Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sa izložbe o Jasenovcu, Muzej Republike Srpske2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Concentration camp

Jasenovac is concentration camp, not extermination.Lordluka99 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

About 100,000 people were killed there, as far as I am concerned that makes it an extermination camp. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the US Holocaust Museum at least 25,000 Roma were exterminated at Jasenovac, or nearly the entire Roma population in Croatia and Bosnia, down to newborn children. Also according to the same source, up to two-thirds of all Croatian Holocaust victims, or 20,000 Jews, were exterminated at Jasenovac, plus 48,000 named Serb victims. Over 20,000 of the named victims were children below 14 years of age, another 23,000+ were women, exterminated because of their ethnicity or religion. That is what Croatian Wikipedia euphemistically calls "a collection camp", while simultaneously quoting Holocaust-deniers Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Took a look at the Croatian wiki version and they mention that it was a death camp, assembly camp (weird term), and mention mass exterminations while giving an example testimonial. The article seems underdeveloped though and focused more on labour than the extermination which seems misleading. So as to make it seem not as grousim as it really was. I don’t see where it was only referred to as a “collection camp”. However as usual with Croatian, Serbian, Albanian, etc wiki versions, there is a lot of misleading and biased writing. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia rules, individual research or opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what the facts of the sources are. It was known as a concentration camp and an extermination camp. As it was where many people were held and imprisoned as well as around 100,000 of they murdered. Many in sadistic ways. As per the sources confirm.74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Question on photographs of children

Regarding the photographs of murdered children just posted by Sadko, while there is much evidence of the mass killing of children at Jasenovac, including a named-victims list of over 20.000 children, I have not seen any mention of photographs of dead children. I do not even know how these photos could've been obtained, since I doubt the Ustashe sought to document and preserve proof of their extermination of children, particularly since it is well known that they systematically burned and destroyed camp records, to hide their crimes. I’m also suspicious of sources coming from Republika Srpska, where the government uses Jasenovac for propaganda purposes, while systematically denying their own mass-killings at Srebrenica. Thus. unless some independent, reliable sources can be found for these photographs, or documentation on how and where they were obtained, I suggest they be removed Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Ustashe did document their murders with photos and video both - very much so. Tons of such videos are kept at Yugoslav Film Archive. That photo is a compilation of such authentic material, made by historian Milenko Đorđević.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for the Milenko Djordjevic source, with his documentation when, where and by whom were these photographs discovered. There are multiple credible sources (e.g. Jasenovac inmates), who testified that the Ustashe burned and destroyed all Jasenovac records, not just once, but on 2 separate occasions Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, the image file page needs a source provided. Sadko did not make the collage himself, only a photograph of the collage, so the licensing is wrong. There is a question of whether publication of the collage here without permission from the copyright holder is a copyright violation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really, as author/s of photos is unknown (to my knowledge) and owned by any individuals. And copyrights for the maker of collage is not realistic. If you have suggestions on how to fix the licence - that would actually be helpful. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a photo of an exhibit at the JUSP museum, it is a blatant copyright violation. The copyright of the collage will probably be owned by the museum. This picture can only be used if the owner of the original copyright has issued a Creative Commons license. The picture should be removed from Commons as a copyvio unless the uploader can provide proof of licensing. --T*U (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, being that you took the picture of a picture from a museum, you could just ask or get written consent by them to use it on Wikipedia. I doubt they would be against it. And if they know who created it I’m sure the creator would be fine with it being used as it’s in a museum in the first place. I don’t see the reason to delete it so fast, give some time first. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If the photos are from JUSP, that would be a much more credible source than the Museum of Republika Srpska, and JUSP might give permission to share it Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And why is that? Collage made of publicly free images is tricky to properly licence. If this image get's deleted, I shall reupload it with proper licence and I'll also seek approval from the historian-custos. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, a collage "made of publicly free images" is not tricky to license at all. The copyright belongs to the person or persons who created the collage, in this case the museum or whoever the museum commisioned to produce it. I believe that it must be the copyright owner (the museum) that will have to release the image with a Creative Commons license. Giving anyone else a permission or approval to publish a private photo of the collage is probably not sufficient. --T*U (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. There was no information about authorship displayed around the collage. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to email the Museum (use the guidance on the Commons:OTRS page) and ask them who produced it and for them to release it with a Creative Commons licence. They send an email to the OTRS team who mark the file for future reference. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What came of this? OyMosby (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

New content added recently.

The new content added recently doesn’t seem directly related to Jasenovac concentration camp. This article seems to slowly becoming more general spanning all Ustashe genocidal crimes as apposed to focusing on Jasenovac...Also are online news articles and blogs RS?.Thoughts? OyMosby (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, in general? Which blogs? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not so much blogs but use of online news websites as a singular source for historical events. I recall yourself not being in favour of using news sites for history articles. What is your take on it? Also the straying from the page topic of Jasenovac Concentration Camp in the new added contentment yesterday as well. OyMosby (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I am still not in favour, but it would largely depend which site is quoted. Jutarnji list is so and so. If you have doubts about something in particular you can raise it here, or you could add better citation needed tag after those parts. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

Fix link to Ante Pavelić:

From: In 1936, in "The Croat Question", Ante Pavelić spouted anti-Serb and anti-Semitic hatred, calling Jews "the enemy of the Croat people".

To: In 1936, in "The Croat Question", Ante Pavelić spouted anti-Serb and anti-Semitic hatred, calling Jews "the enemy of the Croat people". 79.181.119.191 (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Resolved

. Instead of fixing the link to Pavelic's page, I simply removed the link from that sentence and replaced it with bare text. This is because, to avoid overlinking, we generally don't link the same thing more than once per section. See the Manual of Style guidance on overlinking for more info. I also did some other minor copy editing of that paragraph. Let me know if you have any further questions. CJK09 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Map and name

Why is the map and name for Modern Day Croatia used at the top for the location of the cam and not Independent state of Croatia? Should be like Kruščica concentration camp . Some other camp pages have the same major error. OyMosby (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

replaced with NDH map. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent thanks! Was surprised it was this way for so long. How do you creat the new map and location marker? Is it a program? Just wanted to know for future reference as pages like Gospić concentration camp have the same issue. OyMosby (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox concentration camp has a |location map= field, you just change the entry from Croatia to NDH. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Extermination camp"

We need sources that call this an "extermination camp" or "death camp". Most sources do not. [1] buidhe 00:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there are numerous sources that call it an extermination camp, including Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century by Paul Mojzes, which cites the Hall of Silence in the USHMM for its inclusion as an extermination camp [2], When Sorry Isn't Enough: The Controversy Over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice by Roy L. Brooks [3], The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945 by Raphael Israeli [4]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Only the first two sources label it such. There's a distinction between extermination taking place and being an extermination camp, for example Mauthausen concentration camp is not described as an extermination camp, although majority of prisoners died there via extermination through labor. I personally am not convinced that there is due weight for how prominently this descriptor is applied in the article. buidhe 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, the USHMM specifically including it in the Hall of Silence (I assume he means Hall of Remembrance) alongside Auschwitz, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka as an extermination camp is more than enough to call it one on Wikipedia. The USHMM does not include Mauthausen on that list (assuming Mojzes' list is comprehensive). Yad Vashem also states it was an extermination camp see [5]. The extermination at Jasenovac was very different from the German-run extermination camps, in that it was less industrialised, but that doesn't make it less of an extermination camp, its primary purpose was to kill people. The article itself is pretty poor and unbalanced due to the constant POV-pushing, so I have no position on the weight issue at this stage, but with USHMM and Yad Vashem both saying it was an extermination camp, I really don't think you have a case here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

There were 700,000 people killed not 77,000. 24.193.161.70 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There are sources given that variously give figure in the range of 77k to 100k. Do you have a source for your claim? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is POV nonsense. No modern reliable sources continue to claim this sort of figure, as is explained and reliably cited in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Jasenovac prisoners in the Sava river

Without intention to dicsuss this subject too much, I would just like to to warn authors, editors and readers on some inconsistencies in the article. In the article, photo "Bodies of Jasenovac prisoners in the Sava river" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp#/media/File:Corpses_in_the_Sava_river,_Jasenovac_camp,_1945.jpg) shows woman's leg in high heels, which is hard to understand considering camp living conditions. According to article Photo forgeries of Jasenovac victims (http://www.pobijeni.info/userfiles/Fotokrivotvorine-o-Jasenovackom-logoru.pdf) which handles this topic, these are victims of Partisans afterwar killings. Later this picture is used cropped, without woman's leg, but for the same purpose. So, please be aware that these events/facts are heavily manipulated with, and were practically forbidden to discuss for more than 30 years after their occurrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geranoll (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Victim numbers section

I am worried that this section is taking up an undue amount of space in the article, and may grant undue weight to estimates that lie outside of current scholarly research. Perhaps it would be best to split off the bulk of this section to Number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp or similar. When dealing with non-accepted figures (WP:FRINGE), reliable secondary sources that discuss the controversies about the number of victims should be cited rather than primary sources. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure which sources you mean. Many of the cited sources - Jure Paresic, von Horstenau, Milko Riffer, etc. are in fact extensively cited by well-known scholars - Jozo Tomasevich, Ivo Goldstein, etc, although they do not always agree with their figures, but still cite even these. However most of the cited non-accepted, non-scholarly figures are mostly among the inflated estimates from former Yugoslavia, which are no longer accepted by the vast majority of scholars, particularly not after the detailed demographic studies of Zerjavic and others in the late 1980s. I think extensive reference to these no-longer-scholarly or authoritative numbers should be removed

Also as noted by many, there is today the opposite phenomenon of revisionists in Croatia minimizing, even entirely denying mass murder at Jasenovac. In this article a Zagreb University historian describes how this is done by selectively citing bits and pieces from these primary sources, often misrepresenting them, to claim that Jasenovac was merely a “work-camp”, where no mass murder of Jews, Serbs and Roma took place. Simultaneously these revisionists entirely ignore evidence in the very same primary sources, which contradicts their claims – e.g. eyewitness accounts of the killing of thousands in a single day, or the extermination of tens-of-thousands of Roma, etc. The revisionists also entirely ignore some primary sources, extensively cited by Croat and international historians, like German sources who all wrote of hundreds-of-thousands Serbs killed by the Ustase across the NDH, as well as of mass extermination at Jasenovac. But it is difficult, in typical revisionist fashion, to dismiss these Nazi sources as “Yugo-communist propaganda” or other similar claims, thus they ignore them. Therefore citing primary sources that reputable historians cite, is important to set the record straight Thhhommmasss (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with buidhe. The article should briefly summarise the past then explain the current scholarly consensus on victim numbers sources like buidhe has mentioned. Frankly, contemporary sources such as von Horstenau had no way of knowing how many were killed and conducted no scientific inquiries of their own, so their statements are of extremely limited encyclopaedic value, as are the boasts of the Ustase for that matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Tomasevich explicitly lists German sources on Jasenovac numbers, mentions von Horstenau as being most reliable on NDH victim figures, Goldstein lists Croatian Catholic contemporary sources, all as part of their discussion of victim estimates. If we get rid of these then let's start by first getting rid of all postwar Yugoslav estimates, since unlike von Horstenau, neither Tomashevich, nor Goldstein, nor other authoritative sources deem them credible, and lets stick with only mentioning current consensus of around 100.000

Btw from Auschwitz WP article that specifically quotes Nazi estimates: "Rudolf Höss (camp comandant) told prosecutors at Nuremberg that at least 2,500,000 people had been gassed there, and that another 500,000 had died of starvation and disease.[230] He testified that the figure of over two million had come from Eichmann.[231]... In July 1942, according to Rudolf Höss's post-war memoir (published in communist Poland), Höss received an order from Heinrich Himmler, via Adolf Eichmann's office and SS commander Paul Blobel, that "[a]ll mass graves were to be opened and the corpses burned. In addition the ashes were to be disposed of in such a way that it would be impossible at some future time to calculate the number of corpses burned."[228]

So all exact same stuff as cited by Croatian and other historians regarding Jasenovac, yet we seem to be coming up with some type of special rules that apply only for this article, most likely because people don't like the facts presented Thhhommmasss (talk)

WP:PRIMARY

References to the State Commission (1946!) should be replaced with secondary sources. The same goes for Paris's book. There are many reliable sources out there. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Don’t know who quoted the 1946 commission. But as to Paris citation (which is actually a watered-down translation of original testimony in Croatian state archives), there are other secondary sources of same event in Goldstein’s Jasenovac book, as well as even more horrific citations from Goldstein on treatment of children in Jasenovac, plus additional secondary citations of von Horstenau, etc. I will add secondary citations to 2 or 3 places where there are now primary, as well as replace what is to me more authoritative Diana Budisavljevic primary source on children in Jasenovac, with other, more horrific citations of unknown inmates, since that is what reliable secondary sources cite. Elsewhere primary sources are already cited via secondary ones (e.g, Tomasevich citations of Nazi estimates of Jasenovac victims, Goldstein’s quotes of Jure Paresic, etc). I should note that the way history books are evolving, including Goldstein’s recent Jasenovac book, is toward extensive citations and testimony from primary sources he deems reliable, and names them as such – inmates, Ustashe, Catholic priests, German officers, etc. This is how history is increasingly presented, instead of only abstract numbers thrown together from a variety sources, with generalized descriptions, etc, as is now mostly the case with the article Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree regarding extensive quotations from witnesses/victims, it is unencyclopaedic. What we need are summaries of what are in these testimonies by reliable secondary sources, not reams of primary source quotations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I’d beg to differ. The Auschwitz article has 5 paragraph-length quotes from primary sources, mainly inmates, as well as images of other primary sources like diaries, and a link to the entire pdf on Wikimedia Commons, of the Polish government report on Auschwitz from 1942. Also at one time there was a very specific style for textbooks, particularly history ones, as dry compendiums of facts and figures – names of rulers, dates of battles, etc. This was criticized as offering very little in terms of knowledge and understanding. My sense is that in order to address this, today’s history textbooks incorporate, among other things, much more extensive quotes from primary sources

In any case, this is a much broader discussion. One way to address this for now, would be to place some more extensive quotes in the footnotes. as I’ve also seen done in many cases on Wikipedia Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that is completely against MOS:QUOTATIONS, which says, inter alia, "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement." I will revert any increase in the number of quotes in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I haven't seen that rule before Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I’d say that line in the sand is already far passed. Over the past few months a huge amount of primary quotes have been added to this article as well as other Ustashe articles and should be looked into and possibly removed. They have begun to make up the bulwark of the articles. OyMosby (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Some years ago I went through and cleared out a lot of quotes from this article, and it looks like I may need to do so again. Ultimately though, it will take a rewrite and promotion to FA to stop the POV-pushing and unencyclopaedic inclusions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to unencyclopaedic inclusions consider removing Anzulovic and his revisionist book "Heavenly Serbia". Book written by non-historian, with clear agenda, with no other historic work. Book written by a man who contributed several articles to ustashe magazine Hrvatska revija in South America. 91.148.96.6 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

All the primary sources are quoted by historians, as reliable sources, specifically stating they are such, in fact Tomashevich for von Horstenau states he is among the most reliable sources, including specifically with respect to victim numbers, which Tomasevich cites. So I want to hear why WP editors, on their own POV-basis should be overriding Tomashevich's judgement regarding such sources. The Auschwitz article cites primary sources, inmate testimonials, Nazi commandants, etc. On the other hand people here seem to be making up their own rules. For example, Tomashevic quotes German sources for Jasenovac victim figures, Goldstein quotes German sources on total NDH victim numbers in his discussion on Jasenovac victim numbers, historian Mark Biondich specifically cites same inmates I cited in his discussion of Jasenovac Roma victim numbers. Yet people here seem to be inventing their own rules to override these historians, deleting or claiming specific facts historians cite, can't be cited in the article. Other rules that seem to be made up on-the-fly are claims that newspaper articles should not be quoted. Will you then argue for removal of newspaper citation template from wikipedia? Lots of books have been written with inflated Jasenovac figures, or with Jasenovac- and Holocaust-denial, so just because something is in a book, means absolutely nothing. On the other hand lots of newspaper articles are cited in many articles, including for example 6 just from Vecernji list in the Stepinac article, a totally uncritical and unreliable source on Stepinac, as compared to what many historians write. As I noted, in victims number section there is now even a citation from an opinion columnist in a newspaper, as opposed to the reputable historian with footnoted references to published sources that I cited, and people objected. So yes I see a lot of POV-pushing, people systematically targeting reliable sources for facts they obviously disagree with, inventing their own rules on-the-fly Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

== Testimony before a communist court or statements given to investigators ==

"Jasenovac camp commanders, Miroslav Filipović and Ljubo Miloš both testified that just before the end of the war the Ustaše gave the command to completely destroy all evidence of mass graves at Jasenovac, by forcing remaining inmates to dig up and burn the corpses." [6]

• I wonder if such statements given to investigators are quality informations for Wikipedia articles. I do not know whether statements in communist investigations are used as information's in all articles dealing with this topics? Mikola22 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Like most things in these articles, it is far better if they are sourced to secondary sources rather than primary sources like trial testimony or evidence that may well have been given under duress. Such sources should be avoided. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This informations: ("This is similar to what the Nazis did, including at Sajmište concentration camp, on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia. The mass burning of corpses at Jasenovac was separately confirmed by at least 4 surviving Jasenovac inmates,.[134] as well as postwar excavations which in many places found only ashes and burnt remains of bones.[144][145]" are from same source and one newspaper source. These sources are too weak. Mikola22 (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

All these items are cited by a secondary source, i.e. a Zagreb University historian, who wrote the cited newspaper article, so they are all sourced to a secondary source, a historian whose specialty is what he is writing about in the article. Is there some rule that recognized historians can't be cited? Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely we can do better than a newspaper article for this information. Can we just raise the standard of the sourcing on an article of this importance and controversy? Has they published this information in a journal article or a book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is written by a Zagreb University history professor, a significantly more authoritative source than many of the secondary sources cited in the Jasenovac article (e.g. the article cited from the newspaper Vjesnik.hr, also in reference to victim numbers, written by an opinion writer). The article I cited is also footnoted, and specifically for the testimony of multiple, separate inmate eyewitness accounts regarding the digging out and mass burning of corpses just before the end of the war, he cites a 2015 book published by the Jasenovac Memorial Area, the leading Croatian state research institution for Jasenovac, which includes detailed inmate descriptions of how this was done. Plus for additional postwar discoveries of evidence of burning of corpses at Jasenovac, he cites yet another 2016 book by the same institution. Evidence of mass burning, collected by postwar commissions, is cited even by historians like Stipe Pilic and Blanka Matkovic, likewise cited in the article, who are associated with Jasenovac revisionists Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting my point. The overall sourcing of this article is complete rubbish, and its quality is very poor as well. We need to raise the standard across the board. I mean, Milan Bulajić is still there, along with Edmond Paris, the State Commission, Paul L. Williams, Barry Lituchy, compilations of primary survivor testimony, Rivelli, a YouTube video about the Srbosjek, and far too many news articles from the yellow press. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you get my point. I never cited Milan Bulajic, nor Paul L. Williams, nor Barry Lituchy, nor the Srbosjek, nor would I ever. I did cite Paris since that was the only available source for that citation, although I went to the Croatian State Archives to get the original Giordana Friedlander citation, and found out that the Paris citation is a 3-times translated, greatly watered-down version of the original. I believe in the original since it is clear that Giordana was greatly distressed and apologizing for participating in the crime, the fact that multiple other independent witnesses cited same, and the fact that this was never publicized in communist Yugoslavia, as were not many of the other details written in inmate and other testimonials. Be that as it may, I will replace that with a watered-down citation of same from Goldstein 06:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67, this is a serious article and information in it should not be from some newspaper interview or the "yellow press". Mikola22 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The "yellow press" you are citing is a footnoted and sourced article by a Zagreb University historian, as opposed to yellow press citations from opinion columns in this article, plus other yellow press citations in numerous other articles, like the Stepinac article 06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that particular article was yellow press. I meant it in general about the citations in this article, it is a mess. If this scholar wrote a newspaper article about this issue, surely they published their views in an academic journal as well? If so, we should use that, as it is likely to be peer-reviewed, unlike a newspaper article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

OK let's take out absolutely everything not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and you can eliminate 90-100% of the victim numbers section, as well as 90-100% of the entire article, since much of this was published in books and other sources. I do not see how, for example, a reputable historian, like Tomashevic, responding to some false information in a newspaper article, would be any less reliable than in a book. In any case the reputable historian in an article is much more reliable than pure "yellow press" cited here and elsewhere, which all needs to be completely deleted first, and after that we can talk about why people in their personal opinions think reputable historians should be deleted. Btw regarding citing the State Commission and other similar "communist sources", Tomasevich extensively cites the Draza Mihailovic trial and other "communist sources". Delete these, and you delete half of Tomashevich's Chetnik book, and Draza Mihailovic is then indeed a "Serb patriot" and "anti-fascist fighter" as his supporters claim 07:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How about the article is based as much as possible on reliably published academic books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles, of which there are plenty on this subject? That is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. Can I assume from the above that you think the article sourcing is fine, and there is nothing wrong with using people like Lituchy and the others I mentioned? Your comment about Tomasevich is completely deluded, and fails to acknowledge that Tomasevich was a highly respected historian published by an American university press and his books have been widely praised over many years, with his work on the Chetniks still holding up and being cited by respected academics 45 years after it was published. Criticisms of him are very few and far between, and almost always from people who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because of their POV. Scholars examine the primary sources and analyse them, then draw conclusions which they write up, and are then subjected to peer-review in academic journals or editorial board oversight if published as a book. We don't examine primary sources here or even dig into the primary sources the academics have used. This is fundamental to WP, and if you don't understand it, I don't know what you are doing here. I have no objection to using the newspaper article in question, I just think if the information also appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it would be of higher value. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss, when Peacemaker67 says that article or some parts are in "mess", then it should tell you something. Quotes from the article ie informations which I stated above are in the range of some historical facts. This historical facts must be confirmed with stronger RS and not with newspaper article. You had to conclude that as a conscientious editor yourself. I do not follow this article in detail, but I noticed it immediately when I flipped through it a bit. Mikola22 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker - I agree. so first start by deleting here and in all other articles quotes from Vjesnik.hr, Vecernji list and similar sources that do not cite a single authoritative source. After that you can make your point why, per your personal opinion, citations of Zagreb University history professors should be excluded Thhhommmasss (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop being obtuse, and just follow WP policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So what exactly is the WP policy that does not allow citing university history professors, and permits citing newspaper opinion columnists? `Thhhommmasss (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Everything is clearly told to you. Use quality RS not newspaper as source information. The same is written somewhere in quality RS. Find that RS and use information from it. If for this informations which are in the range of top historical facts we have to use some newspaper articles then this informations may not have confirmations in other sources(which would not be good). Big facts require big (quality) RS. If you are dealing with this issue and you know a lot of data I think finding a quality source should not be a problem. Mikola22 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The cited article cites 2 books published by the Jasenovac Memorial Area, the leading Croatian research institution on the subject, which talk of the burning of corpses. And that is what good historians do - they seek to find multiple sources to confirm what they are saying. So this is supported by multiple scholars and published books. It is much more solidly and scholarly sourced than many other items in article, like newspaper articles citing opinion columnists. Where are the WP rules that say WP editors can substitute their judgement and challenge authoritative, published historians (and I am not talking about quacks like Lituchy)? We have people challenging sources Tomashevic thinks are the most reliable, saying sources other reliable historians specifically cite can't be cited in the article, etc. Thhhommmasss (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned, every primary source is extensively quoted by historians in secondary sources. Here is an entire chapter reprinted from Goldstein's Jasenovac book, that cites the same events of children in Jasenovac-Stara Gradiska, that I cited via Diana Budisavljevic and Giordana Friedlander (also cited in Paris book, but cited in Goldstein by two other inmates). I will replace current Paris and Budisavljevic citations with citations from here

Specifically I will cite this from Goldstein, for which he cites multiple sources: Kada sam ušla u sobu s kojom sam zadužena imala sam što da vidim. Jedno dijete ležalo je s glavom u izmetu, druga djeca u mokrini ležala su jedno preko drugoga. Prišla sam jednoj djevojčici s namjerom da je podignem iz lokve prljavštine, a ona me gledala kao da se smiješi. Već je bila mrtva. Jedan 10-godišnji dječak, sasvim gol stajao je pored zida jer nije mogao sjesti. Iz njega je visilo crijevo prekriveno muhama.

The gassing of the children he cites, I will paraphrase. Any issues with these? The only other primary sources is von Horstenau and I will replace this with secondary source for one quote, paraphrase or delete second quote Thhhommmasss (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Velika Kustarica vs. Limani

The Velika Kustarica (misspelled) site mentioned in article is very likely one and same as gravesite called Limani, which I added from Jasenovac Memorial. State Commission talks of Velika Košutarica as main killing ground in Winter of 41-42, but makes no mention of Limani. Jasenovac Memorial talks of Limani as main killing-ground in Winter of 41-42, but makes no mention of Košutarica. Goldstein also talks of mass graves at Limani meadow, but states that Limani lies toward Košutarica, with Košutarica being near east end of Camp III. So sounds like they give different names to same location.

In any case, regardless of what I think, its probably better to reference Jasenovac Memorial on gravesitesThhhommmasss (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandrapa story sources

Per historian Ivo Goldstein’s 2018 Jasenovac book, the main players in the Brzica-Mandrapa stories – i.e. the Ustaše Ante Friganović, Petar Brzica, Ante Zrinušić and Mirko Jukić–Šipka – were identified by multiple inmates as being among the main Jasenovac killers. Goldstein also notes that the Sarajevo neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Nedo Zec, worked as a prisoner in the Jasenovac hospital, and that Dr. Zec testified in 1945 that a drunken Ante Friganovic came to him seeking morphine. This is when Zec said Friganovic told him of the Brzica slaughter-bet. Goldstein notes that Dr. Zec made no mention of Mandrapa in 1945. Instead he first wrote of Mandrapa around 1970, attributing the story again to Friganović

Thus Goldstein writes, “Dr. Zec is the only witness in the unconfirmed story of Vukašin Mandrapa”, further noting the paucity and inconsistent information on Mandrapa. Unlike the article, Goldstein does not state that Dr. Nikola Nikolic witnessed Mandrapa’s killing, even though he extensively cites Nikolic’s memoir. Unless additional, reliable confirmation is found, the article should say the Mandrapa story comes from a single witness, Dr. Zec Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

In film and literature

Dear admins, please add this: "* Films:

• • Jasenovac (1945), dokumentary film
  • Deveti krug (1960), film
  • Jasenovac – istina, 2016. documentary film
  • Mith about Jasenovac, 2018., documentary film
• Books:
  • Thomas Tessier "Father Panic's Opera Macabre", USA, 2000.
  • Milko Riffer: Grad mrtvih: Jasenovac 1943., Nakladni zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1946.
  • Mladen Ivezić "Jasenovac – brojke", Zagreb, 2003.
  • Josip Jurčević "Nastanak mita o Jasenovcu", Zagreb, 2005.
  • Vladimir Horvat, Vladimir Mrkoci "Ogoljela laž logora Jasenovac"; Zagreb, 2008.
  • Vladimir Horvat, Igor Vukić, Stipo Pilić, Blanka Matković "Jasenovački logori – istraživanja", Zagreb, 2015.
  • Igor Vukić "Radni logor Jasenovac", Zagreb, 2018."

Best regards, Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

These all need reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Vandalism and Holocaust denial

Please do not use Croat, German or United States as sources for the Holocaust numbers.

I will report this to the ADL as Holocaust denial—

Additionally, there were no Bosniak Muslims present at the camp and the term was not even used until much after WW2. https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/585?lang=en https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/germany-nazism-medieval-anti-semitism-plain-sight-180975780/

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wjc-denounces-renewed-attempt-by-croatian-authorities-to-whitewash-holocaust-history-6-5-2019 Tvrtko Kotromanic (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Link is broken. Reporting to ADL. Tvrtko Kotromanic (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What is ADL? Your insistence on what sources can be used for numbers in the this article is complete nonsense and will not be complied with. We compare and contrast the reliable sources on Wikipedia, we don't just use the ones we like. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Historical fact?

Gassing and poisoning, "The method was later replaced with stationary gas-chambers with Zyklon B and sulfur dioxide".[7]

• Koncentracioni logor Jasenovac razlikuje se od sličnih logora iz razdoblja Drugoga svjetskog rata u nekoliko utvrđenih činjenica: U KL Jasenovac nije bilo plinskih komora(The Jasenovac concentration camp differs from similar camps from the period of the Second World War in several established facts: there were no gas chambers in KL Jasenovac) (page 7, source of Nataša Mataušić (Croatian historian), 2008, Concentration Camp Jasenovac, Photomonography [8]
• This information is according to Mataušić fact, but in the article we have information presented above. Mikola22 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve not seen evidence of gas chambers, but there is evidence, presented in Goldstein, Jasenovac, confirmed by multiple inmates and the commander of Stara Gradiska, of the use of Zyklon B to kill children. From the cited eyewitness descriptions, this was done in an improvised room, not a gas chamber, although to those affected, I doubt the distinction made much difference Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Croatian forces vandalised, devastated and looted the memorial site and its museum during September 1991. Information from the article.

• Information from the source and also inflammation for NPOV. "On September 25, Jasenovac was attacked, and on October 8 the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina entered to Jasenovac. The Memorial Museum during the Serbian occupation was devastated, and all museum, documentary, and archival material was taken and secretly transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina."

• @Vacant0: Why would information "The Memorial Museum during the Serbian occupation was devastated" must be replaced with "The Memorial Museum was devastated in this period"? Why the original information is not in NPOV and information from article "Croatian forces vandalised, devastated and looted the memorial site and its museum during September 1991." is in NPOV? Mikola22 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The only problem I see in this "Serbian"? But it can be linked to Croatian Serbs or in that sense. Mikola22 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• We do not just c/p sources. "Serbian occupation" may be considered normal in the biggest part of Croatia, but in general - it is not, considering that it's not WP:NPOV. Not to mention the terrible wording and grammar which has not been improved for at least two years. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not c/p source, see my edit. Who then was the occupier in half of Croatia, what can we state? Croatian Serbs? I don't know who else? Make a suggestion and do not delete information from the source. "The Memorial Museum during the Serbian occupation was devastated" to "The Memorial Museum during occupation of the rebels Serbs(or Croatian Serbs) was devastated". We need to have some context. Mikola22 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: I did some re-edits so I don't know if you got a ping, explain what the problem is? Mikola22 (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Or "Serb rebels at that time devastated Memorial Museum? Mikola22 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal. "On September 25, Jasenovac was attacked, and on October 8 the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina entered the Jasenovac. The Serb rebels at that time devastated Memorial Museum and all documentary and archival material was taken and secretly transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina" Mikola22 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mikola22: The source says "During the Serb occupation the museum was devastated", by who? The source only states that it was destroyed during the Serb occupation. If it was destroyed by Serbs, Croats, Serb Croats or whatever, it should be sourced too since this one doesn't go into too many details, it only mentions that it was destroyed during the Serb occupation. The sentence "The Memorial Museum was devastated in this period" should stay like this because the "Serb occupation by RSK" is already mentioned in the previous sentence. "As the Yugoslav wars unfolded, Croatian forces vandalized, devastated and looted the memorial site and its museum during September 1991." isn't sourced and should be removed, when someone finds sources about these exact events then it can be added back. This has to stay NPOV until someone finds more sources about these events. Vacant0 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if new sources occur then we will update the information. Mikola22 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Walasek p. 84 writes: "The Assistant Director of Jasenovac Memorial Site was Simo Brdar, a Bosnian Serb who lived in Bosnia. Brdar continued to cross the Sava to work at the main site until August 1991. However, he feared for the safety of the artefacts for which he was responsible, and with little faith in the Croatian authorities' commitment to preserving them and the war drawing closer, on his last day at the site he took part of the archives with him. In September 1991 Croatian forces entered the Jasenovac Memorial Site. During their occupation the museum building was vandalized and its exhibits and documentation destroyed, damaged or looted; as the troops withdrew they blew up the bridge over the Sava linking the two parts of the complex. One month later the JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) took control of the main site and Simo Brdar returned to remove what he could of what remained of the collections, taking them to be stored in his home. In February 1992 Yugoslavia submitted a formal protest to the United Nations and UNESCO regarding the Croatian devastation of Jasenovac Memorial Site."

Nothing about Serbian forces stopping the evacuation of artifacts or devastating the site. So the last part that was added and cited to Večernji List which says "At the beginning of the Croatian War of Independence.. 19 containers was prepared for evacuation.. but the Serbian paramilitary units stopped it and devastate the Memorial area.. so the collection of artifacts was transferred to Bosanska Dubica, where Simo Brdar kept this collection in his house for years.." directly contradicts this. If Serbian units entered the site on October 8, then they couldn't have "devastated" the site at the beginning of the war which was in September 1991.

Now one source is a scholar published by an academic publisher, the other is a Croatian right-wing newspaper which publishes op-eds that deny that mass murder took place at Jasenovac. --Griboski (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As for Simo Brdar case, we have this information: "S JNA smo ušli i uzeli sve što je preostalo“, kaže Simo Brdar. No, ta činjenica nije omela srpsko novinstvo i samoga Brdara da navede netočnu konstrukciju kako su „hrvatske paravojne formacije oružano napale Memorijalni centar ustaških logora genocida Jasenovac“ te kako su „pripadnici MUP-a i zbora narodne garde Hrvatske odneli 8.000 izloženih eksponata (…) koji su svedočili o stravičnom stradanju više od 700 hiljada nevine dece, žena i ljudi“, pa je tada arhivska i muzejska građa prebačena u podrum Sime Brdara. Unatoč tomu, iznesene su tvrdnje da je minobacačkim projektilima potpuno uništeno ovo Spomen-područje, a da su granate „izbacile kosti i otkrile još jednu masovnu grobnicu“, dok su materijali, knjige, dokumenti i najvredniji muzejski eksponati uništeni, oštećeni ili odneseni...We entered with the JNA and took everything that was left" says Simo Brdar. However, this fact did not prevent the Serbian press and Brdar himself from stating the incorrect construction of how "Croatian paramilitary formations attacked the Memorial Center of the Ustasha Genocide Camps Jasenovac" and that "members of the MUP and the Croatian National Guard took away 8,000 exhibits (() which testified about the terrible suffering of more than 700 thousand innocent children, women and people", so the archive and museum material was then transferred to the basement of Sime Brdar. Nevertheless, allegations were made that mortar shells completely destroyed the Memorial area, that grenades "threw out bones and uncovered another mass grave", while materials, books, documents and the most valuable museum exhibits were destroyed, damaged or taken away." Source of Bernardica Jurić from 2017, page 248 [9]

We have and this information from other source: ("Vladan Vukliš iz Arhiva Republike Srpske u Banjaluci govorio je o putešestviju arhivske građe iz Jasenovca čije su kopije sada u Arhivu Republike Srpske. Muzej koji je bio formiran 1968. imao je originalnu postavku i onu revidiranu iz 1998. Nakon što je JNA otkrila da su dio građe opljačkali pripadnici paravojnih jedinica, u februaru 1992. zamjenik direktora Simo Brdar prenosi građu u Bosansku Dubicu.. Vladan Vukliš from the Archives of the Republika Srpska in Banja Luka spoke about the journey of archival material from Jasenovac, which copies are now in the Archives of the Republika Srpska. The museum, which was formed in 1968, had an original exhibition and a revised one from 1998. After the JNA discovered that part of the material was looted by members of paramilitary units, in February 1992, Deputy Director Simo Brdar transferred the material to Bosanska Dubica.") Portal of Croatian Serbs, Novosti (Croatia) [10] Mikola22 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As for dates is concerned, on 25 September attack on Jasenovac started and because of that paramilitary units probably stop transfer of materials(19 containers) to Zagreb. Information from the article: "Croatian forces vandalized, devastated and looted the memorial site and its museum during September 1991." In this source is stated that: "Da navedena građa nije uništena, već brižljivo sačuvana i iskorištena u propagandne svrhe u cilju dokazivanja “genocidnosti hrvatskog naroda” najočiglednije potvrđuje izložba “Jasenovac - sistem ustaških logora smrti” koju su zajednički realizirali Muzej Vojvodine iz Novog Sada i Muzej žrtava genocida iz Beograda...That the mentioned material was not destroyed, but carefully preserved and used for propaganda purposes in order to prove the "genocide of the Croatian people" is most obviously confirmed by the exhibition "Jasenovac - a system of Ustasha death camps" jointly realized by the Museum of Vojvodina from Novi Sad and the Museum of Genocide Victims from Belgrade.(Nataša Mataušić; (2000) O koncentracionom logoru Jasenovac(About the Jasenovac concentration camp) p. 109; [11]

• How is posible that "Croatian forces vandalized, devastated and looted the memorial site" when this source say that "mentioned material was not destroyed, but carefully preserved and used for propaganda purposes"? Mikola22 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, the competing narratives can be compared and contrasted. --Griboski (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Original research

During the 1980s, 700,000 to 1.2 million victims were highlighted in many Serbian publications as part of the SANU memorandum program.

• The source mentions that it is a number for Jasenovac and not "apparently for the total genocide not just deaths at Jasenovac". Page 48, U istom vremenu 700 tisuća do čak 1,2 milijuna žrtava logora Jasenovac isticano je u mnogim srpskim publikacijama (At the same time 700 thousand to even the 1.2 million victims of the Jasenovac camp were highlighted in many Serbian publications). Here is mentioned "at the same time" in context of 1990s not 1980s and your new information with 1980s fact is WP:OR. Information for 1980s is from page 47, ( Mit o 700 tisuća (uglavnom srpskih) žrtava Jasenovca kulminirao je 1980-ih kada se u sklopu politike Slobodana Miloševića u Srbiji govorilo o milijun, pa čak i o dva milijuna ubijenih u Jasenovcu, The myth of 700 thousand (mostly Serbian) victims of Jasenovac culminated in the 1980s when as part of Slobodan Milošević policy in Serbia was spoken about a million or even two million killed in Jasenovac.)

• @Griboski: You're new edit is out of context and OR. Mikola22 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• • We have and additional source and information as confirmation that it is not about "total genocide not just deaths at Jasenovac" ("Od 1986. SANU je kroz Odbor za genocid posredno promicao sjećanja na srpsko stradanje u NDH na znanstvenim okupljanjima kojima je tema bila logor u Jasenovcu. Na tim je skupovima i raspravama pod prividom znanosti procjena 700 tisuća mrtvih u Jasenovcu postala formulom koja nije trpjela osporavanja...Since 1986, SANU, through the Genocide Committee, has indirectly promoted memories of the Serbian suffering in the Independent State of Croatia at scientific gatherings on the Jasenovac camp. At these gatherings and discussions under the guise of science, the estimate of 700,000 dead in Jasenovac became an unchallenged formula". page 229, [12]) Mikola22 (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For total genocide deaths I was referencing the 2 million number, not the 700,000. As Benčić cites the example of Stojanović for her claim that up to 2 million deaths was given for Jasenovac but Stojanović says "u zločinu genocida počinjenom od strane hrvatskih ultranacionalista, Srbija izgubila preko 2 000 000 nedužnih žrtava" ("in a crime genocide committed by croatian ultranationalists, Serbia lost over 2,000,000 innocent victims"). He's not talking about just Jasenovac.

The myth of 700,000 is well established. If the information about 700,000 to 1.2 million victims is in the context of the 1990s and not 1980s then it should be corrected. However, the SANU memorandum was in 1986 and on p.48, Benčić talks about the traveling exhibit which was from 1986-1991, and shown to soldiers in the early 90s. So the publication of the 700,000 figure likely originated in the mid to late 80s. And p. 47 as you referenced says that the figure culminated during that time. --Griboski (talk)

Source stated on page 48 that "At the same time 700 thousand to even 1.2 million victims of the Jasenovac camp were highlighted in many Serbian publications as part of the SANU Memorandum program. The influence of these publications, accompanied by strong political propaganda, dominated the public space") this is in context of 1990s, (1990-1991) if I read source correctly(previously cited information in the early 1990s). And information from page 47, "The myth of 700 thousand (mostly Serbian) victims of Jasenovac culminated in the 1980s when as part of Slobodan Milošević policy in Serbia was spoken about a million or even two million killed in Jasenovac." This is in context of Slobodan Milošević and 1980s (two million may be disputed but one million is not disputed)

• @Griboski: These are two contexts which you(with your edit) put into one context ie in OR. Your edit: "During the 1980s, 700,000 to 1.2 million victims were highlighted in many Serbian publications as part of the SANU memorandum program". Where is Milosevic here, that it is the number killed in Jasenovac, but also and the 1990s? Also this information is and for "Controversies" section because the number of 1 million or 1.2 million victims are mentioned here and it is not historical fact or serious number of killed. And maybe is historical fact, I don’t know but I don’t think it is. Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Benčić talks about the traveling exhibit which was from 1986-1991, and shown to soldiers in the early 90s Yes, and this is in context of 1990-91 and beginning of the war and preparation of Serbian soldiers to war. That's why I'm talking about 1990s context ie second context from the source. Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Jasenovac so figures listed are obviously about the numbers killed in the camp, without needing to specify this. If you want to add that this is in the context of Milosevic's rise, go ahead. Victim numbers should go in the "victim numbers" section. Otherwise, we'd have to mention all the other controversial numbers into the controversies section, including the 2,000-10,000 figures given by deniers. Pretty much any figure that is drastically different from the widely accepted figure of 80,000-100,000 could be seen as "controversial". --Griboski (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I as editor think that small and large numbers of victims belong to "controversial" section unless it is some historical fact, and if some editors suggested it I would support it. Mikola22 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The extreme ends of the figures are given too much weight in the article in general. It should be much clearer that they are massive miminisations/exaggerations used for propaganda purposes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Mikola22 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Change

" The concentration camp, one of the ten largest in Europe, was established and operated by the governing Ustaše regime, which was the only quisling regime in occupied Europe to operate extermination camps solely on their own for Jews and other ethnic groups"

to

" The concentration camp, one of the ten largest in Europe, was established and operated by the governing Ustaše regime, which was the only quisling regime in occupied Europe to operate extermination camps solely on their own for Serbs, Jews, Romas and other ethnic groups"

Jasenovac was primarily a camp for Serb's extermination. Marijajankovic1974 (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: template

I added this template to this talkpage with the Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human Language article because that article mentioned this article.

I was reverted by User:Joy: what is the point in dredging up this controversy here? this feels like we're just giving prominence to fringe claims

I reverted them: The point is that this article (the English one) has been mentioned by a media organization. Harrison considers this interesting, readers of this talkpage may too.

I was reverted by an IP-editor: Lies again, here I will translate the name and the beginning of what is written from the Croatian wikipedia ....Name is Jasenovac Concentration Camp. The Jasenovac concentration camp was the largest concentration camp and extermination camp in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during the Second World War. The camp was created as a result of a genocidal policy against Jews, Serbs and Roma...etc Nowhere does it say labor camp

I reverted them: No lies in the template, Harrison did write that.

Even if media-mentions are wrong, they are still media-mentions. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And I was reverted by IP again: Read it yourself you have a google translator. newspapers write everything. I won't delete anymore. Let other editors and administrators deal with what will be written there. https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncentracijski_logor_Jasenovac. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is controversial. The Slate article isn't even criticising en WP regarding this article, it is comparing it with the hr WP article. I see no reason whatsoever for it to be removed from the talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point in giving such prominence on this article talk page to a) the topic of wildly offensive fringe claims b) made on another Wikipedia's article, not this one c) that have been covered at Croatian Wikipedia and elsewhere ad nauseam. Yes, this topic exists in the mainstream press, but this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We're not supposed to be giving coverage to all sorts of weird crap that happens in the world and then effectively amplifying it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's just the talk page, Joy. No-one is suggesting it needs to be reflected in the article AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP-talkpage, and adding this template to the talkpage is not "giving prominence" nor "indiscriminate collection of information" since Slate is a noted publication and Harrison is an able journalist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are supposed to contribute to the process of building of better articles. This press mention on top of this talk page contributes... flamebait? I mean, it can be seen from the example of an anonymous editor immediately jumping on it after me. Indeed, the mention in the article is very brief, and it's in fact old news, as the Croatian article has long since been fixed, after that whole shitshow. This just seems so egregiously pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Old news but written recently. You think flamebait, I think removing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What does it matter that it was written recently? The core issue is what does this press mention actually contribute to this talk page? (Indeed, one could legitimately ask what is this current discussion now doing to help this encyclopedia article.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 It's not a problem with the talk page, I didn't delete it, let it say anything. I have already deleted this, this is what the talk page would look like, read above what would be written by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Read in the yellow box what would write something that is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp&diff=1042121794&oldid=1042121382 It can be translated from croatian wiki, that what would be written is not true.89.172.78.222 (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

In the context of adding this template to this talkpage, it doesn't matter that you state it's not true, it matters that Harrison wrote it in Slate. That is all the template claims: Harrison wrote it in Slate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And why write something that is not true, can be checked immediately?89.172.78.222 (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ask Harrison. It's still true that he wrote it in Slate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is Harrison? If Harrison tells you you're stupid, you'll say you did and nod your head, and you know you're not?89.172.78.222 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrison wrote the article this thread is about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

He wrote it and he is wrong. Because the Croatian wikipedia does not say that it is a labor camp. So he is wrong, read that you have a Croatian translator on the internet and find where it says as Harisson claims. And now explain to me why they would write lies here? You're going to tell me again what Harrison said, this is already funny. Let him write what your Harrison says, if he says he was on Jupiter you will say he was, Harrison said that he is right. I don't want to argue anymore, Bye89.172.78.222 (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that this article is under sanctions - which is the only reason I didn't put the template back in. Harrison is one of the best journalists covering Wikipedia (perhaps the best) An article by him in Slate should be mentioned on any talk page of the article he refers to. Pinging the first admins that come to mind @TonyBallioni, Gorrilla Warfare, and DGG: IMHO folks who edit war to keep out this talk page template are violating the sanctions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Correcting ping @GorrillaWarfare: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this second anon revert was excessive. Thankfully this stopped at that point, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång did well to de-escalate by moving to a section. I explained further to the anonymous on their user talk page now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's quite possible that 89.172 is correct and "But according to Croatian Wikipedia, Jasenovac was merely a labor camp." doesn't apply per current article-text, but I'm not trusting GoogleT to try to fact check. And as I noted above, I consider this an addable media-mention even if Harrison did get it wrong. Journalists (and other people) sometimes error. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Smallbones maybe it's like you say is one of the best journalists covering Wikipedia (perhaps the best). I do not know that. But what he said is not written in the Croatian wikipedia. Nowhere in the Croatian wikipedia does it say that Jasenovac is a labor camp. Feel free to check if you have a Croatian translator and translate what is written there https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncentracijski_logor_Jasenovac 89.172.78.222 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This dispute has a very ling history on Wikipedia - so much so that the WMF commissioned a report on it. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Croatian_WP_Disinformation_Assessment_-_Final_Report_EN.pdf or read The Signpost! Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Disinformation report and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion. Whitewashing this talk page is a minor tactic, but should be avoided. Put the template back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Smallbones are you seriously saying that not teaching the controversy here about it means that we're engaging in a whitewashing tactic over that issue? Are you even aware how insulting that feels to us who have been facepalming over the state of hrwiki for so many years? Not to mention a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(I was speaking in the plural there as I'm being lumped in with an anonymous user here, but in retrospect don't necessarily share anything with them because I don't know who they are - I'm speaking for myself here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC))

Google translate of https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncentracijski_logor_Jasenovac says

"The Jasenovac concentration camp or Jasenovac concentration camp was the largest concentration camp and extermination camp in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during the Second World War. The camp was created as a result of the genocidal policy against Jews, Serbs and Roma in the Independent State of Croatia, which was proclaimed by the Ustasha Homeland Organization on April 10, 1941, under the auspices and direct influence of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy."

but https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-human-language-wikifunctions.html says

"For instance, Jasenovac was a concentration and extermination camp during World War II, which is described in detail on English Wikipedia. Hebrew Wikipedia, and other language versions. But according to Croatian Wikipedia, Jasenovac was merely a labor camp."

The slate article references https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium.HIGHLIGHT.MAGAZINE-these-nationalists-didn-t-like-what-they-read-online-about-wwii-so-they-rewrote-it-1.10084302 but I cannot read it because it is behind a paywall. Is there a version that is available online?

This was covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion

The page at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Croatian_WP_Disinformation_Assessment_-_Final_Report_EN.pdf says "Croatian article - in various versions that were online between 2007 and December 2020 - presented a grossly distorted picture of the notorious extermination camp" and "The article’s leading paragraph, posted in August 2018, dropped any reference to “death camp” and described Jasenovac as “the largest collection and labour camp in the NDH, and later in SFR Yugoslavia” – furthering baseless revisionist claim that the camp had been used by Yugoslav authorities."

I appears to me that slate got the facts right but made an error by implying that the current article says that Jasenovac was merely a labor camp. How long did it take the Croatian Wikipedia to get it right? --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's out of date, yes, but again, that's besides the point. Adding this press mention here that is primarily about the grossly weird denialist nonsense that happened at a different article. Worst case, it may confuse someone who reads it to think "wait why does this differ, is something actually wrong on this article?". If we wanted to discuss the matter of disinformation, there are probably way more appropriate ways to do that. Even this discussion provides better context than that press template citation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We just document press mentions of articles. We don't decide whether or not to document press mentions of articles based upon our opinions as to whether the reader should know about the press mention of the article. The article was mentioned in the press. The mention was in a high-quality, widely read publication. Those are the only requirements for adding the template. --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not to throw another wrinkle into what already looks like a pretty messy discussion, but it seems to me like a pretty trivial mention, and for cases like that, it might be banner bloat to include a permanent banner with the mention. Should {{Press}} have a provision that, if the mention doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, its use is up to editorial discretion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be worth bringing up at Template talk:Press. --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This implies that the template is an integral part of some sort of a policy or a guideline and that one really needs global consensus in order to do something about its use. But is it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Proposed changes to the instructions for when to use a template belong on the template's talk page. --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"This Article has been mentioned" indicates that a trivial mention is ok. Banner bloat is not much a problem, see Talk:Clarice Phelps or Talk:Donald Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On both of those examples I had to click at least once in order to see the quote, while in this case it's straight up weird claptrap, that is indeed the problem with making fringe crap prominent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You are not making your argument stronger by explaining again and again why you don't like it. You not liking it is not a valid reason to remove the template. --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You are not making any argument other than procedural, while effectively advocating for giving prominence to egregiously offensive factual errors that do not actually relate to this article. Why would the clerical work of noting media references be more important than the encyclopedia's basic rules on talk pages that would otherwise absolutely prevent weird denialist claptrap claims from being perpetually listed on top? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• I was pinged, and I decided to look at a more general issue, which is the difference between the present article of 195,000 bytes [13], , and the very much shorter version of Dec 14, 2020 (37,000 bytes) [14]. as well as some intermediate versions, I do not speak Croatian; my discussion is based onthe revision history, and the Google translation of selected versions and sections, and examination of the general structure of the original articles.

By comparison with the articles on the English (and Hebrew and Serbian and German and Russian and some other ) wikipedias, the current version is unbiased. The 2020 version is not unbiased. Among many other things It does state at the beginning that it was a concentration camp, states it was based on German model . (it actually started independently) , and discusses revisionist work on the number killed in some detail, as well as revisionist work to discredit some of the photographic evidence. I looked at earlier versions--they were equally brief. .The current version has been basically stable since [15] on December 22, 2020. At least some of the editors responsible for trying to maintain the old version have also worked constructively on the current one. (I have actually looked at quite a lot of detail, but I don't see the need to discuss it--and--to be frank--I want to stop looking at any version of this article ever again. Horrible as the images are, the text is worse).

There's another difference. Some earlier Croatian versions discuss its use by the Communists after the Utashe had been expelled. No other version I have examined covers that period, and I have not attempted to evaluate the sources.

Looking at it broadly, I think that references to the article in question do need to state it discussions the pre 2021 state of the Croatian article, not the present one. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime as one IP claimed that the Croatian WP article doesn’t call it a Labor Camp. Or downplay Jasenovac as a extermination mechanism. It may say that now, but a year or ago I remember reading the Croatian article and it offensively downplayed the Genocide of Serbs and the Camp as just some holding prison. It’s quite possible the topic slate covered was a few years back. Only in recent years has Croatian wiki been taken back by the sane editors and the ultra-nationalists dethroned. Just my small input. OyMosby (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

None of this is in dispute. Literally none of it. What is in dispute is what value quoting the fact that there's weird crap out there has to the editors of this article. Do we have to remind people on this article talk page that the sky is blue? If this press mention was an actual cautionary tale, that would actually be fine, but the quote and indeed the article's coverage of the issue just ends there. It's phrased in a news style, implying that some credence is supposed to be conferred to the other one. But it's not! So what actual purpose does the quote serve here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I just wanted to respond to that IP’s comment. OyMosby (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

An important citation is missing in concern to the following statement: "In 2005, Dragan Cvetković, a researcher from the Museum, and a Croatian co-author published a book on wartime losses in the NDH which gave a figure of approximately 100,000 victims[clarification needed] of Jasenovac."

The source on which the author bases this is the following: https://arhiva.portalnovosti.com/2013/05/dragan-cvetkovic-jasenovac-je-paradigma-stradanja/ My request is to add this citation after the quoted sentence 90.186.131.9 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (2)

In the introduction, please add a comma after particularly brutal kind" and before the [7] citation. Since the sentence is composed of a 17-word first clause and an 18-word second clause, it's rather unwieldy in its current form.

49.198.51.54 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)2

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

In the introduction, please remove

which was the only quisling regime in occupied Europe to operate extermination camps solely on their own for Jews and other ethnic groups.

and add

occupied Europe's only quisling regime that operated its own extermination camps for Jews and other ethnic groups.

This is shorter, and it avoids the slightly awkward separation between "operate" and "on their own". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done with the minor change of 'quisling' to 'Nazi collaborationist' per prior edits ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Claims from 1989

I'm moving this part to talk:

In 1989, prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbian anthropologist Srboljub Živanović published what he claimed were the full results of the 1964 studies, which in his words has been "suppressed by Tito's government in the name of brotherhood and unity, in order to put less emphasis on the crimes of the Croatian Ustaše."

References

In retrospect, I don't see much point in giving prominence to these debunked claims, and I can't actually see the "in his words" part because the articles seem to be full of loaded innuendo, like Gledao sam fašizam na delu i to kako nemačka kultura širi svoj uticaj ("I watched fascism at work and how German culture spreads its influence"), or Kada sam se raspitivao za sudbinu [intervjua] rečeno mi je da više ništa ne pitam o tom tekstu ("When I inquired about the destiny of [the interview] I was told not to ask about that text"). I also found it weird that the two articles transcribed the name of a professor differently, one said "Ante Premer" and the other "Ante Premeru" (in multiple instances). Overall, it doesn't seem to contribute much other than this kind of hearsay, it's not actually scholarly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References to primary sources

This source has been marked for clarification since April 2012:

• Schwartz, Djuro. במחנות המוות של יאסנובץ, קובץ מחקרים כ"ה של יד-ושם [In the Jasenovac camps of death] (in Hebrew).

It seems apparent that this would be a primary source, so I'm moving it here and removing references to it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's apparently been previous complaints about primary sources in Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp/Archive_4#WP:PRIMARY. Let's start by tagging some of those. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shelach et al

There's a claim the article that "[Menachem] Shelach wrote that some 300,000 bodies were found and exhumed" but this is referenced to a book in Hebrew that is supposed to have been published by Yad Vashem, but a google search can't seem to find it for me on their website, and there's no ISBN listed. This claim is oddly specific (it's listed in context of the 600/700k claims that are well-documented), and clearly outdated, so under WP:EXTRAORDINARY I'd prefer it to be cited better. The same source is used to reference a number of other statements in the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Logos source

Some material from this paper (which is published online at Academia.edu, a for-profit company not an academic institution) is being added to the article. Who is Logos? How is his work a reliable source? Has it been separately published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? I note from a quick skim that he reckons up to 200,000 were killed at the camp, but this is twice the academic consensus I'm aware of and which is referenced in the article. That makes me concerned about his bona fides. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I recall seeing a new user spam an academia.edu reference in [16]. Is Datunashviliswitch == Ratkovojinovic? --Joy (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. It never ends... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 *the academic consensus* it is number of documented deaths. A vast number of victims were not documented matticoulously as Germans were doing it in their death camps. They have been thrown in to the karst pits, in to the the Sava, Drina, Danube rivers, burned alive, thrown into the mass graves.

The number of victims with names is not a definite list, and definitely not a consensus of *academic populi*.

Pixius talk 22:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a good use of volunteer time to constantly review 'new' sources with WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that discuss topics that already have a lot of scholarly coverage that is known to be reliable. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or a public forum to post fresh WP:OR at. Also, the topic of possibly larger numbers of victims than what can be observed is already covered in the article at some length. --Joy (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

change "However, its day-to-day administration was comprised almost exclusively of Croatians, including monks and nuns, under the leadership of the Ustaše." to "However, its day-to-day administration was composed almost exclusively of Croatians, including monks and nuns, under the leadership of the Ustaše." Letica13s (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Switched comprised -> composed. Bestagon ⬡ 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)