Talk:Glina massacres

NPOV

Use of vague generalisations like "Right wing" and "Conservative groups" in the phrasing makes me think this was written in an air of political biased.

Thoughts? Neuro√Logic 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are those phrases used? I don't see them anywhere in this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing on the exact terminology, mostly pointing to "Far-Right" and referencing to them being "Conservative" and such. Neuro√Logic 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the Ustaše wasn't a far-right group? It explicitly self-identified as fascist - that's far-right, by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're defining a phrase that can't be defined, considering it's vague and fluctuating definition...Anything that's against gay marriage is far-right? Those for, are far left? Political tensions and issues surrounding Serbia, have created so many biased phrases in these sort of articles. I don't insinuate they are anything, on either "side" I just don't think it's appropriate to refer to them from that sort of vague standpoint in an encyclopædia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuro√Logic 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of "defining a phrase that can't be defined". Just about every reliable source that discusses the Ustaše describes them as fascist - heck, they described themselves as fascist. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they're facist, just that such a vague term doesn't have any place here. I completely agree with the edit changing far-right and similar vague terms to something they themselves have identified as, and a definable political idea. Thank you ChrisO =) Neuro√Logic 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'll remove the NPOV template now, if we've resolved this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

Here're some other sources that must be considered [1]. Kubura (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to pour cold water on this, but I'm afraid that other wikis are largely not acceptable as sources; please see WP:SPS. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so with the wiki in question: it is a private wiki affiliated with Glas Koncila, therefore a reliable source. But alas, it is hardly a neutral source: Glas Koncila is a bit infamous for its WWII revisionism, and its series of articles about the Glina massacre is a case in point. (Another example: when Ivo Goldstein published a book titled Holocaust in Zagreb, Glas Koncila said its title is "peculiar" (IIRC: "knjiga začudnog naslova") - all despite the fact that 80% of Zagreb Jews perished in WWII death camps in Croatia and abroad.) GregorB (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Photograph used in this article

The source link for the church interior pic used in this article links to a completely different and unrelated pic at the site in question. It needs to be properly sourced asap. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also tagged the serb cutter knife pic. The source is in Croatian. Given the caption for this pic refers to the concentration camps, it would be appropriate for the relevant paragraph of the source to be quoted for the use of this knife in the Glina massacre. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of the serbcutter is also inconsistent with the quote of Serbs being stabbed.Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim re one of the largest single acts of murder

In the context of WW2 Yugoslavia, given Nuremberg took evidence re 250 and Tomasevich (2001) p. 536 says 260, and the claim of 2000 is unsourced, this is a highly dubious claim in view of other massacres that occurred on all sides. It will need sourcing. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glina massacres/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • The description of the second massacre is a little confusing. It sounds as if the killing of 700-1,200 people was initiated by six soldiers, and that more showed up after massacre started. Can you please specify how many members of the Ustaše participated in the massacre? And also how the original six subdued the crowd of 700-1,200? (By threatening them with rifles or other weapons?)

No, the Serbs thought they were going to be converted to Catholicism, which is why they entered the church without any struggle. I've clarified this in the article. What do you think?

1. Verifiable with no original research:
2. Broad in its coverage:

   • Is it possible to expand the "Legacy" section?

I've expanded it somewhat.

1. Neutral:

   • I have some concern about the opening paragraph. The first sentence describes the massacres as "genocidal", but it does not seem particularly common for that terminology to be used in that manner in other articles unless the events being described are nearly universally recognized as such. Do you know if that is the case with this incident? Another point of concern is the second sentence, which I don't believe complies well with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "They are considered amongst the most infamous of the early atrocities perpetrated by the Ustaše in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)." It is best to attribute the statement to the source ("according to X, they are among the most infamous...")

1) The "genocidal" bit is taken from Mirković, who attributes in the "Notes" section such a description to several works published by Croatian authors prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia. These works, in turn, point to the Nuremberg trials which established that Ustaše persecution of Serbs was, in fact, genocidal. (see: Singleton, A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples, p. 177) What Mirković is saying, in effect, is that the massacres were genocidal because they were part of a larger campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ustaše. 2) As for the "infamous atrocity" statement, I've attributed this to Tim Judah. 23 editor (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Stable:
2. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'll put the article on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The changes look good, and I believe the article now meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the review! 23 editor (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --1ST7 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Glas Koncila

Note the different version of events in Glas Koncila.[2] Looks more like denialism to me, but it comes from a relevant source so perhaps it should be addressed in the article, one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The source is relevant, yes; but it is not reliable when it comes to genocide and war-related topics. As you've noted, the statements more or less border on [genocide] denial. Because of this, I won't advocate this article as being reliable when it comes to World War II Balkan atrocities just like I wouldn't advocate the addition of Erich von Däniken's books to a Wiki article concerning ancient history. Kind regards, 23 editor (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, both my remark and your response mirror the 2008/9 discussion in this talk page (see above; I had forgotten about it). I'm having second thoughts about the source. Not about its reliability - it is unreliable, but that's not the point, since unreliable sources can still be (and are) used to illustrate fringe views (on condition, of course, that they are reliable at least in the way they present these views). However, I'm not aware of any source, reliable or not, concurring with T. Vuković's article in Glas koncila, so it may not even qualify as a fringe view. GregorB (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

monument 1969-1995,

• priopćenje povodom 71 The building standing in the place of the Serbian-Orthodox church should be given back its original name - memorial house - and the plaques bearing names of victims should be returned to their places / Objektu na mjestu srpskopravoslavne crkve Presvete Bogorodice treba vratiti njegovo izvorno ime - Spomen-dom, a ploče s imenima žrtava treba vratiti na njihova mjesta. International scientific colloquium was held from June 28 to 30, 2012.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

Factual accuracy is disputed - forgeries

• This statement is a falsificate

The next day, Pavelić visited Rome and was granted a private audience with Pope Pius XII, who offered de facto recognition of the NDH on behalf of the Holy See. Although he was aware that Pavelić was a totalitarian dictator, there is no evidence that he had knowledge of the first Glina massacre at the time.[7]

Midlarsky actually said

Four days after the Glina masssacre, Pavelic had a "devotional" meeting with Pope Pius XII in the Vatican; at the same time, the Holy See granted de facto recognition to the newly created Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia. As John Cornwell indicates, there is no evidence that the pope was aware of these massacres that time.

• Further, this statement is equally wrong

Estimates of the number of Serbs killed on 11–13 May vary. Historians Jozo Tomasevich[15] and Ivo Goldstein put the number at 260.[23]

Not estimates at all. Tomasevich and Goldstein just repeated Stepinac: Nadbiskup je jednako žurno i oštro prosvjedovao čim je doznao za pokolj Srba u Glini počinjen 13. svibnja 1941., napisavši pismo dr. Anti Paveliću, u kojem je istaknuo: »Ovaj čas primio sam vijest da su ustaše u Glini postrijeljali bez suda i istrage 260 Srba i.e. Stepinac wrote, "This moment I received a news that Ustashis in Glina shot 260 Serbs without a court and investigation" in some letter sent to Pavelic.

• This statement is not only false but cynical and immoral also

Croatian authorities began working on the conversion of the museum into a general-purpose cultural institution named the "Croatian Home" (Croatian: Hrvatski dom).

Drago Pilsel is clear Zašto HSS-u smeta Spomen-dom žrtvama ustaškog terora u Glini? where he wrote: "Hrvatski dom u Glini do 1995. godine (iza Oluje) zvao se Spomen-dom, a podignut je na mjestu pravoslavne crkve u kojoj su u srpnju 1941. godine ustaše pobile skoro tisuću građana srpske nacionalnosti. Tamošnji HSS opravdava furiozni obračun s lokalnim Srbima nekakvim dignitetom Domovinskog rata te optužuje rodbinu ubijenih u ustaškom zločinu da 'izaziva netrpeljivost', da 'narušava međunacionalne odnose' i da ne poštuje hrvatske generale osuđene u Haagu"

• This is false too

Historians Sabrina P. Ramet[24] and Marko Attila Hoare estimate that about 300 Serbs were massacred[25] while historian Davide Rodogno puts the number at 417 killed.[26]

Rodogno actually quoted a wartime document (Promemoria per il duce con allegata una relazione del 9 Iuglio redatta dal Comando dei C.C.R.R. dela II Armata) sent to Mussolini on July 9 1941 where he says, "In the district of Glina more than 18,000 Serbs were murdered, 417 of them butchered inside the Orthodox church." --77.46.189.228 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: "From an estimated 300,000 Croatian Serbs that were murdered by the Ustaše from 1941 to 1945,[14] more than 18,000 were from Glina at its surroundings.[26]". The second claim is Rodogno's and it's about number of killed Serbs up to July 9, 1941--93.86.142.92 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

G'day 23 editor, could you verify these queries please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Everything written above is online verifiable by anyone. This list of forgeries is only a tip of the iceberg.--93.86.142.92 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Further, the use of scholarly disqualified authors and books is another problem of this article. about Judah's i Tanner's books read Dusan Djordjevic and about Cohen's pamphlet read Miroslav Svirčević and D. B. MacDonald--93.86.142.92 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)