Talk:Nikolaj Velimirović

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

On copyright[edit]

Copyrighted text on this page used with permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikola Smolenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 24 September 2003 (UTC)

On anti-semitism[edit]

The person described in this article has expressed vitriolic anti-semitic views and has often, orally and in writing, approved the holocaust.

During WWII he was brought to Dachau, as were other prominent European clergy, because the Nazis believed he could be useful for propaganda. There he spent approximately two months as an "Ehrenhaftling" (honour prisoner) in a special section, dining on the same food as the German officers, living in private quarters, and making excursions into town under German escort. From Dachau, he wrote:

"Europe is presently the main battlefield of the Jew and his father, the devil, against the heavenly Father and his only begotten Son... (Jews) first need to become legally equal with Christians in order to repress Christianity next, turn Christians into atheist, and step on their necks. All the modern European slogans have been made up by Jews, the crucifiers of Christ: democracy, strikes, socialism atheism, tolerance of all religions, pacifism, universal revolution, capitalism and communism... All this has been done with the intention to eliminate Christ... You should think about this, my Serbian brethren, and correspondingly correct your thoughts, desires and acts. (Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic: Addresses to the Serbian People--Through the Prison Window. Himmelsthur, Germany: Serbian Orthodox Eparchy for Western Europe, 1985, pp. 161-162) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

From this wiki Dachau had a special "priest block." Of the 2720 priests (among them 2579 Catholic) held in Dachau, 1034 did not survive the camp. The majority were Polish (1780), of whom 868 died in Dachau.
You are clearly mistaken. He was not an honor prisoner in a death camp ;) LOL! 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl (talkcontribs)
Re1: Priest block is not the same as Ehrenbunker. You need to get the death rate for the latter, not the former.
Re1: Yes, indeed, he was an Ehrenhafling, which does not translate well into "honour" prisoner but maybe a prisoner who is allowed to keep some of its honor or, rather, a specially treated prisoner. Dachau, moreover, is not a Death Camp. Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau), Chełmno, Bełżec, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka are. Dachau is a concentration camp.--As286 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. A nationalist and anti-semite. It seems to me that his antisemtism is particularly primitive (not that antisemitism can ever be anything else). The list does not end there. In his writings about Saint Sava, from 1935, Nikolaj said of Hitler that he managed to create something akin to a national German church and that, in that, he is similar to Sveti Sava. He was very close to Ljotic, a war criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markosavic (talkcontribs) 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
It has been suggested by some[1][2] that his anti-semitic writings from Dachau were in fact made under duress. Hitler did quite a lot to oppress Serbs, especially because they did so much to help Jews during his reign. According to the standard Orthodox Church records[3], he suffered torture and imprisonment at Dachau, not a comfortable life as a Nazi propagandist.
This should all be incorporated into the section regarding Nikolai's alleged anti-semitism. If it doesn't we've got some serious POV problems here, as it seems only the side regarding him to be an anti-semite is currently represented. --Preost 12:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just as a further note: The above text is copied verbatim from this website[4], which is hardly NPOV. So, if we're going to represent one POV, we've got to represent the other. --Preost 13:02, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Has Velimirovic expressed anti-semitic views in any other book but the one quoted? It seems that there are a number of them. For detailed discussion see East European Perspectives
Is there any merit in the claim that he wrote these words under duress? See Tomanic, M., 2001, "Srpska Crkva u ratu i rat u njoj" [The Serbian Church During the War and the Wars within It] (Beograd: Medijska Knjizara Krug).
Whereas it seems obvious that Velimirovic refused to collaborate with the Nazis he was very close to Ljotic, a fact reflected in some of his writing after WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markosavic (talkcontribs) 16:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

These accusations are without any ground. Of course we see that the accusers provide no proof of what they are saying, therefore it makes no sense to put effort into denying their fantasies. For example, let them first point out a neutral reference of this statement: 'in a special section, dining on the same food as the German officers, living in private quarters, and making excursions into town under German escort'. Ridiculous. Has anyone else heard of an honorary prisoner in Dachau? Kpant (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not call him "honorary prisoner" but "special prisoner". This meant privileged status, not honors. This point is made to counter the claim that Velimirovic suffered hugely in the camp - he did not, at least not any more than any other prisoner of his status did. Many others were in the same Ehrenbunker, normally higher-ranked enemy officers, but also others who needed to be "observed". It is relatively easy to check documents on Dachau and the existence of the Ehrenbunker facility, so no fantasies here. You can book apointments for Dachau library and archives at archiv@kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de --As286 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the topmost comment on this discussion page which says that he was honour prisoner, see above. I would be very grateful if you could point the documents I should search at Dachau which speak of Nikolai Velimirovic's dining on the same food as the German officers, living in private quarters, and making excursions into town under German escort (it would take me weeks to go through all the materials, but since you know exactly the relevant documents, that would be of great help). The mere existence of special bunkers for captured higher-ranking enemy officers does not mean that Nikolai was treated as one of them. Even less it speaks that he was in anyway collaborating with the Nazis (topmost comment says because the Nazis believed he could be useful for propaganda) - then it would turn out that all enemy high-ranking officers were collaborating with the Nazis, or were considered useful for propaganda. Kpant (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was not making the claim you quote and the person who did should provide proof thereof. I am simply stating that he had special treatment. If he had not he would have been dead. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with you entirely that special status does not mean collaboration but that claim was not made in the main article anyway (only above). The prisoner numbers for Ehrenbunker are filed as "NARA A3355 Dachau Alpha Reg 1 - 3" and "Reels 10-19 USHMM" with the relevant info being in Reel 12 (Dachau Reg 3 at NARA). I do not have the prisoner number but judging from that reel it would be between 78218 and 147536 for year record year ending on April 2, 1945.--As286 (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
the person who did should provide proof thereof - exactly the point. Thank you for the most useful references! We could only argue about how much he, as well as other prisoners of his rank suffered, but this would not be too fruitful, obviously. Kpant (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it would not be fruitful. The interesting point for me is that the Germans obviously thought him politically dangerous for one reason or another.--As286 (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to rem. archbishop Brussels-Changhai Jovan and Fr. Alexander Shmeman from article; they have no connection with disputed parts of article. --Ninam 22:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Please lets have in mind that all this acussations are made by communist regime in order to destroy his reputation. Anybody familliar with works of Nikolai Velimirovic knows that his filosofy is everything that anti-semitism is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.51.187 (talkcontribs)

Of course he is not anti-semitis. The quoted statement is false, there is no such sentence and it is constructed to destroy his reputation. He did wrote quite a bit about Jaws in that book but what he wrote about is, basically, that the evil that is spreeding throughout Europe, in the form of German WWII campaign and the state of mind in Jew leaders who qrusificed Christ 2000 years ago, have the same root. Ironically, he also said, but that is the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.96.244 (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged"[edit]

What's the point of some many "alleged" and "supposed"? You can see clear anti-semitism in his writings. --Dejan Čabrilo 20:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going through all of his works linked here to see that anti-semitism.
In [5], Jews are mentioned three times: "I am descending deep in my mind, and am finding Jews in it, who prevent entrance to you, my Light Tsar, and who filled all the world by stories about their escape from the pharaonic tsardom, which didn't escaped from them."; "Here is a good shepherd, who praises life of one sheep more than all Jewish sabbaths"; "Worse will happen to their people, which gave birth to them, than to Jewish people. For they had the example of Jewish people, and that didn't thought them".
In [6], Jews are mentioned once: "Orthodoxy was first defined by the Christian Jews and Greeks during the first eight hundred years."
I don't see clear anti-semitism. Nikola 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you believe St. John Chrysostom and other Christian Saints are anti-semetic as well just because they speak against Judaism... --KCMODevin 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

update is due[edit]

Someone please add to article recent (somewhat recent) canonization of this bishop by Serbian Orthodox Church. I don't recall exact date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.41 (talkcontribs) 09:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This biography is spotty[edit]

It's important to be careful of accusations of anti-Semitism in cases like this. It's nowhere near as obvious as some respondents appear to think. The case for his anti-Semitism is strong, but his support of the German national church does not entail this. Likewise does the dubious backstory of "Words from Behind a Prison Window" bring into question what can justifiably be taken from it. Moreover, the account of Velimirovic's early life is outright wrong, especially in regard to his education. I will update this article later and correct many of these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.82 (talkcontribs) 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nikolaj Velimirovic and antisemitic Ortodox church[edit]

From Dachau, this venerated Serbian priest endorsed the Holocaust: "Europe is presently the main battlefield of the Jew and his father, the devil, against the heavenly Father and his only begotten Son… (Jews) first need to become legally equal with Christians in order to repress Christianity next, turn Christians into atheist, and step on their necks. All the modern European slogans have been made up by Jews, the crucifiers of Christ: democracy, strikes, socialism atheism, tolerance of all religions, pacifism, universal revolution, capitalism and communism… All this has been done with the intention to eliminate Christ… You should think about this, my Serbian brethren, and correspondingly correct your thoughts, desires and acts. (Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic: Addresses to the Serbian People–Through the Prison Window. Himmelsthur, Germany: Serbian Orthodox Eparchy for Western Europe, 1985, pp. 161-162)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomascrow (talkcontribs) 00:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

This questionable quotation has already been mentioned and rebutted above. The Orthodox Church is NOT antisemitic! Individual members may have been—as many Protestant leaders in the past have also been—but such views are a perversion of the Faith. The Church itelf is based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ which teaches us to love and honour all people: "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus". There is nothing in Orthodox doctrine which is antisemitic. Disagreement with the teachings of Judaism is different from antisemitism. It is unfair to condemn the whole for the words and actions of a few. Hitler was born a Roman Catholic, does that make Catholicism responsible for the Holocaust? Reasonable people would say no. MishaPan 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

>According to contributor Thomascrow "this venerated Serbian priest endorsed the Holocaust" ; You are making a very serious allegation that is NOT confirmed explicitely by your quotation. Your are clearly confusing implicit antisemitism with the explicit endorsement of the holocaust. One can condemn and disagree with today's Jews without endorsing the holocaust. I challenge you to produce one single statement where Nikolai Velimirovitch explicitely endorses the holocaust as you claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.71.4 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai or Nikolaj?[edit]

Correct Serbian spelling is "Nikolaj", not "Nikolai", so I think the article should be moved to "Nikolaj Velimirović". Vanjagenije 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This Article is Terrible[edit]

This article is entirely devoted to some letter St. Nikolai supposedly wrote from Dachau. If the letter came out of a Nazi concentration camp, shouldn't it be taken into consideration that it was probably a forgery? Somebody who's been held prison in a concentration camp, plus helped people escape is logically not going to write a letter endorsing it. This article has been taken over by some anti Christian POV and seriously needs help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.190.80 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What "letter" are you talking about? No letters are mentioned in the article whatsoever. There is a book written in Dachau but there is no ednorsment of Dachau in it. Neither did Velimirovic help anyone escape from the camp. Please get the facts right.--As286 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did help people escape, you can read it in this article, as it reluctantly mentions the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.168.100 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He helped only one person, Ela Trifunovic, but that was in Serbia, not in Dachau, and he was not helping her escape from a camp but hiding her in Zica monastery.--As286 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exist proofs of an anti-Semitism on Velimirović. The anti-Semitism reproaches are the product of later generations, which today are, for instance, fed by radical right-wing as well by left radical anti-church circles. About the book "Through the Prison Window": Those authenticity is very argumentative till this day and this should seem in the article too. In fact, the Serbian-orthodox Church has made a big mistake with the publication of this book, and the Church can't add this mistake till this day (the main advocate at that time of the book, bishop Amfilohije, is today of one of the leading personalities in the Church - how absurd were his defences at that time for the book: We are too stupid to understand the words of the great Nikolaj...). Also the refusal of the Tripartite Pact of Velimirović and his support for the coup against the government of prince's regent Pavle on the 27th of March 1941 is absent. And that once what he should have said about Hitler in the 1930th - man, there we maybe could denounce half USA and Europe because of nazism if we want to be objective. I see the criticism against Velimirović superficially as political motivated, which have accepted absurd forms and by non-informed is to be checked very hard. Normally, it's my opinion.. C’est la vie --Carski (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Nikolaj wasn't a Roma. But I have stated here a source, and also if that may not be right, who wants to check this? For instead, a Shane Fitzgerald with his wrong citation about Maurice Jarre proves how easy it's to spread desinformations. Because of pro-nacism of Nikolaj today compete two extreme positions that Nikolas was one, and the sources therefor come from their own feather. One are right-wing radicals; the others are postcommunists, who after the case of the communism now want to be more West than the West itself, but they are still arrested in their old totalitarian mental structures. This here should be only an example how political ideologies did play with the true.--Carski (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research[edit]

The Anti-Semitism section of the article violates several Wikipedia policies starting with WP:ORIG. There is no source mentioned - who actually accuses Velimirovic of Anti-Semitism, thus leaving the author(s) of that section the sole accusers. In that way the WP:NEU policy is completely ignored.

Also, the accusations are based on the interpretations (of the author(s) of this section) of some of the writings of Nikolai Velimirovic, most of them taken out of context (that is against the WP:LTRD principle). We could easily explain how and why these writings can be interpreted in a different way, but, again - Wikipedia is not a place of original research.

To highlight some of the most problematic issues:

  1. From Dachau, this venerated Serbian priest endorsed the Holocaust - fully an interpretation of the section's author of some of the Nikolai's writings, which do not even mention the holocaust.
  2. he had a privileged treatment, being located in Ehrenbunker, being allowed to wear his own religious clothes, having access to officer's canteen and not being subject to regular regime which other prisoners had to endure - unreferenced statement which proved to be incorrect (see above discussion with User:As286: Many others were in the same Ehrenbunker, normally higher-ranked enemy officers, but also others who needed to be "observed" - so the high-ranking Nazi's enemies had the same treatment, nothing special here for Nikolai. (Furthermore, no reference is given to prove that he was indeed imprisoned in an Ehrenbunker. )
  3. In a speech in 1939, Velimirovic claimed that Serbs were of Arian race "by blood"... The reader cannot verify the source, but even if we could, that is not anti-semitism.
  4. Adolf Hitler decorated Nikolaj Velimirovic in 1935 for his contributions to the restoration of German military cemetery in Bitola in 1926 - again, no references given, and again - this is not anti-semitism.
  5. In a treatise on Saint Sava, he expressed his admiration for Hitler by comparing him to Saint Sava. again, no references, no anti-semitism...

Therefore, this section needs heavy rework, if not even complete removal. Kpant (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I agree with some of your points and had taken the liberty of correcting the article:
1. From Dachau, this venerated Serbian priest endorsed the Holocaust - fully an interpretation of the section's author of some of the Nikolai's writings, which do not even mention the holocaust.
Correct, that quotation is not an endorsement of the Holocaust but is an anti-Semitic outburst, by any standard.
2. he had a privileged treatment, being located in Ehrenbunker, being allowed to wear his own religious clothes, having access to officer's canteen and not being subject to regular regime which other prisoners had to endure - unreferenced statement which proved to be incorrect (see above discussion with User:As286: Many others were in the same Ehrenbunker, normally higher-ranked enemy officers, but also others who needed to be "observed" - so the high-ranking Nazi's enemies had the same treatment, nothing special here for Nikolai. (Furthermore, no reference is given to prove that he was indeed imprisoned in an Ehrenbunker. )
The statement is fully correct and corroborated by the church itself. He would have been allowed his clothes and would have had access to officers' canteen and most certainly was not subject to regular regime. Serbian Orthodox Church officially accepts that he was at Ehrenbunker and that he had better treatment. You can find it here: [7]. They even mention that he was in blocks 26 or 28. And today we know that that must be true since the chapel WAS in block 26. See Marcuse, H, "Legacies of Dachau" (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pages 221 et al. The photo of the chapel is number 41.
3. In a speech in 1939, Velimirovic claimed that Serbs were of Arian race "by blood"... The reader cannot verify the source, but even if we could, that is not anti-semitism.
Link to complete text added. It is anti-Semitic when you read the complete text, that should be obvious, as he (again) trashes the Jews in it.
4. Adolf Hitler decorated Nikolaj Velimirovic in 1935 for his contributions to the restoration of German military cemetery in Bitola in 1926 - again, no references given, and again - this is not anti-semitism.
Reference added. Agreed, in itself it is not anti-Semitic but it shows that Velimirovic was happy to accept Hitler's decoration in 1935, at the time where racial laws against Jews were fully in place in Germany.
5. In a treatise on Saint Sava, he expressed his admiration for Hitler by comparing him to Saint Sava. again, no references, no ::anti-semitism...
What do you mean no references? There is a reference to a book and the page where the text is located? The text is an endorsement of Hitler's efforts towards German church. Once again, shows support for Hitler.

None of this is original research. It is all verified by Nikolaj's source texts and other people's interpretation.--As286 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


First of all, thank you As286 for your recent contribution to this article. In my opinion, there is a progress towards neutrality and wikipedia standards, but there are some more open issues.

The first major issue is the name of the section: Anti-Semitism which suggests that Nikolai has been widely acknowledged as such - which is not true. What is correct is in the first sentence: some of his writings are viewed as anti-semitic. Yes, some people view his writings as anti-semitic. So, the heading of this section is much stronger than the more objective paragraph that follows. I suggest it is renamed to Controversies (I find As286 suggestion of Other Controversies a neutral and thus objective naming). Especially since we have a proof, a testimony, that he not only was not anti-semitic, but helped Jewish people escape the horrors of the Holocaust.

Other things which are not objective or incorrect:

3. - It is anti-Semitic when you read the complete text, that should be obvious, as he (again) trashes the Jews in it. - Completely incorrect! Not only he does not even mention the Jewish people in that homily, but what he "thrashes" are Ottoman Turks! This is a good example why the WP:ORIG policy actually exists. In this way I also made the remark 5. - which is only someone's (whose?) (mis)interpretation of Nikolai's writings, most likely out of context. We cannot neither see what Nikolai actually said, neither know the context in which it was said (which is essential, as we will see below).

2. - As286, you said yourself that higher-ranking Nazi enemies were kept in Ehrenbunkers, so in what way Nikolai was not being subject to regular regime which other prisoners had to endure? Did he receive a better treatment than the rest of the higher-ranking officers in the Ehrenbunkers? If so, please provide reference that supports such a claim.

At last, we should note that the main accusation for "Anti-Semitism" Nikolai receives because of his writings in the book "Through the Prison Window" in which he criticises the Jews. This is where the main citation comes from. However, this is all out of context. The online version of the book in Serbian can be found here [8]. If we read the whole book we can see the following:

  1. At the beginning, in the very first chapter, Nikolai criticises himself and his people (I would not be able to properly translate these passages, perhaps As286 can help me out): Грешили смо, и испаштали смо. Увредили смо Господа Бога, кажњени смо. Укаљали смо се сваким неваљалством, опрали смо се крвљу и сузама. Погазили смо све што је прецима било свето, зато смо били погажени. Имали смо школу без вере, политику без поштења, војску без родољубља, државу без Божјег благослова. Отуда нам пропаст и школе, и политике, и војске, и државе. Двадесет година патили смо се да не будемо своји, зато су нас туђинци поклопили својим мраком. Двадесет година ругања прецима, што су се приволели царству небескоме, због тога губавог нам царства земаљског губитак. Каквом смо мером мерили Бога и своје претке, тако нам је одмерено.
  2. Later, speaking about the justification of the terrible state upon his own people, and explaining why his people are punished more severe than the Jewish people in the Old Testament, Nikolai writes: Јевреји су сазнали за једнога истинитог Бога преко пророка и кроз чудеса многа. А Срби су сазнали за Бога јављенога свету у лицу Господа Исуса Христа. Према скали по знања Бога креће се и мера казне.
  3. In Chapter VII we read the following criticism of the Christians: Сви незнабошци мрзе Христа због хришћана. Сви га одбацују јер чују од хришћана како га се и они са ми одричу у име своје културе. А културне и крштене западњаке називају белим ђаволима. Трагом тих белих ђаво ла, тих поклоника културе, нових идолопоклоника пошли су и многи синови српски. Одричући се Христа они су на вукли гнев Христа на овај светосавски народ. Због тога смо били бачени у дубину једне мрачне, крваве и грозне пропасти.

There are many other examples, but this should be enough as we do not want to start an original research here. I just wanted to point out the context in which Nikolai's words were written. If anyone has more interest - let him read the book. It is not an encyclopaedic fact that Nikolai and his works are Anti-Semitic. Someone could claim that he is even more Anti-Serbian... Kpant (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Why not joint the two sections again and call them Controversies, just like in the Serbian edition? That should be a neutral-enough formula?
Re3: I stand corrected here. You are right, he is not referring to Jews at all. I did put the correct reference to begin with, but my comments relate to another text, called "Ljubostinjski stolov", available here[9], especially to paragraphs 30, 31, 35 and 40.
Re2: I mean that he is not subject to treatment reserved for normal Dachau prisoners which mostly ended up gassed. No claim was ever made that he was differently treated from other priests or officers.
I do not see how the points you raise make him look less anti-Semitic unless, perhaps, you want to say that what was said was said in a religious context and not as a political program. That may be so, yet even if you completely disregard anything said about the Jews, still a rather bitter aftertaste is left when you look at some of the other things he though came from Satan: democracy, trade unions, tolerance to other faiths and pacifism. That sounds like something any of the serving patriarchs of Orthodox Churches worldwide would be ashamed of. So, maybe the term "Controversies" serves best, since there are other things that are hugely objectionable about him.--As286 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Controversies is a correct heading for this section, and your suggestion to merge the two sections seems appropriate. I am editing it accordingly:
  1. Point 3 - removed, was completely incorrect. (In the other homily you mention, Nikolai does not say anything more about the Jews, than what we can read in the New Testament)
  2. Removed unreferenced part that instead of presenting Nikolaj's writings, presents interpretation by an unknown author. (He was puzzled why the Europeans showed so much tolerance to them and could not see through their "ploys". He also criticized European scientific achievements in the field of particle physics for being anti-Chrtistian and possibly introduced by Jews. Further, he criticized the "mania for cleanliness" as being introduced by the Jews. (Here he used an archaic pejorative term 'Civutin')).
  3. Contrary to popular perception of Velimirovic as somebody who was actively engaged in saving Jews from Nazi-occupied Serbia, only one such action has any basis in history. - Well, that is not contrary to the belief that he was saving Jews. Adjusted.
  4. Removed this paragraph: In a treatise on Saint Sava, he expressed his admiration for Hitler by comparing him to Saint Sava. He said that Saint Sava had already done for the Serbs what Hitler was doing for the Germans. If someone thinks this is worth mentioning, please provide the correct quote of Nikolai (the text can now be found online, see the references in the Serbian version) instead of your own interpretation. He is praising the German leader, who being a simple craftsman... realized that nationalism without faith is an anomaly, a cold an unstable mechanism.
I do not see how the points you raise make him look less anti-Semitic the point is that if the criticism of the Jews is taken out of the actual context, and put in a different context - it will sound very differently, but would not convey the meaning that the author originally had in mind. Especially when one adds his own interpretation to the words - he ends up criticising himself... When we see that Nikolai is in the same way, or even more harsh, speaking of himself and his own people, the Serbs, we could sense (or at least assume) that the purpose of this criticism is not discrimination or raising prejudice against the Jews, or the Serbs, or the European.
I do not know whether some people (Patriarchs or not) would be ashamed to say what Nikolai was writing and saying, but that is not relevant for us here, as the encyclopaedic approach would be WP:LTRD. Thus, let us only present the facts, and leave the interpretations to the reader.
Kpant (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Above I tried to explain why I removed the paragraph In a treatise on Saint Sava... I would kindly suggest again: if there is a need for that paragraph to be present, the neutral way would be to present the quote of the original speech and a link to it, instead of offering someone's (and not mentioning whose) interpretation.
I also removed the paragraph starting with In his "Through the Prison Window", he claimed that because the claims explained in the first 2-3 sentences are about the above quoted paragraph, what is the need to repeat the same and explain 'what the author wanted to say' - let the readers judge by themselves. The same should be done with the other statements of the same paragraph: let us see the original, not the interpretation of the author of this wikipedia entry. (Also there is no need to add IHTUS as reference - the whole book is available online, link is provided, and IHTUS is not a reliable source anyway).
Kpant (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph on Saint Sava is there to throw light on the controversial point of Velimirovic and Hitler. The claim is that he was sympathizing the Nazi leader, at least in the 30s. This is controversial, as is clear from the text, and therefore it is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the section titled "Controversies". The reference to the original text is provided, I do not undestand what the problem is. Wikipedia does not only need to link to texts online, it can link to books, articles, other web pages, etc. This is a reference to a book written by Velimirovic, not to a book written by somebody else. The two sentences are conveying facts not opinions.
Duplicate sentence in the section about Velimirovic on Jews removed.--As286 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I added the quote from the speech on Saint Sava. Of course, I fully agree that this is controversial. However, I'm a bit puzzled, since the reference is a book about Nikolai, not by him... I don't know how to make sure that it is something that he actually said, not something that someone else is trying to present as his words?
I believe it is necessary that the original quotes are presented, instead of interpretations, because many people today attempt to distort his words and the history - as we can see even in some of the comments above on this discussion page, and was even stated in the article itself.
Kpant (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

As others already noticed, this biography is spotty, this article is terrible. This is mostly because lots of accusations are numbered in the Controversies sections which are not referenced at all. I added some citation needed marks at several places. Unless proper references are provided, it would not be fair that these accusations are left in the article.

Requested controversies referenced now.--As286 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I also tried to contribute to the other sections of this article, so I guess we're improving.
I see that you added the correct references, but it's hard to see from these references what is claimed in the paragraph:
In his "Through the Prison Window", he was puzzled why the Europeans showed so much tolerance to the Jews and could not see through their "ploys". He also criticized European scientific achievements in the field of particle physics for being anti-Chrtistian and possibly introduced by Jews. Further, he criticized the "mania for cleanliness" as being introduced by the Jews.
Similar, although less violent remarks can be found in New Speeches under the Mountain[5], The Ohrid Prologue[6] or Indian Letters[7]. The references here are to the online editions of these books (which is a great reference), but where can we see, especially in the Prologue what is claimed in the previous sentence? The prologue consists of the lives of the saints, and I'm very curious where in the lives of the saints we can find, for example criticism of the European scientific achievements in the field of particle physics for being anti-Chrtistian and possibly introduced by Jews?
Kpant (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In his "Through the Prison Window", he was puzzled why the Europeans showed so much tolerance to the Jews
See Chapter LXXIII (in the middle), Chapter XLIV (in the middle), especially LXXVII
and could not see through their "ploys".
See XLII (Where he is talking about "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a proven-fake and an antisemitic pamphlet.
He also criticized European scientific achievements in the field of particle physics for being anti-Chrtistian and possibly introduced by Jews.
See Chapter XLIV
Further, he criticized the "mania for cleanliness" as being introduced by the Jews.
See Chapter LVI
The sentence beginning with "Similar..." relates to all of the statements prior to it, not to the ones about science. In other words, the claim is that anti-Semitic remarks can also be found in these and other works, not that claims about science and/or cleanliness can be found in them. I have put in slightly above to avoid confusion.
As to the Prologue, the anti-Semitic remarks can be found, among others, on the following "dates": 21. February (item 1), 23. February (item 1), 25. February (Beseda), 27. February (Beseda), 4. March (Beseda, where he is talking about "Jewish dark and criminal instinct"). This is only a few and there is much more, I can continue if you like, the work is jam packed with antisemitic remarks.--As286 (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or Historical facts?[edit]

Interestingly, Nikolai is accused of Anti-Semitism for his writing in the Prologue - the lives of the Saints. As286 pointed out several examples, among which the life of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna. There, Nikolai writes: The Jews especially hated Polycarp and endeavored to have Polycarp burned alive[10]. But is this statement Anti-semitism or historical fact?

The early christian writings support the latter, as in the Martyrdom of Polycarp we read: Jews, who dwelt at Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable fury, and in a loud voice, "This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, and the overthrower of our gods, he who has been teaching many not to sacrifice, or to worship the gods." Speaking thus, they cried out, and besought Philip the Asiarch to let loose a lion upon Polycarp. But Philip answered that it was not lawful for him to do so, seeing the shows of wild beasts were already finished. Then it seemed good to them to cry out with one consent, that Polycarp should be burnt alive. [11]

This testimony has been preserved in the biography (or hagiography) of the saint, not only in the Orthodox Church, but also in the Roman Catholic Church [12], [13], the Protestant Church [14], the Coptic Church [15], and in fact in every Christian denomination.

Therefore, does it really make sense to attribute Anti-Semitism to Nikolai because of these writings? Kpant (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about "Jewish dark and criminal instinct" (above) or "Jewish darkness" (same date, same chapter) or (on 11 February in "Beseda") where he is saying that Jews are incapable of spiritual thinking or (on 11 August in "Beseda") where he is saying that all Jewish women are esentially immoral? (on --As286 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the whole sentence you refer to (above): Certain Christians daily, imperceptibly and, more often,unconsciously, would for a while like to eliminate Christ from the darkened and evil instinct of the Jews within themselves. Is this a criticism of Christians or Jews? Obviously - of Christians.
If we read the Prologue for today [16] we see glorification of two Jews: Saints Peter and Paul. It would really take me a lot of time to point out each page where Nikolai actually glorifies the Jewish people, among them not a few women.
The homily on 11 August you also mention: "Instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness …and burning instead of beauty" (Isaiah 3:24). This is the word about extravagant and wayward women, about the daughters of Zion who have become haughty and "walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet" (Isaiah 3:16). Let me remind you, although it should be obvious, that these are quotes by prophet Isaiah, they are written the Old Testament, and Jews themselves regularly read these passages in the Jewish services the Synagogue! I guess that would mean that the Jews are also Anti-Semitic?
Obviously not. From our previous discussion on this page we saw that most, if not all, of the allegations of Anti-Semitism are made without any ground - pointing to texts that were obviously anti-semitic but Ottoman Turks were mistaken for Jews, or embracing of the Holocoust which does not even mention the Holocoust (and written by a man himself imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp)!
Every sober mind would realise that there is an attempt to blacken the image of Nikolai with such allegations. Why is that - I don't know. But if these allegations are left in the main article, I doubt that any time soon the neutrality disputed mark will be removed from its top. Kpant (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the Jewish "instinct" described in the passage? It is described as "Dark and evil". What does that epithet say about Velimirovic? It says that he believes Jews, not some Jews, but ALL Jews to be dark and evil. He does not say anything about whether he refers only to ancient Jews or also to modern but we should be in no doubt that he also means modern because in other passages and also in "From the Prison Window" we can see that he refers to them in the present tense. The fact that the quotation is used for a comparison with Christians changes nothing here.
St. Paul and Peter are no longer common Jews, they have made themselves Christian and this is the only reason why Velimirovic can stand them. Quite contrary to what you say about him glorifying the Jews, Velimirovic does not lose a single opportunity to trash them. Most often, the epithet he uses is "treacherous" or "evil" or "deceitful" or "duplicitous" or "god-murderers". I dare you to find any general spots where Jews are praised as people without immediately also being accused of one thing or another.
As for Isaiah, you are making a caricature of the whole point made. The quotes are Isaiah's but the anti-Semitic rubbish being poured after the quote is Velimirovic's alone.
Nobody has blackened Velimirovic. He has blackened himself with his conservative, anti-European, anti-progressive, anti-democratic, anti-Semitic and anti-scientific diatribes. If you then believe that all this is "without any ground" than you deliberately chose to close your eyes. This is an attitude you have a right to, naturally, but others are free to read the originals themselves. Today there are even peer-reviewed scientific studies on his antisemitism (for instance, a book was published by Byford last year), some of which are quoted in the references and available for everyone to read. So, in other words, one can safely say that it is well-documented and proven. As for neutrality, you still do not have a single statement in the article which is not supported by sources or the original text. For all those you quoted, sources were added. As a matter of fact, every point about his antisemitism now comes with a reference!
So I say once again, say which ones are without ground and they will be supported or removed (just like the ones about Holocaust or Turks were!)
Antisemitism is prejudice or hatred towards Jews. Any "sober mind", as you say, can recognize this not only in some of Velimirovic's works but in all of them where Jews are mentioned.
As for why there is an attempt to "blacken" his image, I have a very simple explanation. It seems that there are people out there who believe that he is a black spot of shame on the pages of Serbian XXc history, a person Serbs, whether they are of Orthodox Christian religion or not, ought to be ashamed of, somebody whose writings poorly reflect not only his own religion but also the spirit of his own people who, by and large, died together with Jews, in the same concentration camps, from the same enemy. Somebody who was an ardent supporter of a person who helped send thousand of Serbs directly to their deaths (Ljotic). In short, somebody who is better forgotten.--As286 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If you were to examine the sources which you say It seems that there are people out there who believe that he is a black spot of shame on the pages of Serbian XXc history
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neither of which are Serbian.
If you need to be reminded that he was a prisoner in what you call "extermination camps" along with other Jews then this conversation is pointless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp#Clergy
Dachau had a special "priest block." Of the 2720 priests (among them 2579 Catholic) held in Dachau, 1034 did not survive the camp. The majority were Polish (1780), of whom 868 died in Dachau.
Clergy were not 'guests' at Dachau so stop pretending it was so. Whatever he wrote in Dachau cannot be taken seriously as if you click to see the Nazi guards outside the shut gates at the camp then you should also understand that Nazis at least censored his writings.
Velimirovic praised hitler in 1935. Time magazine did that too! Is time antisemitic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl (talkcontribs) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Re sources/Helsinki Committee: you do not have to have Serbian sources to claim that he was antisemitic. You only need to have reliable ones. If you find that these or other sources are not reliable, then please say why and we can discuss it and remove it when needed.
Re Dachau: Dachau was not an extermination camp. It was a collection camp. People who died in it mostly died of disease, malnutrition, abuse or by suicide. This is, of course, not to suggest that it was a pleasant place. I acknowledge the fact that many priests died there too. However, when last I looked at the records, the death rate among ordinary priests as opposed to political prisoners was much higher. In other words, if you were a political prisoner, like Dozic and Velimirovic were, you would be shielded. Literature quoted in the text supports this view. If you have other sources, please quote them/add them in the text. Moreover, he was not in the ordinary priests' block but in Ehrenbunker.
Re Dachau writings: to suggest that what he wrote in the camp cannot be taken seriously is simply unsupported. You have no evidence that there is anything unusual with the text, no evidence for coercion, neither does it look very different from his other texts. So, no whitewashing, please. Nazis would have had no interest in his religious writing. Had they wanted to, they could have simply falsified his work, or made him write whatever they wanted while they had him under house arrest in Zica for several years. They did nothing of the kind.
Re Hitler: This is a fact that was quoted in support of him being controversial, not in support of him being anti-semitic. What one makes of it is one's own business. I personally do not think much of it as I believe that there is not enough evidence and the remark relates to Hitler's attitude to German national church, not to national issues in general. As for Time Magazine, it had Hitler as Man of the Year in 1938, not in 1935, but in a negative sense, not positive. They had Stalin in 1939 and Khomeini in 1979.--As286 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for Isaiah, you are making a caricature of the whole point made. Absolutely not true. The quotes are Isaiah's but the anti-Semitic rubbish being poured after the quote is Velimirovic's alone. I don't want to paste the whole homily here, so here's just a link [17], so that anyone interested can try to find the alleged, but not existing anti-Semitic rubbish being poured after the quote. The topic of that homily is About how ugliness comes with sin, it's a general observation, and of course, nothing special about the Jews there, Nikolai doesn't even mention them (apart from the above quoted citation of prophet Isaiah, a Jew himself, which we can be seen here [18] in whole).
In regard to your other assumptions concerning what Nikolai can and cannot stand, and the like - I would not make any comment, not because I agree, but because that would set us far off the course of this Wikipedia.
So I say once again, say which ones are without ground and they will be supported or removed (just like the ones about Holocaust or Turks were!). Yes, you were fair to remove these statements, my sincere and due respect for that!
This is an attitude you have a right to, naturally, but others are free to read the originals themselves. Fully agree! That's why I also contributed with some original quotes, replacing the interpretations.
What is still not clear: who is accusing Nikolai of Anti-Semitism in the Prologue and where? If it's only here on this Wikipedia, than let's have in mind that this is not the place for original research. In this respect citation and references is missing. Stating the Prologue is Anti-Semitic and providing a link to the Prologue itself, obviously brings nothing, as anyone else can say the Prologue is not Anti-Semitic, and provide the same reference... Kpant (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For example: Byford, J. (2006). 'Teorija Zevere: Srbija protiv ‘novog svetskog poretka’. [Conspiracy theory: Serbia vs. the New World Order]. Belgrade: BG Centar, chapter on "Ratne godine u zatočeništvu" and also Byford, J, "Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemtizma", Helsinski odbor za ljudska prava, Beograd, Ogledi, Br. 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by As286 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully, you will find the time to modify the main article appropriately. Please provide the actual accusations by Mr. Byford (in relation to his works including the Prologue). Thanks. Kpant (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
All added.--As286 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all: who is accusing Nikolai of Anti-Semitism in the Prologue and where? Kpant (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The revert is due to the following reasons: a) the article intro must be short, normally it is one or two sentences. I have nothing against all the theological praises but they are not part of intro, b) his healt did not fail as a result of his stay at Dachau. Only one source was ever quoted for that and that is certain Russian monk who participated in Velimirovic's funeral. This monk was never identified or named and even if he had, all he could testify was that Velimirovic was in poor health at the time of death. This was never under dispute anyway. c) his doctorate at Columbia was "Doctorate of Sacred theology". This degree is, by definition, honorary in Columbia. Desmond Tutu got it too and it was normally awarded to dissident preasts for political reasons, not for their scientific work. If it were for scientific achievements it would have had to have been based on a S.T.D. thesis and such a thesis is not registered at Columbia.--As286 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

a) Not true. There is no such rule. Change this Pope Benedict XVI if you are so certain.
b) That reference is valid, allow the reader to judge how valuable and relevant it is.
c) You remove a referenced statement and replace it with an unreferenced? I also have nothing against the way you wrote that paragraph, but please provide the source of information. Kpant (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Intro_length
b) It is not valid. It has been refuted, among others, in at least three sources already quoted, one of which is a peer-reviewed source. I have added a reference from Patriarch Dozic himself in which he claims that they were not tortured.
c) The source is completely unreliable. For instance, it quotes a doctorate from Oxford where we know that he prepared it in Oxford and received it from Berne. This is so old that people wrote about it already in the 90s! But I have a simple test: if his PhD was research-based, you should be able to produce a reference number under which that PhD was filed. For honorary degrees there are no such things. Columbia theology theses are held in Burke Archives [19] and his is not there, although the library holds his other works.[20] --As286 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says up to four paragraphs, not one or two sentences. Kpant (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Release from Dachau[edit]

It seems that the statement Contrary to the reports that Velimirovic was liberated when American 36th American division reached Dachau, both he and Patriarch Dozic were actually released in 1944.[15] is factually incorrect. What does the actual source say, we cannot read, it is not properly referenced. Kpant (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not properly referenced? You are welcome to go to National Library in Belgrade and find it there. The page number, year and volume are both quoted. Just in case of confusion, I have added another source for that claim.--As286 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that any time soon I'll be able to visit Belgrade, so if you have that issue at hand and have the time and will - please quote exactly what is stated there. I came to doubt, as various sources claim that after being moved to Austria and Slovenia, both Dozic and Velimirovic were returned to Dachau. No valuable references were provided to prove such a claim, though, and therefore that has not been put in the main article. Kpant (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Tags[edit]

I reverted the tag to the beginning of the article as neutrality is not disputed only for the controversies section but for the rest of it as well. See other comments in the discussion.--As286 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else has been disputed, at least not at this discussion page. Especially since I lately edited the biography not just a bit. What is most disputable is your original research material here, which although has been mostly (even here on the discussion page) proven as incorrect, you insist on keeping.
You have been reverting everything that doesn't fit your standpoints. Kpant (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The religious mumbo-jumbo is disputed and all the theological attributes in the intro are disputed and the general glorification tone of the first part is disputed. Original research material? Have you even counted how many outside references have been provided? More references per paragraph than in most articles. Seven studies are quoted which all claim he was anitsemitic of which one is a book. The overall claims of antisemitism are quoted in footnote 6 of the section of antisemitism and they do not need to be repeated for every claim in the paragraph that follows. What has been proven incorrect? What are you talking about? Quite the contrary, for every citation you wanted one was given, both from the outside source and from Velimirovic's own writing, for every thing you questioned a quote was given, often from Serbian Orthodox Church itself. I am sorry that you hero is being criticized but that's life. If you feel my edits are subjective than report me to the admins and let them decide--As286 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What religious mumbo-jumbo?
What theological attributes?
If the link to the Prologue is a reference proving the Anti-Semitism in the life of St. Polycarp, or in the Homily about sin, than that is not a good reference, and yes, these were your observations - which as you could see, can easily be proven groundless. But that's not what wikipedia is about.
I don't think the admins are sort of police round here. And I don't think that our collaboration so far, has been that terrible. But I do intend to ask for a neutral opinion whatsoever. Kpant (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I also do not think that it has been bad at all :) To cut the long story short: note 6 and other notes are the "references" you ask for. I have provided the original text that relates to claims made in these references but these are not my claims although I do agree with them.--As286 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You have again marked the whole article as disputable, although were not able to point out what was disputable in the rest of the article. Kpant (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is written like a religious tract. In specific the second parapgraph and a whole section called "Hymns" have little or no place in an encyclopedia or need to be properly sourced or reformulated. As it is, it is not Wikipedia standard. I am not denying your right to dispute the Controversies section but neither can you mine to challenge the POW-style in which this is written. The way to handle this is to open the question to others and see what they think about neutrality. After the issues has been talked through the users or admins can rearrange the tags or remove them. It was not me who put the original neutrality tag at the top anyway. The same goes for factual accuracy, as you will see from most of the edits in the past couple of years.--As286 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that might avoid our edit-war regarding this. Let us leave this tag to stand as it has so far, at the top and let us see what the others say in the next couple of months. Maybe we will be able to get to a neutral version then or an agreement as to what it is? And that way we will deal with both your and my issues here? If the opinion is that it should go down only on Controversies then let it so.--As286 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The disputed tag was added there more than a year ago. Since then, the article has been changed significantly. I have been working mostly on the biography (which is not written as a religious tract) and am not very happy with the fact that everything I contribute gets automatically tagged as disputed. The disputed tag itself says "see the talk page". When we take a look at this talk page we can find no other disputes, but about the controversies section. If I'm wrong - point out what else has been disputed.
It does not make any sense to mark something as disputed, and then to wait for a dispute to happen. Then we should replace the tag with another saying this article/section will eventually be disputed - which is not reasonable. Kpant (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Your biographic information is not automatically labeled as POV but the introductory section is and so are other things.
1) The second paragraph in the introduction consists of nothing else but (unsourced) theological claims. The Wikipedia way is to say "NV is considered a very important theologian" or something in that style and the to give notes to the sources. Quoting what various priests have said about him is manifestly POV-ed. Saying that Justin Popovic called him the thirteenth apostle means absolutely nothing in terms of encyclopedic information. The only people it means anything to is those Orthodox Christian who know Popovic and his work, who also know Velimirovic and who have at least basic familiarity with the Gospel. To general audience it means nothing.
2) The section on Hymns is completely non-encyclopedic. First of all, no sources are quoted and we have no idea who wrote this. The title would suggest that Velimirovic wrote some hymns and that this section tells us some facts about them. But that is not the case. The section simply reproduces the hymns which praise him. If that is not POV, then I do not know what is. "Everlasting guide of the cross-bearing Serbian people" and "master for all nations"? Once again, the Wikipedia way would be to say something like "Velimirovic's popularity led to him featuring in religious and popular texts and iconography" and then to Wikisource the hymns you have there.
So, please, until that is sorted out, the tag remains. And I do not want to delete your stuff and start an edit war. Hence the tag. --As286 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been no dispute concerning the introductory section on this discussion page, and that is the first prerequisite for marking a section as disputed. Thus, your insisting on keeping this tag at the top is not justified. Kpant (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I AM DISPUTING IT! We have had half a page of discussion here and you cannot just force your views on the rest of us. Remove it once more and I am taking this straight to the administrators as abuse. Try to respond to the two points I have raised instead. I have now added half a dozen more sources, in footnotes to "Antisemitism", which are not Byford. If you are having problems understanding this, refer to Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup--As286 (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are only making up excuses, you started disputing the introduction today. And even the hymns were added just yesterday. But, nevermind. These two issues you mention are now removed, and the disputed tag accordingly set.
Just for the record, please make it precise: what are you disputing in issue one - the citations by the famous theologians? Kpant (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't remove the citations. Put them back, just put it in the right context! Our ultimate aim should be to remove all problem tags so let us work towards it. This is what I suggest and you let me know if it makes sense to you (and the others) or not:
a) Make a reference in the introductory passage to the fact that NV is well-respected among the theological writers. I am NOT disputing that. I am disputing the article being turned into a theological tractate. One sentence or two would do. As I said, something like "NV is considered a very important and well-respected theologian". Then put the actual quotations which you have now removed either in the footnote or in the separate section, if you want. This is why I suggested a section called "Importance" but it need not be called that.
b) Put a sentence about NV being praised in hymns (with references to who wrote them) and other places (he was also painted and put on frescoes and numerous souvenirs even) and then Wikisource the original hymn texts.
c) Tell me which parts of the Controversies section you find POV-ed and I will do my best to reference them as they should be or remove them when there are no references from third sources or when wording cannot be changed.
Does that sound reasonable?--As286 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jovan Byford as Merely the Single Source for the "Anti-Semitism" Accusations[edit]

Have you even counted how many outside references have been provided? Most of the references (on the "Anti-Semitism") originate from a single person: Jovan Byford. I don't know if he tries to gain popularity by writing sensationalistic titles about famous people, and whether he has indeed studied anything apart from the "Anti-Semitism" of Nikolai Velimirovic, but again - I don't mind, let the reader realize that on his/hers own.

I doubt that there is a publication by Jovan Byford which is not cited as a reference here? Almost, one could assume that Mr. Byford entered the allegations here by himself... As a most wild guess, one could ask if As286 is Mr. Byford himself? Kpant (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 :) No, he is at Open University, I am at another one. We do not know each other.--As286 (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He is cited as one of the academic sources because he did serious research on the topic and published it academically, so he is a good source. That, of course, does not mean that he cannot be criticized. It would have been possible to cite endless newspaper articles and such (and some are cited) but that leads nowhere except, perhaps, to accusations of journalism.--As286 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On authorship of Through the Prison Window, on Concordat and other changes[edit]

I reverted some but not all changes by user Carski. It is OK to dispute the authorship of Through Prison Window but references must be provided for that and these presumably cannot be just hearsay. Until evidence is provided to the contrary, the book is presumed to be his. I, for once, do not see it as falling out of his usual writing style.

The bit about Hitler and Concordat was taken out as it grammatically did not make sense but it would certainly be good to know more about the context in which remarks were given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by As286 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

According to episcop Atanasije Jevtic and other, this book is NOT from Velimirovic. The church also has never officially explained that the book is from Velimirovic. Unfortunately, the book has agreed in popularity; however, the controversial passages were in later versions not published. Basically there are two groups which absolutely stick to Velimirovic as the author: left-wing radicals and right-wing radicals. Sorry... The one to attack Christianity, the others in their campaign against democracy.--Carski (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Expand[edit]

ON THE PERSONALITY AND WORK OF THE BISHOP NIKOLAY VELIMIROVIĆ--Zoupan (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Nikolaj (Velimirović)Nikolaj Velimirović – This is the name under which he is best known. On all of his books, his name is printed as (Bishop) Nikolaj Velimirović, not (Velimirović). The "(Velimirović)" form is the form officialy used by the Serbian Orthodox Church, but as per WP:COMMONNAME, the title of the article should be the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, not the official name. The "Nikolaj Velimirović" form is certainly more common in English language sources, which can be seen on the covers of his books ([21]), and books about him ([22]). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV/advertisment[edit]

I placed POV tag in the article. Here is what I find in two sections: What happened at Žiča, at Ohrid, and at Sveti Naum we do not know but can imagine. In the U.S. and Canada, we know, (...) and For besides being a holy man and wise and wholly devoted to Christ he was a great patriot and had been so all his life, believing fervently in the destiny of his own people. He belonged to Serbia and was the greatest spiritual leader emerging from the Slavs in our time but in a larger sense he belongs to the world. In England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and America, and even in Germany where he was a prisoner the many who came in contact with him can now realize they had the rare blessing of having met a living saint. Alex discussion 04:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nikolaj Velimirović. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikolaj Velimirović. 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) 23:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)