User talk:Zetale

Gregorij Rožman
Hi! Please do not simply revert the article to your version, as it is far from perfect. It has some "very loose" translations, no internal links and in some parts some subjective sentences or unencyclopedic contents (personal evaluation of OF and mid-war events). I'm trying to eliminate those faults (you're welcome to help) so please do not rever anymore. Thanks. Tadej5553 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You blocked everything it does not suit to your opinion. So you do not want to accept that the trial has been annulled erecently. Work of historians is not a contibution to certain ideologies, but should confirm the facts, Zetale
 * Zeatle, I didn't do that. I though we were on the same side? Take a look at this, you'll see what I am doing and who is inserting bias... Tadej5553 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Zetale, please stop falsifying sources like you did here. France M. Dolinar is very clear about Rožman's presence at the oath swearing ceremony. — Yerpo Eh? 07:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all falsifying anything. It is quite clear out of the documents that there was a silent mass led by the bishop and after the liturgical utilities were packed he left the stadion. Dolinar's version differs in no way, I am just more specific. Believe me I know what I am talking about! I doubt that you have studies tha whole matter in the same way I did.


 * Actually, Dolinar wrote clearly in Rožmanov proces that he remained there for longer than would be necessary to just pack, which is more specific than your version. I don't know what documents you refer to, because you never provide any references, and your word is unfortunately not enough here. — Yerpo Eh? 13:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My word is not important, important are the sources. Let us quote other sources: Rožmanov proces, pp. 137 (the same book but Griesser-Pečar); NŠAL 332, ük. 24; Med sodbo sodišča in sodbo vesti, pp.363, ''Bemerkungen zum Prozess des Militärgerichtshofes in Ljubljana gegen den Bischof von Ljubljana Dr. Gregorij Rožman". He wrote himself in his answer to the accusations in the trial (the original text is in German):"Vor der Vereidigung der slowenischen Landeswehr und Polizei am 20. April 1944 habe ich auf Ersuchen der Offiziere und Mannschaft im Stadion eine stille Messe gelesen. Dabei war kein deutscher Soldat anwesend. Rösener und die übrigen Gäste sind erst nach der Messe erschienen. Ich wurde zwar zu den Ehrengästen auf einen reservierten Platz eingeladen, habe aber die Einladung abgelehnt. Nach der Messe blieb ich auf der Festtribüne des Stadions, wo der Altar stand, allein mit einem Kaplan, bis die Messkleider usw. zusammengepackt wurden, die ich dann mitnahm. Inzwischen hielt Rösener seine Ansprache und der Kommandant Krenner las die Eidesformel vor. Als das Gepäck in mein Auto gebracht wurde, fuhr ich ab, ohne mich von jemanden verabschieden. Die Messe las ich deshalb, weil die Mannschaft Gläubige meine Diözese waren und bis dahin noch keine eigenen Kapläne zugeteilt waren. Als ich ersucht wurde, die Messe vor der Vereidigung zu lesen, ließ ich mir vorerst die Eidesformel vorlegen, um mich zu überzeugen, dass die slowenische Landeswehr nicht auf Hitler vereidigt wäre [werde]; wenn dies der fall gewesen wäre, hätte ich die Messe nicht gelesen. Formell approbiert habe ich die Formel nicht."  Ich think that we should agree that it is important to try to write what really happened and not what suits in someone's picture. In Rožmans text there are still so many incorrectness, although it is better now that it used to be. And it is absolutely not true that I never provided any evidence. If you follow my editing, you would notice that I provided many new sources. Many sources that are still quoted of course, are of doubtful origin, for example that of Nazi gold in that Rožman had anything to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetale (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 July 2011


 * We will never know what really happened, because none of us was there. Rožman's testimony is not to be trusted on its own, because it was in his interest to let others believe that he didn't collaborate more than was "absolutely necessary". But witnesses said otherwise, a historian published it and this is what matters for Wikipedia. To quote from the rules, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". — Yerpo Eh? 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * True, none of us was there, but there are others who were there and who talked and wrote about it, like Dr Stanislav Lenič, his secretary, who was put on trial by communits and forced to write his memories about the bishop and who was not prepraed to write what they wanted him to do. He was sentenced to twelve years forced labor. And there is a newspaper article that doe not cover eberything the bishop is talking about the mass, bur what there is, underlines his words. Slovenec, 21. 4. 1944.signed:Zetale


 * I went through both pages of this disgusting propaganda in Slovenec and there is not a word about when the bishop left. So we still only have his own words and the words of witnesses as written by a historian. If France M. Dolinar believes that the witnesses are trustworthy, then neither you or me are in the position to argue. — Yerpo Eh? 16:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to read carefully what I have written. And of course I do not accept your statement that we should not argue. Discours is important and if I understand you correctly you think that it is not allowed to have another opinion. And also what Dolinar has written. He did not write that the bishop left the stadion after the oath as it was written. He wrote that he and his companion (it was Nande Babnik) left and they stopped for a few moments behind the pillar. Dolinar commented that they were curious to see what was going on. Maybe. There can be other interpretations. he might have been worried. I would suggest aou to read everything there was written about the oath and the role thatprotagonists had. Things are much more complicated and we cannot judge the former days from the standpoint of the year 2011. I assume that you history is your hobby. But anyway and that is important. Bishop did not want to seat side by side with the German occupiers and that he left before the whole thing was over. [Zetale]


 * I read what you have written quite well, and I still think that you don't understand. You can have any opinion or interpretation you want, but in articles (especially on such sensitive topics), we must rely exclusively on reliable published opinions from experts. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. The article as it is now, reports exactly what Dolinar published (including that Rožman didn't stand side by side with the German occupiers). If you think you are an authority on the topic and you disagree with Dolinar, you can publish your opinion in a similarly reputable source. Then, it can be inserted in the article, not before. — Yerpo Eh? 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, I have no idea what is "PRO, FO 371/48911", and I'm certain that nobody else reading this article also doesn't have an idea. Please explain what this is. Additionally, does your source say "It is only fair to point out that to a conscientious Catholic Bishop the eternal welfare of individual souls is a greater moment..." or is it your personal opinion? — Yerpo Eh? 07:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yerpo : PRO = Public Records Office, FO = Foreign Office; British archives to be short. I suspect Zeatle is copying this directly from "Rožmanov Proces" (actually a better description of this is in "Rožmanov Simpozij". Wait a bit till I sort this out. Tadej5553 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)