Talk:Magnum Crimen

September 2008 edits

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)

References

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)

For those who want to be involved into serious discussion of the book re-view

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)

William Bundy remarks

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)

Slobodan Kljakic remark

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)

ibid vs. Magnum Crimen

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)

Rački, Trumbić, and Radić

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)

Getting back my contribution

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 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 s make no sense at all. Some of my sentences are summaries of the text across many pages and fully meeting a requested 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)

Why lock this article?

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 protection

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

Perception of the book as an academic reference

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)

Mile Budak quote

Ok, this is a secondary source, but an article in The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science cites page 605 of the 1986 version as saying:

Mile Budak, a minister and a deputy head of state in the Pavelic's Ustasha government in Croatia, is on record as stating at a rally in Gospic on 22 July 1941, "One part of the Serbs we shall kill, another part we shall resettle in other places, and the remaining part we shall convert to the Catholic faith and thereby melt into Croats."

Would anyone object if I threw that into the article (citing the article citing the page)? Someone who has the actual book should be able to find it and correct me. However, this will really throw all the J.A.'s ibids into a mess since (I'm guessing) he is using the 1948 version and I don't want to introduce confusion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, J. A. Comment follows this book review based on its 1948 edition. The 1986 edition has two authors - V. Novak and J. Blazevic. So, if it makes sense taking quotes from this edition - it must be clear which work it is - Blazevic's or Novak's. Also, if a latter edition shall be mentioned - then it makes sense to do it only if pointing at differences between the first and the latter.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm only concerned about people being able to find sources if they are paginated differently. Otherwise, contentwise, where should this go? The whole content section is a mess of history, theories about church doctrine, and just random asides. Again, in my version I took J.A.'s work and split it into subheadings so that the difference between the complete history and the random asides are clear. Again, reverted, so what now? My biggest problem was that there were never any dates or any real details in the article (just vague references to time). If the book really is a great scholarly work, it should have that level of detail. I guess it should go after "the Ustache terrorism" (oh that word should go too) sentence. That sentence though is extremely conclusionary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment about Magnum Crimen

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)

Article protected???

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)