sections such as "first massacre" and "second massacre" really isn't helpful when you consider that genocide researcher Mark Levene states that up to 5 different massacres happened in Glina in 1941. Although he doesn't go into detail over what each massacre was, I would assume he means the 11/12 May killings, the 13 May murders, the 30 July killings, the 3 August killings and another pair of mass murders. Technically speaking, these were all their own incidents. Yet, they occurred within a short time of each other in the same town. The victims were the same, as were the perpetrators. Glina massacres would be the most accurate way of describing the events, considering how little has been written about each individual massacre as opposed to the bigger picture that is provided when the killings are put in historical context and in context with each other. How about I structure the article as follows: "May 1941" for what has up until now been called the "first massacre" and "July-August 1941" for what has up till now been called the "second massacre"? Instead of having "first" and "second" massacre in the infobox layout for number of deaths, how about I list the 2,000-2,400 overall death toll that is provided in the lead? 23 editor (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes a lot of sense to me, giving them numbers (except for the first one), is almost OR. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of coverage in reliable academic (and third party) sources for all of the massacres you have mentioned (and the casualties), but I'll reserve my judgement until you've restructured. If I get a chance I'll go through my library and see if I can find anything else on them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I've made some changes based on the plan I outlined above. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord cmt: have these issues been addressed? This review has now been open for nearly three months (well past the 28 days) so unfortunately I think we need to consider closing with no consensus in the next 24 hours unless additional reviewers can be found. Anotherclown (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only reviewed the lead, and I have some concerns about some of the sources used in for this article.

The Edmond Paris source was published by the American Institute for Balkan Affairs, which published mainly work by Lazo Kostic. Kostic was briefly a minister in the collaborationist government of Milan Acimovic during the war, and after the war he was active in defending the wartime activities of Draza Mihailovic, and also made several outlandish claims, including that all Bosnian Muslims were in fact Bosnian Serbs. Given this, I have reservations about Paris' book, on the basis of it lacking a reliable publishing house. The photograph in the infobox is corroborated from Paris' book.
The Cornwell book has been roundly criticised by highly respected academics for making unsubstantiated claims about Pius XII.
There is a strong reliance on Glenny (a journalist), and Mirkovic (a sociologist) for the details of the latter massacres. I haven't checked all the citations for accuracy, but in one case Hoare says "perhaps as many as 2,000 Serbs were murdered", indicating some reservation about the figure, but this is not reflected in the article, per "Hoare writes that as many as 2,000 Serbs were murdered."[33]

It also needs clarification that the last sentence of the May 41 section is actually referring to what the Popen knew, not Stepinac.
Given the length of time this has been open, my reservations, and the fact that we only have two partial reviews, I believe the article should not be promoted at this time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.