Talk:Magnum Crimen

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

The fact that the user is using books like sources and sometimes he is not even knowing to spell writer names isn't exactly encouraging--Rjecina (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That could simply be a translation error. I agree with Alasdair. If you have inline citations, they are appropriate for any article here. In fact, they are encouraged. Rjecina, how can you revert to a version asking for additional citations over attempts to add more citations? What sort of reasoning is that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008 edits

For the sake of progress I've tried editing the new material from J A Comment which has also had some editing from an anonymous editor. I have also put a tag over the whole article, which is appropriate if the new stuff is allowed to stay in.

J A Comment and his other editor need to understand that as this book does not exist in English it is very important to be specific about what is said where. Some of us may then be able to turn to relevant sections of the book and struggle through them. Very few people consulting English Wikipedia would ever be able to wade through the whole book. Also in some cases a reference to the book itself will not be enough. For instance if Novak's statement that he was one of the first10 people arrested by the Germans in April 1941 is supported by no other source but himself, that statement must remain a claim rather than a fact.

I would ask J A Comment to address any further work to the present version. There will be points that I have misunderstood or got wrong no doubt, and I hope he will correct accordingly. But what I have done may show more clearly what gaps he needs to fill in order for his contribution to come up to the standard required in an encyclopaedia.Kirker (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This version of article if writen with 29 controversial statement by dubious editor ???

Rewriting can't be OK because there is needed for discussion. This group of editors (Kirker, AlasdairGreen27, Animate and DIREKTOR) have supported in article Miroslav Filipović argument that established version can't be changed before discussion and agreement on talk page. You are now changing established version and this is against your own words !!! Because I am sure that this users will respect own words I am reverting to established version. .--Rjecina (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Rjecina was perfectly happy with the anonymous editor's version. He reverted only after I attempted to bring it nearer an encyclopaedic standard. My only concern is that I don't want J. A. Comment to be discouraged, and this seemed a reasonable way to show him what still needs to be addressed if his work is to survive in the article. If improvements are not forthcoming over the next week or two I would support reverting to the pre-J A Comment version. It plainly isn't satisfactory as it stands, hence the tag I put at the top. Kirker (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that when it is OK for you we will use 1 rule and when it is not OK for you we must change rules ?????--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, do you actually have an opinion about how you want this to look or are you just automatically against everyone else? Kirker, if the only source for the information is Novak himself, it needs an inline citation. There is a lot of POV about what he "proved", what the Church "did", as opposed to what he claims. This looks like the kind of thing that is going to have a lot of criticism so there should be a section for that too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Ricky, you were applying your edits to a terrible version which had been restored by an anoymous editor, IP 71.252.106.166. This version incorporated a lot of new text put in by J. A. Comment, one of the very few people I have ever encountered who has actually read this huge book. Unfortunately his English was very poor and the whole lot was hopelessly unreferenced. Accordingly I rewrote it and added numerous citation tags, and Rjecina added a citation template on a section that I didn't really address. I have taken the article back to that version. Obviously it can't survive in perpetuity so cluttered with tags, but I am hoping, as I said earlier, that J. A. Comment will now understand more clearly the points he needs to address. Maybe others too will be able to fill in some of the gaps.

To answer a point you raised somewhere, Novak studied as a Catholic priest but became an ardent Titoist and a fairly significant figure. His book is extremely important for the documentary evidence it cites, but is blatantly propagandist in its handling of some of the anecdotal evidence. It is easily the most controversial book published in Serbian/Croatian since WW2, and with good reason.Kirker (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can see which is the most stable version to work off. I'll review and revise on the proper version. As to its importance, I think it really does need an explanation in the introduction. It just feels like "this is what it is", without why it is important (which really makes people WANT to read the article). Does anyone have a secondary source that describes it as "controversial" or as a critical documentary or something? There are some secondary sources at Google books but most aren't in English. Anyone have a look at them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682, you are stil in my view working on an inferior version. Look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnum_Crimen&diff=prev&oldid=237366100. Of those two versions, DIREKTOR's surely wins hands down. But you are amking it difficult to go back to that baseline. Kirker (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too eager to jump in, I guess. Ok, I have to get to sleep right now, but I see what you mean. DIREKTOR took care of my biggest concern, the POV and fact tags that are needed. I'll leave it to everyone else on who to handle it. A decent amount of text is the same so I can just cut and paste the pieces in again tomorrow. Personally, I can live with his version of the content and the background but I think I revised the Perception section better. There isn't a need to keep reverting versions. Just take the better parts and insert them in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Also, I think it's good if everyone get out of the habit of using "ibid" in the footnotes. While it's fine now, there's a good chance of inserting additional notes out of order and it becomes impossible to follow. Instead, learn to name your ref tags so you can cite them multiples places quite easily. I'm going to bed but I'll attack the ibids in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - when I become more familiar with this html editor - I'll use its feature the best way I could. Feel free to attack the ibids. Also, I'll take into account later your request for additional citations.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm more of a wiki-gnome anyways so do the refs however you want and I don't mind adjusting them later. You have the much harder part than anything I'm doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to be involved into serious discussion of the book re-view

Please, be advised to

a) name two chapters and their page ranges - as a proof that you ever had this book in your hands or

b) support your knowledge by quoting anything from this book.

Otherwise - I'll not honor any objections to my work coming from those who apparently never read this book - as to the review content.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I did not get that book yet. Hope - pretty soon. Any advice how to get it fast? I made some minor corrections of your text - I believe I did it right.--71.252.106.166 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll point out that we should really be looking for secondary sources that comment on the book itself, not so much on editors who have read the book. Otherwise, the article feels like a lot of original research with everyone arguing their own personal interpretation of the book. The article needs only a short summary of the facts alleged and would best be served if we discussed its importance, what people take from it, WHY it is controversial (I don't have the background so I can't tell for the life of me), etc. I hope I'm being clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

71.252.106.166, as I said in a preceeding section, I could get you the book and posst it on 24 September but I can't tell you till then how much it will cost. (It's not expensive.) To J. A. Comment: I appreciate that you have read the book, which is why I want your input to survive. The article certainly needs an informed sunnary of the book's structure and content. Even some of those Serbs who regard it as their bible think it is concerned only with the crimes of WW2. But I agree with Ricky81682 that the article should primarily be concerned with the book's status, strengths and weaknesses, relying of course on published sources. Kirker (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strossmayer

I'm just making a guess but I assume Strossmayer refers to Josip Juraj Strossmayer. If so, could someone rewrite that with some context? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, Josip Juraj Strossmayer --J. A. Comment (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

William Bundy remarks

I really don't see what is gained by Bundy's remarks. "A Jugoslav historian's lengthy indictment of clericalism in Croatia over the past half-century. The latter half of the book, covering the period of "independent" Croatian state of Ante Pavelic on the basis of a wealth of material from many sources, pays particular attention to the role of Achbishop Stepinac." just feels like a fact of what the book is and what it discusses, not any opinion at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The section title is - Perception of the book as an academic reference. So, Bundy's note about this book is a perception of the book. I wrote initially this section in order to counteract a number of blind rejections of this book. I've noticed that someone proposed complete removal of this section - which I can accept as a rational proposal. If other editors agree - then it is ok with me to do it - under only one condition: any part of this section shall not be restored anywhere inside the book review. For the same reason, the external link must go away - it is a blind rejection of the book, too.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan Kljakic remark

Is Kljakic's remark that the book "had been placed by the Vatican on the Index librorum prohibitorum, and anathema had been pronounced against the author" really criticism per say or just facts of what happened to the book? I think it would be better to simply have a "aftermath" section mentioning the Vatican's response (which there should be more of). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you are altering my text beyond my initial idea. That way you are making the rest of it meaningless.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume Ricky81682 is not challenging inclusion of the fact but is suggesting it should go under a different heading? Even so, I think it's OK where it is. The Holy See's reaction is relevant to a section dealing with the book's perceived academic status.Kirker (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• See my note related to the W. Bundy's note above.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)