Jump to content

Talk:Barbara Pit massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed moving

[edit]

This should be moved to Barbarin Rov (sl:Barbara rov) --AndrejJ (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this makes sense. Let's wait to see what the creator of the article thinks about it. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Barbara pit? Also, we have to be careful with moving the article: Huda Jama will probably have a separate article later on, so we shouldn't just create a redirect. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to the move, as it does seem a more accurate name. However, my reasoning when creating the article was that the news agencies which I have encountered (English and Croatian) have used the name of the village much more often and have frequently omitted the name of the individual site in their reports thus far.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any benefit at all from this move. I would move it back, to be honest. Nobody in any language uses or would search for the term 'Barbara Pit'. It is a senseless translation of a local geographical name whereas, and this is the most important thing, all of the international media is referring to 'Huda Jama'. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the most commonly used name in Slovenian media is Barbara rov not Barbarin rov (I know, I know: it sounds awful). --Eleassar my talk 10:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domobrani??

[edit]

Viator, it may be your personal POV that Domobrani are better described as Axis soldiers than pro-Nazi collaborators, as you put it in your edit summary. However, concerning this article, there are unfortunately a couple of rather significant problems about that. Firstly, there is no evidence that the victims were Domobrani. Unless, of course, you have a source for this idea. If you do, that's great. Let's see it. Next, it is entirely accurate for the article to say that the international media reports that, according to the head of the Slovenian Research Centre for National Reconciliation, Andreja Valić "accounts from local residents indicate they were pro-Nazi collaborators from Slovenia or Croatia". This is what the media reported that she said. It's in every report. She most certainly did not say that according to eyewitness accounts, they were mostly Axis soldiers, probably Croatian Domobrani, killed by the Yugoslav People's Army between May and September 1945. So unless you can find a source to support your sentence, if I were you I would stop edit warring. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most of the international media used the formulation that the victims "are believed to be pro-Nazi collaborators". Such formulation was most evidently released by a press agency, since it keeps repeating almost unchanged in all reports. There is however no direct quote of what Valić actually said. In Slovenian media, this formulation is not used (as you can check on google); it is therefore reasonalbe to assume thet it is not a dirct quote of what Valić said, but rather a summary/interpretation of the press agency, which makes sense as a concise description for the international public, but it's inaccurate historically. In fact, most Slovenian & Croatian sources report that the victims were Domobrani, according to eyewitness accounts (see the Croatian references in the article - if you don't speak the language, you might try Google translation; in one of the articles, Mitja Ferenc is quoted saying the victims were "members of defeated armies, and civilians"). If you insist in keeping the information on what the international press reported, that's ok with me, at least for now, although I see little relevance in it. But please don't do this at the expense of other important information. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on anything, except that the article should reflect what the sources actually say. We cannot decide for ourselves what is "inaccurate historically"; I repeat, we must faithfully adhere to what the sources say. If you want to add what Ferenc said, if you have a source for it, then just add it (although just as an aside, and not relevant to this article, I'd personally love to know what evidence dear old Mitja bases his view on). Using and adhering to sources really isn't so complicated, is it? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only we can decide which sources are reliable & relevant to the subject, but we must do so, otherwise we will end reproducing a cacophony of opinions. Ferenc's opinion is quoted in one of the Croatian sources. I don't think it's necessary to mention him explicitly in the article, at least not at this stage. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply asking that whatever you write, it should be backed up by the sources. For example, you insist on adding this sentence that "According to eyewitness accounts, the victims were mostly Axis soldiers, probably Croatian Domobrani and members of the Slovene Home Guard, killed by the Yugoslav People's Army between May and September 1945". The source you have from Slobodna Dalmacija a) does not say anything about eyewitness accounts; b) does not mention Axis soldiers (except at the end where Šafarić claims - on what evidence I have no idea - that about a thousand people are buried in Huda Jama. Some of them were German soldiers, he claims, some were Slovenian domobranci, but almost 80% percent of the victims were Croats, mostly civilians, he says); c) does not mention Croatian domobrani and d) does not mention between May and September 1945. On this evidence, I am very much afraid that the "cacophony of opinions" to which you refer appear to be yours. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the incomplete references, I've added some others. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter civilians or soldiers - human is human, crime is crime. SmetarjevaHči (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Killing fascists is not a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:467E:E4D9:8C68:2ACA:D5EF:C87C (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do concur. It is not a crime 124.176.214.75 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The recent IP modification of the text to add "fascist" in front of "NDH Armed Forces and Slovene Home Guard" and to change "people" to "fascists and their collaborators" is gratuitous and overgeneralized. It is equivalent to inserting "godless" or "communist" in front of "Yugoslav Partisans", which would also be gratuitous and overgeneralized. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have went 1 over WP:3RR (my bad) and can't revert his edits anymore. It is clearly WP:POVPUSH by the IP user. SunDawn (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account the affiliation of the NDH Armed Forces and Slovene Home Guard, as nazi collaborators, volunteer forces for fascists regimes, and the role of the ustase militia in the operating of concentration camps, i dont think calling them "fascist" is that much of a stretch. I neither find it that gratuitous and overgeneralized to call the yugoslav partisans "communists", taking into account that, well, they were led by the communist party of yugoslavia. Overgeneralising would be calling the italian partisans communist, being a more heterogeneus group. 217.216.223.195 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly established consensus

[edit]

These repeated IP edits are obviously contrary to clearly established consensus, thus WP:3RRNO (item 8). They have been repeatedly reverted by nine[1][2] different users, and previous IPs that have made the same or similar edits have been blocked for block evasion or have engaged in ad hominem attacks and even made death threats against other editors. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1]Now reverted by eleven different editors. Doremo (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[2]Now reverted by sixteen different editors. Doremo (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because as we all know, following "consensus" is more important than telling the truth 184.145.22.163 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, those other IPs were not me and were not affiliated with me 184.145.22.163 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians

[edit]

According to the official data (Ministry of Slovenia) "The report shows that, according to the clothes found and preserved, they are probably mostly members of the NDH armed forces, but Slovenes may also be among the victims.", this can be found in the archive.--Migui2611 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC) According to this source, saying that civilians were also in the massacre is an assumption, because the official records can only hypothesize about civilians, while they offer a solid proof of NHD soldier member victims.[reply]

Multiple cited sources in the article state that civilians were among the victims. Doremo (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to both sources, then, civilian victims are not an hypothesis but is important to remark that the victims were mostly soldiers and prisioner of war that collaborated with the axis.--Migui2611 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the text says "prisoners of war ... as well as civilians" and not "civilians .. as well as prisoners of war". That is what "as well as" means. The body of the article also already clearly states "Most of the victims are believed to be members of the military forces of NDH." Doremo (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is not clear enough, "as well as" could also mean equality, for example "I have 4 apples as well as 4 pears", or "He was anti-communist, as well as an axis power supporter". Also the infor,ation on the introduction can repeat the information on the body, as it already does, so for clarity sake is important to clarify the ratio, even if is vaguely with the word "few".--Migui2611 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find numbers or a ratio in a source, you're welcome to cite that information. Doremo (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there are not exact numbers or ratios, there are sources that claim that most of them weren't civilians, and thats important, so it must be emphasize. If you find a source that claims that the number betweeb civilians and soldiers are the same, then you're welcome to cite that information.--Migui2611 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When was the mine closed?

[edit]

In the Slovenian article it is mentioned that there are two tunnels behind the entrance door, and that the one which was not sealed was in use until the early 1990s. Can someone verify this and add the info to the article? Thank you. Byankuren (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for the 1992 closure. It is on page 11 here. Doremo (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Pit_massacre&oldid=1230503159"