Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Source provided

{{editprotected}}

While I'm an admin, I feel like I should get an outside opinion, given my involvement, but the source provided for the fact that the song was made in 1942 itself cites the Wikipedia article for that and so is circular. Please remove the 1942 sentence and move the citation to the end of the first sentence ("...a Nazi puppet organization") which is directly referenced in the article. Also, any reference to Matija Babić since there isn't a source for him and it's a WP:BLP violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone said there are only 2 versions of the song,which is not correct.I have heard another version of the song by Thompson,in which the verse about Račan is replaced by "Ja ustaša 85.,nisam prije,jer sam bio dijete",which trnaslates to "I was UStaša in 1985,I was not before,because I was a child."In that version,before the verse about Pavelić,Thompson said:"A pokojni Tomičić ovako je kazao na kraju",referring to the singer Joško Tomičić,who recorded a version of this song,and Thompsons version is based on it.That singer also sung a song "Oj,Ivica i Stipane" which is a threat to the left-wing president Mesić and Croatian PM at the time, Ivica Račan,and the song has the same melody as Evo zore,evo dana,also known as Jure i Boban,another Ustaša song that is celebrating Ustaše officers Jure Francetić and Rafael Boban.Aside from the two versions that were sung by Thompson and the version from late Tomičić,I have heard version that were sung by singers Jasmin Stavros (which he says isn't true) and Joško Čagalj Jole respectably,and another version of some anonyomous singer,that isnt really advocating or praising the killing of Serbs as the other versions.If it would be needed,I can upload all the versions I have heard.Also,the song is written in decasyllable,which is common among various folk songs,so it is possible that some Ustaše have sung,and maybe even made those verses at some party,and those several verses if they were made before,could have formed this song.The Great Duck (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

About copyright - again

Wikipedia is a US based organization - therefore a subject of the US (copyright) Law. Internal rules of Wikipedia cannot restrict any US Law. In this case

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

(from US Code - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107) is valid and not restricted by anything known as a Wikipedia rule. Moreover, any restriction of the above paragraph will violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

To claim an existence of copyright - there must be known a deed, or a legal act, establishing the copyright. In this case, there must be known name of the edition (book, article, phonorecord, videorecord), the edition year, the publisher and the author names (the copyright holder names), which was not given here.

Moreover, Thompson explicitly denies authorship of this song here [1] saying '... koju su nasi djedovi pjevali, bili ponosni na nju' i.e. ' ... which was sung by our grandfathers, who were proud of it'.

All above means that there is no rational base to claim an infringement of copyright - in order to justify removal of the lyrics from this article.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this version of lyrics is from Thompson, but they are from 1942 so we are still having copyright problem.--Rjecina (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The version from 1942" (that only exists on Wikipedia,and I have never heard it) was made by unknown author(s),and I think various verses of the song were made before,and were sung together at some place,so it doesn't fall under copyright.The Great Duck (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't care. Get a source for your translation before you put it back. If you want to just put the lyrics up, get a source for them too. And stop reverting to a version that wipes out the previous references. It's clear that nobody here is interested in anything more than their preferred version. The next one who does it, I'm protecting the article myself (I don't care if I'm biased, I'll go to WP:ANI myself and report it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added link where the lyrics can be found. --Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above quote from US copyright law is all well and good, but there are several issues:

1. Lyrics shouldn't be on Wikipedia. That's what Wikisource is for.
2. Wikipedia has a policy on fair use. It's allowed for images. Text must be available under the GNU Free Documentation License.
3. "I think various verses of the song were made before,and were sung together at some place,so it doesn't fall under copyright" is, with respect, specious.

However, if the text was first published in the USA before 1923, or before 1978 without a copyright notice, or between 1923 and 1963 without the copyright being renewed, then it would be in the public domain. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also the WP:BLP concern. If sources say that Thompson sang a version of the song, we have to make sure that the lyrics we put up are at least accurate (and definitely that the translation is accurate). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is simply not true at all. Text on Wikipedia may be available under fair use too. Nikola (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thompson (band) and Matija Babić

I'm tired of playing games. I've removed the Thompson and Babic information until someone provides a link (and User:Rjecina's link to [2] which seems like a generic portal to me. If someone finds it appropriate, insert it yourself. I'm not going to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Found a source for the Thompson part, not that Babic originally found out about it. I don't think that's necessary but if someone finds a source, it's worth including. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the source that Babić has found the song:http:[URL]http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak.aspx?id=178979[/URL][URL]http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak.aspx?id=178032[/URL]

I should also note that this article now contains a really big lie,saying that Thompson performed Jasenovac in Maksimir,and that there were fascist greetings among the crowd.The article from Zuroff also includes several lies.

The version that was performed by Thompson is a modified version of the song that was sung by Joško Tomičić,and his version is probably the only recorded version that wasn't recorded live.The Great Duck (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim it's a lie if you want, but there's a source that says so. There were some blogs and others who repeated that assertion but those didn't pass the standard for a reliable source. There's a source from his organizer that denies some of it. Is there a source from someone who denies everything? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well,that source is a lie.The concert was recorded,a CD and a DVD of the concert were released,and the concert was shown on TV,and he didnt say or sing anything that is against Serbs or is praising the Ustaše.The Great Duck (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not getting into this debate. I've seen multiple sources that discuss the concert. Some from that time period, others from his plans to come to Toronto and New York. Most aren't reliable enough for the standard, but this one is. In response, all I've managed to fine is the organizer reference (who does say that the song isn't on his CDs which you agree with). Now, this article does mention a prior New York Times article where Perkovic is denying some of it, so I'm looking for that (I'd rather go directly than third-hand like that). He seems specific in what he denies though. Also, according to the source, the Croatian government specifically criticizes the outward display of Ustashe slogans and memorabilia so if I find that, that's more indication. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No,you cant use that source,because Thompson didnt sing Jasenovac on Maksimir,and I am certain he didnt sing it after 2003.it should also be noted that he stopped singing other Ustaše songs (like Evo zore,evo dana),as well as his controversial songs,like Anica Kninska Kraljica,which talks about burning the illegal Serb Krajina,or Ljutu travu na ljutu ranu,whose title is a quote from Ustaše and NDH Poglavnik Ante PAvelić. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Duck (talk • contribs)

Your argument is that we can't use sources from the Jerusalem Post because you personally think he has never sang that song in the last five years? If he has stopped singing those songs, find a source. I have a source where he denies writing or performing the specific song, isn't that enough? Also, please remember to sign your posts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

read the article again.It doesn't state Thompson performed it on Maksimir.He was performing it until the early 2000s,and maybe later too,but not on Maksimir,as both recordings of him performing the song were recorded from before that concert.The Great Duck (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are correct. I re-read the article and tried to fix it myself. If I'm still being incorrect, put up an {{editprotected}} with how you want it instead. Instead of simply arguing, why not be productive and say what you actually want the article to say? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Unfortunately the one-month protection term recently expired and the edit war has started right back up again. Therefore I have protected the page again, without an expiry time this time. When everyone's come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included, please request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to change. I'll try to suggest 3O or something but it's just a basic content dispute: should we just simply dump a unsourced version of the song lyrics (that's bad enough, given the potential for multiples versions and a BLP player in there as well) along with an unsourced translation (really bad)? Some of the sources describe the song secondarily and that's fine with me. I really don't think the lyrics themselves add that much to the article, but most of the sources out there aren't even in English. I just hope that the native speakers would actually be willing to put in the grunt work, not just stand in opposition. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it to see if things stay calm, but I'll be back if they don't. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

YouTube video as a source

Ok, this source from YouTube has to go. We are not going to seriously take the song lyrics from a random video someone made of the song. There has to be a better source than that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I already said,there are several versions of this song,and I can give them to you if you want.The Great Duck (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the signatures. Otherwise, I'm not concerned with the multiple versions or why. I just want a reliable source, and this citation isn't. There was this above but I don't know what it says. If you do and think it's reliable enough, then start a new section with {{editprotected}} and the citation (see {{Cite web}}, which includes a language parameter. Last, if there are in fact multiple versions, why are we posting only one version on the article page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well,probably because the Thompsons version is the most known,followed by the one of Tomičić,and the other versions are not that much known to the public.I have read a story somewhere,that the origin of the Tomičićs version were a group of former Croatian soldiers and war veterans were driving in a bus,and were singing some songs.One of them wrote down the lyrics and has given them to Tomičić,who later recorded the song.The Great Duck (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anything really gained by including one version of a song that may not be the one everyone else has sung? Especially when you add in an unsourced translation of said song lyrics (and the original research fights that will follow). Why not try to find sources that describe the lyrics? Frankly, I think describing it as a song "expressed nostalgia for those two infamous Croatian concentration camps ...." is much more effective than any lyrics are every going to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The only verses that are in every version are the first three ,with the ones with "Oj Neretvo..." and "Ko je moga zamislit lani..." also being song in most versions.The song is usually made from several pro-Ustaša,nationalist,anti-communist and anti-Serb verses,with a the ones about Jasenovac,Francetić and Čapljina being always in,and the song appears to change very frequently.For example,when my friend was on a wedding party of his cousin,the song was sung for about half an hour (don't know if it is true,but I am sure it was long),with various decasyllable verses.

Also,here are some more versions:[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwh9EWvZLQ[/URL]-another version from Thompson

                                [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hC2dB3QgvM[/URL]-a version preformed live by some band
                                [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoIRN0l7lk0[/URL]-the version from Joško Tomičić
                                [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC9S7oe4hVU[/URL]-another Ustaša song,also written in decasylable,on the melody of bećarac,has some similar verses.The Great Duck (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You do realize the fact that there is no such thing as the "right" version of this song is further evidence for my belief that we shouldn't include any lyrics at all? We are just picking and choosing which version we like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, per the discussion below, I'm willing to accept limited lyrics, but provided that they come from reliable sources. Assuming the article that is external link 1 [3] is an article, if it actually does describe lyrics that celebrate the crimes, then I am fine with their inclusion. Again, I do not think that youtube videos of people claiming to have sung the song are going to pass reliable sources. There has to be a newspaper article or something with some mention of the lyrics (ideally, one in English with its own translation). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perkovic quote

{{editprotected}}

While I'm an admin, I'd like to request someone else do it. Could someone add, "Perkovic himself denies writing or even performing the song, stating that he is a musician, not a politician." (with the citation) before the sentence, "An organizer for a Thompson tour of New York City also defended Perkovic...."? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have no involvement here, but it seems like an important statement for BLP purposes. If this is at all controversial, please contact me on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Efraim Zuroff

The Efraim Zuroff article is totally misquoted, and even some of the things he actually did say are blatantly incorrect. First, we have him quoted as saying Thompson performed the song at Maksimir. He does not say this at all. He simply says Thompson performed the song "two years" before 2007 (2005). He obviously did not perform it at Maksimir, at a concert shown live on national television! Second, even if we did properly quote him, he is incorrect. The alleged recording of Perkovic dates back to 2001. Zuroff is no expert on Croatian music to be lecturing on when and where he performed this song.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics

Since I don't think there has really been any headway as whether or not have the lyrics added, I think that an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion would be helpful. I will follow the outsider editor's recommendations and I hope everyone will remain civil. Thanks. -- 06:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See #Just_a_few_facts and #Source_provided, #About_copyright_-_again for the copyright discussions and #YouTube_video_as_a_source for the generic discussion about whether it should be included at all. -- 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi

There are currently lyrics for the song on the article's page. As I understand it there are two issues here:

• Should the (current) set of lyrics be quoted in their entirety?
• Are the quoted set of lyrics the best set to quote? Should other versions be represented here?

Regarding the first question, I've considered what laws and regulations are applicable. Clearly Croatia is not subject to US copyright law, however Wikipedia is. Additionally, this article, and Wikipedia articles in general, may very well be. However, the overarching constraint that we - as Wikipedia editors - need to abide by is Wikipedia's own policies. These include not only Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry but also the "usual" guidelines covering, for example, the importance placed on a particular version of a song.

Regarding the second question I am unfamiliar with this song, and have of necessity had to learn - fast! - from the comments on this talk page. It seems that this song first appeared in or around 1942 and that there are several versions of it. Incidentally, though I will return to this point, the article seems to discuss only one version, by the band Thompson. It is not clear whether the lyrics quoted are Thompson's lyrics; indeed, it has been suggested that Thompson have never performed this song.

I do not believe that any version of this song should be quoted in its entirety. This would appear to me to violate Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry in that it deals primarily with a primary source. Further, I do not believe that Croatian copyright law invalidates Wikipedia policies on copyright: as a private website Wikipedia can choose what content does and does not belong, and Wikipedia has indeed made that choice. That that choice may be conservative compared to Croatian copyright law is irrelevant.

I believe that there are good grounds to selectively quote multiple versions of the song (provided that the versions are referenced). Indeed, I believe that the article should (a) discuss that there are numerous versions (I'd like to see a little more about the wartime history of the song, for example) and (b) compare various versions of the song.

• YouTube is not relevant here. There is an on-line news site referenced. English language Wikipedia is subject of the USA copyright which is not subordinated to any foreign copyright. Translation of the lyrics is ok. Wikipedia's copyright policy must follow strictly the USA copyright law.--I am Mario (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's try this again. Get a source for the lyrics and especially get a source for any translation you are providing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the lyrics is not necessarily OK, it is OK only when it can be verified - i.e. when the translation is itself cited or when the original comes from a reliable source and a freely available translation is provided (e.g. BabelFish). This isn't about copyright, though of course we must all abide by Wikipedia's policies on copyright.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem? I supplied the reference - a Croatian online portal - legally registered in Croatia. It is not forbidden by Wikipedia to translate a text written in a foreign language. Also, Wikipedia does not override the US copyright law. A hate crime act cannot be even copyrighted in any civilized country nor this lyrics was copyrighted in Croatia.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of problems, which have previously been discussed here:

1. I do not believe that any version of this song should be quoted in its entirety. This would appear to me to violate Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry in that it deals primarily with a primary source.
2. the article seems to discuss only one version, by the band Thompson. It is not clear whether the lyrics quoted are Thompson's lyrics; indeed, it has been suggested that Thompson have never performed this song.
3. any translation by an editor could not be verified by a layperson (i.e. someone who could not speak Croatian) and would therefore be unacceptable. My own problem with this is that I couldn't verify it; I'd have to take it on trust that the translation is accurate. I'd be far happier with a cited source - even if that source was, say, in Croatian and supported by a machine-translation via Babelfish or similar.

So, the problems with your recent change are: (a) it's un-encyclopaedic to include one or indeed any version in its entirety, and appears to violate Wikipedia policy (not Croatian copyright law, not US copyright law, but Wikipedia policy); (b) it's un-encyclopaedic to include only one version of the song, as it gives undue weight to that one version; (c) it's it's a violation of policy to provide an unreferenced translation as other readers are unable to verify the translation.

Copyright law and hate crime laws are complete red-herrings. What matters are Wikipedia's policies, which have been outlined here previously, and repeated above, and our collective desire to produce an encyclopaedic article that is of use to its readers. Displaying the full lyrics to only one version of a song does not do this, and neither does providing an unreferenced translation. There are, apparently, many versions of this song - this article should have short excerpts from many versions, and the translations should be verifiable - i.e. they should be referenced, either (a) in their translation or (b) in the original, with the source of the translation clearly noted so that readers can verify the accuracy of the translation for themselves.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Red herrings, did you say? Well, at least two red herrings are coming from your side - your 'third opinion' aimed to vigorously defend removal of this lyrics and calling upon Croatia's non-existent copyryght of the same lyrics. I do not see what might 'violate Wikipedia policy' if we quote the lyrics in full - this lyrics is a hate crime act as someone put it clearly and the core information about this hate crime. Existence of more than one version might only be reflected in adding new pointers to these versions. As to the lyrics translation - Wikipedia does not advocate any layman's right to confirm or verify the translation. Following that reason - all mathematic entries like Is P = NP shall be removed for not being readable to a layman even when writted in an excellent English. Do not forget that the conclusion based on and followed your monologue is not obligatory to anyone. --I am Mario (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• "your 'third opinion' aimed to vigorously defend removal of this lyrics"

From my third opinion: "I believe that there are good grounds to selectively quote multiple versions of the song (provided that the versions are referenced)." i.e. I am not asking for removal of the lyrics: I am stating that there are grounds to to include lyrics.

• "...calling upon Croatia's non-existent copyryght of the same lyrics."

From my third opinion: "Clearly Croatia is not subject to US copyright law, however Wikipedia is. Additionally, this article, and Wikipedia articles in general, may very well be. However, the overarching constraint that we - as Wikipedia editors - need to abide by is Wikipedia's own policies." and "Further, I do not believe that Croatian copyright law invalidates Wikipedia policies on copyright: as a private website Wikipedia can choose what content does and does not belong, and Wikipedia has indeed made that choice. That that choice may be conservative compared to Croatian copyright law is irrelevant." I have no idea why Croatian copyright law keeps being brought into this discussion. I regard it as a red herring, that has no influence in this matter.

• "I do not see what might 'violate Wikipedia policy' if we quote the lyrics in full"

From my third opinion: "I do not believe that any version of this song should be quoted in its entirety. This would appear to me to violate Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry in that it deals primarily with a primary source." I would hope that this is self-explanatory, and that you simply missed it when you read my comments above.

• "this lyrics is a hate crime act as someone put it clearly and the core information about this hate crime."

Sorry, I can't respond to this as (a) I can't work out what you're trying to say, and (b) I'm not sure why this being (or not being) an alleged hate crime (in the US, Croatia, or wherever) is relevant.

• "Wikipedia does not advocate any layman's right to confirm or verify the translation."

WP:NOR states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." The unreferenced translation you re-added to the article appears to represent unpublished analysis of published material.

My third opinion did not - repeat, did not - aim to defend removal of the lyrics. I explicitly said that referenced lyrics could be selectively quoted alongside other referenced lyrics. I cautioned against including one set of lyrics in their entirety.

Your apparent insistence that this is about copyright is a red herring; I dismissed copyright laws - in the US and in Croatia - as being relevant here and stated that what is relevant is Wikipedia's policies.

Before assuming that I am a member of the other "side" can I suggest that you (a) assume good faith and (b) re-read my conclusions - I did not say what you appear to believe I said.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

• No, don't quote lyrics in full;
• Yes, include different versions of the song.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow up question re: sources

Thanks. I'll respect that. Follow up question: looking at #YouTube_video_as_a_source, the main "source" people have in mind is YouTube videos of versions of the song being sung. From there, it feels like it's going to WP:Original research to have editors conduct their own transcribing (and then translating) of the lyrics. Does that seem an overly strict interpretation of policy? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My view would be that any translation by an editor could not be verified by a layperson (i.e. someone who could not speak Croatian) and would therefore be unacceptable. My own problem with this is that I couldn't verify it; I'd have to take it on trust that the translation is accurate. I'd be far happier with a cited source - even if that source was, say, in Croatian and supported by a machine-translation via Babelfish or similar.

I'll note that this is a cop-out answer that neatly side-steps having to choose which of many variants on YouTube should be selected)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Resource

Resources are given - http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak.aspx?id=178032 http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=14396 (translated) and they are reliable. So please avoid further reverting i.e removing the lyrics! I advise This flag once was red and Ricky to read the given references. They have both original and translation of the lyrics. So neither of your claims (WP:NOR or no sources) is valid.

To This flag once was red - bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a 'a private website Wikipedia" - rather public and therefore subject of the US law. As to 'to violate Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry in that it deals primarily with a primary source' makes no sense - everything is in full accordance to the Wikipedia policy.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How about you put it there with the sources? Don't just revert to your prior version and post on the talk page "there are sources!" Still, it is against policy to simply have entire lyrics on the page. If you wan the full lyrics, go to WikiSource and post them there. This is inappropriate. Have some outside source discussing them and quote a piece. Also, I'm not sure that "the Center for Peace in the Balkans" is a reliable source. It's clear they have a bias. The other source I'm not sure about. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Put your sources up there along with the lyrics. Quit just reverting back to your version and leaving it on the talk page for people to figure out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And finally, the link you provided have different lyrics from what you keep posting. My patience is ending with this. Post the same thing again without any attempt to match the lyrics or identify the source and I'm blocking per WP:ARBMAC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Different not significantly. Could you please be a bit more civil and avoid threats like the above one. Also, see [4] what is a clear proof that your claim If you wan the full lyrics, go to WikiSource and post them there. is completely wrong. If you are really willing to improve the article - then why you did not put it into the WikiSource??? --Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation (the entity that assume legal responsibility for this website) is a private organisation (as opposed to a public entity like a government department). Of course it is subject to certain relevant laws (e.g. copyright) - indeed Wikipedia policy is to go much further than local copyright law demands. If you read what I wrote above I have noted that Wikipedia is subject to local law. (Indeed, I've noted that Wikipedia policy goes much further than local law requries).

By quoting one set of lyrics in full this article gave undue weight to that one set of lyrics. That was not in accordance with Wikipedia policy - indeed, it seemed to only be in accordance with a desire to force one and only one set of lyrics on to the article.

It's extremely disappointing that I have had to repeatedly explain this. I note that the article has now been protected: I would have liked to have seen more lyrics added to the article, to show the development of the song between the Second World War and the present day. In my view protection - while necessary - was entirely avoidable.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Wikipedia's policy is not to go "much further than local copyright law demands". While multiple lyrics of this song do exist, one set of lyrics exists that is typical for the song. It is neither undue weight nor contrary to the copyright law to cite that set of lyrics. Nikola (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Similarly, Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law".

This is, as far as I am aware, the first time anyone has suggested that one set of lyrics is typical, and if true should be referenced. Is there any particular reason you don't wish other versions of the song to be included in the article?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I myself have suggested that other versions of the song should be included in the article. And, I have never said that other versions should not be included in the article, as you lie that I have.

Of course, if the typical version should be included, other ones could be too, but neither is the case right now: right now, no lyrics at all are there. Nikola (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood you; I took this to mean that you favoured one set of lyrics: "While multiple lyrics of this song do exist, one set of lyrics exists that is typical for the song. It is neither undue weight nor contrary to the copyright law to cite that set of lyrics."

Incidentally, and I'm sure this wasn't your intention, saying "you lie" implies that I was intentionally trying to deceive, which I'm sure you realise wasn't the case. It's as if I had responded to your claim that Wikipedia's policy is not to go "much further than local copyright law demands" by saying "you lie", instead of simply correcting your honest error.

It's good that you're in favour of multiple sets of lyrics; perhaps there is hope that this article can be developed into a comprehensive and useful article.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• To This flag once was red - could you please drop calling upon 'Wikipedia policy is to go much further than local copyright law demands'? I've already explained it to you - Wikipedia is a subject of the US law and Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara is not copyrighted nor it can be copyrighted!--Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I made that point in response in to Nikola's comment. I assume you're happy with allowing me to use an article's talk page to continue a discussion with other editors about that article? As noted above I regard the repeated attempts to drag this back to a discussion on copyright to be a red herring - whether or not this song is, was or will be copyrighted in the US, Croatia, or Outer Mongolia is utterly, utterly irrelevant. What matters is: is it be referenced? is any translation referenced? is it encyclopaedic? To be honest, I don't understand why copyright and hate crime laws keep being raised - I stated in my third opinion above that Wikipedia policy is what's relevant here, not copyright. If you thought that I regard copyright as an issue here please be reassured that you were mistaken.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• • As to is it be referenced? is any translation referenced? is it encyclopaedic? my ansewer is yes. As to red herring, that's what I asked you already - do not throw them in the fray agai and again.

Can you show me where the references are in this revert? I see no reference for the original Croatian lyrics, and no reference for the translation. Can you show me what this translation represents - i.e. is it the original (~1942) version of the lyrics, Thompson's version, or some arbitrary version? Can you explain why this version (whatever it is) should be used to the exclusion of other versions?

Regarding the red herring, I'll do you a deal - if people stop trying to claim that I believe this is primarily about copyright, I'll stop pointing out that I believe that this is primarily about policy - You stop misrepresenting me, and I'll stop refuting your claims.

...and do you acknowledge that I have every right to continue discussions with other editors? You didn't address that - I'm sure you just forgot.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection

If we look article history in last 100 changes it is possible to find 15 puppets of banned users + 2 latter indefinite blocked users which has added lyrics. On other side we are having myself and 4 administrators which are removing lyrics because of wikipedia and copyright rules.

In my thinking we are needing indefinite full protection of this article because edit warring of newly created accounts will never end--Rjecina (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we may need semi-protection but full protection is very extreme. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Instead of everyone going in circles, would anyone object if I started a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would - you are person with an agenda that is a replica of the Rjecina's agenda.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, ignoring him, that only leaves one other user I'm interested in who supports the lyrics inclusion. I'll wait to see if he is actually interested in discussing it or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Rjecina said 'copyright problems' - Ricky repeated copyright problems,
Rjecina said 'no reliable sources' - Ricky repeated no reliable sources,
Rjecina said 'per numerous discussions' - Ricky repeated per numerous discussions.

Is Rjecina = Ricky?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.20.29 (talk • contribs)

When you are interesting in having an actual discussion, we'll be waiting. Otherwise, I suggest you go back to your log in and treat us with a little respect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion about the lyrics

As the version that is supposed to have been sang by Thompson that has aired in Latinica is the most known version,I think they should be included,so people know what exactly did he sing.I suggest that it should be noted in the article that there are several versions of the song,and write some of the other lyrics that are sometimes sung. Also,I think someone should research more about the version that was here...I will repeat again that I have heard seven versions of this song,but not the one that was said was the original version from 1942. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Duck (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We are having confirmation that lyrics used on Wikipedia in June 2007 are from 1942--Rjecina (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From where do you have that information?The Great Duck (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In article footnotes--[Otac sinu zanat ostavio. (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

At least the page doesnt cite Wikipedia as the source of those lyrics...Also,here is another,slower version of the song with tamburica.The author of the video says that this is the original version,but the lyrics arent about massacres and war crimes like the ones sang by Thompson or Tomičić,and they have some references to the Croatian war of independence from the 90s,so it is clear that it was made later:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HR12vTjOvY The Great Duck (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. We are having multiple wikipedia rules and copyright reasons against lyrics and I do not see in your words any new arguments which are stronger of this rules.

I can't understand reasons for youtube link (video says that this is the original version ??). On youtube it is possible to find many extremist which are singing about killing of Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs. Even if we can find solution to add lyrics on wikipedia, what will happen with wiki if we add lyrics of all hate songs ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the numerous discussions above, YouTube is not a proper source for the actual lyrics or for any translation thereof. You should be able to find sources that are reliable sources. It is not whatever you think "is the most known version", get a source that talks about it. Now are you interested in participating in the RfC that I have asked about above? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes.The Great Duck (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Rjecina said 'copyright problems' - Ricky repeated copyright problems,
Rjecina said 'no reliable sources' - Ricky repeated no reliable sources,
Rjecina said 'per numerous discussions' - Ricky repeated per numerous discussions.

Is Rjecina = Ricky?

Here is what I found:

1. http://www.nysun.com/new-york/neo-nazi-band-set-to-play-amid-protests/65117/

2. http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Jasenovac+i+Gradiska+Stara%22&xa=tAUbuw3O8FXTKwpoGhagxQ--%2C1227537354&fr=yfp-t-107&u=www.nysun.com/comments/51921&w=%22jasenovac+i+gradiska+stara%22&d=GotzVkfiRwur&icp=1&.intl=us

3. http://tenc.net/croatia/times1.htm#sing

4. http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak.aspx?id=178032

"Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, to je kuća Maksovih mesara
Kroz Imotski kamioni žure, voze crnce Francetića Jure
U Čapljini, klaonica bila, puno Srba Neretva nosila

(ajmo ruke)

Oj Neretvo teci iza stranu, nosi Srbe plavome Jadranu
Ko je moga zamisliti lani, da će Božić slavit partizani
Tko je reka, jeba li ga ćaća, da se Crna Legija ne vraća

(ima dvi nove, kaže)

Gospe sinjska ako si u stanju, uzmi Stipu a vrati nam Franju
Oj Račane jeba ti pas mater, i onome tko je glasa za te
Sjajna zvijezdo iznad Metkovića, pozdravi nam Antu Pavelića"

5. http://www.index.hr/xmag/clanak.aspx?id=289028

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara,
to je kuća Maksovih mesara
Kroz Imotski kamioni žure,
voze crnce Francetića Jure
U Čapljini, klaonica bila,
puno Srba Neretva nosila
Oj Neretvo teci niza stranu,
nosi Srbe plavome Jadranu
Ko je moga zamisliti lani,
da će Božić slavit partizani
Tko je reka, jeba li ga ćaća,
da se Crna Legija ne vraća
Oj Račane jeba ti pas mater,
i onome tko je glasa za te
Sjajna zvijezdo iznad Metkovića,
pozdravi nam Antu Pavelića

6. http://www.24sata.info/4937

“Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara,
to je kuća Maksovih mesara/ Kroz Imotski kamioni žure,
voze crnce Francetića Jure/ U Čapljini klaonica bila,
puno Srba Neretva nosila”.

Slijedi, kao poenta pjesme, logična i očekivana poruka:

“Sjajna zvijezdo iznad Metkovića,
pozdravi nam Antu Pavelića”.

7. http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=14396

From WorldPress, June 23, 2007 Nazis Rock on in Croatia by Julia Gorin

Lyrics translation

Jasenovac and Stara Gradiška,
That’s the house of Maks’s butchers.
There was a slaughterhouse in Čapljina,
Neretva carried away many Serbs (from there).

O Neretva, flow downhill,
And carry the Serbs into the blue Adriatic.
Through Imotski trucks rush,
Driving the black uniforms of Jure Francetić.

I am Ustasha and so was my father, ---> Ja Ustaša i ćaća mi bio,
Father left the craft to his son… ---> Otac sinu zanat ostavio.
Whoever said that Black Legion is not coming back,
May his father fuck him.

Lady Sinjska, if you can,
take away Stipe and bring back our Franjo.
O Racan, may a dog fuck your mother,
and the ones who voted for you.
Shining star above Metković,
Send our greetings to Ante Pavelić.

8. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409638377&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska That's the house of Maks' [Luburic, a notorious Ustashe murderer] butchers...
O Neretva [river] flow downhill
And carry the Serbs into the blue Adriatic [Sea]....
I am Ustashe and so was my father
Father left the craft to his son....
Lady Sinjska [a Slavic godess],
if you can, take away [anti-fascist and current President of Croatia] Stipe [Mesic] and bring back our [ultranationalist former President] Franjo [Tudjman]....
Send our greetings to [World War II Ustashe leader] Ante Pavelic.

---

It is clear: No copyright problems, there are reliable sources of lyrics - for both original and translation, practically single lyrics version (only some do not quote full lyrics), don't see a discussion - rather squabbles, denial, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.20.29 (talk • contribs)

Assuming you are remotely serious about having a discussion, the fact that articles quote bits of the song doesn't mean "no copyright problems." The question is now, what version do you want to quote and which translation, and how to put it in the article? You are not going to get to post the same translation under a claim of "see talk page." There needs to be some attempt at discussion. Perhaps an expansion of "the lyrics celebrate" saying that "the concentration camps are described as the house of 'butchers' of Luburic." To review though, (1) doesn't quote any lyrics; (2) are anonymous comments on the first one; (3) is a random anonymous unsourced website; (4) is repeated above so I'm not rehashing it; (5) is the same concern as (4). Alternatively, would you support external links to the various lyrics? Those articles could be used as sources as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is my answer

Original lyrics that shall be included:

4. http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak.aspx?id=178032

"Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, to je kuća Maksovih mesara
Kroz Imotski kamioni žure, voze crnce Francetića Jure
U Čapljini, klaonica bila, puno Srba Neretva nosila

Oj Neretvo teci iza stranu, nosi Srbe plavome Jadranu
Ko je moga zamisliti lani, da će Božić slavit partizani
Tko je reka, jeba li ga ćaća, da se Crna Legija ne vraća

Gospe sinjska ako si u stanju, uzmi Stipu a vrati nam Franju
Oj Račane jeba ti pas mater, i onome tko je glasa za te
Sjajna zvijezdo iznad Metkovića, pozdravi nam Antu Pavelića"

Lyrics translation (re-shuffled in order to match the original above)

From WorldPress, June 23, 2007 Nazis Rock on in Croatia by Julia Gorin

Lyrics translation

Jasenovac and Stara Gradiška, That’s the house of Maks’s butchers.
Through Imotski trucks rush, Driving the black uniforms of Jure Francetić.
There was a slaughterhouse in Čapljina, Neretva carried away many Serbs (from there).

O Neretva, flow downhill,And carry the Serbs into the blue Adriatic.
Ko je moga zamisliti lani, da će Božić slavit partizani --> shall be translated, not coming from Julia Gorin - my translation: Who could imagine last year That Partisans would celebrate Christmas.
Whoever said that Black Legion is not coming back, May his father fuck him.

Lady Sinjska, if you can, take away Stipe and bring back our Franjo.
O Racan, may a dog fuck your mother, and the ones who voted for you.
Shining star above Metković, Send our greetings to Ante Pavelić.

As to - of the song doesn't mean "no copyright problems." - you have gotten a correct explanation already - a hate crime lyrics is not copyrightable i.e. it's a fair game. Regarding 'the various lyrics' - I'm not aware of it. I know only that some used to add (to the above lyrics) these verses:
I am Ustasha and so was my father, ---> Ja Ustaša i ćaća mi bio,
Father left the craft to his son… ---> Otac sinu zanat ostavio.

If someone knows more - let him to add links or reference articles in maybe newspapers where it could be seen.

Protection has been lifted

Since it's been two months, I thought I'd lift the protection. However, any attempt to blindly revert back to, I guess, this version are going to lead to another protection request (or if not, I'll do it myself). What is required is asked above and is not in my opinion particularly difficult. If you have lyrics with a reliable source (per policy, I'm not kidding on that), and a reliable source for a translation, put it in, but again, be reasonable. If it seems like certain editors don't care about anything other than getting 100% of what they want, I will warn them about the WP:ARBMAC policy, which allows for uninvolved administrators to give discretionary sanctions. I interpret this broadly to include this article but will first ask for ex ante outside assistance and if not fast enough, will instead ask for review ex post since I am involved in the conflict. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

So, how come that the same reference (Gorin, Julia (2007-06-23). "Nazis Rock on in Croatia". The Centre for Peace in the Balkans. http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php? index=article&articleid=14396.) is reliable in the introductory part of this article and not reliable later as source of the lyrics translation?

As to Index - a Croatian news Internet tabloid, which exists more than 8 years - and which recorded the lyrics - its competitor Novi list, Rijeka Croatia says (at http://www.index.hr/index/default.aspx?id=4)

"Revolucionarni news servis, jedinstven u Hrvatskoj i ovom dijelu svijeta" - Novi list, travanj 2003

Translation - Revolutionary news service, unique in Croatia and in this part of the World Novi list April 2003

Where and when this news tabloid was marked as unreliable source and who did it? Reading the history of the article changes, I found

1. (cur) (prev) 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 00:23, 17 September 2008 Don Luca Brazzi (talk | contribs) (2,883 bytes) (Why to remove lirics?) (undo)

So, the person (Ricky81682) who claims to be a law student shall be warned that hate crime cannot be copyrighted? After that she invented another 'problem'

1. (cur) (prev) 03:13, 11 November 2008 I am Mario (talk | contribs) (4,268 bytes) (Undid revision 249814639 The source of original is given, has nothing to do with biography of a living person - Thompson's concerts were cancelled in Netherlands and Germany - which is tru) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 09:26, 5 November 2008 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) (2,755 bytes) (look I don't care enough; rm unsourced lyrics and unsourced translation for a very controversial song where there is a serious possibility of a WP:BLP violation) (undo)

At the end - called upon un-relaibility of something that is already referenced in the same article?!

Well, I dared to challenge this notable and her Wikipedia status and put back the lyrics - in this article.--69.72.62.167 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure an internet news tabloid is reliable enough. Second, The Centre for Peace seems to have a clear bias. Third, this seems to violate the Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry policies against full lyrics. The fact that someone has posted it on the internet doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've created account. :) Now, Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry has 'To avoid' paragraph - which is met by the existing text. The next requirement from Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry is to not include overly-long lyrics. So, please, avoid inventing further obstacles calling upon when removing the lylics from this article.--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn to assume good faith. Do not call mere disagreements obstacles. You can see above in the third opinion that this exactly same concern was addressed by someone else. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith that a random IP address managed to find this article, reverted it back to a version that has been edit warred heavily leading to a number of protections and blocks, and now claims consensus after everyone else has been run off. Consensus means actual discussion and review, not a statement by yourself for others to "dare to challenge" you. The style guidelines says to keep it within the fair use provisions, and I'm really not sure that just listening the lyrics to a song with a disputed copyright is the way we should be going. However, I'm going to move on if there doesn't seem to be any point in furthering discussion. Compromise seems impossible at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, I avdise you to learn a very basic fact about copyright - which was already explained to you by other person: writing a hate crime lyrics, distributing it, or performing it by singining, reciting, etc. - cannot be protected by law i.e. a copyright can't be established upon such activities in any civilized country in the World. If you have a proof of opposite for this case - please, provide it here. In that case I'll mark it as a nonsense and void by the international law and the U.S. law.--Bedford, PA (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Under every circumstance these lyrics are under copyright. If there is an exception, please provide proof of such an provision. Just as an example, Mein Kampf is still under copyright. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Is it possible to stop the 'experts' like the one above? This person does not understand the very basic idea of law. By the way - Mein Kampf is not copyrighted at all! If you Garion96 know that this lyrics is copyrighted - name the copryight holder!--Bedford, PA (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the copyright law (conventions and international) there are two publications explaining the nature of this law

• Concise European Copyright Law by Thomas Dreier, P. B. Hugenholtz

• Universal Copyright Convention, with Appendix Declaration relating to Articles XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1952 [5]

From the above I've copied just the first article which helps us to discriminate crime and art Article I

Each Contracting State undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective, protection of the rights of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cinematographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculpture.

So protection of the rights (not protection of crime) is ... of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cinematographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculpture. The misery of Wikipedia is just here - the Jasenovac i ... is literary or artistic work or a crime - may I ask these administrators and third opinion providers??? Shame on you all!--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Really? This article (from "Time") claims "...Mein Kampf's copyright, held by the state of Bavaria, will expire in 2015". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had this argument before numerous times. See above. I'm moving for a request for comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• To this 'Cheers' - you shall learn more about Mein Kampf and the rights transferred to the Bavaria state. State Bavaria never excerised these rights and any publisher worldwide - under some academic and scholastic limitations - is free to publish Mein Kampf.--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, calm down

Those who are in favour of (non-existent) copyright shall provide a minimum - who is author or proprietor of this 'lyrics' and in which country this copyright is in force.

About Hitler's Mein Kampf - here the copyright hold by Bavaria state - has different and very specific meaning:

a) Every academic institution or publisher is free to publish Mein Kampf - for only scholastic and educational purposes

b) For all other (primarily commercial purposes) - it is forbidden explicitly or implicitly in all countries. More light can be gotten from Hitler's Mein Kampf in Czech: [6]

This information seems to have been incorrect. The German authorities have pointed out that the state of Bavaria apparently holds the copyright for Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf for all countries of the world except the United Kingdom and the United States and it has recently used these rights to prevent publication of the work in several countries. Bavaria has managed to prevent the publication of Mein Kampf in Sweden, in Croatia and in Turkey. In some cases, according to information from the Bavarian Finance Ministry, the Bavarian authorities have forced the publisher to pulp the printed book.

To Bedford, PA - Wikipedia is not a place for an academic dialog. Wikipedia puts at the same level a university professor and a fifth-grader. --138.88.15.10 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)