Talk:Magnum Crimen

Books Stub‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Templates added, March 2008

This article is about a book which in Serbian runs to more than 1000 pages. A significant proportion of the article is concerned with a single incident - one which, like so much else in the book, has a truth at the heart of it but which has been fancifully embellished. Unfortunately at March 2008 most users of English-language Wikipedia will not be able to form their own judgments as Magnum crimen is not available in English.

Most Croats would challenge the veracity of this book and many serious Serb historians would hesitate to defend it. Whatever period it claimed to cover, it is largely a catalogue of alleged WW2 atrocities. Novak may once have been a catholic priest (the article offers no evidence of that) but by the end of WW2 he was a committed communist and his book was published three years into Tito's communist regime. As a wholly detached observer who tilts towards the partisans on the evidence I've seen so far, I would still have to say that this book was clearly skewed to suit Tito's purpose.

The article as it stands needs the qualifications I have added or it could tend to mislead. Kirker (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All above is just someones bad attitude toward this book - which does not justify questioning the text neutrality or its accuracy. The book is available in the libraries around the globe and whoever wants to get insight in it - is able and free to do that. Accordingly, I removed these tags.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.Let me see. Your position is right but criticism or questions about this books is wrong ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my poor friend - stop spitting at others. Then, maybe, people will take you seriously.

--?--Silver Spring, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.132.152 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you so there is no spitting :)--Rjecina (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user with IP address 72.75.24.245 could not be more wrong. I do not have a bad attitude to the book. From what I have been able to understand of the bits I've tried to decipher, and from what others have told me about it, I agree with much of what Novak said. But that is a personal opinion which I must have managed to conceal so well that 72.75.24.245 was confused.

What I did have a "bad attitude" about was the article itself, which was very different when I put the tags on, from what is there now. I still think that more references would help and I would certainly welcome input from anyone who has read the book and who can express his/her thoughts in English. But the other tag I put on has outlived its purpose. Kirker (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, get this book in your hand, read it - and then try to edit this article. All you know about this book is the number of pages and the title and author.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy. It is widely available all over Serbia and BiH. My problem is in trying to read it. It takes me more than an hour to translate one page. Of course, this just shows the absurdity of Wikipedia carrying an article about a book that exists only in Serbian.Kirker (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Just a small point, but if this unhelpful article is moved anywhere it should be to Magnum crimen. In English usage and when referencing the Latin original, Magnum Crimen is usually appropriate. But the book (which is what the article is about) was published only in Croatian/Serbian, as Magnum crimen. This is the correct capitalisation for that language. (Thus in Serbia for instance Manchester United is often transliterated to Mančester junajted.) Kirker (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up

I've cleaned up this hopelessly non-encyclopedic article. Hopefully both sides in this ongoing dispute will find it acceptable. Below I will copy-paste for historic purposes the section I have removed. It has no place in this article.

One excerpt from the book describes an Ustaše raid led by a Catholic priest on the Serb Orthodox villages of Drakulići, Šargovac and Motike, near Banja Luka on February 7th 1942. It describes how a brother of the Petrićevac Monastery, Tomislav Filipović, entered the classroom of teacher Dobrila Martinović class with twelve Ustaše, in the manner of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

He requested that a Serb child be brought to the front of the class; Radojka Glamočanin, was selected. Filipović then slit her throat, and said to the Ustashe:

"Ustashe, by this in the name of God I baptize these degenerates and you should follow my example. I am the first to accept all sin onto my soul; I will confess you and absolve you of all sin.

Then, he ordered the Ustashe to kill the children as they ran around the snow-covered schoolyard; the Ustashe would cut off a nose, an ear, an eye, or similar. A total of 2,730 Serbs, including 500 children, died on that occasion.

That text may have a place in the articles on the Ustaše or Filipović but not here. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these are very generic disqualifications of the book - not telling anything about this book content: http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_feb98/surmanci.html Viktor Novak’s book Magnum Crimen, which was written to accompany Tito’s 1946 show trials. The purpose of both the book and the trials was to implicate the Church in the crimes of the Ustashe. As a result, Novak’s book has to be viewed with caution

http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral240.html In a later bloodcurdling legend, which starts with the infamous propaganda-documentary book by Viktor Novak Magnum Crimen, in which there was no distinction between fact and fiction, Filipovic became "Brother Satan", a mythological prototype of a Croat-Catholic butcher.

Please avoid putting in this article something that has nothing to do with this book re-view

--72.75.24.245 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I have replied on your talkpage. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Dear IP 72.75.24.245, firstly, solo edit warring against consensus is unhelpful, and in my experience never ends up with a pleasant outcome for the solo editor. Secondly, you are already way over 3RR on this article in the last 24 hours. Thirdly, please do not remove references from an article. Fourthly, since nobody but you seems to think there's anything wrong with the references, perhaps you might wish to re-evaluate your stance on this. Lastly, to be more constructive, rather than edit warring to remove references, what could you add to this article to make it better? Many thanks for reading these remarks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you put here are not references - they are baseless disqualification of this book. The only reference in the case of book review is the book itself - what you are diligently removing.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book review. It is a Wikipedia article. And I strongly believe it is appropriate that a Wikipedia article about a book should draw the reader's attention to some reactions to it. Your POV that these are "baseless disqualification of this book" is just that, your POV, which, you may have noticed, is a POV that only you seem to hold. Again I'd suggest, in the spirit of improving the article, rather than just edit warring against obvious consensus, perhaps you could spend the next few days while the article is semi-protected finding things to add to it to make it better than it is. Just a suggestion, though. It's entirely up to you how you decide to behave. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes - the disqualifications are baseless for not being ever supported by academic/scholar society around the world. This book is widely referenced and cited in many scholar works and books and putting a nonsense from the internet page is an insult to a reader. What I am removing is just a POV - written by someone without proper academic background or even a proof that (s)he ever read this book. You also did not read the book - did you? --72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, for heaven's sake, instead of indulging in incivility, find these remarks/reactions from "academic/scholar society around the world" and add them to the article when the SP expires. What could be simpler. I would absolutely welcome that. Let's make this article better, but we can't do that by squabbling. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the side of anon user - it is better not to put a bad text (meaningless opinion) into this article than keep it in. I've ordered this book though inter library loan. As soon as I have it in my hands - I'll write an initial review of this book and be open for a discussion.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Article (and book) is meaningless opinion so 1 more or less ....--Rjecina (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I'm uncomfortable with the sourcing of this article. I added a decent source from Google books for the commissioning of the book, but the other two sources are down right bad. Meet E. Michael Jones, the author of the piece from Culture Wars. Any magazine as blatantly anti-Semitic as that cannot be considered a reliable source. As for the second, I'd be much more comfortable if we at least cited the proper journal rather than linking to a "fair use" copy of the article. A ni Mate 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, except that the second does cite the actual journal, the Feral Tribune, with a date, then links to the fair use copy... Otherwise, yes, you are right. We can all do some collective research and find better stuff, I'm sure. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind for E Michael Jones but let's not get into judging sources. Whatever other views he has, the article referenced in this instance is measured and thorough. Trenchant it may be, but the views expressed fall well within the bounds of fair comment. The problem with this article - and it's a fatal problem - is that it's self-published.Kirker (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that is also measured and thorough, and this times it is from a reliable source. Unfortunately, we have to judge sources as reliable or not. An article can be measured and thorough, but it's validity is absolutely called into question when the publisher is deemed to be unreliable. This article is by a well respected, though sometimes controversial, author who is notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Hopefully this brings a little more balance, though I'll continue to do some internet digging. There is still alot to dig up here, though I am certain to have access to a ridiculously large amount of sources in the fall since I'll be teaching part time for at least the next year. The hilarity of me as a college professor aside (and if you really knew me you'd be laughing as hard as all of my friends are), I will have unlimited (and blessedly free) access to all of the academic research tools and repositories I seem to run into when doing research for articles here. I'm far to chintzy to pay for access, so hopefully I'll be able to contribute more thoroughly once I've figured out how to fit teaching and grading projects with all of the current work I have going on. I'll definitely be seeing a time crunch, but at least I won't have to worry about reading papers and grading test (god bless the fine arts). A ni Mate 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

In this article there is edit warring. Our question about this problem is simple: do we need sources which are speaking about this book ? It is time that we vote so I am calling all users which has edited this article during last 20 days.

Yes we need sources which are speaking about book because other articles about historical books like for example The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire are having similar comments--Rjecina (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there are sources about this book, there is no harm adding them. And if controversial statements are made, then they need to be backed by sources as well, so says WP:V. I do not see where there could possibly be a problem. I don't see an edit war, more the edits of a single IP user vandalizing. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to my previous statement and in regard with the allegations brought forward by the IP user, I will add that the article itself of course needs to reflect all possible major views of the subject and that for example a review by someone who is clearly biased will be marked as such while retaining it. Like "...has been criticized by Catholic clerigy men as..." instead of "...has been criticized..." --SoWhy ^Talk 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of courseHowever, they must be reliable and support the claims that are being made. A ni Mate 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, yes, just like everything else on Wikipedia, it relies on reliable sources and verifiability. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Participating on the Talk:Miroslav Filipović brought me to the subject of this book. So,here's one for the consensus. Kubura (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Comment's revision (September 2008)

J. A. Comment added a large amount of text which Rjecina promptly deleted. In fairness to J. A. Comment, the article is not flagged as controversial, but nevertheless it would be far better to discuss such a major revision here first.

It would seem that J. A. Comment has done as promised and acquired the book and studied it, and come back with information derived from it. That is just what I had been hoping someone would do, so I don't want to see those efforts wasted. I hope he/she will propose here some additions to the article, particularly concerning the book's structure and the author's intentions as Novak himself has explained them in the book's introductory pages, I for one would welcome that and I am sure the article will finish up better because of J. A. Comment's contribution.

In the meantime I support Rjecina's reversion. I just wish he would occasionally make a tiny effort to do something constructive, instead of being so lazy and negative all the time. Kirker (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...lazy, negative, and all too willing to find some way to remove stuff critical of the NDH etc. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of J. A. Comment's revision being restored once it is properly sourced or, in other words, once proper citations are added. It is clear he/she has read the book, and it is a good edit in substance (although the last section adds nothing). So, J. A. Comment, leave the last section out, but otherwise please properly reference your material and then it'll be a good addition to and a welcome and substantial expansion of the article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In beginning of J. A. Comment version we are having: "Dr. Novak says I have wanted to write something different but because of my misfortune all collected material is destroyed because German occupying forces has wanted to kill me". Now we will trust that he has worked 40 years but lost collected material because he is very, very important person which is on German black list together with important serbian politicians and military leadership in April-May 1941 ??? :)))

In content section J. A. Comment is writing statements of Novak like truth, not like Novak statements. If nobody know how to write content section my proposition is to read article about controversial political movie Fahrenheit 9/11 (section Content summary). I am sure that I ask to much with this request !

In Serbian propaganda Novak is called Catholic priest which is writing about crimes of Catholic church and Ustaše. Sad truth is that he is not Catholic priest or in best case scenario he is member of failed try to create "Yugoslav Catholic church" independent of Vatican. This church has been created and abolished by Kingdom of Yugoslavia after agreement with Vatican. Magnum Crimen is best example of his toward catholic church controled by Vatican--Rjecina (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs. discussion

As I've promised, I finally got the book, read it over a month, and edited this article following the knowledge I acquired by reading it. Nevertheless - my work was vandalised under a frivolous pretext Essay and change of controversial article without discussion on talk page. revert to user:DIREKTOR version by Rjecina. The book review is not an essay, controversy of the text is possible to discuss only among people of the proper academic attitude and who read the book.

So, I am going to continue to work on the text improvements. All people of the proper academic background and editorial ethics - who read this book like me - are welcome to improve the text and discuss the review content.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said at your talk page, if you can properly source your edits with inline citations then I will be happy to revert anyone's attempts to remove your material. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To J. A. Comment
I replaced c, s, z by diacritics where I found it appropriate and turned References into Footnotes. I hope you'll find it ok. I tried to get a digitized copy from the University of Michigan library. Refused - the library sources are accessible only to the University students and their faculty staff. How did you get it? A hard copy or a soft (digitized) copy? Thank you!--71.252.106.166 (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1986(?) edition (hardback) is widely available in Serbia and BiH, maybe Croatia as well. From memory it costs about 50KM in BiH. I'd be happy to get you a copy and post it. If interested, email me at magnum.vrbas@spamgourmet.com, which is a short-life address. I could then email you the price and cost of postage when I'm over there later this month.Kirker (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]