Talk:Miroslav Filipović

File:Ustasamilitia.jpg
Please see commons:File talk:Ustasamilitia.jpg. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Excommunication???
http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/Default.aspx?sid=6863 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.250.168.38 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary repeated
This text was repeated three times in the article.


 * Initially a Roman Catholic military chaplain of the Franciscan Order, Filipovic was expelled from the Franciscan Order before the war had ended, but not excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

I've reduced it to one and removed it from the introductory.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you remove it from the lead? It is directly relevant to his notability. I have reverted your changes, pls discuss here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, the text was repeated three times. Second, this expulsion was not made public when it was done and has a marginal importance here. Looks like advertisement for Roman Catholic Church. I left it in the article once, so the reader is not deprived of learning about the expulsion.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How could the fact that he was a military chaplain and friar NOT be a highly notable fact about this fellow, who committed horrific crimes? Whether the expulsion was made public or not at the time is completely irrelevant. He's dead, his story is complete, and it is an important fact that should be in the lead. Please read WP:LEAD. Your approach is akin to not mentioning that a convicted paedophile was a Catholic priest or teacher. The sources seem ok to me. If you are challenging their reliability, there are plenty of reliable sources that state he was a friar and was expelled. Please read WP:BRD for an explanation of how we deal with bold editing, reversions and discussions. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read WP:LEAD. Did you? Did I remove anything like "the fact that he was a military chaplain and friar"? I just removed a three time repeated marginal fact about his life. OK I leave this advertisement there for it testifies about existence of some frustrations caused by the fact that this man was a Croatian Catholic Church man.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear that he was a priest, and was expelled from his order for joining the Ustashas. This is a central aspect of his life, and goes both to the involvement of Catholic clergy with the Ustashas and the rather muted Church response to the fact, as well as the issues around clericalism within Ustasha ideology. You are removing properly sourced material that is directly relevant to his life story. Removal of it detracts from the article. I'm happy to obtain a third opinion or RfC it if you wish. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No it's not. He was known as a war criminal not as a clergyman which was his vocation and of no importance in the introductory. The importance as explained by you is your personal opinion. The same text is already in the article. Ask for RfC if you want--72.66.12.17 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the lead of this article mention that Filipović was a military chaplain and Catholic friar who was expelled from the Franciscan order before the end of the war but was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Is this a trick question? :-) His relation to the Catholic Church is discussed by virtually every source, one way or the other, and is demonstrably the most controversial aspect of his biography. GregorB (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A caveat, though: the fact that he was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church, if left in the intro, creates a "wink-wink nudge-nudge" effect by which the reader is led to believe the Church somehow condoned his activites. I'm far from an expert in canon law, but e.g. murder is not a excommunicable offense, and canon law is not meant to be a substitute or a parallel to the criminal law. I could be wrong on all this, of course. At any rate, here one is limited by the sources that discuss the issue. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying it should include his expulsion, but not the absence of excommunication? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's say I have some reservations towards mentioning the latter. On the other hand, leaving it out, while mentioning the expulsion, might create the opposite effect, as if the article is trying to make a point on the expulsion, while conveniently skirting the issue of (non-)excommunication. The sources may be a bit deficient here, if they don't say "he was not excommunicated, although he should have been because of blah blah" (A), but simply state "he was not excommunicated - gee, isn't that odd?" (B), or something to that effect. A) would establish the non-excommunication as a relevant issue, while B) doesn't. Just my thoughts, I can't say I'm sufficiently familiar with the issue to make a meaningful recommendation here. Including all facts as suggested might be the safer choice. GregorB (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That was what I was thinking... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, is the individuals religious affiliated notable to the individuals notability?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * well, he's automatically notable because he was commandant of an extermination camp, but he is particularly notable because he was a Franciscan friar at the time. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , according to what sources? Per WP:SOLDIER, individual is notable being the leader of a notable unit in a time of conflict, the unit being the concentration camp. So being a friar matters what to being the leader of a concentration camp?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * he'd have more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:SOLDIER, but given the actions he personally took in terms of murdering inmates himself and overseeing executions, his status as a friar is highly relevant. But the sources are the place that much of this is clarified. Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews Vol. 2. p.712 introduces Filipović as a Jasenovac commander as follows: "the Franciscan friar Miroslav Filipović-Majstorovic", and Mitja Velikonja's Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina p. 173 says he was the most infamous of the Ustasha chaplains, nicknamed the "Evil Monk" and "Satanic Friar". David Bruce MacDonald's Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian Victim-Centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia refers to him as "Friar Satan". Even Fred Singleton's 1976 generalist history 20th Century Yugoslavia p. 197 mentions that he was a member of the order. In fact, there would be very few sources that would not mention his status as a Franciscan. The fact that St Francis promoted gentleness and kindness makes Filipović's status as a Franciscan monk all the more notable when combined with his sadism and cruelty. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is counter to the status of a friar and a chaplain, as the latter is a protected category in the Geneva Convention. IMHO, it should be stated in the article, but not stated in the lead sentence. Should it be summarized in the lead section as there would be significant content in the body of the article, yes per WP:LEAD. But IMHO it need not be in the lead sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me just note that WP:SOLDIER is relevant for a person's notability, and not the scope of the intro section, as the intro may legitimately include info about things the person in question is not notable for. GregorB (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, RCLC, GregorB and I appear in favour of including his status as a friar in the lead, hopefully I am reading this right. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NOPE. In the body of the article, yes. In the lead sentence, no.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused between the first sentence of the lead section, and anywhere in the lead section. You are saying it should not be mentioned in the lead section? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * His relation to the church is clearly relevant. The stand-out fact about this guy, what makes him particularly noteworthy among various war-criminal Nazi collaborators, was his position as a military religious official (even if not a very highly placed one; the cognitive dissonance between his role as a man of God and his other role as a mass-murderer is probably the number one reason he's remembered. Whether his non-excommunication is relevant enough for the lead seems indeterminate, so I agree with GregorB and Peacemaker67 to err on the safe side and assume it is. I don't see a clear source-based rationale for effectively suppressing that information, and doing so seems more likely to "lead the reader" in one direction than mentioning it would be to lead in the other.  Include the facts, let the readers draw their own conclusions. But at very least his chaplainhood should be in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think his role as a military chaplain and Catholic friar should be mentioned in the lead. His expulsion from the Franciscan order should only be mentioned if its reason is also mentioned. Likewise, if we know why he was not excommunicated, we can mention the lack of his excommunication, if it is a fact that distinguishes him from other war criminals. Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Most prominent Croat
Huh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.39.91 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Miroslav Filipović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150525015328/http://www.gexweb.com/Holocaust/inside/showcontent.asp?cid=297&subhead=Catholic+Compliance&anchor=2 to http://www.gexweb.com/Holocaust/inside/showcontent.asp?cid=297&subhead=Catholic+Compliance&anchor=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

War criminal in lead
Because this chap was convicted of war crimes and his conviction was not overturned, I think it needs to be in the first or second sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)