Talk:Prebilovci Massacre/Archive 1

POV?
I remove the POV tag as there is no issue raised. The article merely lists the facts about the atrocity, and is not making any judgement that can be seen as POV, IMHO. Roramaster
 * Well, in my humble opinion, it is POV, so the NPOV of this article is obviously disputed :-) Without a doubt, the article is strongly anti-Croat, without giving any sources for its claims.  Nyttend 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding a Serbian (or so I assume, since it's the Cyrillic alphabet) source. Can you find a Croatian or other source?  Just finding one source, likely POV, isn't enough.  Nyttend 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * you can dispute the facts, but the tone of the article does not justify the POV tag. Just the requirement for more sources makes sense, as for every other article. If you have a concrete issue about POV, I will be happy to accomodate it. But listing what happened does not fall under POV. Roramaster
 * I see that it's in the Latin alphabet, but judging by its Belgrade tagline at the bottom, I still expect that it is pro-Serbian. Can you find an English-language source?  Nyttend 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The event is part of history, the sources given are local sources, and the latinic source is merely a report of comemoration, with some details about massacre. there is italian account but more sources need to be found and I expect that people will add them. Roramaster 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are problems both with sourcing and with POV. The whole tone of the article is that of "the evil Croats slaughtered the innocent Serbs".  Prove it with sources, and it would be different, but as is there's a problem with POV as well.  Nyttend 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the neutral source. I think you missed that this event took place in the WWII, not in the 90s. The innocence of the villagers and the policy of Ustashas (genocide that is well documented, see NDH etc, and not disputed by anyone) are not the issue of POV. It is akin of disputing that Jews massacred in WWII were "innocent". So, it is not the issue weather Ustasha actions were evil or not - the mere description of what happened is terrifying. The account is factual, and I dont understand your issue with the POV - what would be neutral way to describe the facts that this event happened. While you might ask for sources etc, I dont see what is your problem with phrasing - feel free to formulate it in any way you see fit, or explain what is the POV issuse. BTW, thanks for the move. Roramaster 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at WP:WEIGHT and this page, for example. I'm well aware that this was in the 1940s, not the 1990s (or at least most of it, since it has something from the 1990s), but I'm well aware that conflicts like this are reflected even in articles about decades-old topics — look at Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 for an example. Nyttend 01:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the data is taken from "The Balkan Conflict: The Psychological Strategy Aspects Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy Volume XX, Number 12 December 31, 1992 p. 4-9 by Gregory Copley, Editor-in-Chief", academic reference; also there is other english (non serbian) source, from which I added data about hearding. So, I believe POV is not an issue. I will check your links though, and see if anything can be done to reword it more. Roramaster
 * reading the policy that you linked to, I cant help but conclude that facts are indeed listed dispassionately, as they should be. They are horrible, just like in the case of holocaust, but that does not make the presentation POV.Roramaster

Cause for concern
I am very uneasy about this article. In the course of researching the atrocities of the Ustaša, which were manifold, I have so far found nothing to justify the claims made here. In particular I would be interested to know what Viktor Novak says about this massacre in Magnum crimen, but I don't read Croatian anything near well enough to wade through such a huge work.

It can't be satisfactory that the article includes a substantial extract from a letter without saying either who wrote the letter or who who translated it. And in my view references in Serbian should count for very little on English-language Wikipedia, whichever alphabet is used.

For the moment this article should be headed by whatever template may be available to say that it's in desperate need of better references. Kirker 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * there are references in english, provided in the article, there are certainly some more, probably in german too. I think srdja trifkovic has some material in his book (in english), but i havent seen it. on the side note, i have to say that references do not have to be in english, FYI there is scholarly work in serbian (and croatian, which is virtually the same language, like american/british english), and there is no valid basis why it should be excluded. frankly, i find your remark that serbian language references should be disregarded quite a bit racist. surely, this speaks more about you than about anything else. Roramaster


 * Call me a racist if personal abuse is your style, Roramaster, but most people will understand that race and language are two different matters. The reason that references in Serbian (or Croatian or Chinese for that matter) are just about useless in the English-language Wikipedia is that they will be inaccessible to 99 per cent of users. Wikipedia exists in other languages for people who understand other languages.


 * I must say that your attitude to references is far below the standard required by any encyclopedia. No wonder Wiipedia sometimes gets a bad press. You refer to English-language references for this article, but I can see only one. And it just beggars believe that you would put reliance on what you think might be in a book you don't name and haven't even seen! What Trifkovic book are you talking about? If you mean Ustaša: Croatian Separatism and European Politic, 1929-1945 I'm fairly sure it makes no mention of Prebilovci. (I can't be certain because I haven't time to read the whole book now and it has no index - one of the few failings of an otherwise splendid book.) Likewise I can see no mention of Prebilovci in Genocide in Satellite Croatia by Edmund Paris. Since you are interested and can read the language I assume you have read Magnum crimen by Viktor Novak. Could you say how he describes the Prebilovci massacre?


 * I suspect that most of this article has been lifted, without acknowledgement, from pages posted on the web some years ago by (I think) Petar Makara (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/Glina-intro.html) and that the contributors to the article have not themselves actually read Copley's work. Let me know if I'm wrong.


 * What about my point about a substantial block quote - 20 lines or more - allegedly from a report by an un-named Italian general? At the very least his name should be given. If it helps someone track down a reference, I think it might have been Dalmazzo (cammander, VI Corps) but I'm guessing. It would be useful to know as well who did the translation. (Obviously not a professional, as it's such shoddy English.) If the information is not forthcoming I will delete that quote for the time being, and then if I or anyone else come up with something definite it can go back in again. Regards Kirker 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * there are at least two english references, provided in the article (one is in external links), and much more in serbian/croatian. do you try to deny that massacre took place? the reason why you dont read about it in every book is probably because it is just one of hundreds of similar massacres in NDH, many of them have not even been properly marked. as for the translation, if you think it is poor english you can improve it - whoever did translate this from italian did a good job at least in pointing out what was going on there and that italians did not support the crimes of the ustasha. indeed, even germans were appaled. referencing in this article is better than many in wikipedia, sources are given and that you do not read serbian/do not want to look them up is really your problem, and is not a basis for exclusion of material.


 * language barriers and the fact that for instance most british people are not able to read in other languages, be it french, chinese, russian or whatever should bear no more weight than the fact that most people cannot understand more subtle points of some scientific theories. wikipedia writes about many obscure topics, and as a secondary source certainly does a lot to bring them closer to the general public - those who for whatever reason cannot comprehend the sources should leave the issue to the people who can. there are plenty of people who can read a language such as serbo-croatian, and indeed anyone who wants can check a reference/translate it into english in principle, just like anyone can check scientific references, if determined to do so. lack of intelligence, will or knowledge of language is not an excuse for deletion/denial of known and sourced atrocities. Roramaster


 * The article is now better referenced than it was, and I have removed that long quote allegedly from one of Mussolini's generals as it was unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. (Is it an error in the Wikipedia system that has footnote #1 going to two different references?)


 * However problems remain, not the lest of which is that two of the three external links are not in English. I will quote Wikipedia guidance about this at the end of this contribution so that Roramaster may see that if I am racist then so is Wikipedia. The one link in English, labelled Account in English, certainly includes an account, in the course of discussing much else as well. The author credits Edmund Paris as his source and says the Bishop of Mostar traced Paris's source to Viktor Novak's Magnum Crimen (see my earlier comment in this section). He then says this: "... Novak's book has to be viewed with caution. This is the verdict not only of the current bishop of Mostar, but also Serb scholars as well." And this: "Trifkovic (a Serb scholar) has similarly unflattering things to say about Edmund Parris (sic), claiming that his book Genocide in Satellite Croatia was ghost-written by Branko Miljus, a Serb emigre publicist." Etc. In short, a source cited in support of the article actually questions the events at issue.


 * Wikipedia guidance on non-English sources:


 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.


 * Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.


 * Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:


 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.


 * Regards Kirker 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One more problem... The one English-language link repeatedly claims that the atrocity occurred not in August 1941 but in June 1941, and twice gives a precise date of 25 June. As so often with Ustaše atrocities there is no doubt that this one happened, but separating fact from myth is not going to be easy. To some extent the difficulties result from the long clampdown bz Tito on all mention of such events for the sake of "brotherhood and unity." Kirker 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

August 16 revert
Roramaster restored a large block quote even though even he/she does not know who wrote it! He/she calls the letter "eloquent" but an encylopedia must be concerned with facts, not Roramaster's opinions. In this case his/her opinion would appear to be suspect anyway, for to judge by the translation (and I don't supppose Roramaster knows who did that either) the letter is nearer illiterate than eloquent. If the writer can be identified and a valid source found, the letter would be appropriate for inclusion, but it would still be helpful to have a reference to the original given that the translation is so shoddy.

Readers will find that much of this article has been cut and pasted from the website (srpska-mreza) that I mentioned under "Cause for concern" above even though this dubious site has, perhaps wisely, not been listed under external links. I say "dubious" because the site has an overtly polemic character - for instance it trumpets the Četniks (many of whom fought for and supported the occupying Nazis during WW2) as the only true anti-fascist resistance in Yugoslavia. What it says about Prebilovci may well be true, but the one link it gives (presumably to Copley's work) is dead. I myself cannot track down Copley's report, and I'm willing to bet that no contributor to this article has read it. If I'm right, Copley should not have been given as a source (see Wikipedia guidance).

The only English-language website linked from the article is, to my mind, more authoritative in tone than srpska-mreza, but it gives a completely different date for the massacre! This is English-language Wikipedia we are editing here, and readers have a right to expect accessible sources in English. Wikipedia absolutely depends on cited sources for whatever credibility it has. The template at the top of the article is a simple request for help in finding better sources. Roramaster deleted it presumably because he/she thinks the article is satisfactorily sourced already. That's laughable.Kirker 14:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In personal thinking of editor this story is try. In my personal thinking story like writen in this article has never happen. Why ? Even editor accept fact that about this "massacre" nobody has spoken in period during 45 years (1945 - 1990). Only with rise of national propaganda for Yugoslav wars this event has become public knowledge. Sorry but there is many similar events which are created in period 1989 - 92 for usage in Yugoslav wars.---Rjecina 1:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rjecina, if you have info about those more recent events, by all means create articles about them. But the fact of such events does not mean we should ignore the past. And in this case of course, the past and the more recent events are linked. (Read that piece about Međugorje linked from the Prebilovci article.) I know from talking to elderly Hercogovinians that an atrocity occurred at Prebilovci but my own researches are not acceptable on Wikipedia. We must find published sources. You will appreciate that the veil drawn over such incidents zbog jedinstva i bratstva, whatever the good intentions behind it, has made this difficult. Kirker 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)