Talk:Magnum Crimen/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

This article is about a book which in Serbian runs to more than 1000 pages. A significant proportion of the article is concerned with a single incident - one which, like so much else in the book, has a truth at the heart of it but which has been fancifully embellished. Unfortunately at March 2008 most users of English-language Wikipedia will not be able to form their own judgments as Magnum crimen is not available in English.

Most Croats would challenge the veracity of this book and many serious Serb historians would hesitate to defend it. Whatever period it claimed to cover, it is largely a catalogue of alleged WW2 atrocities. Novak may once have been a catholic priest (the article offers no evidence of that) but by the end of WW2 he was a committed communist and his book was published three years into Tito's communist regime. As a wholly detached observer who tilts towards the partisans on the evidence I've seen so far, I would still have to say that this book was clearly skewed to suit Tito's purpose.

The article as it stands needs the qualifications I have added or it could tend to mislead. Kirker (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• All above is just someones bad attitude toward this book - which does not justify questioning the text neutrality or its accuracy. The book is available in the libraries around the globe and whoever wants to get insight in it - is able and free to do that. Accordingly, I removed these tags.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

.Let me see. Your position is right but criticism or questions about this books is wrong ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hey my poor friend - stop spitting at others. Then, maybe, people will take you seriously.

--?--Silver Spring, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.132.152 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you so there is no spitting :)--Rjecina (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user with IP address 72.75.24.245 could not be more wrong. I do not have a bad attitude to the book. From what I have been able to understand of the bits I've tried to decipher, and from what others have told me about it, I agree with much of what Novak said. But that is a personal opinion which I must have managed to conceal so well that 72.75.24.245 was confused.

What I did have a "bad attitude" about was the article itself, which was very different when I put the tags on, from what is there now. I still think that more references would help and I would certainly welcome input from anyone who has read the book and who can express his/her thoughts in English. But the other tag I put on has outlived its purpose. Kirker (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please, get this book in your hand, read it - and then try to edit this article. All you know about this book is the number of pages and the title and author.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I own a copy. It is widely available all over Serbia and BiH. My problem is in trying to read it. It takes me more than an hour to translate one page. Of course, this just shows the absurdity of Wikipedia carrying an article about a book that exists only in Serbian.Kirker (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small point, but if this unhelpful article is moved anywhere it should be to Magnum crimen. In English usage and when referencing the Latin original, Magnum Crimen is usually appropriate. But the book (which is what the article is about) was published only in Croatian/Serbian, as Magnum crimen. This is the correct capitalisation for that language. (Thus in Serbia for instance Manchester United is often transliterated to Mančester junajted.) Kirker (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up this hopelessly non-encyclopedic article. Hopefully both sides in this ongoing dispute will find it acceptable. Below I will copy-paste for historic purposes the section I have removed. It has no place in this article.

One excerpt from the book describes an Ustaše raid led by a Catholic priest on the Serb Orthodox villages of Drakulići, Šargovac and Motike, near Banja Luka on February 7th 1942. It describes how a brother of the Petrićevac Monastery, Tomislav Filipović, entered the classroom of teacher Dobrila Martinović class with twelve Ustaše, in the manner of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

He requested that a Serb child be brought to the front of the class; Radojka Glamočanin, was selected. Filipović then slit her throat, and said to the Ustashe:

"Ustashe, by this in the name of God I baptize these degenerates and you should follow my example. I am the first to accept all sin onto my soul; I will confess you and absolve you of all sin.

Then, he ordered the Ustashe to kill the children as they ran around the snow-covered schoolyard; the Ustashe would cut off a nose, an ear, an eye, or similar. A total of 2,730 Serbs, including 500 children, died on that occasion.

That text may have a place in the articles on the Ustaše or Filipović but not here. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• All these are very generic disqualifications of the book - not telling anything about this book content: http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_feb98/surmanci.html Viktor Novak’s book Magnum Crimen, which was written to accompany Tito’s 1946 show trials. The purpose of both the book and the trials was to implicate the Church in the crimes of the Ustashe. As a result, Novak’s book has to be viewed with caution

• http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral240.html In a later bloodcurdling legend, which starts with the infamous propaganda-documentary book by Viktor Novak Magnum Crimen, in which there was no distinction between fact and fiction, Filipovic became "Brother Satan", a mythological prototype of a Croat-Catholic butcher.

• Please avoid putting in this article something that has nothing to do with this book re-view

--72.75.24.245 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talkpage. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP 72.75.24.245, firstly, solo edit warring against consensus is unhelpful, and in my experience never ends up with a pleasant outcome for the solo editor. Secondly, you are already way over 3RR on this article in the last 24 hours. Thirdly, please do not remove references from an article. Fourthly, since nobody but you seems to think there's anything wrong with the references, perhaps you might wish to re-evaluate your stance on this. Lastly, to be more constructive, rather than edit warring to remove references, what could you add to this article to make it better? Many thanks for reading these remarks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• What you put here are not references - they are baseless disqualification of this book. The only reference in the case of book review is the book itself - what you are diligently removing.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a book review. It is a Wikipedia article. And I strongly believe it is appropriate that a Wikipedia article about a book should draw the reader's attention to some reactions to it. Your POV that these are "baseless disqualification of this book" is just that, your POV, which, you may have noticed, is a POV that only you seem to hold. Again I'd suggest, in the spirit of improving the article, rather than just edit warring against obvious consensus, perhaps you could spend the next few days while the article is semi-protected finding things to add to it to make it better than it is. Just a suggestion, though. It's entirely up to you how you decide to behave. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yes - the disqualifications are baseless for not being ever supported by academic/scholar society around the world. This book is widely referenced and cited in many scholar works and books and putting a nonsense from the internet page is an insult to a reader. What I am removing is just a POV - written by someone without proper academic background or even a proof that (s)he ever read this book. You also did not read the book - did you? --72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, for heaven's sake, instead of indulging in incivility, find these remarks/reactions from "academic/scholar society around the world" and add them to the article when the SP expires. What could be simpler. I would absolutely welcome that. Let's make this article better, but we can't do that by squabbling. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am on the side of anon user - it is better not to put a bad text (meaningless opinion) into this article than keep it in. I've ordered this book though inter library loan. As soon as I have it in my hands - I'll write an initial review of this book and be open for a discussion.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • • Article (and book) is meaningless opinion so 1 more or less ....--Rjecina (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the sourcing of this article. I added a decent source from Google books for the commissioning of the book, but the other two sources are down right bad. Meet E. Michael Jones, the author of the piece from Culture Wars. Any magazine as blatantly anti-Semitic as that cannot be considered a reliable source. As for the second, I'd be much more comfortable if we at least cited the proper journal rather than linking to a "fair use" copy of the article. AniMate 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the second does cite the actual journal, the Feral Tribune, with a date, then links to the fair use copy... Otherwise, yes, you are right. We can all do some collective research and find better stuff, I'm sure. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind for E Michael Jones but let's not get into judging sources. Whatever other views he has, the article referenced in this instance is measured and thorough. Trenchant it may be, but the views expressed fall well within the bounds of fair comment. The problem with this article - and it's a fatal problem - is that it's self-published.Kirker (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found an article that is also measured and thorough, and this times it is from a reliable source. Unfortunately, we have to judge sources as reliable or not. An article can be measured and thorough, but it's validity is absolutely called into question when the publisher is deemed to be unreliable. This article is by a well respected, though sometimes controversial, author who is notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Hopefully this brings a little more balance, though I'll continue to do some internet digging. There is still alot to dig up here, though I am certain to have access to a ridiculously large amount of sources in the fall since I'll be teaching part time for at least the next year. The hilarity of me as a college professor aside (and if you really knew me you'd be laughing as hard as all of my friends are), I will have unlimited (and blessedly free) access to all of the academic research tools and repositories I seem to run into when doing research for articles here. I'm far to chintzy to pay for access, so hopefully I'll be able to contribute more thoroughly once I've figured out how to fit teaching and grading projects with all of the current work I have going on. I'll definitely be seeing a time crunch, but at least I won't have to worry about reading papers and grading test (god bless the fine arts). AniMate 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In this article there is edit warring. Our question about this problem is simple: do we need sources which are speaking about this book ? It is time that we vote so I am calling all users which has edited this article during last 20 days.

• Yes we need sources which are speaking about book because other articles about historical books like for example The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire are having similar comments--Rjecina (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. If there are sources about this book, there is no harm adding them. And if controversial statements are made, then they need to be backed by sources as well, so says WP:V. I do not see where there could possibly be a problem. I don't see an edit war, more the edits of a single IP user vandalizing. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition to my previous statement and in regard with the allegations brought forward by the IP user, I will add that the article itself of course needs to reflect all possible major views of the subject and that for example a review by someone who is clearly biased will be marked as such while retaining it. Like "...has been criticized by Catholic clerigy men as..." instead of "...has been criticized..." --SoWhy ^Talk 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Of courseHowever, they must be reliable and support the claims that are being made. AniMate 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Naturally, yes, just like everything else on Wikipedia, it relies on reliable sources and verifiability. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Participating on the Talk:Miroslav Filipović brought me to the subject of this book. So,here's one for the consensus. Kubura (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As an outside editor, just a simple comment. The introduction needs more explanation as to why this book is important. There is a neutral description of what the book is about, but it's importance isn't clear, at least to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am trying to figure out, if Dr. Novak notable on his own. It doesn't feel like it, so I wonder if there should be a background on the author and the book's history before going into detail of its contents (which I think are actually distracting). We should not be writing a book summary but more of a description of why this is a notable, important book. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

J. A. Comment added a large amount of text which Rjecina promptly deleted. In fairness to J. A. Comment, the article is not flagged as controversial, but nevertheless it would be far better to discuss such a major revision here first.

It would seem that J. A. Comment has done as promised and acquired the book and studied it, and come back with information derived from it. That is just what I had been hoping someone would do, so I don't want to see those efforts wasted. I hope he/she will propose here some additions to the article, particularly concerning the book's structure and the author's intentions as Novak himself has explained them in the book's introductory pages, I for one would welcome that and I am sure the article will finish up better because of J. A. Comment's contribution.

In the meantime I support Rjecina's reversion. I just wish he would occasionally make a tiny effort to do something constructive, instead of being so lazy and negative all the time. Kirker (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

...lazy, negative, and all too willing to find some way to remove stuff critical of the NDH etc. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of J. A. Comment's revision being restored once it is properly sourced or, in other words, once proper citations are added. It is clear he/she has read the book, and it is a good edit in substance (although the last section adds nothing). So, J. A. Comment, leave the last section out, but otherwise please properly reference your material and then it'll be a good addition to and a welcome and substantial expansion of the article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In beginning of J. A. Comment version we are having: "Dr. Novak says I have wanted to write something different but because of my misfortune all collected material is destroyed because German occupying forces has wanted to kill me". Now we will trust that he has worked 40 years but lost collected material because he is very, very important person which is on German black list together with important serbian politicians and military leadership in April-May 1941 ??? :)))

In content section J. A. Comment is writing statements of Novak like truth, not like Novak statements. If nobody know how to write content section my proposition is to read article about controversial political movie Fahrenheit 9/11 (section Content summary). I am sure that I ask to much with this request !

In Serbian propaganda Novak is called Catholic priest which is writing about crimes of Catholic church and Ustaše. Sad truth is that he is not Catholic priest or in best case scenario he is member of failed try to create "Yugoslav Catholic church" independent of Vatican. This church has been created and abolished by Kingdom of Yugoslavia after agreement with Vatican. Magnum Crimen is best example of his toward catholic church controled by Vatican--Rjecina (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've promised, I finally got the book, read it over a month, and edited this article following the knowledge I acquired by reading it. Nevertheless - my work was vandalised under a frivolous pretext Essay and change of controversial article without discussion on talk page. revert to user:DIREKTOR version by Rjecina. The book review is not an essay, controversy of the text is possible to discuss only among people of the proper academic attitude and who read the book.

So, I am going to continue to work on the text improvements. All people of the proper academic background and editorial ethics - who read this book like me - are welcome to improve the text and discuss the review content.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said at your talk page, if you can properly source your edits with inline citations then I will be happy to revert anyone's attempts to remove your material. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• To J. A. Comment
  I replaced c, s, z by diacritics where I found it appropriate and turned References into Footnotes. I hope you'll find it ok. I tried to get a digitized copy from the University of Michigan library. Refused - the library sources are accessible only to the University students and their faculty staff. How did you get it? A hard copy or a soft (digitized) copy? Thank you!--71.252.106.166 (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1986(?) edition (hardback) is widely available in Serbia and BiH, maybe Croatia as well. From memory it costs about 50KM in BiH. I'd be happy to get you a copy and post it. If interested, email me at magnum.vrbas@spamgourmet.com, which is a short-life address. I could then email you the price and cost of postage when I'm over there later this month.Kirker (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the user is using books like sources and sometimes he is not even knowing to spell writer names isn't exactly encouraging--Rjecina (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That could simply be a translation error. I agree with Alasdair. If you have inline citations, they are appropriate for any article here. In fact, they are encouraged. Rjecina, how can you revert to a version asking for additional citations over attempts to add more citations? What sort of reasoning is that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just making a guess but I assume Strossmayer refers to Josip Juraj Strossmayer. If so, could someone rewrite that with some context? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, Josip Juraj Strossmayer --J. A. Comment (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of progress I've tried editing the new material from J A Comment which has also had some editing from an anonymous editor. I have also put a tag over the whole article, which is appropriate if the new stuff is allowed to stay in.

J A Comment and his other editor need to understand that as this book does not exist in English it is very important to be specific about what is said where. Some of us may then be able to turn to relevant sections of the book and struggle through them. Very few people consulting English Wikipedia would ever be able to wade through the whole book. Also in some cases a reference to the book itself will not be enough. For instance if Novak's statement that he was one of the first10 people arrested by the Germans in April 1941 is supported by no other source but himself, that statement must remain a claim rather than a fact.

I would ask J A Comment to address any further work to the present version. There will be points that I have misunderstood or got wrong no doubt, and I hope he will correct accordingly. But what I have done may show more clearly what gaps he needs to fill in order for his contribution to come up to the standard required in an encyclopaedia.Kirker (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This version of article if writen with 29 controversial statement by dubious editor ???

Rewriting can't be OK because there is needed for discussion. This group of editors (Kirker, AlasdairGreen27, Animate and DIREKTOR) have supported in article Miroslav Filipović argument that established version can't be changed before discussion and agreement on talk page. You are now changing established version and this is against your own words !!! Because I am sure that this users will respect own words I am reverting to established version. .--Rjecina (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Rjecina was perfectly happy with the anonymous editor's version. He reverted only after I attempted to bring it nearer an encyclopaedic standard. My only concern is that I don't want J. A. Comment to be discouraged, and this seemed a reasonable way to show him what still needs to be addressed if his work is to survive in the article. If improvements are not forthcoming over the next week or two I would support reverting to the pre-J A Comment version. It plainly isn't satisfactory as it stands, hence the tag I put at the top. Kirker (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that when it is OK for you we will use 1 rule and when it is not OK for you we must change rules ?????--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, do you actually have an opinion about how you want this to look or are you just automatically against everyone else? Kirker, if the only source for the information is Novak himself, it needs an inline citation. There is a lot of POV about what he "proved", what the Church "did", as opposed to what he claims. This looks like the kind of thing that is going to have a lot of criticism so there should be a section for that too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Ricky, you were applying your edits to a terrible version which had been restored by an anoymous editor, IP 71.252.106.166. This version incorporated a lot of new text put in by J. A. Comment, one of the very few people I have ever encountered who has actually read this huge book. Unfortunately his English was very poor and the whole lot was hopelessly unreferenced. Accordingly I rewrote it and added numerous citation tags, and Rjecina added a citation template on a section that I didn't really address. I have taken the article back to that version. Obviously it can't survive in perpetuity so cluttered with tags, but I am hoping, as I said earlier, that J. A. Comment will now understand more clearly the points he needs to address. Maybe others too will be able to fill in some of the gaps.

To answer a point you raised somewhere, Novak studied as a Catholic priest but became an ardent Titoist and a fairly significant figure. His book is extremely important for the documentary evidence it cites, but is blatantly propagandist in its handling of some of the anecdotal evidence. It is easily the most controversial book published in Serbian/Croatian since WW2, and with good reason.Kirker (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can see which is the most stable version to work off. I'll review and revise on the proper version. As to its importance, I think it really does need an explanation in the introduction. It just feels like "this is what it is", without why it is important (which really makes people WANT to read the article). Does anyone have a secondary source that describes it as "controversial" or as a critical documentary or something? There are some secondary sources at Google books but most aren't in English. Anyone have a look at them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682, you are stil in my view working on an inferior version. Look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnum_Crimen&diff=prev&oldid=237366100. Of those two versions, DIREKTOR's surely wins hands down. But you are amking it difficult to go back to that baseline. Kirker (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too eager to jump in, I guess. Ok, I have to get to sleep right now, but I see what you mean. DIREKTOR took care of my biggest concern, the POV and fact tags that are needed. I'll leave it to everyone else on who to handle it. A decent amount of text is the same so I can just cut and paste the pieces in again tomorrow. Personally, I can live with his version of the content and the background but I think I revised the Perception section better. There isn't a need to keep reverting versions. Just take the better parts and insert them in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking (your question about me) it is not possible to say in 1 situation:"Revert to established version. First we must discuss changes and then we will change established version" and in another situation:"We will change established version and then we will discuss". I am simple person and I am asking that there is 1 rule for all situations. In the end more or less we (I and Kirker) are having agreement about this article, but I will always protest if somebody is using double standard

I am sure that we all will support your neutral version of article. When I say we all I am thinking about established users.--Rjecina (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad he's far from neutral. He's already ruined a number of good editors here and continues to do so even now. There is no need to keep revising. The article is fine right now. Any attempts to destroy it further should be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.17.153 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring again, let's forget about arguing baselines. We have a version now that's a mix of things. If there were things from prior versions that you want, copy them over. I copied a good number of User:DIREKTOR's paragraphs (most of which haven't been changed at all). There are a lot of details that need to be filled in. I'd almost rather eliminate everything that's not sourced and fill it in properly. On the other hand, it seems that everything I touch is universally disliked. Since I seem to be on a different timezone from everyone else, if it's all gone again, I'll take it as a sign that this is not the article for me and go elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it's good if everyone get out of the habit of using "ibid" in the footnotes. While it's fine now, there's a good chance of inserting additional notes out of order and it becomes impossible to follow. Instead, learn to name your ref tags so you can cite them multiples places quite easily. I'm going to bed but I'll attack the ibids in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - when I become more familiar with this html editor - I'll use its feature the best way I could. Feel free to attack the ibids. Also, I'll take into account later your request for additional citations.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm more of a wiki-gnome anyways so do the refs however you want and I don't mind adjusting them later. You have the much harder part than anything I'm doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, be advised to

a) name two chapters and their page ranges - as a proof that you ever had this book in your hands or

b) support your knowledge by quoting anything from this book.

Otherwise - I'll not honor any objections to my work coming from those who apparently never read this book - as to the review content.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I did not get that book yet. Hope - pretty soon. Any advice how to get it fast? I made some minor corrections of your text - I believe I did it right.--71.252.106.166 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll point out that we should really be looking for secondary sources that comment on the book itself, not so much on editors who have read the book. Otherwise, the article feels like a lot of original research with everyone arguing their own personal interpretation of the book. The article needs only a short summary of the facts alleged and would best be served if we discussed its importance, what people take from it, WHY it is controversial (I don't have the background so I can't tell for the life of me), etc. I hope I'm being clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

71.252.106.166, as I said in a preceeding section, I could get you the book and posst it on 24 September but I can't tell you till then how much it will cost. (It's not expensive.) To J. A. Comment: I appreciate that you have read the book, which is why I want your input to survive. The article certainly needs an informed sunnary of the book's structure and content. Even some of those Serbs who regard it as their bible think it is concerned only with the crimes of WW2. But I agree with Ricky81682 that the article should primarily be concerned with the book's status, strengths and weaknesses, relying of course on published sources. Kirker (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what is gained by Bundy's remarks. "A Jugoslav historian's lengthy indictment of clericalism in Croatia over the past half-century. The latter half of the book, covering the period of "independent" Croatian state of Ante Pavelic on the basis of a wealth of material from many sources, pays particular attention to the role of Achbishop Stepinac." just feels like a fact of what the book is and what it discusses, not any opinion at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The section title is - Perception of the book as an academic reference. So, Bundy's note about this book is a perception of the book. I wrote initially this section in order to counteract a number of blind rejections of this book. I've noticed that someone proposed complete removal of this section - which I can accept as a rational proposal. If other editors agree - then it is ok with me to do it - under only one condition: any part of this section shall not be restored anywhere inside the book review. For the same reason, the external link must go away - it is a blind rejection of the book, too.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that the book pays attention to Stepinac's role is nice, but there isn't anything really there. Is the book one of the few that discuss Stepinac? Is it unique in how he talks about Stepinac's role? Is it controversial in its description of him? That is something that helps to add to the description. I'd rather expand upon Bundy's remarks, but as is, it doesn't add anything and the entire article is full of random tangents and unnecessary language that really takes away from the focus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Kljakic's remark that the book "had been placed by the Vatican on the Index librorum prohibitorum, and anathema had been pronounced against the author" really criticism per say or just facts of what happened to the book? I think it would be better to simply have a "aftermath" section mentioning the Vatican's response (which there should be more of). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you are altering my text beyond my initial idea. That way you are making the rest of it meaningless.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume Ricky81682 is not challenging inclusion of the fact but is suggesting it should go under a different heading? Even so, I think it's OK where it is. The Holy See's reaction is relevant to a section dealing with the book's perceived academic status.Kirker (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• See my note related to the W. Bundy's note above.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw above. My point is that there should a separate section on the Vatican's response, if there is a particularized response. Otherwise, just saying "the Vatican didn't like it and did this" doesn't need Kljakic's name in the article. We can just say the official Vatican did this and source Kljakic without his name being in the article but only in the footnote. Do you see the difference? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put back the good old tag for two reasons: 1. Ibidem is used for centuries for this purpose - to point at a reference previously mentioned 2. Magnum Crimen is a bit confusing - we have three distinct editions 1948 (full version, author Dr. Novak) 1960 (abridged, author Dr. Novak) and 1986 (authors Dr. Novak, Blazevic J) bearing the same title.

However, if some of you like the 'ibid.' replaced by 'Magnum Crimen' - let him/her to revert my changes.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I should think ibid is well understood by people here, J. A. Comment, but using it in this cyber environment can cause problems. If you are interested in understanding the formatting that Ricky81682 suggested, the easiest way is to find an article that uses it and look at how it was fif ormatted to finish up like that. This approach works better because the numbering and sequencing of references, including any added subsequently, is applied by the system and not by editors. Kirker (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kirker. I work in law. I know what ibid means. That's not my point. The issue is the article needs secondary sources discussing the book, which would better be interwoven into details about the book. There, the ibids become a headache later on. I see that pretty much everything I tried to do has been reverted so it looks like I'll just stay away from editing the article itself since I'm clearly working against consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to archive this but why not write the version you are using? While it's a little odd, it does make sure the page numbers are accurate. From the look of it, all the ibid are referring to the 1948 version. I hope all the page number are from that version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that the anonymous user reverted everything I did so I'll explain something in particular. The inclusion of Rački, Trumbić, and Radić is distracting and just random. The whole paragraph is ridiculously POV and you can't just start talking about individuals without some context. There isn't a place for them to be fully explained (like, for example, their full names) and the article should be such that someone who doesn't have a clue about this stuff can figure it out. It shouldn't require a massive knowledge of the entire conflict to be able to understand. It's about a book. Period. The article is not the history of the events. It is about the book, what people think about the book, and the reason why the book is significant/controversial. That should be the end goal, not let's write a long overview of how the book describes the events and then a fight over whether the book's description is accurate. That belong somewhere else completely. Frankly, I'm tired of working on articles like this when it's clear that nobody is working off everyone else like you are supposed to and instead just reverting back forth between versions. If you think something in particular was wrong, just change that. Don't revert everything I did just to make a point. That's why these kinds of article never improve. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are clearly just a Vatican sympathisizer who is trying to whitewash the article. The article needs to be clensed of your attempts to POV it. We need more about what happened then, not less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.17.153 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to ignore you. If someone wants to add to his criticism, go right ahead and I'll discuss it. My point is there are a number of facts in the article (Rački not allowed to attend the Strossmayer's funeral for example) that I question. Is that even in the book? It reads like just some facts that someone else is throwing in for the sake of having the fact in. Again, the article is on the book, not just what happened then. That's the problem with the article as a whole. There are way too many facts of what happened which throws off the entire thing. Frankly, I'd almost rather have a one paragarph description of what the book is talking about with the rest being discussion of what people see in it. We could have subsections discussing particular things the book discusses (Strossmeyer, Stepinac) and how those items have been accepted/criticized. That would be a much better article. Look at how top articles like Candide are formatted. A decent description of its contents with large amounts of its background, it's style, what it uses (that here really deserves to be mentioned separately), its reception, and its ultimate legacy. Plus, you'll see the formatting (and ibid issue) I was discussing earlier. I imagine that we could find a lot of discussion about its reputation and legacy (and really move forward) if we got away from the "what parts of the book belong" arguments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• My point is - as it was suggested by J. A. Comment - get the book, read it and then come back with some valid knowledge. Arguing about something you have no knowledge - is pointless here. I've finally got the book today. I started reading it. When you are going to do the same? --71.252.106.166 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to provide some context in the article or explain it here? The fact that someone has to read the book to even remotely understand the article or to even discuss it is part of the problem here. And people wonder all these articles are a minefield that nobody bothers with. I guess I'm the next one to be done with them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do not know what are you talking about. How someone, who did not read the book, could ever edit the same book review? I'll repeat - read the book, then support your edits by the knowledge you acquired that way.--71.252.106.166 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The contributor above, who declines to identify himself/herself in any way, has made Ricky81682's point splendidly, while exposing in all its glory his/her own failure to comprehend. The fact is that an encyclopaedia is NOT the place for a book review. It's surely a bit late for reviews anyway - the book was published 60 years ago. This article should say in what form and editions the book exists, explain its scope, summarise its structure and content and - in this particular case - say something about how it has been received and about the ocntroversy it has provoked. All of this should be factual, not opinion, and all facts included should be supported by published sources. The article cannot depend only on input from editors who have read the book because that constitutes original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia.

J. A. Comment has been able to add to the article because of his having read the book. But I was in favour of his edits surviving, only in the hope that either he or some other editor might thus be prompted to add appropriate citations. If citations are not forthcoming, then J. A. Comment's edits would have to go, if normal Wikipedia standards were to be observed.Kirker (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange that this article should have been put under protection when discussion was underway on the talk page and little editing was being done, whether edit-warring or not. Kirker (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of a larger discussion. Not the way I would have liked things to have gone, but that's where they are now. If there is consensus for something, then use editprotected and someone will put it in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that I, as an admin, can still edit the article. If anyone finds something blaring they'd like to include (or just actually have something useful to add), just inform me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected for one month, per this ANI thread. EyeSerene^talk 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary about Magnum Crimen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've removed a number of unnecessary ^{[citation needed]} - especially from this paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd like to advise Ricky to get some valid knowledge in order to demonstrate what is controversial in the text. Any futher removal of the text 'justified' by pointlessly calling upon some rules - is damaging and unethical. As to the 'It is an encyclopedia article about a book.' above - i'd like to advise AlasdairGreen27 to carefully read his/her 'wonderful example'. This wandeful example is a creation of knowledgeable people who definitively read the book and have a bit broader knowledge of the subject - compared to one coming from the very book. --J. A. Comment (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have reverted your changes. The fact that you are even willing to remove the addition of an infobox and restore various spelling mistakes that were corrected says a lot. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added the info box. Please, do not revert i.e. do not remove really good text - do necessary spelling corrections only.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the above discussions. Unsourced information is not allowed in the article. You have been warned now. If you again revert the article, I will block you per the ARBMAC decision. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that two users who contributed most of the knowledge (I'd say 90%) contained in this article were blocked indefinitely. WP:ANI was created and just three hours later they were blocked. These people even did not have chase to respond to these accusations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Magnum_Crimen_issues. Really a sad way to exercise admin licenses.

As to the *Unsourced information is not allowed in the article* above - the source is given (the very book) but one of administrators simply cut off almost half of the text he does not like to see in this article.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Brzica milos, I'm a bit of a stickler for English grammar and vocabulary, as it's one of the rare subjects about which I actually know a few things. So please allow me to ask you a quick question, if I may. How come in that sentence you've used, quite incorrectly in this context, the phrase "the very book"? I'm only wondering as JA Comment caught my eye by using that phrase identically, also incorrectly, less than 48 hours ago [4]. And how come your first edit for about 3 weeks happens to come the same day as the other two got banned? Just wondering, you know ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The similarities are striking, not only in grammar but formatting and phraseology. It's circumstantial, but probably enough for WP:SSP...

Brzica milos, both Don Luca Brazzi and J. A. Comment proved themselves unable to edit within the framework of Wikipedia's policies. Both editors are intelligent people, and both have a good grasp of the English language, so their refusal to learn from - and abide by - the many explanations and copious advice given to them can only be interpreted as intentional. They have exhausted the patience of their peers, and unfortunately learned the hard way that trying to impose one's own editing rules on the Wikipedia community does not work; it's a shame that their subject knowledge can no longer contribute to the development of this article, but they have only their own intransigence to blame. However, if you believe there has been an abuse of administrator powers, you are welcome to raise your concerns at the Administrator's Notice Board. EyeSerene^talk 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brzica miloš! The whole ban was an outrage, a travesty of justice, a parody of all things good and fluffy in this world!! :P Gents, the above is a textbook sockpuppet post, if I didn't know better I'd say he wanted to get figured out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the checkuser didn't pan out. This is mostly meatpuppetry, or just similar location. A lot of these are coming from the same city so I wonder if someone just isn't hopping around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong case Ricky. The one you've linked to was Rjecina's tiresome attempt to say that various good faith users that disagree with him/her were puppets. The current case is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Don_Luca_Brazzi. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I advise this language expert to type "the very book" in the Google Search - that way he might learn a bit more about this phrase. --Brzica milos etc (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase is slightly unusual, I'm afraid, in the context you've employed it. Something like "the book itself" would be more appropriate (or even "the very book itself"). However, that's not really relevant - do you have any suggestions to make for improving the article, or are we waiting on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Don_Luca_Brazzi? EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27 you are really trying my patience. I have not protested stalking of my account made by User:PaxEquilibrium because of our long and interesting discussions. You have been warned earlier that I will not accept your stalking because I do not see anything interesting in that ! Your have declared earlier your wiki mission , but this must stop. Next time when you comment, revert or something third about my edit in article which you have never edited I will ask your blocking. Administrators in this discussion are witnesses of this stalking warning. --Rjecina (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

About check. We are having older check which is confirming that Brzica milos etc = Velebit, but because of my "fishing in the dark" for other users check is declared failed. My intentions is to connect earlier blocked users (J. A. Comment and Don Luca Brazzi) with Velebit--Rjecina (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, regarding your ridiculous "warning", I will continue to edit and to revert as I see fit wherever I feel like it. Do not flatter yourself that anyone would take you seriously enough to 'stalk' you, least of all me. And if I am trying your patience, well, believe me it is not on purpose, as you very rarely cross my mind, but if it is the case then I would recommend that you go and find another hobby that is less trying for you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Magnum Crimen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==November 2012== I've assessed the article as C-Class for WP Croatia. It meets all WP:BCLASS requirements except #2, "coverage and accuracy". Magnum Crimen is a controversial book. In Croatia, it is generally perceived as a pamphlet. Ivan Lovrenović, a Bosnian Croat journalist and writer, describes it as a "textbook case and an example of a propagandist book", calls Viktor Novak a "mystifier", and accuses him of "pseudo-historiography".[5] This view seems to be fairly common among Croatian historians. The article text says that "there is a number of authors who left just short notes about this book", and cites History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe. This book says Magnum Crimen was "commissioned by communist authorities to support Tito's 1946 show trials",=pV6sFB-KuU8C&pg=PA164&dq=%22magnum+crimen%22&lr=&sig=ACfU3U10TR3aU5wnwqd9cPPSlacNQ4G3kQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22magnum%20crimen%22&f=false a view that the article doesn't mention. In short: negative views of the book are almost completely left out, which distorts the reader's perception and ignores a fairly large number of sources that severely criticize Magnum Crimen and its author. Without prejudice as to whether these criticisms are grounded or not, this is a substantial omission. GregorB (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)