Talk:Magnum Crimen

Getting back my contribution

I already said - I am ready to discuss the editorial issues particular to this review only with people who read this book. The possession of subject knowledge is the supreme rule above all rules known in Wikipedia.

So, I am restoring my version due to several serious damages caused by the editor who apparently did not read this book:

- There is 21 s requested and scattered frivolously which - if met - would require more quoted text than the whole article has now. Meanings of some sentences are distorted and that way requested s make no sense at all. Some of my sentences are summaries of the text across many pages and fully meeting a requested would force me to quote whole paragraphs or pages.

- Plot summary is another nonsense here. This is a scholar work, not a thriller, a movie, or a science fiction book.

- A change in doctrine is yet another nonsense. What doctrine and whose doctrine? This question cannot be answered by a person who never saw this book. There was no doctrine at all - there were two mutually exclusive understanding of the role of faith in a society. For Strossmayer - serving people equals serving God, Papal infallibility is nonsense - for Roman Curia - God is in Rome incarnated in Roman Pope and the Pope is infallible.

- Portaryal of ... Stepinac does not matter chapters XV-XVIII - there is a lot more text in the previous chapters talking about Stepinac's work before WWII. When I added this paragraph - I did not mean that it is my final version of that paragraph.

- 'introducing the Old Slavonic language as the language of the Roman Catholic Church in the Balkans' - is a primitive distortion of my original text and the reference number at the end of this text does not support this changed text at all.

- parts of my text were removed without any rational explanation; that way the last section of my review is seriously damaged

All above 'discussion' is noting else than irrational arguing of those who never read the book - against everything they do not like (for some reason)in the text.

So, kindly please stay away from this article in order to respect a) those who have valid knowledge of the book content and who spent time to read the book and who might be ready to continue writing the review b) readers who deserve a professionally written review.

However, I'll accept any sincere and knowledgeable improvement of my text. Going to continue my work on this article soon.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The encyclopedia anyone can edit. You don't get to pick and choose who edits this page. Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. And if you'd rather follow your own personal rules over Wikipedia's, then you can start your own encyclopedia. AniMate 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• No - encyclopedia is all about knowledge. It has nothing to do with ownership. Can be edited by anyone who posess proper knowledge of the edited subject. --J. A. Comment (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, anyone can edit the article. That is the entire argument behind WP:OWN which is a core principle. The article should not require that someone has read the entire book to your satisfaction to be allowed to edit. If there are accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources, then it goes into the article. To act like you and only you can decide who can and cannot edit is an attitude that will not be accepted. I mean, why are you just removing the fact tags without any explanation? There are plenty of statements that need to be sourced, including some that are disputed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I can understand if you think I'm destroying the point of what you are arguing but do you really think reverting everything I did, (including wikifying Harris' name, moving the footnotes to the end, removing a dead link) is appropriate? I mean, if you really want to improve this article, actually work with other people, see what they did, and make changes, not just blindly revert and ask why no one helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

J. A. Comment, no-one is asking you to quote whole blocks of text. But wherever you refer to material in the book, including any explanations etc by the author, you must say from where in the book (ie which page numbers, in which edition) you are getting that stuff. As I said in an earlier section on this page, you are not being asked to write a review, and if you try to write one your efforts will be reverted. Articles should really be concerned with recorded facts, and should cite where those facts are recorded. To repeat, it is NOT necessary to have read the book to edit the article constructively, any more than one needs to have known Pavelić to write about him.Kirker (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And J. A. Comment, now please go and restore all the tags you removed. If the article is going to claim that Novak was a catholic priest, we need a source for that. (I am not convinced that he ever was, though he seems to have studied for the priesthood.) Likewise we need to know the authority for claiming he was a historian at Belgrade university. (I happen know that he was, but that is not good enougoh for Wikipedia.) These claims were not put in by you, and even if they were, it is not for you to decide that they don't need sources. And those two points are just the start. Why do the tags distress you anyway? They are used in the hope that editors will be prompted to help fill in the gaps. Put them back or I will. (Oh, and it's sufficient to use his "Dr" title once. For the rest it is enough to say "Novak" or "Viktor Novak.") Kirker (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• To Ricky - you did not read book, which was quite obvious to me just after reading a few chapters of this book. 'If there are accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources, then it goes into the article. To act like you and only you can decide who can and cannot edit is an attitude that will not be accepted.I mean, why are you just removing the fact tags without any explanation?' - I see full explanation given by J. A. Comment showing clearly that you do not have a slightest idea what this book is all about. So, where are yours 'accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources'??? I did not see a single one here.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See the reliable sources policy. I think it's been in place for like three years now. I'm not just pulling things out of thin air. The purpose is not have an article full of editors' interpretation of what the book is about, what's important, what's controversial (called original research and against policy) but a short summary of the book along with why it is important including what specifically is controversial about it, all by other people (in other words, what does the world think about the book, not what do the editors who managed to find this page think). The repeated "you haven't read it so don't comment on it" responses are missing the entire point: this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a book, not a book report. Look at my edit history. I rarely have a clue about the actual subject matter I'm working on. That's supposed to be the entire point. I can find some background information and add it in if it's relevant. Instead, we have an article that's been dead for two weeks because no one gets to add in the exact text they want. Too bad, because I'd rather spend time discussing how the article should be organized not what specific facts from which chapter get to be included and who has read the book the way some people here like to be enough of an authority to edit the article. Last, J.A. went in and reverted everything everyone did including the fact tags. Ask him about it. I would rather we get neutral sources but others want to play the "I am the only one allowed to edit the article" (see WP:OWN for why that is against policy) routine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll just add that I love how J.A.'s search for knowledge and truth ended the exact moment he was no longer able to control the article himself. There's still the talk page if anyone actually wants to have any discussion. There's at least three sections above that actually can be talked about. I would be open to that if anyone else is actually interested. Put a note on my talk page because I don't make it a habit to work on articles where I'm clearly not wanted. Also, as an admin, I could remove the protection this instant, but I have the feeling that nobody is actually interested in revising other people's work towards neutrality and actual discussion, instead people want to play the "my version so screw everything everyone else did in between" bit. I mean, seriously, I moved a bunch of citations and formatted them, but they have to be reverted? People should be more mature than that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you are defending your 'rights' to change someone's work without any relevant knowledge of the subject. (You are calling upon Wikipedia's rules pointlessly here.) J. A. Comment complained that you distorted the facts about this book. I verified it to the some extent and saw that (s)he is right. Just an example: V. Novak wrote about Strossmayer's attempt to introduce the Old Slavonic Church language into the Roman Catholic Church liturgy in Kingdom of Yugoslavia - but you stated it this way 'introducing the Old Slavonic language as the language of the Roman Catholic Church '. Moreover, you added some cynism ('he was no longer able to control the article himself' - yes it is difficult to defend good work under free and unrestrained attacks coming from you, Rjecina, and others) defending your changes; it is too apparent that only J. A. Comment read this book which all of you did not do it. I regret that J. A. Comment avoids any communication with me for some reason (probably as a consequence of the Rjecina's harassment). I've read only first three chapters of this book and just browsed the rest of the book - but I am not going to overtake J. A. Comment's edits. Maybe, just support his/her work when I find it appropriate and timely.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll be blunt. If you want to make an encyclopedia where only people you have deemed "well-versed enough" can edit the article, go ahead. This is not that. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and that's the issue. When J.A. reverts every single thing everyone has done and argues that it's just he knows better than anyone else, he's not going to get his way. If he wants to write the way it is, write it that way, cite it, and be prepared to defend it. Don't ignore the responses, say "I know better", revert it all, put a post on the talk page that "I will only discuss this with certain people" and then go off in a huff because someone else questioned you. That sentence was (and remains) completely unclear. I'll make this quite clear. I'm going to ignore all arguments that hinge on "you shouldn't edit this because you haven't read it." Give that bit up. If I'm not clear on something, change it to be more accurate. I freely admit I haven't a clue, revise the details so it is accurate; I'm just trying to make it understandable and in line with the manual of style and all the other varied policies we have. I haven't touched the content section but simply wanted someone to provide sources. If that's so impossible, I'm sorry. I asked J.A. on his citations and if he continues to feel it is beneath him to respond, he is not going to win. In fact, that's a violation of WP:OWN policy and if he keeps it up, he will be blocked. It is entirely possible to write this entire article with a one or two sentence description of its contents and if everyone continues to play the "only a select number of editors can work here", that whole section will be wiped out and replaced. The article should be focusing on why the thing is important, not what exactly it claims. If we can't even do that, I'm going to list it for deletion and it will be gone. I will repeat myself: this is not a book report, it is an encyclopedia. See Magdeburg Centuries and many others for a much better style. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Looks like you want to dictate how the work shall be continued here??? To my best knowledge, J. A. Comment (let him/her to correct me if I am wrong) did not claim ownership of this article. Threats like the one above ' he will be blocked ' hardly could be accepted as a way to make this article better. You are forgetting existence of some other rules - civilty, effective and valid knowledge of the edited subject, for example. Forget your 'This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and that's the issue.' - due to some very serious limitations to this rule. I am going to stop arguing with you and report the whole case to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Language like "only those who have read it I will talk with", constant reverts back to his views, and other terms indicate a desire to own the article. Also, go right ahead on an RFC if you would like. I always appreciate feedback. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perception of the book as an academic reference

This section is so POV so against wikipedia reliable source policy that it is hard to say. All first 3 sources are against Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. It is possible to write that this book is used like reference in other works but "book is accepted as a serious academic reference" is POV pushing because we are not having any source which is speaking that (Wikipedia:Original research ?).

Ricky81682 is having good point about William Bundy and for the end what is possible to say about Kljakic work which is published by Serbian ministry of propaganda (information) durign Croatia - Serbia war (Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

For anybody neutral it must be clear that it is very hard to find good NPOV comments about this book so we are having POV pushing, misleading section--Rjecina (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rjecina, looks like just you and me here. Since no one else likes discussion, let's shoot. The section shouldn't be "here are some academics who mention the book" but instead "what do academics actually say about the book." I think Bundy is just incomplete and Kljakic's name belongs in the footnote, not in the article (he is saying what the Vatican did, there's no need for his name there). If there's no objection, I'll deal with Kljakic at least. For Bundy, it's just an issue of getting the exact quote from him and reading the next paragraph or so to flesh things out. If someone finds that constructive criticism so hostile, I really don't know what to say. Also, in regards to NPOV, this may not be the type of book that lends itself to neutrality and that's fine. The point is that we have neutral descriptions of the commentary, not that the comments themselves be neutral. For example, the Bible article doesn't really have a positive section but just criticism. From the sounds of it, everyone here seems to be saying that the book is for its source collection and perhaps a little biased in its descriptions. If so, that's perfectly fine. That may be the reason why it is notable anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, for everyone's information, no one says that the sources have to be in English. Note that all the citation templates (books, news, web, etc.) have a language parameter. For those who read Serbian, why not help me get through the 800 or so books or 1500 or so scholarly articles? Just provide a link and a neutral description of what's said and I'll happily put it in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary about Magnum Crimen:

Commentary of Vasilije Kvesić in "Srpsko-hrvatski odnosi i jugoslovenska ideja u drugoj polovini XIX veka" [1] is:"First and greatest, but only try in truth discovery about roots of genocide in Ustaše ISC is made by Viktor Novak with his book Magnum Crimen". This is all (page 342).

Commentary from Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts)[2]: "In 1948 Viktor Novak has published polemical work about history of church in Croatia and Vatikan policy in Yugo....."--Rjecina (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Calling upon (baselessly) Wikipedia rules - as Rjecina did it above - does not prove anything what she was claiming. I would accept some improvements of this section, the denial - not. Rjecina shall stop disqualifying J. A. Comment work - which is just a continuation of Rjecina's harassment of this author that lasts several months.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree and feel that the sources are reliable, claims that it is "accepted as a serious academic reference" is a bit out there, don't you think? When it is this difficult to find anyone who really says anything beyond facts (either of the fact or of what other people have done in response), is that really an accurate representation? Either way, I find that whole sentence a WP:PEACOCK sentence that really isn't necessary. Don Luca, if you have an opinion, why not find a source and offer something in response? J.A.'s attitude that only his misformatted, unwikified version should be around is the reason this article got protected. Be prepared to defend yourself. Assume Rjecina's transaction is accurate, the first comment is just strange without a greater context. Kvesic I guess is saying that Novak found out the "truth" about the Utase genocide, but that just seems to indicate an agreement with his view. I don't understand what he means. As to the Academy, describing it as "polemical work" doesn't really say much. It clearly does criticize the Vatican and the Church. A neutral description indicates that clearly. This is impossible to do with just snippets of book text. You need clear context to understand the author's point. What I am looking for criticism or praise like the quote from Harris, where he feels Novak's Croatian "clero-fascism" is an exaggeration of the atrocities, done for political reasons (which is exactly what I spent time reading and writing until J.A. just removed it because "I haven't read the book the way he has"). Whether or not Harris is right is irrelevant to me. I cannot and should not be trying to answer that question with this article (that is what original research means). It is a view of Novak's work and a neutral description of what Harris says. That's the best I can offer. The people who only want praise or criticism are the problem. Either accept it all or the whole section should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Don Luca, if your argument is based solely on Rjecina criticizing J.A., I criticized him as well in large part for his actions (and especially for his lack of action on the talk page once the article got protected). Believe me, I know what the rules mean and how they apply. Rjecina is wrong that the sources are not reliable. They at least seem to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mile Budak quote

Ok, this is a secondary source, but an article in The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science cites page 605 of the 1986 version as saying:

Mile Budak, a minister and a deputy head of state in the Pavelic's Ustasha government in Croatia, is on record as stating at a rally in Gospic on 22 July 1941, "One part of the Serbs we shall kill, another part we shall resettle in other places, and the remaining part we shall convert to the Catholic faith and thereby melt into Croats."

Would anyone object if I threw that into the article (citing the article citing the page)? Someone who has the actual book should be able to find it and correct me. However, this will really throw all the J.A.'s ibids into a mess since (I'm guessing) he is using the 1948 version and I don't want to introduce confusion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, J. A. Comment follows this book review based on its 1948 edition. The 1986 edition has two authors - V. Novak and J. Blazevic. So, if it makes sense taking quotes from this edition - it must be clear which work it is - Blazevic's or Novak's. Also, if a latter edition shall be mentioned - then it makes sense to do it only if pointing at differences between the first and the latter.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm only concerned about people being able to find sources if they are paginated differently. Otherwise, contentwise, where should this go? The whole content section is a mess of history, theories about church doctrine, and just random asides. Again, in my version I took J.A.'s work and split it into subheadings so that the difference between the complete history and the random asides are clear. Again, reverted, so what now? My biggest problem was that there were never any dates or any real details in the article (just vague references to time). If the book really is a great scholarly work, it should have that level of detail. I guess it should go after "the Ustache terrorism" (oh that word should go too) sentence. That sentence though is extremely conclusionary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment about Magnum Crimen

There is agreement between editors about need for RFC and now I am escaping from further discussion about this article.--Rjecina (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my (somewhat biased) view, the issue stems from whether we should be following J.A. Comment's requirements before editing this article and explanations for his version or not. The main issue is that the article has been protected for two weeks now with nothing but criticism for "defending my 'rights' to change someone's work without any relevant knowledge of the subject." and no other attempt at dialogue. If others feel my edits since protection are an abuse of my admin powers, I will revert them and wait until protected is lifted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just one minor comment - use of ibid is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, for obvious formatting reasons... EyeSerene^talk 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Which obvious formatting reasons...???--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has built-in automatic numbering of references. The use of "ibid" conflicts with that facility so subsequent editing can disrupt reference associations. If you want a single source to be cited more than once, give that reference a name. If you don't know how to do it, find an article where it has been done, and follow the same formatting. It's not rocket science. Kirker (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - an egregious example here, where text has been reorganised, making nonsense of the Refs section. EyeSerene^talk 09:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • That will not work if I want to cite page and/or a text on the same page. This is not Wikipedia's built-in ... - it's a bad feature of the html editor that Wikipedia uses.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes it will. See, for a simple example, what I did here. It's not that hard. If you wanted to quote the text, go ahead and do it as separate cites, but there isn't a need for ibiding everything. For example, it currently would be impossible for me to include secondary or other sources into the middle of the content section without having to completely rewrite the entire thing every time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ibid is unsatsifactory. "ref name" works alright if it is exactly the same reference, but not for different pages. The best solution is to use some short form of the title on the 2nd and later occasions, such as Smith 1975 or Smith, Book Title. I am not sure if this is all the RFc is about or somthing more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The RfC should be about much more, but wasn't submitted very well. Many of the issues stem from how criticism of the book should be presented and its reception as a genuine scholarly work or propaganda material. AniMate 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I think the RfC is actually about more than just that. Ricky81682 commented above that a proposed edit would, as a side effect, muck up the ibids, so I left a comment regarding that. Apologies if I've gone off on a tangent :P EyeSerene^talk 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue was not the "ibids" at all, but that they are part of a larger issue: should the article only be edited by people who have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the book to satisfy the views of certain users? The ibids came up because I had changed all the ibids here (with other edits but after a discussion above and for the second or third time as editors keep reverting versions without discussion) and then was reverted by User:71.252.106.166 (a.k.a. User:Don Luca Brazzi) and then further by User:J. A. Comment. I seem to be working against consensus here (not really discussed consensus but a reverting consensus) and wanted comment on whether to follow consensus or keep on forcing the issue. There's also my concern about the removal of all the fact tags. Does anyone see a compromise to either everyone reverting or just staying with a single version that makes sense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that the resistance to change on the article is arising from a fundamental misunderstanding of editing criteria on the part of some editors. Every edit we make comes with the caveat "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly [...] by others, do not submit it." Nowhere in any of Wikipedia's policies do we find anything that says "You must be familiar with a subject before editing it". Our task is to express unoriginal information in an original way, so editor interpretation is specifically against policy. The assumption that one must have prior knowledge about a subject seems to be leading to some editors taking ownership of the article, in the mistaken belief that their expertise validates their edits and invalidates everyone else's.

Regarding a solution, first I think we have to be very clear that subject expertise, while useful, is not a prerequisite for editing. Because of the prohibition on original research, the information in the article should come from the book itself - as description, not editor analysis - and from commentaries published by other writers/critics. Continued displays of article ownership, and reversions made on that basis, must lead to sanctions against the accounts involved. I would favour a one- (or even zero-) revert policy on the article, with perhaps a mandatory 24-hour block for violations.

Secondly, Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies should be scrupulously followed. It might be useful to start by agreeing on acceptable sources before looking at the article itself. The next step might be to identify those areas that are causing the problems; remove the associated text to the talk page or a sub-page; and discuss until a version can be reached that everyone is happy with, at which point it could go back into the article. I'm aware this may be a wildly optimistic assessment, and agreement may not be possible, but in my experience those editors who are here to push a POV lack the patience and objectivity required for such a collaborative process, and an unwillingness to compromise or participate in good faith soon makes itself apparent...at which point, appropriate measures can be taken ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene has put this pretty well. To be able to contribute effectively to this or any other article it is sufficient that an editor can provide information or comment which is relevant to the subject and which is verifiably sourced. I have encouraged editors who can to read the book and I have encouraged those who have read the book to contribute. But as I have said before, it is no more necessary for a contributor here to have read the book than it is for someone contributing to the Winston Churchill article to have known Winston Churchill. Kirker (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I came from the RFC page, to try to help out. I know absolutely nothing about Magnum Crimen. This looks like one of those situations where one or more people are not acting maturely or within the guidelines of Wikipedia.

First off, I must say that the article is written in poor English. It definitely needs a thorough edit from a good copy editor.

The correct format for Wikipedia, where there are multiple references to the same source, is to name references and enter separate ref's to each citations. Someone went to the trouble to put this article in correct format. Whoever reverted this, where someone had gone to the trouble of putting the article in correct Wikipedia form, needs to back off.

The article itself needs more external citation and verification. It is very important that Wikipedia articles be set in the context of external review, if possible.

I see something in the discussion to the effect that "I am the expert in this field and nobody else should be changing anything I write". I'm sorry, but if this is your attitude, you are not likely to be an effective contributor to Wikipedia.Apollo (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected???

I thought that this article is protected and that the protection must be respected by all of us. Looks like that some ignored it - see [3]--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits your complaining about are fairly benign. He cleaned up some references and added a wikilink. Are you actually objecting? If so, I'd recommend reading this little policy page. AniMate 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the RFC section, if others feel this is an abuse of my powers, I will revert them. I also asked if anyone had anything they wanted done to the article. Don Luca, do you really feel that those should be reverted, just because I did them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, that Harris description is a complete misrepresentation of what he says. He is not saying that the book has been criticized, but is actively criticizing the book (and doesn't mention Jasonovec at all). Read his article and you'll see the one sentence mention of the book. I really don't think we should be keeping misrepresentations like that. Contrast to my version. However, I don't feel like warring with J.A. who is set on his interpretation of what Harris means. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge and 'ownership'

I was harassed for over several months being acused as if I were a banned user. Now the other type of harassment is on table - I was accused that I want to 'owe' the article supported by the most ridiculous claim that 'everyone has right to contribute' even in the case of utter lack of basic knovledge of the edited topic.

Wel, I owe the topic knowledge. I expect that those who want to be co-editor or the article text reviewer shall be at my level of the expertize or at a higher level. If someone mutilates the facts to the level of nonsense and after seeing his/her changes rejected by me - then feeling offended by my rejection of such 'changes' - fires back accusing me for grabbibg the article ownership, I would say that that person lacks also knowledge of the basic editorial ethics which is much older than Wikipedia.

So, I see that I am practically blocked to continue working on this article. I see that some of those who are teaming up with Rjecina in further harassment - is changing the text regardless the discussion i.e. for him/her article protection is not mandadory. This is just a proof who actually grabbed the article ownership.

Regardless on the threat that I'll be blocked if I revert frivolous text changes - I'll be back as soon as this block of editorial rights on this article expires. I'll enter any discussion of the effective ways leadind to the article text improvements with people of profound knowledge of this book and who are ready to follow the editorial code of conduct as described by Wikipedia.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The editorial code of conduct does not require knowledge of the material, or more specifically knowledge of the material at a level you defined. I had no problem if you simply revised my changes to correct the meaning (a source would have been helpful). My problem was a complete revert of formatting changes and including part to a version which (still there) includes a massive misinterpretation of what one of the "critics" you list actually says. Your choice to remove all the fact tags as well did not help the situation. There are serious concerns about the accuracy of what is written in the article. In regards to Rjecina, the last two attempts to change the article ended with User:AlasdairGreen27 reverting them and Rjecina has been warned and even blocked over the sockpuppet allegations. If you have particular editors in mind who you think are "teaming up" with Rjecina, you should come out and say it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only echo what Ricky has said. Subject expertise is useful on Wikipedia in as far as it can help editors to know where to find secondary sources, and what weight to assign to them. However since we are forbidden from making original analysis, writing from personal knowledge can be counterproductive and can also make it difficult to write neutrally if strong opinions are held about a subject. It's good that you've said you are prepared to discuss editorial changes, but comments like "I expect that those who want to be co-editor or the article text reviewer shall be at my level of the expertize or at a higher level" are extremely unhelpful (not to mention specifically against policy), and if you insist on maintaining this attitude, your time here will be frustrating, unproductive, and short. EyeSerene^talk 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

J A Comment, I have tried many times to explain how you could make a valuable contribution to this article. No doubt much of what you have tried to add is valid, but you do need to give references either from the book itself (ie page numbers from a specified edition) or from other sources. Instead of deleting the fact tags, you could almost as easily have replaced them with the source information required. It seems to me that you are determined not to understand.Kirker (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

About V. Novak

Dr. Novak was a member of the Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts in Zagreb. See

Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti by Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti Zagreb 1979

where he was listed as a member of this Academy on page 58 and his biography given on pages 673-4

I've added this reference and replaced ibid. by Magnum Crimen [1948].

His 'Magnum sacerdos' - the second part of his trilogy - was published under the title Josip Juraj Štrosmajer: apostol Jugoslovenske misli by Viktor Novak, Savez sokola kraljevine Jugoslavije, Beograd, 1941

--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kljakic and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum

Kljakic says, in 1991, that the Magnum crimen has been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. However, according to the wiki article, the list was abolished in 1966. It's possible that the book was placed there for a limited time but my concern is I cannot find it at the link listing all censored publications. I think it should be reworded to reflect the fact that the list is now abolished. It tends to look badly on the Vatican. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please - regard fully previous edits - do not enter previously detected inaccuracies you are already warned about.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don Luca Brazzi, I have reverted your changes. Ricky's edits were thoughtful and appropriate, and there is absolutely no justification for reverting them. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• No - you are wrong. First, read the book then come back with meaningful comments.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. First, please moderate your tone and remember that this is a collegiate project that moves forward by consensus. Perhaps you might like to bear in mind these points in your interactions with others. Secondly, the changes Ricky has made are mainly a combination of stylistic improvements and well-deserved fact tags for unsourced claims. Regarding the stylistic changes, these considerably improve the English in the text. It is folly to even think of reverting these. Regarding the fact tags, well, instead of reverting, perhaps you could find sources to support these claims, mmm?? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, comments are like "please, read the book then place your comments" are inappropriate, per the numerous discussions above. J.A.'s explanation above, again, is against policy, as even the RFC with outsiders editors should show you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • What I see from J. A. Comment's rejection of his/her text changes made by Ricky81682 is - Portaryal of ... Stepinac does not matter chapters XV-XVIII - there is a lot more text in the previous chapters talking about Stepinac's work before WWII. When I added this paragraph - I did not mean that it is my final version of that paragraph. The same is valid for "Support for Ante Pavelic" - Pavelic is not mentioned just within I-XIV nor the Roman Catholic Church support to Pavelic is just contained within these chapters. It is not difficult to get this book from some library - then go through the book Index to find out why this arbitrary intervention in J. A. Comment's text just damages the original very god editorial work. I do not understand why someone wants to edit this text without proper knowledge of this subject? To protect the Wikipedia's credibility I am going to report the whole list of problems related to this article to the Wikipedia's ArbCom.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added subheadings because of the confusion. If they don't belong to the sections, I'll just move them out. It's not like those sections are clearly part of the history anyway. Also, J.A. has the book, let him decide how he wants it. Don't speak for him. If he doesn't want to come back because other people are going to edit his work, we move on. I have no clue what he was doing with his drafts but I am going to work with them as final text. This is a live encyclopedia; if he is going to take months editing and revising to add details, that's fine but others are going to mess with it in between. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • One thing more - it is meaningless to insert "A change in doctrine" - J.A. Comment says A change in doctrine is yet another nonsense. What doctrine and whose doctrine? This question cannot be answered by a person who never saw this book. There was no doctrine at all - there were two mutually exclusive understanding of the role of faith in a society. For Strossmayer - serving people equals serving God, Papal infallibility is nonsense - for Roman Curia - God is in Rome incarnated in Roman Pope and the Pope is infallible. - which I verified and found it (There was no doctrine at all) correctly interpreted and written.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

From the reading we had the Strossmayer's doctrine and then the Church's enforcement of theirs. If it's different, correct it. Quit playing games of total reverts of my text without explaining what the text should be. There's a lot of "you are wrong, read the book" but no "here is what it should be instead." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rački, Trumbić, and Radić again

Ok, I know I mentioned this in September here but that went nowhere fast. I just don't understand what the Franjo Rački, Ante Trumbić, and Stjepan Radić divergence adds to the article. The section was focusing on Strossmayer and the church, which I assume the books focuses on. To go on for sentences about how the same fate (I'm not exactly sure how their "teachings were distorted nor mentioned ever" but again, it's all unsourced) from clergy members affected politicians just seems random. If that's in the book, fine, but I really don't think it needs that much details (including what their political struggles can be interpreted as). Also, I'll just say this now: before anyone responds with "read the book", I'll just say, you want it there, you explain it. If you can't or won't, there's no point in further discussion. If the thread goes off again, I'm just going to remove that entire unsourced section and move on. Frankly, there's a part of me that says that the Church is still a living organization and we shouldn't have so many unsourced statements. Maybe that would force everyone to actually look to improve this article instead of warring all the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Don Luca, look at this, your response is basically "I'll get to it later." Would you please keep your comments in the same section as when I'm asking you, instead of just reverting everything with a new section to complain that I don't know anything because I haven't read the book. That is getting tired, and I'm getting closed to blocking you and moving on with this article. I'm not concerned about why Racki complained (I can guess). I just want to know what in the world does it have to do with the general point of the book? Is there some particularly interesting/controversial about keeping him away? Was it a larger trend? From Franjo Rački, it just mentions that he and Strossmayer has similar political ideas. Is that really it? Three politicians with similar beliefs as the bishop weren't allowed to attend his funeral and (in your version at least) that deserves a larger mention than the Roman Catholic Church "preventing the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from separating the state from the Church" (whatever that means)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Strossmayer's ideas

Reviewing this section, does the book argue that it was Strossmayer's idea that "serving God equaled to serving people" or that "introducing the Old Slavonic language as the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church in the Balkans" created the close relations? That sentence is so vague that it could be either. If it was both (most likely), I'd probably reword it to something like "Roman Catholic bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer worked to create close relations between the Croatian and Serbian peoples in the region, by advocating that serving God equaled to serving the people and through the introduction of the common Old Slavonic language as the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church in the Balkans. The Church leadership (who in particular?) instead wanted themselves in between, demanding ultimate obedience to the Roman Curia and unconditional love of the Roman Pope." What does everyone think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again, please, read the book - in order to get clear answers to your questions. Do not re-word anything to avoid further damages of the existing text.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you an honest question: do you have a copy of the book? If you do, just fix the text yourself and add the sources. If you don't, then don't complain that J.A.'s version should be kept in the off chance that he decides to come by and fix it himself. This article isn't going to stay static for me to try to figure out what people were going for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive and unnecessary fact-ing

I've removed a number of unnecessary - especially from this paragraph

Nevertheless, Strossmayer was embraced as a great Roman Catholic bishop by the same clergy - but his teaching was distorted or not mentioned ever. The same destiny faced Franjo Rački, Ante Trumbić, and Stjepan Radić - three Croatian politicians advocating actively and fighting for the Yugoslavism - as a common denominator of togetherness and life among the Slavic people of the kingdom of Yugoslavia. Rački was not even allowed to attend the Strossmayer's funeral ceremony - even though that he was an ordained Roman catholic Church priest and true Strossmayer's friend and follower. The Trumbić and Radić's struggle against centralism was interpreted as the Croatian and Slovene separatism support.

Looking at the book index - I see that the whole paragraph is pretty good overview of a large number of the book pages. Later - when finding more time and getting back the book in the library of my academic institution - I'll add the text where Racki complained for not being able to attend Strossmayer's funeral.

The book re-view is not aimed to show that every sentence is justified by some citation. Whoever needs more detailed information about the book - will start reading the very book. --Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of controversial facts. They all need sources or they need to go. If nobody is going to offer sources, then per WP:V, I will remove them all. The fact tags are for people who are adding information, they aren't for my benefit. This new "we don't need fact tags as people can just read the book and determine which are accurate and which aren't" isn't the answer; this shouldn't be a book review but if people want it to be, then they better be damn accurate about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And for the life of me, what is so offensive to everyone about adding subheadings? Everyone seems to revert that for some bizarre reason. I'd think that the subheadings would make it easier to focus the sections and keep the monster of book in some semblance of sanity. The content stuff is annoying but the subheadings just bother the hell out of me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don Luca Brazzi, this is not a book review. It is an encyclopedia article about a book. For a wonderful example of a really good encyclopedia article about a book, see The Slave Community. This is what we should be aiming at. For article structure, there are some good suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. Regarding your current dogmatic strategy, it will win you few friends and will, in my experience, ultimately prove unsuccessful. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored version

I've put back the removed text. The claim that the removed text is not sourced - is a nonsense. I've read the book, gave its title, author, publisher, etc. Whoever wants to verify and validate my text - is free to do that and point at possible misinterpretations of the compiled knowledge - which will be the reason for a serious discussion.

Later, when I find more free time - I'll go back to the text in order to improve it.

As to the latest (serious) addition - I've removed just the years (1889-1977). The author biographical data reference is a valuable addition here.

My advice to those who are continuing Rjecina's work (harrasment, text damaging)- read the book first. This advice is highly ethical, the most appropriate, and obligatory warning to them.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)