Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


When tryiyng to argument figures based on excavations the author is actually referring to critical document captioned: "How did Živanović turned 284 skeletons into 700.000 victims.

Someone's intention for documentation has obviously led him/her into opposite direction. Contraditio in adjecto.

The name Srbosjek[edit]

The name Srbosjek. How the knife became known by that name? Is it known if the name Srbosjek was used by surviving Jasenovac concentration camp inmates to describe that particular kind of knife in their books? In this book by Dr. Nikola Nikolić ("Jasenovački logor smrti", NIŠP "Oslobođenje", Sarajevo, [1975]), who was a surviving inmate from Jasenovac, there is a photo of that kind of knife, but the name Srbosjek is not used to describe the knife. Under the photo of the knife it is written: "Specijalno izrađen nož s namjerom za masovno klanje" (Specially made knife with intention for mass butchering). On page 41 of the same book he goes into detail to explain the knife but also he does not use the name Srbosjek to name the knife. If somebody have books that are published by surviving inmates of Jasenovac early on after ww2 to see if there is mentioning of that knife there and is it named as Srbosjek?--Rovoobo oboovoR 07:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brzica and others used a knife that became known as the Srbosjek, meaning "Serb-cutter".[73][74][75][76][77][dead link]

We still do not know when the knife became known as the Srbosjek.

  • Ref 73 is from 2007. Would be good to know upon which source it relies to call it Srbosjek.
  • Ref 75 is from 1994. Would also be good to know upon which source it relies to call it Srbosjek.
  • Refs 74 and 76 do not have pages written for checking them.

74.^ Hory, Ladislaus; Broszat, Martin (1964). Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt Stuttgart.

76. ^ Egon Berger (1966). 44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu. Zagreb: Grafički Zavod Hrvatske.

Does somebody knows at which page in these two books the knife is mentioned as Srbosjek? Would be good to know if Egon Berger as a surviving inmate calls the knife Srbosjek in his book.

  • Ref 77 is a dead link.--Rovoobo Talk 08:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read Egon Berger's book "44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu" Zagreb: Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, 1966. There I could not see any mentioning of Srbosjek or Brzica. If someone can point to page where it is mentioned in that book, if not I will remove the ref.--Rovoobo Talk 05:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just remove it. This article is an absolute dog's breakfast. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is another book by Dr. Nikola Nikolić, "Jasenovački logor", Nakladni zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1948. On pages 78 to 80 there are a photo and a drawing with explanation about that kind of knife. On p. 79: "Sl. 16. Specijalno izrađen nož s narukvicom za masovno klanje "kotačem". Potječe od njemačke tvrtke "Solingen" po nacističkom projektu." (Specially made knife with a wrist for mass "wheel" butchering. It originates from the German company "Solingen" by the Nazi project). On p. 80: "Sl. 17. Ovim su se krvavim argumentima nacističke "kulture" ustaše masovno služili." (With these boody arguments of Nazi "culture" Ustasha used massively.) But again, he doesn't use the name Srbosjek for it.--Rovoobo Talk 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a process of getting a book by Đorđe Miliša, "U mučilištu-paklu Jasenovac" which was first published in 1945 and I believe it was the first one to be published by an surviving Jasenovac inmate. Here are two more which are online:

  1. Milko Riffer, "GRAD MRTVIH, JASENOVAC 1943.", from 1946.
  2. Čedomil Huber, "Bio sam zatočenik logora Jasenovac", from 1977. (Did not have time to read them yet. If anybody who can read Croatian language check it out for Srbosjek then please post it here if its mentioned or not?)--Rovoobo Talk 12:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I got to read that book by Đorđe Miliša. "U mučilištu-paklu Jasenovac", Naklada P.I.P. Pavičić, Zagreb, 2011. ISBN 978-953-6308 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.-88. Reprint of his book printed in 1945. There is no mentioning of the name Srbosjek. Also there is no mentioning of the name Srbosjek in abovementioned books by Milko Riffer and Čedomil Huber. There is another book I got "Sećanja Jevreja na logor Jasenovac", Savez jevrejskih opština Jugoslavije, Beograd, 1972. It is a book of memories from surviving Jewish inmates of Jasenovac. The copy I have is 2nd edition printed in Beograd in 1985 with addition of two more testimonies, 29 altogether, 9 of which spent their inmate time in Jasenovac from 1941 to 1945. There is no mentioning of the name Srbosjek.--Rovoobo Talk 06:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Another thing, a photo that is used in the article, file is called: Srbosjek_(knife)_used_in_Croatia_-_1941–1945.jpg and is sourced from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum but when you go to that Ushmm link the description says: "A special knife that is worn over the hand that was used by the Ustasa militia for the quick slaughter of inmates in concentration camps." No mentioning of the name Srbosjek. How so??--Rovoobo Talk 08:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Anybody to comment here?--Rovoobo Talk 10:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the term is Croatian, and judging by the sources, it was coined by the Ustasha. The term resurfaced in the Croatian War.--Zoupan 05:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Show us some sources about the name being coined and by whom? Not even United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is calling it by that name as you can see up.--Rovoobo Talk 06:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why finding the individual who coined the term is relevant; the word is idiomatic – weapon used for cutting Serbs, Srbosjek – not a dictionary-kind of word. However, if there are sources that refute the use of the word, you may present them here. The sources in the article do refer to Srbosjek as being used by the Ustashe.--Zoupan 07:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Then present a source for the knife being named/called as that by Jesenovac inmates before 1991? Not a hard thing if it was called like that IMO. Dr. Nikolic who was there does not call it by a name. Just need one from a book that calls it like that. I'm nor challenging that that kind of knife was used, just its name.--Rovoobo Talk 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, your conclusion that "Srbosjek" is dubious is original research. References in the article:--Zoupan 12:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn, The Library of Congress World War II Companion (Simon and Schuster, 2007), pages 640, 646–47, page 683: At Jasenovac, a series of camps in Croatia, the ultranationalist, right-wing Ustaše murdered Serbs, Jews, Romani, Bosnian Muslims, and political opponents not by gassing, but with hand tools or the infamous graviso or Srbosjek ("Serb cutter") – a long, curved knife attached to a partial glove and designed for rapid, easy killing.
  • {{sfn|Israeli|2013|page=135||ps=: "Surviving inmates of Jasenovac remember the ''Srbosek'' (the knife for killing Serbs) that was devised, besides ordinary knives, for the manual and individual slaughter of the Serbs."}}
  • {{sfn|Frucht Levy|2013|page=71|ps=: "One, the ''srbosjek'', or Serb-cutter, was a long, curved knife attached to a partial glove and designed for cutting throats."}}
  • Michael Freund (30 May 2013). "Time to confront Croatia's hidden Holocaust". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 16 March 2015. The Ustashe even employed a special knife they called a “Srbosjek”, or “Serb-cutter,” to slaughter as many Serbs as possible. 
  • Hunt, Dave (1994). "Das Abschlachten der Serben". Die Frau und das Tier Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft der römischen Kirche. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. pp. 289–301. 

Hm, and yet Ushmm does not call it by that name. They got the photo from Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije, if we're to believe the source on [1]. So at 2007 it was called srbosjek and in 2015 Ushmm does not call it like that. Anyways I'm outta here. Not worth my time anymore.--Rovoobo Talk 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

non-WP:RS sources[edit]

I have started this thread to document serious questions about the lack of reliability/NPOV of several sources used in this article. I have already raised this issue over at World War II persecution of Serbs. The first I want to raise is Carl Savich, for example, he has been heavily criticised for bias and lack of research by the historian Marko Attila Hoare on his blog at [2]. I believe this criticism, in which Hoare questions the lack of evidence for Savich's claims is sufficient to draw into question his reliability and the use of him as a source on a matter as sensitive and controversial as this one lends undue weight to his work. Carl Savich and the Serbian nationalist blog website "Serbianna" cannot be seen as a reliable source. I have commenced removing all such refs. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also started removing all primary sources such as trial testimony which has not been fact checked or analysed in a secondary source, and non-WP:RS like the grayfalcon blog, the autobiographical books by Danon and Ivanevic, and the pavelic-papers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
and refs from the "Jasenovac Research Institute" Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sisak camp in the Jasenovac article (as part of the Jasenovac complex)[edit]

According to the official website [3], Jasenovac consisted of five camps:

  • Camp I (Krapje);
  • Camp II (Bročice)
  • Camp III (Brickworks) in Jasenovac
  • Camp IV (Tannery work detail)
  • Camp V (Stara Gradiška)

it also included work farms at Mlaka, Jablanac, Gređani, Bistrica and Feričanci, and the killing grounds across the river at Donja Gradina, and the Uštica gypsy camp. I have searched Google books for any WP:RS that states the Sisak camp was part of the Jasenovac complex, and have found none. I propose removing the reference to Sisak from this article, and merge any reliably sourced Sisak-specific material in this article into the Sisak article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They list the Sisak camp separately at
But I think you could go one step further and create Concentration camps in the Independent State of Croatia, because there were many more, and even all of those we have articles for aren't linked from the main NDH article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Tomasevich Vol 2 also lists it separately. My plan was always to cover all concentration camps in Yugoslavia. I have names for about thirty, including German ones. I thought it would be good to start on the hardest one (being this it), then branch out. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Brick factory[edit]

Brick factory was closed in early 1942. The article leaves impression as it was extensively used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

article is self-contradictory[edit]

The article is self-contradictory about how many people were killed in the camps.

1)"specifying the means of extermination, the Nazis often arranged the imprisonment or transfer of inmates to Jasenovac.[18][19] Kasche's emissary, Major Knehe, visited the camp in 6 February 1942. Kasche thereafter reported to his superiors:

Capitan Luburic, the commander-in-action of the camp, explained the construction plans of the camp. It turns out that he made these plans while in exile. These plans he modified after visiting concentration-camps installments in Germany.[20]" This proves that it was indeed an extermination camp. Hence, most of the prisoners were killed.

2) "several instances, inmates were immediately killed for confessing their Serbian ethnicity and most considered it to be the only reason for their imprisonment.[35] The Serbs were predominantly brought from the Kozara region, where the Ustaše captured areas that were held by Partisan guerrillas.[36] These were brought to the camp without sentence, almost destined for immediate execution, accelerated via the use of machine-guns.[37] The exact number of Serbian casualties in Jasenovac is uncertain, but the lowest common estimates range around 60,000 people, and it is estimated to be the most significant part of the overall Serbian casualties of World War

The number of Jewish casualties is uncertain, but ranges from about 8,000[39] to almost two thirds of the Croatian Jewish population of 37,000 (meaning around 25,000).[40]

Jasenovac camp also consisted of a unique camp for children in Sisak. Around 20,000 children of Serbian, Jewish and Roma ethnicities perished in Jasenovac."

Right there you have 88,000 people at minimum, not including the gypsies or Roma.

3)The Ustaše in Jasenovac also imprisoned numerous people of other ethnicities, including Ukrainians, Romanians and Slovenes.[47]

When gypsies arrived in the camp, they did not undergo selection, but were rather concentrated under the open skies at a section of camp known as "III-C". From there the gypsies were taken to liquidation in Gradina, working on the dike (men) or in the corn fields in Ustice (women) in between liquidations. Thus Gradina and Ustica became Roma mass grave sites.

Velika Kustarica: According to the state-commission, as far as 50,000 people were killed here in the winter amid 1941 and 1942.[108] There is more evidence suggesting that killings took place there at that time and afterwards.

--- Since 50,000 were killed by the end of 1942, then what was going on from 1943 to April 1945? Why would the pace of killing have slowed, as the war against the partisans intensified during that period?

4)The Vatican's sources also speak of similar figures, that is, for an example, of 350,000 ethnic-Serbs slaughtered by the end of 1942.(Eugen Tisserant[121])In the same spirit, Miroslav Filipović-Majstorović, once captured by Yugoslav forces, admitted that during his three months of administration, 20,000 to 30,000 people died.[124] Since it became clear that his confession was an attempt to somewhat minimize the rate of crimes committed in Jasenovac, having, for an example, claimed to have personally killed 100 people, extremely understated, Miroslav's figures are evaluated so that in some sources they appear as 30,000-40,000.[125]

-- The Vatican states 350,000 Serbs killed by the end of 1942, yet the article claims that 350,000 Serbs died total during the war. Majstorovic admitted to some 20-30,000 in only a few months!

It is obvious that far more than 100,000 people died, given these statistics and evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC) (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not self-contradictory, it merely describes the confusion about the matter that exists in the primary sources. There's even such a problem in some of the sources that were supposed to be secondary - for example the State Commission was supposed to analyze the data and present a reliable conclusion, but its work on that aspect has been seriously brought into question by later analyses.
The overall number has to come from reliable secondary sources, we can't just calculate it ourselves by adding some or all of those assorted numbers - please read WP:SYNTH. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
agree with Joy. This article needs a lot of work to remove the unsourced claims, contrast various claims and point to the conclusions and analysis of those that have done the work. In my view, due to its controversial nature, everything in this article needs an inline citation of a WP:RS. There is still a lot of primary source material used where the publishing of the source is via unreliable websites. I will start trying to source this information soon. I also believe there is a big question over whether court testimony is useable. Essentially, from a legal point of view, testimony on its own is untested. Producing the testimony without the questions and answers the witness made in the witness box following their evidence in chief and without the conclusions the judiciary drew about the testimony cannot possibly be considered a reliable source. I am not suggesting this is the case here, but a witness could say anything in court about what was done at Jasenovac, but if the judiciary concluded that the witness was unsure of their evidence and that part or all of it should be disregarded by a jury (or whatever legal structure the trial was under) for whatever reason, that testimony would be questionable at best. Being published in serbianna is also a significant issue. If we are going to be using primary source information, we need to make sure it is reliably published and corroborated from other secondary sources. Does anyone have access to the judgement from the Sakic trial? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


The reference to an unknown Gestapo man may be: Franz Müller, member of Gestapo in Ljubljana and Litija. He was executed in Yugoslavia.

Oskar or Oscar Turina — Minister of Interior, Named by Siegfried Kasche as responsible for deportation of the Jews.

It may be useful to you. best, (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

with all due respect, they are useless unless they are WP:RS, which a blog on axishistory is not. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

removal of non-WP:RS[edit]

I have removed most non-WP:RS from this article, but have not rm the text. I will start rm the text shortly unless some WP:RS are produced to support the contentions made. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in the "Statistical estimates section"[edit]

The section attempts to construct a case against Žerjavić and his Jasenovac estimates by using irrelevant/non sequitur statements that aim to show him in a bad light:

Kočović [...] accused Žerjavić of being motivated by nationalism.

So what if Žerjavić actually was a nationalist? What of it? The reader is lead to believe this accusation had something to do with Jasenovac, but Kočović may have made it in a completely unrelated dispute. (We don't know, as it is unsourced.) Also, did Kočović actually dispute Žerjavić's figures? Are their respective numbers far apart? The text does not say.

Žerjavić has been dismissed as a nationalist even by Kočović

Why "even"? Does one expect that Kočović being a Serb should normally make him somehow less sensitive to Žerjavić's purported Croatian nationalism?

Žerjavić was accused by Croatian historian Kazimir Katalinić of being a plagiarist and the 'court statistician'.

But that was a criticism by the Croatian far right regarding the number of Bleiburg victims as estimated by Žerjavić, which they felt was not high enough. The source does not mention Jasenovac at all. This is just an improper synthesis used as a weapon against Žerjavić. GregorB (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course this is just one of the problems with this article. Tomasevich deals with the work of both Žerjavić and Kočović in detail in his Vol 2 and states something like 'Historians are indebted to Žerjavić for his work'. He essentially accepts Žerjavić's work as the best and adopts his figures. When I get a chance I will re-work it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I could have simply deleted the "nationalist" statement(s), which were unsourced and challenged (may do it still), but given the sensitivity of the subject, I wanted to give a full rationale here first. GregorB (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't let me stop you. I've already deleted quite a bit of unsourced and/or unreliable sourced material from this article. So far I've only had time to rework the lead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just deleted the "Žerjavić was a nationalist" statement (repeated twice). Also deleted the part about the Bosnian war estimates, as it was unsourced and challenged too (and was also a part of the WP:SYNTH problem described above). I've left the rest as it stands, I'm leaving that judgment to other editors.
I've left the Katalinić's opinion too, although it doesn't make sense at all:
  • IIRC, Žerjavić worked independently from Kočović, before learning about his results. Kočović was, of course, well aware of Žerjavić's work, and he apparently didn't have any problems with its originality.
  • What does "court statistician" mean? The "court" may only refer to the Yugoslav communist authorities. How Žerjavić was being a sycophant by dashing the official figures promulgated by these authorities is beyond me.
Again, my reasoning may or may not be worth much here, it's up to others to decide. GregorB (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable inmates[edit]

WP requires refs to be added to each article. I tagged this section but the tag has been reverted. I intend to retag the section, as the editor has not provided the citations, instead indicating in the edit summary that the info is cited on other WP articles. This is not consistent with WP policy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Although, interestingly enough, I could not find a Wikipedia policy that explicitly says that references in linked articles do not count. I suppose this is obvious to most experienced editors. GregorB (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's WP:CIRCULAR, in case anyone asks. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm sure I'll use it shortly! It's bound to come up... Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Please see commons:File talk:Ustasamilitia.jpg. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of RS[edit]

I want to thank User:Joy for correcting mistake regarding the HRT source. However this article is still full of unsourced material and a lot of work is needed to make this article in line with Wikipedia standardsTritomex (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

General lack of perspective and a feel of forced perspective in some parts[edit]

"Water: Jasenovac was even more severe than most death camps in one respect: a general lack of potable drinking-water. Prisoners were forced to drink water from the Sava river."

to answer the sentence directly.. "I don't think that the camps need to be a 5star hotels"... this sentence totally undermines that true intentions for German camps to built drinking system was not out of "compassion or worry for prisoners", but reverse..because the Germans were even more system-atical including with their killings. This actually which actually looks like a very manipulative sentence totally lacks and undermines a true perspective of a >>death<< camp..

Actually with sentence like that, I feel a need to ask this important question..of which is better. Would be stabbed, shot to death with the pure old animal instinct or pure 'human lust for blood' as they called it, and at least how in some parts Japanese and Ustashes shows to do it.... or put in more systematically to death with a shot from a needle or like Germans do it, wit the Zyklon B gas. Which one is really "better"?

Don't get me wrong, in my mind its totally obvious both are wrong and I don't to question this. But thats what I feel is a very important question when writing articles like that. When I think which I would choose, I would stick with the latter, but when considered how >>"healthy or not"<< something is, how natural instinct is shown, I would care not to but to stick with the first one.. Does the society, which deemed their civilized, strapped from any natural instict shown on the surface, are they really That peacefull and loving? or it is only hidden down below, just to show on the surface in the form of cubic and rotten like Hitler? I am only asking this, because somehow I feel like articles, sentences like that are only product of some cubic minds, totally lacks any Natural, worst totally lacks any perspective on humanity.. and worst..its an article on death camps and WW2 and believe it or not, I feel like we are not far from relearning that history lesson(s) again.. (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that there were a lot of bodies in the Sava, so it wasn't exactly standard river water. The article needs a lot of work, has some unreliable sources, some pretty graphic primary sources whose use is at least questionable, and is pretty poorly structured. But there is little to be gained from this type of minor snipping here and there if it is not supported by reliable sources. I'm struggling a bit to understand what you are trying to say. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable prisoners[edit]

I think it will be important to monitor the proportion of notable prisoners included in this article so that the section doesn't give an inaccurate impression about the general proportions of people killed there (per WP:UNDUE). For example, around half the victims of the camp were Serbs, but there are no Serbs on the list as yet. They are all Jewish or Croats (or Croatian Jews), people that made up about 20% of the victims. Just something to keep in mind. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Role of Jasenovac in Yugoslav wars and modern propaganda[edit]

Should the article contain a paragraph about the role Jasenovac had in Yugoslav wars and today. It was extensively used in Serbian propaganda and hate speeches. The war in Croatia was sparked with genocidal theses about Croatians and that Serbs should fight to prevent a new genocide planed by Croatian government. It is also used as propaganda tool in Serbia even today. It can be often seen in Serbia that Croatian war of independence (especially Operation Storm) is the continuation the the genocide committed in Second World War, and the Jasenovac. Asdisis (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming there are reliable sources for that material, I for one would welcome such an addition. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, someone needs to invest time and do it. Preferably the main contributors to this article. Asdisis (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, "someone" might, but then again they may not. If you want it done, then you do it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I won't do it, that's why I suggested it on talk page. Asdisis (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not doing it is sometimes a good idea. It is a good suggestion - propaganda role is a major aspect of the topic - but that's a very tricky issue, so not having it at all is perhaps preferable to not getting it right. GregorB (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Horstenau's Testimony[edit]

Edmund Glaise von Horstenau: Ein General im Zwielicht: die Erinnerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Volume 76, Böhlau Verlag Wien, 1988 page 168:

Nach einer weiteren kurzen Bahnfahrt, auf der sich der kroatische Korpskommandant General Rumler, ein alter Österreicher, beigesellte, bestiegen wir deutsche Kübelwagen, um ins durch schöne Waldungen an die Save bringen zu lassen. Es war eine "Partisanengegend", wir sahen keinen; wohl aber zahlreiche herrenlose Pferde und Viehherden, von den unzähligen Gaensen nicht zu reden. In Crkveni bok an der Save meldete sich bei mir der Kommandeur der von mir am Vortage hieher gesandten Panzerabteilung mit seinen Offizieren. Der Hauptman ein Schwabe, der Oberleutnant ein Holste, der Leutnant ein Hannoveraner - drei Kerle zum Umarmen in ihrer prächtigen Strammheit, ihrer ehrlichen Anständigkeit und Abscheu vor dem Gesehenen Über den unglücklichen Ort hatten sich zweimal unter der Führung zweier Ustasaoberleutnats je 500 15- bus 20jährige Lumpen gestürzt, alles hingemordet, Frauen vergewaltigt und zu Tode gemartert, Kinder getötet. Ich sah in der Save einen Frauenleichnam liegen mit ausgestochenen Augen und in den Geschlechtsteil hineingetriebenem Holz. Die arme war Hoechstens 20 Jahre alt gewesen, als sie diesen Unholden in die Haende fiel. Irgendwo in einem Winkel fraßen sich Schweine an einem noch nicht begrabenen Manne satt. Alle Häuser waren ausgepluendert. Die "glücklicheren" Einwohner waren einem der furchtbaren Lastzüge anvertraut worden; manch einer dieser unfreiwilligen Passagiere schnitt sich auf der Fahrt die Pulsader auf.

The testimony I've replaced (made by R. West, who did not translate every sentence from the excerpt above)in this article was a bad translation of what we see in the Horstenau's book.--Milos zankov (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked a typo and some italics. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

== The influence of Nazi Germany == In my humble opinion, this section suffers from WP:UNDUE and from the lack of factual accuracy WP:FACT.

There are hints that actually Germans were those behind extermination of the Serbs:

The Nazis encouraged Ustaše anti-Jewish and anti-Roma actions and showed support for the intended extermination of the Serb people. Soon, the Nazis began to make clear their genocidal goals, as shown by the speech Hitler gave to Slavko Kvaternik, at their meeting on 21 July 1941:

If you read the quoted speech it is clear that it has no connection to the first sentence above as to the Serbs.

The extermination of Serbs at Jasenovac was precipitated by General Paul Bader, who ordered that refugees be taken to Jasenovac.

The statement above is false and illogical.

In the Wannsee Conference, Germany offered the Croatian government transportation of its Jews southwards, but questioned the importance of the offer, saying that: "the enactment of the final solution of the Jewish question is not crucial, since the key aspects of this problem were already solved by radical actions these governments took ...

The statement above has a very remote connection to the existence of the Jasenovac Concentration Camp

Hans Helm was in charge of deportation of Jews to concentration camps. He was tried in Belgrade in December 1946 along with other SS and Gestapo officials, and was sentenced to death by hanging together with August Meissner, Wilhelm Fuchs, Josef Hahn, Ludwig Teichmann, Josef Eckert, Ernst Weimann, Richard Kaserer and Friedrich Polte.

The above text has a remote connection to the Jasenovac, too.

Proposal: Remove the complete section and integrate only relevant to the Jasenovac Camp existence text into other parts of this article.--Milos zankov (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RV sockpuppet commentary. Quis separabit? 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tomasevich, Žerjavić[edit]

This sentence makes no sense i.e. it's a point of view;

The authorities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conducted a population survey in 1964 that showed a far lower figure, but kept it a secret; when Vladimir Žerjavić published such lower figures in the 1980s, he was criticized by Antun Miletić among others,[7] but his research has since been considered trustworthy by authorities on World War II Yugoslav history such as Jozo Tomasevich.[7][8]

Tomasevich was not historian, neither educated nor held any academic position history related. He wrote just a book. The authorities on World War II Yugoslav history suggests that there are the others. Who else?

Vladimir Žerjavić was neither historian nor statistician. While "calculating" the number of victims, his education level was at a two year college level (textile technology).

"The authorities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conducted a population survey in 1964 that showed a far lower figure, but kept it a secret" -- where is the proof?

--Milos zankov (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Rv sockpuppet commentary. Quis separabit? 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Really, that old chestnut? Tomasevich's seminal works have been praised by many acclaimed authors on the former Yugoslavia. If you want to challenge him, you need reliable sources that examine and criticise Tomasevich's analysis, not your personal opinion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*Please, read and familiarize with WP:WEASEL. Writing like "authorities on World War II Yugoslav history" are weasel words proving nothing.--Milos zankov (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rv sockpuppet commentary. Quis separabit? 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm familiar with WP:WEASEL, thanks. And also WP:RS. So, should I assume from your response that you have no reliable sources that challenge him? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

***If you are familiar with WP:WEASEL and WP:RS then you shall understand that writing since been considered trustworthy by authorities on World War II Yugoslav history makes no Tomasevich an academic authority nor his book a reliable source. Tomasevich is still not historian and his endorsement of Zerjavic is no more than his personal and un-scholastic view. If talking about WWII Yugoslav history I'd prefer Dedijer and Broszat over Tomasevic and Zerjavic the Scribe (both Croats).--Milos zankov (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Rv sockpuppet commentary. Quis separabit? 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

        • No sources have been cited here to challenge what is in the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


We have a weird setup in the lead.. "700,000 reflects conventional wisdom"? Be that as it may, "conventional wisdom" figures should be the last thing to mention. But the direct contradiction is that the lead first states estimates "range between 350,000 and 800,000", only to list lower estimates in the very next paragraph. The USHMM is hardly an insignificant institution... -- Director (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention to the infobox and the victim numbers there. Placing solely number of about 100.000 without mention or inclusion of other estimates diminishes the neutral point of view of the article by supporting only lowest estimates in the infobox. Recent attempt at change of the numbers involved, to approximately 700.000 followed with a link towards the section of the article discussing other estimates, was deleted and characterized as vandalism, despite insistence on the lowest estimated number of victims could be seen as vandalism and revisionism as well.--Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not, USHMM is the most neutral of all sources on this, and is supported by a wide range of academics that look at this at arm's length. There is a huge amount of propaganda about the number of victims of Jasenovac (in both directions), all of which exceeds the credulity of reasonable observers. The full story of the numbers is better dealt with in the body, the lead and infobox should reflect the current academic consensus with a brief explanation that the estimates have changed over time. 700,000 is a completely fringe estimate and has been thoroughly debunked, regardless of whether it is taught in Serbian schools or pushed by some Serbian not-for-profit organisation. Tomasevich 2001 thoroughly examines all the claims up to the time of publication, and there has been at least one joint Serb-Croat review of the evidence that supports the similar ~100,000 figure. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
With respect, but claiming that USHMM is "the most neutral of all sources on this" is your opinion and besides, USHMM is just one institution concerned with this question. By posting their and their estimates alone in the infobox you(article, that is) directly implies that all other numbers are unacceptable, are mere speculation, are politicking and so on. I fail to understand your arguing that number of 700.000 victims "exceeds the credulity of reasonable observers". During Rwanda genocide in about 100 days 800.000 Tutsi were killed and 200.000 people participated in the genocide. Wikipedia in English states that numbers go between 500.000-1.000.000. During roughly 4 years of Third Reich, Nazi Germany managed to kill 6.000.000 Jews, and this is only number for the Jewish victims. Independent State of Croatia, Nazi and genocidal regime with clear and undoubted hate towards Serbian population had also 4 years in which to enact its policy of ethnically clean Croatia. If we take this number of 100.000 victims and set it in a time period of 4 years, we get that every year about 25.000 victims were killed or maybe 75.000 were killed the first year, then 25.000 and then for two years Jasenovac was not operational. Ustashe had the motive, had the opportunity and had the well organized state system for eradication of the unwanted populations and these numbers of 100.000 would lead us to believe that they would stop at 25.000 per year. I have in my possession a documented testimony of one prisoner who survived Jasenovac named Drago Čolaković(Cholakovich) written in 1946. He was interned early in 1941 and describes his camp as an area of 50.000 square meters with housing barracks long 32 and wide 12 meters(384 square meters) and 450 inmates in a barrack. This one camp could hold more than one third of 100.000 prisoners, and there were five camps in Jasenovac complex. You said yourself that "huge amount of propaganda works in both ways" fair enough, but then one must consider numbers of 80.000-100.000 propaganda as well, being the lowest estimates of victims.--Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why a lot of people are obsessed with numbers. For me, when regarding with crimes against humanity, it is like this: 80 000 = 700.000 = 6.000.000. The most horrible crimes in human history were committed in Jasenovac, that is a fact. And when it comes to number we need to look at facts. What does the Jasenovac memorial say regarding the number of victims? --Tuvixer (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it obsession, more of an understanding that every one of the numbers is a human being. I can understand your point of view but from my perspective 80.000 victims versus 700.000 can never be same. I would agree with you, that on the individual level one innocent victim is equal to another, but our opinions differ when we talk of mass murders and genocides. If, for example, Rwanda genocide was not stopped when it was and the number of victims was 100%(I believe I read somewhere that 70% of the Tutsi population was killed)there would be very few Tutsi left, globally and as a people they would be gone, everything they were would be lost and our lament or regret, no matter how sincere, would not bring them back.--Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The figure of 100,000 killed in Jasenovac alone is the most reliable IMO. The way I see it, as a general rule, anything under 50,000 is Croatian nationalist propaganda and anything between 200,000 and 1,000,000 is Serbian nationalist propaganda. 23 editor (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, 23. The Jasenovac Memorial lists the names of 83,145 victims, and gives the total number of victims as about 100,000. USHMM gives the same total figure. The Museum of the Victims of Genocide in Belgrade agrees. Miletić, a researcher at the Military Archives in Belgrade made a list of 77,200 victims. Figures around the 100,000 mark have been accepted by historians such as Pavlowitch, Ramet, Dulić and Tomasevich, as well as third party news sources like the BBC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I can understand your opinions as your own and have nothing against them, but given the facts that can not be disputed such as number of camps in the Jasenovac complex(at least 5-by some authors 8) and their size, I have already mentioned size of one of the camps and barracks capacity dictated in 1496 by Drago Čolaković(Cholakovich), one of the inmates just don't add up with the number of 100.000. If we consider that ISC had 4 years to enact its genocidal policies I believe 100.000 is gross underestimate of victims who died there. During the start of war in Croatia in the 90s, Croatian forces gained entry in the Jasenovac complex and destroyed certain amount of documentation present there and demolished the complex itself. Before its dissolution Federal Commission for the case of Jasenovac of ex-Yugoslavio only reached 55%-60% of the victims census and estimates showed the number of victims could be even high as 1.400.000. Over 500.000 witnesses were interrogated, 20.000 documents, enemy documents was recovered, 65.000 war criminals were identified and over 900.000 reports of war crimes and criminals. This figures are from 1946. Report of HQ of Wehrmacht in Zagreb from the end of 1944. states 860.000 people died in Jasenovac up to that point, 800.000 Serbs.

Look, I'm not trying to indicate anything in anyway, but for the sake of the article itself, mention of numbers besides those of the USHMM would increase its neutrality because many other institutions dedicated large amounts of time to this question, those in English speaking areas far from being the most numerous or most interested. When we talk of the experts and media, many Croatian expert from the recent history, last 30 years, I would take with a large level of reserve given clear revisionism on the state level and unwillingness to take action against revival of fascism. One of their most popular entertainers in Croatia is a man called Marko Perkovic Thompson whose songs number hits that are nothing but hate-mongering rhymes against Serbs and despite Croatia being EU member this man has faces 0 problems for his songs or their message. In the sources you found Peacemaker67, those that number between 70.000-100.000 victims, did you found anywhere a statement explaining these numbers are a numbers reached at the moment of the paper creation, from a revision of the original victim census from 1946-7, not the complete revision of victim names. As for BBC, after their "impartial" news coverage of wars in the ex-Yugoslavia I see them as nothing more but a manipulation machine for gaining UK population support for any sort of action, MO though. Regards--Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The truth about Serb-cutter ('srbosjek')[edit]

Not trying to sound apologetic for horrible Jasenovac crimes and mass murders, the story about 'Serb-cutter' is by all means over-exaggerated. It was not a special tool devised in Jasenovac, but a common agricultural tool in the area of the time, sold in shops and advertised in catalogs, but fairly unknown outside the area. Killing a person with that tool not intended for slaughtering, must be horrible, painful, and unbearable to witness. It is possible that several prisoners were killed by that tool, and that then it went into a legend. Jasenovac was also a labor camp and it is quite possible that during forced field works, inmates were equipped with that tool. Later anti-fascist propaganda used every possible means to further demonize the 'fascist occupiers and their domestic ally traitors'. 'Srbosjek' is quite possibly but a hoax, and hopefully a scientific study on that matter would prove that. (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

here are several sources for the srbosjek. Have a look at Crowe (published by Routledge), and The Library of Congress World War II Companion. Not a great in-depth study, but more than enough to dispel the idea that it is a hoax. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of information from biased and unreliable sources[edit]

The International commission for truth about Croatian system of concentration camps Jasenovac for extermination of Serbs, Jews and Roma issued a statement concerning the number of victims in Jasenovac stating that "...surviving inmates and professional forensic findings, together with Jasenovac mass graves excavation, corroborate number of victims ranging between 700.000 and 800.000. Latest in line of Croatian officials, researchers and curators of the Museum in Jasenovac claim number of victims was far lower and support such claims with names and data for less than 83.000 individuals. What they fail to mention is the fact [that] many of the victims where [sic] burned alive in the furnaces, were boiled for the use of the soap factory or were thrown in river Sava ... Croatia was the only state which organized concentration camps for children. Names and data for more than 30.000 children were gathered so far...International commission for truth about Croatian system of concentration camps Jasenovac for extermination of Serbs, Jews and Roma concludes Croats managed to kill more than 700.000 Serbs, over 23.000 Jews and about 80.000 Roma." -

Jasenovac Research Institute states that "from August 1941 to April 1945, hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Romas, as well, as anti-fascists of many nationalities, were murdered at the death camp known as Jasenovac. Estimates of the total numbers of men, women and children killed there range from 300,000 to 700,000...Jasenovac was actually a complex of five major and three smaller "special" camps spread out over 240 square kilometers (150 square miles) in south-central Croatia. Along with hundreds of thousands of Serbs, some 25,000 Jews and at least 30,000 Romas were murdered in these camps. The names of some 20,000 murdered children of all three nationalities collected thus far by historians provides only a hint of the scale of the crimes committed there against children. Jasenovac is also known for having been one of the most barbaric death camps of the Holocaust for the extreme cruelty in which its victims were tortured and murdered..." - Jasenovac Research Institute

Who is reviewing the article anymore? In the lead cannot be claims which are against NPOV, and sources which are only used once in the article. As well, both sources are not reliable. Until someone explains those edits and inclusion it will be removed. The "Jasenovac Research Institute" among the victim numbers included all people who died in the territory of Yugoslavia during WWII, not just by the Ustaše in Jasenovac. Just quick search on the Victims list - surname Poropat, those people lived and died in Istria (Ćićarija) as Partisans fighting against the Italian and German troops in Istria. Those, and many other casualities don't have anything in relation to Jasenovac and NDH. It was already discussed before Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Archive 1#Cracked the Jasenovac Research Institute, and see the disclaimer.--Crovata (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crovata -- with all due respect and assuming good faith on your part, your edit deleting a very large amount of text has been reverted by me. This is part of Bold, Revert & Discuss (please read up on it by hitting on the wikilink). You boldly reverted the text, I restored it, and now we, and the community must discuss it.

Quis separabit? 01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) You don't need to point me about BOLD, in this case it's irrelevant, because are you aware of what you have done? That massive amount of text has no place in the lead, it's highly biased, against the neutrality of the article (as well lead), and neither those sources are reliable - that was already discussed years ago. Inclusion of the clearly manipulated information seeks serious consensus by the community, and while I started the BOLD, you used it to revert that information which was nor discussed nor is desirable in the meantime to confuse and mislead the public and editorial community.--Crovata (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The amount of removed text is not that large - two paragraphs, both of which are grammatically challenged and based on sources whose reliability is not obvious. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My comment on this edit is here. If we compare the article as it is now vs the last pre-insertion version, I'd say it's about right. If there are parts of removed prose that actually have some merit, I believe we should hear arguments in favor. GregorB (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know what is unacceptable or unreliable about this site. Quis separabit? 13:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the inserted text is heavy argumentative, soapbox-style POV (e.g. "What they fail to mention is the fact...") and hence its inappropriateness for the article and its intro in particular. A better question would be: what is substantially missing from the current intro, but appears in the removed text? GregorB (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Grga, I have a headache. Why don't you update the intro and we can all judge. Quis separabit? 14:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Somebody just reverted it back in, as far as I can see from this page and the ANI discussion, there's general agreement that this text is poorly written and poorly sourced, so the fact that it was not reverted when first added a week or two back does not make it part of the stable version of the article, I think that is correct, yes? That's why I removed the text rather than protecting the article. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in editing the article one way or the other. This is just my input in the discussion. What I really dislike is the idea that this text somehow should be in, while: 1) no arguments against inclusion have been addressed (much less refuted), 2) no arguments in favor of inclusion have been provided. GregorB (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Grga, this site is not in English. Can you at least evaluate and give a rough synopsis. I am not prepared to take Crovata's word. Quis separabit? 15:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC), this now a pattern of you advocating for an improper, if not slanted, reading of sources in Balkan topics. We've had these discussions now at Talk:Yugoslav Wars#Recent changes, Talk:Bleiburg repatriations#'put the entire force at risk of death if captured' and now here. If you're having trouble distinguishing wheat from the chaff in these foreign-language sources, please don't edit/revert, instead use the Talk page first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not "advocating for an improper, if not slanted, reading of sources in Balkan topics." We all have our biases, I know yours and you know mine. The reason I came here is because Crovata removed a considerable amount of sourced text, refused to abide by BRD, etc. I merely asked for a rough synopsis of the source Crovata claims is biased. It's written in a non-English language and is thus impossible for those who don't know that language to judge it. I know I am not the only person who opposes Crovata's unilateral actions, and I know that since I left the page other editors have been restoring and reverting. It is not only me. Quis separabit? 16:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's Google Translate - actually a quite usable translation that also preserves a rather soapboxy tone of the original ("Croatian butchers and murderers have competed with each other", "They do not mention the fact that many of the victims burned alive in caves", "These unfortunate people were killed by Croats", "Croatia is the only country which...", etc.). Apart from the general tone, the members of the so-called "International Commission for the Truth about Jasenovac" remain nameless, their methods secret, and their conclusions are more or less self-published (i.e. the publisher is an NGO). The source is completely worthless IMO, even for a far less serious and controversial opic than this one. GregorB (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know about, but the longer the text the more difficult to navigate, and the verbiage is sometimes difficult to follow or semi-incoherent, i.e. "They do not mention the fact that many of the victims burned alive in caves, do not say how many bodies had been cooked just to show the soap in the soap factory on the ground". (I wonder what this is supposed to mean.) I am not sure if having an NGO as publisher disqualifies it, but the rest... Thanks. Quis separabit? 17:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Um, he did apparently abide by WP:BRD, since the edit by the newbie was bold, his was the revert, and it was then the newbie's, or your, turn to discuss. The removed text was not referenced well (the foreign-language links were not attributed properly nor was a proper citation template used), it was a big addition to the intro (classic red flag), and the claims in it are in contradiction with the consensus long laid out in this article (it's 2016 and lack of awareness can't be an excuse). The edit was really not that particularly hard to judge as problematic, this is supposed to be pretty basic stuff for those of us who've been part of the editorial process for years now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC) How you can say and twist other editor intention - "The reason I came here is because Crovata removed a considerable amount of sourced text, refused to abide by BRD, etc" - I according to the BRD principles reverted the edit by Ljubiša Malenica (editor at Serbian Wikipedia), started this discussion for further review of the information and sources, as well the user Ljubiša Malenica can provide his stand for the inclusion. Simple look at the sources is clear that it's self-published, and twist all collected data on WW2 casualities as victims of Jasenovac.

What's even more, think the cited information wasn't edited coincidentally. I fear it was done organized by some agenda - the edit happened at 15:48 on 13 March by Ljubiša Malenica, while soon after at 15:56 the edit was corrected by Ранко Николић (editor and admin at Serbian Wikipedia), and 18:13 on 14 March placed number of victims killed "80,000 - 800,000", without to prior consult other editors and consensus. Are you aware of the violation of Wikipedia principles and manipulation at Serbian Wikipedia? That Marin Držić, Džore Držić, Andrija Kačić Miošić, Ivan Gundulić, among others, are claimed as Serbs, igorning reality, worldwide consideration and sources (beside unreliable which go along the nationalistic agenda), reverting edits and labeling it as vandalism?--Crovata (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Crovata: you were advised that this is an extremely sensitive subject and your deleting massive amounts of text and your virulent rejection of BRD after I boldly reverted your bold edit were warning signs I felt I could not ignore. Many editors try to use Wikipedia to make political hay (propaganda) and it is the duty of every editor to protect Wikipedia's integrity as best he or she can. It is more difficult with complex historical issues and non-English language sources and gamesmanship but we do the best we can. Quis separabit? 18:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thing is you're not aware that you're advising someone who knows probably more and is more aware how sensitive this subject is in ex-Yugoslavian nations. That by protecting Wikipedia's integrity some editors misinterpret others protective actions, especially when don't know how to properly handle situations which are difficult and complex. As about the editors mentioned above, they probably don't even know how to properly edit English Wikipedia. The principles here are not followed in Serbian Wikipedia. Those editors should be prompted to explain their intention.--Crovata (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's everyone just discuss this calmly and refrain from reverting the article while it is being discussed. It has been in a sorry state for as long as I have been on WP, and no doubt it will remain so unless a few editors dedicate some time to improving it. The issue here is whether the material originally added by Ljubiša Malenica is reliable. Let's just step it through WP:RS and come to a consensus on that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker, does anyone in this talk page claim the material is reliable? Because, to have an actual discussion, someone would need to do that. So far, we have seen only views that the material is unreliable, and there is no real discussion taking place. In absence of opposing views, I'd say JzG was actually correct when he removed the content. GregorB (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that an Admin has restored such crap to a live wiki page is frankly beyond belief. Probably the worst edit I have ever seen this year. Unbelievable. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It is very easy and intellectually lazy to throw out snap judgements about matters you have no idea about. I've never come across you editing in this part of WP, Roxy the dog. On the other hand, I have been here for some years, dealing with the various propagandists of all sides, and I know this subject and the academic coverage of it very well, including sources in Croatian and Serbian. I don't believe this material reflects the academic consensus on the subject, but it does reflect a strong view of a large proportion of Serbs, including some Serb academics from the Serbian Academy of Sciences. It is a bit fringey when taken with the totality of academic work on the subject, but nevertheless it represents a strong current, and has been strenuously argued even in international fora. It is a complex issue involving propaganda on both the Croat and Serb sides, and your off-hand dismissal of it betrays your complete lack of understanding of the subject. But thanks for your shallow and unconsidered drive-by opinion. I'll give it due weight. And you know what they say about opinions... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
What? Read the actual text. Read the commentary above. I'm assuming good faith here, but it is clear that there is consensus for removal of this poorly written, poorly sourced and non-neutral content. And it's also clear that this removal is without prejudice to a new edit which summarises significant views in a neutral manner, with correct attribution and assessment of significance. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I have reinstated much of the core content, reworded to explain that these claims continue to be made by some Serbian and Bosnian Serb academics and organisations. I continue to believe the wholesale deletion was ill-considered, although I am apparently in the minority. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 I reverted your third edit (WP:3RR), by which you intentionally ignored the discussion and current consensus, WP:BRD rule, as well violated the WP:RS. The lead already has statement "Gradually, in the 15 years after the war ended, a figure of 700,000 began to reflect conventional wisdom, although estimates range between 350,000 and 800,000", and if there similar considerations by Serbian scholars and SANU, then provide reliable source, and edit it in related section "Victim numbers", not article's lead.--Crovata (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, you are not in the minority. I completely support what you are doing. Users who are completely removing the material from the article are not acting in good faith. No one has explained why that material is unreliable or why it should be excluded from the article. So first those who think it shouldn't be in the article have to explain they reasons and present arguments, and second we need to hear from the users who added the matrial to the article. No everyone can be 24/7 on Wikipedia, we have lives. Tnx
Also I don't see any consensus, I only see two users who think that they have consensus because they commented before others have expressed their opinion. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Tuvixer Same activity. Is this how BRD discussions are held? By attacking other editors and admins they are not acting in good faith, and while ignoring the discussion (and the one held before) claiming that no arguments and reasons were provided? Think some notification and sanctions should come along if this continues.--Crovata (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Again, and on talk page.--Crovata (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Tuvixer, we already have citations to reasonably neutral, recent, English-language books by non-South-Slavic authors, that appear to be secondary sources, which examine the issue, examine the 700k numbers and other numbers, and reach substantially different conclusions. Using foreign-language sources which employ clearly biased lingo to stuff the intro is essentially making Wikipedia teach the controversy, but WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you're quite correct that 700 thousand victims and such is not really a fringe view, and it definitely should be mentioned in the lead. However: the earlier lead duly mentioned it, and even if it didn't, this is frankly a terrible way to introduce it. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Crovata has reverted my reworded insertion, claiming that there is a consensus here that the sources are not reliable. They are clearly reliable for what is now being said, which is that they claim things. Both of the organisations cited include as members a number of respected academics. No-one here has established that either organisation is unreliable, despite unfounded claims to that effect. What is it about them that is supposedly unreliable? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As I already noted before (Tuvixer did not see it apparently), the general tone of the text is incompatible with a reliable source (and also strongly suggests a partisan agenda). All those claims - well, at least those that are of any value - could be sourced elsewhere, with far more reliable and neutral sources. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67, I clicked on the first link and transliterated the title of this Commission to "Međunarodna komisija za istinu o jasenovačkom sistemu hrvatskih koncentracijskih logora za istrebljenje Srba, Jevreja i Roma u toku Drugog svjetskog rata". I then googled that, and it gave me 0 hits. That is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination, and I can't believe how you managed to miss that. I then also googled the "Jasenovac Research Institute", which is a site I remember seeing before, and found a book [4] from some Polish authors unknown to me that I see a snippet saying "In the context of escalating tensions in Kosovo in 1998, Diaspora Serbs formed a "Jasenovac Research Institute", designed to promote the "Serbian Holocaust" in North America." There's probably more in there, but I don't see it. There are numerous references to it from various seemingly neutral books, so they do seem to have some mindshare. However, then I stumbled upon another book [5] by Milan Bulajić where the snippet mentions some abuse of the organization by a Barry M. Lituchy, a lawsuit and a court injunction over the publication of some book of theirs, and there's more than I couldn't see. I googled that person in turn, and found further disputes about their reliability in mainstream Croatian press [6]. Surely we can have encyclopedic coverage of a topic by sources that aren't so egregiously controversial? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I later googled variations of the first phrase, just in case, and found that there is some press coverage, but under the title using the word koncentracionih and not koncentracijskih (eastern or Serbian form, rather than western or Croatian form). However, all of the coverage I found, even in mainstream press, is cursory (same sentence copied and pasted, probably agency material?), and/or about politics. I stand by my assessment that there is yet no proof whatsoever that this source rises to the level of a reliable source appropriate for use in an encyclopedia article, esp. not in this WP:EXTRAORDINARY context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • saw the EW notice on Guy's Talk page and came here to check this out. Thoughts.
  1. The content is terrible English and should not stand anywhere in Wikipedia until it is cleaned up
  2. The content is highly editorialized which is not appropriate in WP per WP:OR
  3. The content was added inappropriately only to the lead. Content goes first into the body, and only is added to the lead if it rises to the level of importance to be included in the summary, all per WP:LEAD. Efforts to add it back only to the lead, modified or unmodified, have no basis in policy or guidelines.
  4. The sources are questionable
  5. The removal was entirely correct per every content policy and guideline in Wikipedia, and the edit-warring restorations are 100% - absolutely - inappropriate.
  6. On contentious articles like this, it would be much wiser to work over the issues with sourcing and OR prior to restoring this - and again it should go into the body, not into the lead. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Everyone hello. I would like to start by addressing few issues that came up in the upper part of the conversation regarding the possible "ill intent" of my actions or possible organized attempt at change with ill intentions. The second one was brought up by Crovata, he termed it differently but I understood it as I worded it. There was no ill intent on my part in any way. I have seen the article and after going through its structure it seemed to me article was not neutral as it, in the very introduction part states number of 100.000 victims as the most reliable number while places figures ranging from 500.000-700.000 as conventional wisdom. I find even this phrasing problematic as it gives to the first number credibility while it debunks the second one as folk hearsay. Given 100.000 is also and estimate, it could have been placed with the rest of the estimates in the section far from the article start where the reader meets the figures of over half a million under title estimates, which again undermines the article neutrality. Its the same for the infobox , only figure of 100.000 feature without even mention of the 500.000-700.000 number. I see no reason not to follow example of the article dealing with Rwanda genocide where it states 500.000-1.000.000. The infobox is first or second thing a reader notices and its position and content(in case of this article) gives credit to only one estimate of victim numbers. USHMM and other English speaking institutions dealing with this issue are not the only ones or first to do so. What I did is bring data from sources who are not even fully Serbian in the composition given that Association Jasenovac(second source)Commission has members from Serbia, US, India, Italy, France, Russia, Czech Republic, Israel and UK. Four of them are doctors, four are professors. In regards to the authenticity of the mentioned sources you are free to visit their pages, Jasenovac Research Institute page is in English, easily understandable to everyone here. The site in Serbian language represents an organization from Banja Luka whose work focus is Jasenovac and genocide which happened there. Its staffed with intellectuals from the Republic of Srpska and Serbia. Second issue mentioned, by Crovata, of some sort of organized attempt is mere speculation on his part and is nothing more or less that what the Wikipedia itself registered. I added the text to the original article for the reasons mentioned above, and my colleague worked in the infobox due to the fact I'm new to Wikipedia. My suggestion is reflect both views on victim numbers in the start of the article and infobox, or mention both estimated victim numbers in the infobox but all other figures move to the Estimates section where they all can be presented to the reader together.--Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
By the "conventional wisdom" is considered general public belief during ex-Yugoslavia, a POV propagated by the political party at the time. It's an estimate nowdays still considered by a minority ie. mostly some Serbian figures, as already presented above, based on data manipulation. The estimations of "100.000" and "700.000" are not equally based on real evidence and are not equally credible, and thus cannot be given WP:FALSEBALANCE. It was already shown that claims by Jasenovac Research Institute are higly biased, while the second, with equally biased claims, having scholars from Republic of Srpska and Serbia doing research on events in Croatian territory which Croatian scholars should be doing is enough self-explanatory (due to scholarship in ex-Yugoslavian nations is often under influence of political nationalism). Being new to both English and Serbian Wikipedia, it doesn't justify the behavior of both you and your colleague, changing the lead and infobox balance on your own, ignoring previous discussions and the editorial community on an article which needs special handling. I advise you to learn how to properly edit English Wikipedia, and understand that Wikipedian principles here are respected, in comparison to Serbian Wikipedia where your colleague is an admin.--Crovata (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the problems here is the POV of some of the editors involved. My views on the academic consensus regarding the number of victims of Jasenovac is well known, and can be seen from threads above. However, what I have been objecting to here, admittedly in a somewhat ham-fisted manner, is the deletion of material that is not WP:FRINGE, because it is supported by a number of organisations and academics, almost all of whom are Serbs or Bosnian Serbs. I fail to see why their view, while a minority one, should not be included in this article and reflected in the lead. Superficial assessment of the websites of the two organisations and their titles does not reflect the fact that this view is supported by the members and advisors of the underlying association or institute, which both include a number of academics. For example, one of the advisors of the Jasenovac-Donja Gradina Foundation is Jovan Mirković, a senior curator at the Museum of Genocide Victims in Belgrade, Serbia. Other advisors to the Foundation include: the late Dr. Milan Bulajic, a doctor of law and Yugoslav diplomat, who was well published in English and other languages (60 books, published by houses such as the Wiesenthal Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) on a range of topics regarding the NDH and Jasenovac, and who gave evidence at the Hague in at least one case and also during the trial of Dinko Šakić (one of the commandants of Jasenovac); and Professor Dr. Srboljub Zivanovic, an anthropologist who is a Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. I don't think their views should be censored out of this article. They should be compared and contrasted and given due weight alongside the academic consensus. The article will not be comprehensive and as complete as possible without mention of their views. What is mildly amusing about this whole episode is that I have been accused many times of being a Croat or of being pro-Croatian. All I am trying to do here is ensure that a minority view is reflected in the article. Much of the above thread is misinformed and biased, on both sides, and frankly, does not do the editors involved any credit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Joy I would like to hear your views on this. We go back a while, and I respect your opinion. How can this minority Serb view be completely discounted and censored out of the article when we are supposed to compare and contrast academic views? Note I am not saying this should be given the same weight as the academic consensus, maybe 10-15% weighting against 85-90% for the academic consensus? Serbs were the victims here, how can we discount a view backed by Serb and Bosnian Serb academics? Are we seriously going to only accept Western and Croatian views? Especially Croatian ones, when Croats ran Jasenovac? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 The Serbian minority view follows older Yugoslavian view, it's not even "Serbian" as such. Including mention of "700.000" two times is exaggeration. No one said it should be discounted and censored, the discussion didn't even start from that point, yet for such claims should be found reliable sources, and edited in the respective section. Not all of those Serb and Bosnian Serb academics are reliable, and few notable scholars out of many doesn't make an institute as such reliable ie. their claims should be based on evidence, and often it was not the case. Hope you didn't generalize by equating Ustaše with Croatian nation.--Crovata (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You need to notice that the article discusses Milan Bulajić's view explicitly with no hesitation already, giving that appropriate context about his position at an institution. And then it says that his successor at the same institution no longer shared this view. The article also discusses Srboljub Živanović's contributions to this topic already, though in relation to an earlier historical period. His current position at that institution isn't mentioned - is it relevant to the topic now? Feel free to add it if so. That's what the encyclopedia should do - explain that there is a minority view, give due weight to its proponents stature and arguments, and then if the overall context, as supported by secondary sources, is that this is a largely obsolete and/or controversial view - say that. Expounding on the minority view into the intro, based on clearly sub-par source texts - is just not the right way to handle that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Again, if one takes a look at the March 10, pre-insertion version of the article, the intro already gives a solid exposé of the controversy with the number of victims, with estimates up to 800,000 mentioned, and the text explicitly presents Bulajić's views. That version of article is not disputed AFAIK, so I don't understand why are we having this discussion as if it were disputed. Subsequent additions only injected POV and questionable sources, while introducing nothing of substance (or, at the very least, nothing of substance that couldn't have been introduced in a much more encyclopedic way). GregorB (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


Since this is no longer about the original and unambiguously bad text, but edit warring continues apace, I have protected the article for a week. I suggest an RfC. Feel free to ping me if agreement is reached and nobody's responding to an {{editprotected}} request, I have nothing more to add here as my only input was picking up the ANI report. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to the Victim numbers section[edit]

This section could do with some work, and is having a negative impact on the way the victim estimates are being handled in the lead. I propose working through it methodically, identifying sources whose reliability is questionable, or where tertiary sources are used when the secondary source used by the tertiary source is available, establishing consensus for edits as we go. I believe the structure of the section is pretty good, being a summary of the whole section, then a series of subsections working through the chronology to the current estimates. There are a significant number of references to the total figures of those killed in the NDH throughout, and whilst these provide important context (particularly in the summary section at the top), I believe there should be a closer focus on figures for the Jasenovac complex itself, after all, that is the scope of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library[edit]

This source is a tertiary one whose reliability is not clear. It clearly says that it relies on the USHMM for its figures, so it should in my view be dispensed with, and the USHMM page on Jasenovac used in its stead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They actually have an article at Jewish Virtual Library that doesn't indicate a major problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no difference in the figures, what I am saying is that we should use secondary sources (USHMM) in preference to tertiary ones (JVL). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent citation styles[edit]

G'day all, this article has a bunch of different citation styles, quite a few errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, <ref> markup problems, and duplicate citations. Per WP:CITEVAR, I propose standardising the article using shortened footnotes linking to full source citations in the References section. It would also make the article easier to read in edit mode. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as approval. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, just go ahead. I think I had a go a while back trying to make sense of all those "State Commission Report" references, and became exhausted after a while. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of all victims is far more greater than shown.[edit]

It is over 700.000 of all victims: Jews, Gypsies, Serbs and other war prisoners. And yet it isn't the all accountable. It would be humane to change the number to it's 700.000 displayed on the Jasenovac memorial sign itself. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanović990 (talkcontribs) 12:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there were, maybe there weren't, but that is certainly not a good source, not even a valid source... FkpCascais (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Srbosjek[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Srbosjek to Jasenovac concentration camp (no opposition to the proposal in 30 days).

OK, here's the story. This article has been merged into Jasenovac concentration camp three times in the last 5 years. While the initial merge has been performed in accordance with WP:MERGE, in all three instances the article has subsequently been restored without discussion. So hereby I'm proposing a merge yet again, with the same rationale, so please support or oppose it below. GregorB (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. GregorB (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image captions[edit]

Regarding this edit, here's the story.


Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article. A citation is not needed for descriptions such as alt text that are verifiable directly from the image itself, or for text that merely identifies a source (e.g., the caption "Belshazzar's Feast (1635)" for File:Rembrandt-Belsazar.jpg).

Note that WP:WHYCITE does not say that sources present in file pages obviate the need to include them in an article where the image is shown. At any rate, if sources that support the caption are present there, it shouldn't be too difficult to provide them in the caption.

Note also that in this particular case, WP:MINREF #2 applies too, i.e. an inline ref must be used for:

Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with [citation needed], or any similar tag)

That's why removing {{citation needed}} is not an option here. GregorB (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jasenovac concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jasenovac concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern holocaust denial[edit]

A certain group of so called academics and historians in Croatia, claims there was no organized genocide (work camp) and even that Communists had two camps afterwards. They call themself "Society of 3 Jasenovac camps" with claims no Serbs were killed as genocide project there (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That website doesn't appear to be reliable, it is little more than a blog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Meaningless Statistical estimates[edit]

In the 1980s, calculations were done by Serb statistician Bogoljub Kočović, and by Croat economist Vladimir Žerjavić, who claimed that total number of victims in Yugoslavia was less than 1.7 million, an official estimate at the time, both concluding that the number of victims was around one million. Kočović estimated that, of that number, between 370,000 and 410,000 ethnic Serbs died in the Independent State of Croatia.[5][126]

Kočović was not a statistician nor he ever did any statistical job. Žerjavić, at that time, just finished a two year community college. Both played with assumption that the population growth in the Kingdom of Jugoslavia was at 1% yearly between 1931 and 1941. There were two population censuses in the Kingdom: in 1921 and in 1931. Comparing these two censuses data it's possible to see that the Kingdom population growth was at 2.4% yearly in between 1921 and 1931. These two, Kočović and Žerjavić, never ever explained this sudden population growth "drop". Their "statistics" is a frivolous play with the last Kingdom census data.-- (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@ -- Enough with the revisionist attempts to minimize the Serbian Holocaust. That doesn't fly on English-language Wikipedia. Kočović and Žerjavić work is respected and eminently reliable. Ironically, Žerjavić calculated an even larger number of Serb fatalities than did Kočović. Quis separabit? 19:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Minimize Serbian Holocaust? Revisionist attempt? What are you talking about?-- (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Communist rulers never ever allowed or conducted a complete collection of the WWII victimized people data. Now, seventy and more years after such collection is impossible since most of the data about people perished in the WWII time in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was only in the memories of the survivors. Croatian Ustashi burned birth and marriage records, the civil and the church ones, making this data collection difficult immediately after the war and impossible now. All this shows that all "statistics" are no more than a primitive plays with numbers. Both Zerjavic and Kocovic were charlatans.-- (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Zerjavic and Kocovic are accepted by reliable sources like Tomasevich. You, on the other hand, are not. This is a pointless polemic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Tomasevich is not a historian nor he could be called "reliable source". Reliability must be fact-based and this is not a polemic rather a warning that utter lack of data cannot be replaced by some charlatans' writings.-- (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You clearly need to read WP:RS. That is how we determine what a reliable source is on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did read WP:RS. Did you? Understood it fully?-- (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Sentences? Write complete? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."-- (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This info is sourced from Tomasevich's 2001 work. A reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Neither name nor year are fact-checking and accuracy.-- (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Tomasevich's work is published by a university press and has received high praise from fellow academics. That makes it reliable. I see no need to continue this conversation if you aren't willing to engage with a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete and dubious data should not be entered in the introductory[edit]

In the introductory it was stated:

The authorities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conducted a population survey in 1964 that reportedly showed a figure of 59,188 killed, but the findings were not published until 1989[dubious – discuss][citation needed].

without necessary assessment of the data validity. Here are two references pointing at the survey incompleteness and unreliability

  1. Victor Roudometof, Alexander Agadjanian, Jerry G. Pankhurst: Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the Twenty-first Century, Rowman Altamira, 2005 p. 80.
    Jasenovac was the biggest concentration camp in the Croat faschist Ustash state (1941-1945). The exact number of victims could never be established. In 1964, the Yugoslav government set up a report based on the available but incomplete source material. It counted 59,188 victims ...
  2. Milan Bulajić: Jasenovac: System of Croatian Nazi-Ustasha Genocide Camps for Serbs, Jews and Gypcies: "Balkan Auschwitz" Museum of Genocide Victims, 2001 p. 49
    According to the 1964 census, however unreliable it might have been, the number of victims of the Jasenovac death camps alone was 59,188 --Taribuk (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It was published in Danas, which I assume is a reliable source based on its article. If you have reliable sources that contrast with that information, feel free to compare and contrast what they say with what Danas said. That is how we operate on WP. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Tabloid Danas is not an academic source, not even source, therefore not reliable. We have already two academic sources stating that the survey is not reliable nor complete.--Taribuk (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Danas does not need to be an academic source, it needs to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies, which I suggest you read. Your opinion on its reliability is completely irrelevant on WP. If you would like some community advice on whether Danas is considered a reliable source on WP, then I suggest you start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I suggest you bring some reliable sources that say Danas isn't reliable, because that is what editors at that noticeboard will expect to see. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Posting half-truths supported by a tabloid which is the source of that half-truths is a gross violation of the Wikipedia policy. You got two valid and reliable sources pointing at incompleteness of the survey we are talking about. Your personal opinion about reliability of some source is irrelevant.--Taribuk (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I've told you where you can get a community consensus on the reliability of Danas. You could also post a neutrally worded RfC on this page regarding the mater that is in dispute. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as Bulajić is concerned, once he retired, the Museum has not defended his estimates, and a Museum researcher has collaborated with a Croatian researcher and they agreed on a figure of about 100,000. So his figure of 1.1 million is obviously a fringe view. They therefore should not be given any significant weight in this article, and should only be mentioned by way of describing the way the figures have been adjusted over time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not need consensus on Danas. I see (in the past) that you are manipulating the consensus by getting votes from your friends. The "community" gets usually reduced to a few of your friends. Here is what Wikipedia says
Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. As to Bulajic, the Museum bureaucrats is ruled by politically correct Croats, HDZ members. Their opinion about number of victims is irrelevant.--Taribuk (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on consensus. If you don't like it, do something other than edit Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jasenovac concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jasenovac concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)