Jump to content

Talk:Bleiburg repatriations/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Article Title is not consistent with the inline source

The article title is incorrect - the inline citation for the term refers to the Bleiburg Tragedy, not Massacre. So in the absence of another source (other than this article) that uses the term, it is not known as the Bleiburg Massacre at all. I have tagged it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll be... While I have to point out that article titles are determined through researching the overall usage in sources (not just the one's in the article), you are actually quite right. The term "Bleiburg tragedy" has 73 hits on a Google Books search (which is the recommended search method for determining the WP:COMMONNAME), while the term "Bleiburg massacre" has 70 hits. It seems that "Bleiburg tragedy" is the more accurate term. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
...a monkey's uncle. I got 167 for Tragedy [1] and 106 for Massacre [2] but what's the diff? Massacre is in strife either way, surely. -Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Google is tricky :), you have to go to the last page of the results list to get the real number of hits. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
in that case it's actually 43/54 based on the search string suggested by WP. Massacre has it. I withdraw. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, why did you add the "-inauthor:"Books, LLC"" parameter in the search? You also need to go to "Advanced search" (at the bottom of the page) and make sure that only English sources are counted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just using the search string suggested at WP:COMMONNAME. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh.. ok :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

merge of militia and home guard

Btw, while the Home Guard and the Ustase Militia were merged into the "HOS" in 1944, that was more of a de jure than a de facto change. The Ustase Militia continued to have primacy over the static Home Guard and was still a party army in every respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the reference for de facto? Tomasevich says the unification was supposed to be complete by 1 Jan 45, but took several more weeks to accomplish (ie it was completed). Tomasevich Vol 2 p. 456-465 is pretty clear. They might have been wearing Ustasha or Home Guard uniforms as they fled towards Austria, but they were members of the Armed Forces of the NDH. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Significant differences remained but never mind, I do agree with your edit and won't insist. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tolstoy (again...) WP:DUBIOUS

I deleted the Tomasevich reference for this supposed quote from the British 5th Corps. It was misleading as it says nothing of the sort on that page of T. Once I did that I wanted to raise the issue of this supposed quote from Tolstoy. The link to this takes us to a page that states that it is 'censored at Wikipedia'... The article that appears on the page has minimal footnoting including no reference for the supposed report/quote at all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Tito's telegram

quote: As late as 14 May 1945, a week after the war in Europe had ended, the collaborationist troops fought pitched battles to keep their escape routes open. They refused to obey the stipulations of surrender and lay down their arms. The Yugoslav Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief, Marshal Josip Broz Tito, repeatedly issued calls for surrender,[24] and on May 14 dispatched a telegram to the supreme headquarters Slovene Partisan Army prohibiting "in the sternest language" the execution of prisoners of war and commanding the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court.[25]


Is there a photo or the entire record of that order since the only thing I found was a telegram from 15 may 1945, where there is no mention of prohibiting the execution of prisoners:


Brzim i energičnim nadiranjem prema gornjem toku rijeke Drave, trupe naše Treće armije presjekle su odstupnicu ostacima njemačkih i ustaško-četnicčkih bandi i zaokruživši ih na području Slovenj - Gredec - Guštanj - Pliberk - Dravograd, poslije trodnevnih žestokih borbi, razbile ih i prisilile na kapitulaciju.

Ovim su likvidirane posljednje neprijateljske snage, koje su pred našim trupama još pružale organozovani otpor...

Za izvojevanje ove pobjede, kao i za brzo,uspješno i potpuno izvršavanje postavljenog zadatka, pohvaljujem hrabre trupe naše Treće armije...

Izražavam svoju zahvalnost svim borcima i rukovodiocima jedinica, koje su izvojevale ovu pobjedu i uspješno izvršile postavljeni zadatak.

Neka je slava palim junacima za oslobođenje naše otadžbine! Smrt fašizmu - sloboda narodu!


Vrhovni komandant 15. maj 1945. Maršal Jugoslavije Tito [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A sad (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how that telegram relates to the one sent on 14 May? Remember to please review the sources listed in the text. WP:OR is against policy. -- Director (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes cause I made a mistake. Anyway, I found it, the correct source is

Arhiv Vojnoistorijskog instituta, Beograd, Arhiva NOB, kut. 258A, br. reg. 9–22/10;Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana, II, fasc. 41/III, Depeši vrhovnega komandanta JA JosipaBroza – Tita GŠ NOV (JA) Slovenije z dne 14. 5. 1945.; Josip BROZ TITO, Sabrana djela, Tomdvadeset osmi, 1. maj–6. jul 1945, Beograd 1988, 43.


The problem is that some claim it's a fraud, because it allegedly didn't have Tito's signature: Bio je to, naprotiv, komad papira ispisan pisaćim strojem, bez ikakvih indikacija odakle potječe – ne samo što nije nosio Titov potpis nego se čak ni formalno nije radilo o pravom naređenju.

N. TOLSTOY, “Povijest pred sudom”, Start (Zagreb), 6. siječanj 1990., and D. BEKIĆ, “Verzija Cowgillova izvještaja ”, Otvoreni dossier: Bleiburg, (ur. Marko Grčić), Zagreb 1990.

Again, primary sources are not "correct sources", they have to be cited in secondary sources. That is to say, secondary sources are superior to both primary sources (like the actual telegrams) and tertiary sources (like the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Wikipedia does not allow us to use our own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH based on primary sources.
Regarding Tolstoy. Tolstoy is one of the few sources that has been thoroughly criticized by his peers and discredited as biased. He is not considered a reliable source on Wiki, and I'll add especially in subjects such as this. This was discussed a long time ago. In addition, sources published in both communist Yugoslavia and ex-Yugoslavia in general are often avoided. A source, not only by Tostoy, not only published in ex-Yugoslavia, but also at a time when that part of ex-Yugoslavia was in conflict with the Yugoslav People's Army (the successor to the Partisans) seems really and truly inadmissible. Do you have another secondary source (preferably one not published in ex-Yugoslavia) that disputes the authenticity of the telegram? Of course, any such claim from a secondary source should also not be based on Tolstoy.
On a related note, if you found the exact text of the telegram, could you please post it here or post a link where one can read it and transcribe it? -- Director (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Direktor, can you give me a reference for the assessment of Tolstoy as unreliable on this topic? I'm not arguing, I just wanted to see the discussion for myself, as several articles use him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ugh... this must have come up a half-dozen times. Last time was a couple years back, and while I can remember he was discredited on good basis due to quite severe peer criticism, I can't remember the exact quotation or the link (since it was not me who found said negative reviews). If I recall it should be in the archives on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. The gist of it was that Tolstoy's research is very flawed and slanted, and the implication is made that this is because he also is an émigré from a communist country.
Also, in my personal opinion, the suggestion that Tito would find it necessary to forge a telegram for some reason and hide it in the military archives, just in case communism collapses, seems quite a stretch of the imagination. Bleiburg was not even mentioned publicly in Yugoslavia.. It is equally hard to believe that the very much anti-Tito Milosevich government (1987-2000) would find it necessary to forge a telegram that specifically absolves only Tito and the General Staff of something. I can't imagine who is supposed to have forged it.. -- Director (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's what Pavlowitch has to say in his review of The Minister and the Massacres in The English Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 410 (Jan., 1989), pp. 274-276:

The story, as told by Nikolai Tolstoy in his most controversial book, The Minister and the Massacres (London: Century Hutchinson, I986; pp. 442. £12.95), is apocalyptic, at the level of the massacres, and shady, at the level of British officialdom. It is a tale that should be told and clarified. The trouble is that the author identifies so strongly with the victims that he is obsessed with the need to find and name the individuals who, on the British side, were ultimately responsible for their fate. [...] Tolstoy's book is history seen from the point of view of the victims, and as the survivors now wish it to be remembered. [...] Tolstoy does not believe that there was a generally accepted 'deal' with Tito, for which he can find no explicit evidence, and he prefers to believe in a 'conspiracy', for which he can find no motive.

-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the whole telegram: Preduzmite najenergičnije mjere da se po svaku cijenu spriječi ubijanje ratnih zarobljenika i uhapšenika od strane jedinica, pojedinih organa i pojedinaca. Ukoliko postoje među zarobljenicima i uhapšenicima takva lica koja treba da odgovaraju za djela ratnih zločinstava, predavati ih na revers vojnim sudovima radi daljeg postupka.
Also, there are a lot of other telegrams that Tito sent during that period, so maybe we could add a special section regarding Tito's role in this.(A sad (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)).
Ah, but while Tito did have a role directing the final operations of the general offensive (as chief of the general staff), he did not have a "role" in the Bleiburg massacre. I do not think he would merit a special section. If I may ask, where exactly is the telegram you cited from? What's the reference? -- Director (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ivo Goldstein: Josip Broz Tito - između skrupuloznoga historiografskog istraživanja i političke manipulacije, from Dijalog povjesničara - istoričara, Zagreb, 2005
I don't think that Tito personally ordered the massacre, but he obviously knew about it and nothing happened to those who were responsible for it. Also, we have his speech in Ljubljana (also quoted by Goldstein) in may 1945: Što se tiče ovih izdajnika koji su se našli unutar naše zemlje, to je stvar prošlosti. Ruka pravde, ruka osvetnica našeg naroda dostigla je već ogromnu većinu.(A sad (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
Well yes he obviously knew about it afterwards, just like most everybody in Yugoslavia. I think its debatable whether we really need to add a sentence along the lines of "Tito did not do anything about it". If the article does not mention that the authorities did not prosecute anyone afterwards then that should definitely be included, but what basis is there to place the blame for that exclusively on Tito himself? -- Director (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Tito was the head of the state so his responsibility is higher, especially after the speeches he made and because of the way he led the country afterwards. So I wouldn't say that he had no role in all of this.
Also, if it is allowed, there could be added a section regarding the prosecutions and charges of war crimes (Petar Zinaić, Boljkovac etc) and a list of mass graves locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by A sad (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion, but it is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You need a reliable, preferably non-Balkans source to that effect. Tito, incidentally, was not head-of-state but rather the prime minister. -- Director (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Source for what, Tito or mass graves and prosecutions? And you can call his title what ever you want, a normal prime minister doesn't declare his birthday a national holiday ;). Also, if you added the quote from Ivo Goldstein (a non balkan source :)), why didn't you add his speech in Ljubljana? (A sad (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Policy of destruction

"This order was, however, apparently ignored. This was due to the policy established in November 1944 by the interim Partisan government of destroying all quisling and collaborationist forces on Yugoslav territory."

There are several problems with the latter sentence. This is supported with Tomasevich Tomasevich, 1975, p. 437-38. May I ask exactly what Tomasevich states there? (The sentence is at the very end of the third paragraph of the "Events" section.)

A policy of "destroying all quisling and collaborationist forces" seems inconsistent with the several offers of amnesty to all members of collaborationist units. It could also be that "destroying" is simply misrepresented and may refer to military destruction rather than mass summary execution. Indeed, this is the first time I've heard of the Partisans having an official policy of mass execution, which is undoubtedly the implication given in the context where it is placed. -- Director (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

T refers to the apparent decision by the leaders of the security forces to literally destroy their internal enemies in the closing stages of the war. The quoted decision was to break up and destroy the renegade bands of the occupying forces and traitors in armed actions. It's on page 437. Page 438 isn't available online. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another Tito "destroy" order also sourced from Tomasevich's 1975 work, this time on pages 247-248. I have quoted the paragraph in its entirety and italicised the relevant parts. I don't think that anything is being misrepresented from or by Tomasevich, but that editors are attempting to provide relevant sources to illustrate the (for want of a better word) motives behind the actions of the Partisan forces.

"The Partisan determination to exploit their breakthrough at the Neretva River bend to the utmost had two tactical aims: to keep the Chetnik and Italian forces under such unrelenting pressure that they would have no chance to regroup and mount a successful counterattack, and to put as much distance as possible between their forces and any Germans who were in pursuit. But in fact as soon as the crossing of the Neretva River seemed to be assured, a new and very ambitious plan began to develop in the Partisan Headquarters: the destruction of the main Chetnik forces. Having at the Neretva River experienced a great danger from the Chetniks when they operated as auxiliaries of and in parallel actions with the Axis Powers, Tito made the destruction of the Chetniks the first priority and issued a series of orders to that effect. On March 9, 1943 he notified the 7th Shock Division that in the direction of their new advance the chief enemy would be the Chetniks, both local and those brought from Montenegro, and all captured leaders and commanders should be treated without mercy – that is, after a brief interrogation they were to be shot on the spot – while the rank and file if misled or innocent were to be coaxed into the Partisan ranks or held as prisoners. The order urged the troops to do their utmost: in your fight against the enemy you must display the greatest possible offensive spirit, recklessness, impudence and push, in order to annihilate his men and destroy his units. In order to achieve this, you must in every encounter with the enemy engage in speedy manoeuvring, attacking especially his flanks and rear. The Central Committee of the CPY on March 29 instructed the Provincial CPY Committee for Bosnia and Herzegovina to send an Eastern Bosnian brigade to Sandjak to help the divisions presently under Tito’s direct command, for “Our most important task now is to destroy the Chetniks of Draza Mihailovic and to break up his administrative apparatus, because they represent the greatest danger for the further course of the national liberation struggle”. And on March 30 in a letter to the staff of the 1st Bosnian Corps Tito identified the Chetniks as being temporarily the principal enemy, and directed that the main action be concentrated against them". Oz Cro (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A sourced part of the text was queried by another editor who doesn't have the book in front of them. I have included another part of the sourced text by way of clarification of the use and meaning of the word "destroy" by Tito.Oz Cro (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

the initial Tomasevich quote refers to the security services, not Tito himself. I thought the intention was to sheet ultimate responsibility for Bleiburg to Tito? I don't see how the Weiss reference advances that argument. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
@OzCro your quote in referring to the "destruction" of the Chetnik units post-Fall Weiss does not in any way support the thesis that the Partisan command advocated the mass extermination of its enemies. On the contrary, it supports the thesis that the Partisan policy towards the rank-and-file was that of either release or imprisonment as POWs.
@Peacemaker. The phrase "destroy the enemy/enemies" is commonly used during wartime to refer to the "destruction" or nullification of enemies as a (military) threat, rather than the actual, physical "destruction" of all members of the enemy forces. Such a phrase does not by any means necessarily imply mass executions in any form. However, our current text goes even farther: not only does it assume (apparently without any basis) that the phrase entails mass murder, our text also seems to do a fair bit of WP:OR by claiming that these instructions as such were the reason why the telegram of the General Headquarters was ignored and members of the enemy units were massacred.
I would really like to verify that this is indeed the claim presented by Tomasevich at that page. -- Director (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So instead of adding a verification needed note, you just removed it, yet in the background part of the article there are still sentences without proper citatons... Anyway, here is a telegram from Tito in August 1944., maybe Tomasevich was referring to this:

Posljednji poziv svim zavedenim slugama okupatora! - Svi oni koji će se zateći poslije 15. septembra 1944. g. u vojnim formacijama domobranstva, četnika i drugih, i bore se protiv Narodnooslobodilačke vojske, biće izvedeni pred ratni sud i suđeni kao izdajnici naroda i kažnjeni najstrožom kaznom. (….) Nama je vrlo dobro poznato da su se ustaše i neke reakcionarne pristalice Mačeka složili da se čim više pojačava domobranstvo, da se domobrane ne predaje NOV, već da do kraja izdrže na strani okupatora, da sačekaju saveznike, pomoću kojih će preuzeti vlast u Hrvatskoj. (….) Niko nas neće spriječiti da kaznimo izdajnike naroda i sluge okupatora. Svi koji imaju namjeru da pomažu domobrane, četnike i druge da i dalje služe okupatoru, isto tako će doći pred ratni sud i biti kažnjeni. Pozivam posljednji put sve zavedene koji služe okupatoru i slušaju izdajnike, da se trgnu i da bar u posljednjem momentu donekle isprave svoj zločin prema narodu. (A sad (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Tomasevich

On a related note, here are two Tomasevich paragraphs that concern Beliburg specifically from Vucinich, Wayne S.; Tomasevich, Jozo (1969). Contemporary Yugoslavia: twenty years of Socialist experiment. University of California Press., pp.113-114, that might help us expand the article with Tomasevich's estimates:

"With the exception of those individuals and small groups that succeeded in escaping while still on Austrian soil, all these troops, as well as the bulk of the Slovenenian Domobrans and various smaller groups of Chetnik and Ljotić forces [the Serbian Volunteer Corps] that also had succeeded in crossing into Austria, were soon returned to Yugoslavia. In the course of the following weeks most of these Croatian Slovenian, Serbian, and Montenegrin troops that were returned from Austria, as well as other captured on Yugoslav soil, were killed. The exact number of anti-Partisan forces that perished at the hands of the Partisans at this time is not known, but it probably ran into several scores of thousands. Some thousands of civilian refugees persihes with them. Anotehr group that was systematically destroyed whenever uts members were captured by the Partisans in the final weeks of the war were the Yugoslav Volksdeutsche who were serving in the 7th SS Division Prinz Eugen and other German military and police units. All units composed of Volksdeutsche were notorious for their brutality during the war against the Partisans and pro-Partisans, and often also against others among the Croatian and Serbian population.

Considering the nature of the struggle among the various competing forces during the Second World War in Yugoslavia, the Ustasha atrocities against the Serbian population in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia and against all pro-Partisan Croats, the fact that the Ustashe adhered to the Nazis to the bitter end, and finally the fact that the Ustasha leadership wanted to put its troops at the disposal of the Western Allies for possible use against Yugoslav and other Communists, no mercy on the part of the Yugoslav Partisans toward these troops could have been expected."

One must take into consideration that the Ustase, up to the very end, had a "no prisoners" policy with regard to the Partisans, one which they pursued vigorously. In spite of having been recognized in late 1943 by all Allied powers as the military of Yugoslavia, the Axis, due to having dismantled Yugoslavia, considered the Partisans "rebels" - and treated them as such. In a typical case, the Battle of Kozara, those few Partisans who surrendered and somehow manged not to get executed on the spot were sent off to concentration camps such as Jasenovac. At the Battle of the Sutjeska, the entire Partisan field hospital (which had just barely escaped during Fall Weiss), was captured. The entire hospital, with doctors, nurses, and a couple-thousand wounded and typhoid-sufferers - was summarily executed by Axis troops. These are just a few examples, of course, but I think they illustrate vividly what Tomasevicg likely meant with "nature of the struggle". As he points out, it would not be very realistic to expect that the Partisans would now recognize the POW-status of the Ustase troops without incident. -- Director (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

location distinction

Danijel Ivin recently made an appearance in Nedjeljom u dva, covered by other mainstream Croatian press:

...where his main contention was that the location of Bleiburg itself was not the actual place of executions, rather they happened on the march back. Instead, the focus on Bleiburg ifself happened mainly because of the location of the repatriation and the fact the emigrees were banned from commemorating their losses inside SFRY territory. I wondered what the sources say, so I skimmed through the article, and couldn't find anything to dispute that. Is this true, and if so, should the article be more clear about it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, in my view the article would be clearer if it were titled the 'Bleiburg Tragedy' which if you look at archives was a very much 50/50 thing with massacre. The massacres and mistreatment of others occurred in SFRY, not in Austria. The surrender negotiations occurred in Austria for the lead elements of the column, but others faced Partisans inside SFRY borders, and only a proportion were actually repatriated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the sources, Dominik Vuletić's paper, talks explicitly about a massacre at Bleiburg itself, although it seems to have been relatively small in comparison, which is also noted in the same source. I referenced that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Found it in the Grahek-Ravančić source, too. Same conclusion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I should probably mention here that so far the sources have not accounted for the lack of a grave sites near Bleiburg. I googled that, and found that there's one University of Klagenfurt dissertation from 2010 that raised some mainstream media kerfuffle:

Yet, I don't actually see anything in those texts that says "we found at least one grave site from May 1945 that's near 46°34′30″N 14°47′46″E / 46.575°N 14.796°E / 46.575; 14.796". Hopefully there's some followup... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

title

Continuing on Peacemaker67's note above about "Bleiburg tragedy", I just stumbled upon the same conclusion as yourself:

At the same time, the titles of the three Croatian papers (secondary sources) cited in the article are:

  • Izručenja zarobljenika s bleiburškog polja i okolice u svibnju 1945. ("Extradition of prisoners from the Bleiburg field and the surroundings in May 1945")
  • "Prilog istraživanju problema Bleiburga i križnih putova (u povodu 60. obljetnice) ("... the Bleiburg and Way of the Cross problem")
  • "Kaznenopravni i povijesni aspekti bleiburškog zločina" ("...the Bleiburg crime")

Analogous Croatian searches:

It seems pretty clear cut - we should move to the more generic title, how ever emotional and biased it may seem - per WP:POVTITLE. Indeed, "massacre" is really an even harsher title than "tragedy" when we just compare the terms per se.

The move history only has:

  • 3 June 2006‎ Thewanderer (talk · contribs) moved Bleiburg killings to Bleiburg massacre: restoring title. original move was not discussed on talk and was enacted by a user new to wikipedia.
  • 3 June 2006‎ Darkoe (talk · contribs) moved Bleiburg massacre to Bleiburg killings: more neutral name, per wikipedia policies that need to be applied uniformly

So there's little apparent contentiousness in the massacre title, so I'll start by being bold and moving it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Supported. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The new name indeed is (more than) slightly POV-ish... I don't think it's more generic - it's more commonplace, maybe. Note the interwiki links - pretty much "massacre" all the way, including the Croatian version. Did they all get it wrong? GregorB (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Killings" would probably be more appropriate. It was not a single incident as using the word "massacre" would imply (it was more like a series of mass executions i.e. massacres) whereas "tragedy" is quite vague. Timbouctou (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Series of mass executions" is indeed a good description - still, 99% of these happened outside of Bleiburg itself, so "Bleiburg foobar" may be misleading to begin with, but there you have it... There's also Way of the Cross - with problems of its own, of course.
The whole series of events is eponymous with just "Bleiburg" in common parlance, so we if we stray from that, it would raise further POV concerns. "Way of the Cross" is really an overloading of an already emotional religious term, in Croatian as well, and I don't see a way to correlate that with any English-language sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
"Killings" is not bad, but sounds overly generic to me. This reminds me of the situation with the Croatian War of Independence: War in Croatia - too generic, even vague; Croatian Homeland War - widely used but POV-ish, therefore Croatian War of Independence - neutral and clear. Of course, neutrality and clarity are in the eye of the beholder, and there's WP:COMMONNAME too, so there are no easy solutions. GregorB (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I went with the WP:POVTITLE because it's fairly neutral and used in practice without too much of a slant left or right. Its vagueness luckily doesn't make it ambiguous - it's doubtful that the Austrian town had or could have any more tragedies named after it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The interwikis are not usually a good measure of anything with such specific articles, because often other Wikipedians simply translate the English article, including the title. You'd have to check the specific local sources used in each of the languages to be able to ascertain what it's actually referred to in their language/culture (if they exist, IOW if it's discussed at all). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A new section called Terminology would probably help here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, do you not see rough consensus here? At the very least, nobody seems to support the old title, other than interwikis which are anything but decisive, so reverting to the title no participant actually wants doesn't seem productive.

In the meantime I've gone through most of the incoming links and most of them already referred to the events in a generic, vague manner, without the implication that there was a specific massacre at Bleiburg itself, and at least two of them were explicitly verbose, saying something along the lines of "part of the events now known as [massacre title]". I found a small minority of links that did seem to refer to the specific massacre, which in turn is still not actually supported by reliable sources, we have a single witness testimony. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support the old title. Its not perfect, but "tragedy" isn't the answer I believe, per WP:NPOV. -- Director (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I support the new one. What happened at Bleiburg was basically a forced repatriation, which had tragic results for the people repatriated. Not a massacre at Bleiburg, which is what the title suggested prior to this. Given the sources are split about 43/54, I think the current one works best. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No, what happened at Bleiburg is people got executed en masse after they were forcibly repatriated. That's kind of the point here, not the repatriation (which was mandated by the Jalta Conference). But the main problem is WP:NPOV. "Tragedy" is just unencyclopaedic and biased, and that trumps COMMONNAME. Can you think of an alternative? -- Director (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate if we'd stop with the move warring. Joy has made a good faith move supported by reasonable arguments. It is policy-based, so I don't think it should be forcibly reverted, even if WP:RM might be in order. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is basically supported in the sources. The tragedy title is encyclopedic because it's WP:POVTITLE - a non-neutral but a common name. And if we're going to be discussing biased titles, the massacre title that implies how it mainly happened on Bleiburg has a major problem with English-language sources ever since the Tolstoy affair. Personally I see no better alternative - the fact is that it was a tragedy - from a rightist perspective, it was a tragedy of their failed puppet state, but from a leftist perspective, it was a tragedy that the failed puppet state had gone so much out of its way to effectively help majorly hurt its (our) own people. For the neutral general readership, it's a tragedy so many people got killed in so many different circumstances (preventing a simple moniker for a single location). The Vuletić source explicitly discusses all of those perspectives, so I really see little problem with it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with GregorB and Joy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree too. A good faith move was performed, its opposed, reverted and an RM is required. -- Director (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Enemy military ≠ unarmed prisoners ≠ civilians

  • The term "cleansing" in this context carries negative connotations of "ethnic cleansing". However, to issue instructions that order the "cleansing" of newly-liberated territory from pockets of enemy troops ("liquidate Chetnik, Ustasha, White Guard and other anti-people gangs") should by no means be distorted to mean the killing of prisoners.
You can remove the part about čišćenje terena, I don't actually think anyone cares about the implication of ethnic cleansing when there are so many ethnicities involved (Ustashe, Chetniks, Slovene Guard). The military cleansing (removal of troops), described literally as "likvidacija", rather than something like stavljanje izvan stroja, has an ominous ring to it, and apparently an ominous real meaning - sources claim they did actually liquidate enemy combatants. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To threaten Axis military formations (that refused to surrender after the May 8 capitulation of the German military and all its subordinate commands) with "merciless response" should they not surrender as ordered by their superiors, should also not be distorted as indicating that unarmed prisoners were to be executed when they surrender.
I don't think anyone's distorting anything by directly quoting what the man said. The source explicitly says it was a threat of "merciless response". We don't know what it meant, but it certainly didn't seem to fit the pattern of "keep everyone alive according to all laws of war". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Certainly in the Yugoslav army and state organs there undoubtedly were persons inclined towards, and guilty of, various war crimes. And they were all ultimately subordinate to Tito. 1) The existence of these persons should not be presented as indicating the culpability of the general staff and the state ("Tito also had under his command This Murderer and That War Crminal, etc."). 2) These persons should not even be mentioned here unless their crimes are directly related to the Bleiburg massacre, and their culpability in said crimes is sourced.
The listed source says exactly that. You can certainly verify elsewhere that Kosta Nađ led the 3rd Army, and that OZNA was assigned "dirty work". The source directly says that the synthesis of these facts points to Tito's responsibility. I didn't synthesize it myself, I merely referenced it. It's a legitimate POV that is often talked about in the mainstream in Croatia, and it should be described. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Lets also not have a new section entitled "Yugoslav responsibility", as it implies the culpability of the Yugoslav state, which is controversial to say the least. The calls for surrender etc. can be seamlessly merged with the main narrative.
The source used directly discusses NDH responsibility, Allies' responsibility, and the Yugoslav responsibility. There's already the gist of NDH responsibility described in the early sections, the Allies' are also discussed at length in the section about Tolstoy's book, so I see no sense of skirting the third issue when it's covered both in the linked source and in others. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(This is not to imply any bias on the part of the user who introduced this, or to call into question the quality and neutrality of the recent overhaul :)) -- Director (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think I've now made it less of a hodgepodge at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "Role of the Yugoslav authorities" is as neutral as it gets. This can also be a good place to describe how the NDH leftovers blamed Tito for everything without proof, and the censorship of the events up until the 1980s. The authorities certainly had a role in the entire story, if not in the executions themselves, and we should not leave it undescribed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We're basically agreed on all points except the third. I'll be back as soon as I have the time. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime I continued the aforementioned story in a section called "Status in Yugoslavia", which was my first idea for a section title, but realistically these two sections can be merged, I'm just not sure of the right name. I thought about "Yugoslav response", but that seems a bit odd when there was no response. "Aftermath in Yugoslavia"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Bleiburg repatriations - moved to compromise title support by rough consensus at end of this discussion Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Bleiburg massacre → Bleiburg tragedy –

DIREKTOR's explicit dissent and some implicit dissent from others in the discussion above is forcing me to make this explicit:

Bleiburg massacre as a title for this article is problematic because it implies a single massacre, presumably the one that took place at Bleiburg. However, that single incident was only one of many places where massacres took place; naming it so places also excess emphasis on the closely related events of repatriation, which makes it biased from the perspective that the act of repatriation wasn't the actual crime here - it alone was largely legitimate; the bulk of the atrocities that happened later weren't, and that's actually the consensus. Given how much controversy the notion of massacres at Bleiburg under British watch caused after Nikolai Tolstoy's book, that title as such could be considered biased, but still, WP:POVTITLE applied. The same policy applies in the case of the tragedy title, which is actually much more common, as demonstrated in book searches above. It's also more generic, helping explain why the "death marches" are included - the whole process is inextricably linked.

"Bleiburg killings" is another possibility, but it's also not as common in the sources, and it also significantly reduces the implied scope of atrocities, which doesn't match the article (the scope includes all of: forced repatriation by way of mass killing at the field, forced marches, individual and mass murders during the marches, other abuse on the marches, incarceration in prison camps, killing in the camps or at sites, disposal of bodies in mass graves, etc).

Alternatively, the bulk of the article should be split into the generic tragedy article (whatever it's called), but I don't see much point in that given what would be left over - the massacre at Bleiburg field is very poorly documented, and one secondary source used in the article explicitly says that details of it will likely remain open questions. Rather, "Bleiburg massacre" should redirect to this generic article, possibly to the specific section that describes that part.

--relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - "Tragedy" still sounds a bit vague to me but I can't think of a better alternative which would cover all aspects of the topic. Timbouctou (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Neither "massacre" and "tragedy" are neutral, but given the massacres occurred elsewhere, it really is misleading to name it massacre, as they did not occur there, and the WP:COMMONNAME is pretty much 50/50. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I recognize that there are problems with the current title, there really are, but "tragedy" is actually worse:
    • As was pointed out, the idea that the proposed title is the commonname is premised on treating the sources for "Bleiburg massacre" and "Bleiburg massacres" separately for some reason. Its debatable at best.
    • WP:POVTITLE specifically states that we should avoid "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". Labeling this massacre of pro-Nazi troops a "tragedy" is biased, unencyclopedic, non-neutral (WP:NPOV) and there is a far more encyclopedic, obvious alternative term.
    • "Bleiburg tragedy" not only fails to denote what this article is about, but it is also a biased description of the event covered in the main body of the article.
The proposed title is unencyclopedic, its vague, its biased (even more than "massacre"), and it immediately presents the reader with a specific view on these events. Its clearly not in accordance with WP:NPOV. And Nikolai Tolstoy, who coined the term, has actually been criticized for his biased approach on this and similar events. I have to emphasize, I'm not all that keen on the current title, and many of the objections stand, but "tragedy" is just a bad idea to fix a problem. -- Director (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of interest, why do you think tragedy is more biased than massacre? Because it immediately shows some form of condolence towards the massacred without discussion, or? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Tragedy" is descriptive, and presents a particular view of the events and imposes it on the reader quite strongly and from the start. "Massacre" is just a stronger term for what actually happened (mass killing). Its just biased, and grants these events a more, well, tragic standing than, for example, the deaths of hundreds of thousands killed by the NDH military. Tomasevich, e.g, pretty much says nothing else could have been expected, given the Ustase's record. Its an unprofessional, unencyclopedic, and highly emotional term. -- Director (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, it's either non-descriptive, or descriptive. Make up your mind. :)
I agree it's not an encyclopedic term as such, but the encyclopedia serves to explain even the highly emotional terms that exist in practice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Cheap shot, you know what I mean :). It doesn't describe what the article is about - so its "non-descriptive" in that sense (I suppose I should have said "vague"). But it also characterizes the events covered in the article as a "tragedy", so that's what I meant by "descriptive". k?
No, I wouldn't agree an encyclopaedia's purpose is to "explain highly emotional terms that exist in practice". That's a dictionary's job. More specifically, in most dictionaries you'll find examples of a term's usage in practice [4]. An encyclopaedia's job is to cover various subjects in a detached, unbiased, and encyclopaedic manner. -- Director (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, subject being covered is being called by two biased names. I don't see anybody here arguing for an actual detached and unbiased title, because we have it on record that the massacre title is not neutral and not necessarily even accurate in its reduced scope. --Joy [shallot] (talk)
  • Support - I'm not happy with either title because "massacre" is misleading as noted by Peacemaker, and "tragedy" seems vague at best, but if Tolstoy used that exact term, then it's passable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Uh, no, Tolstoy did not use that exact term. Google Books preview indicates he mentions tragedy in this context twice, but he didn't use the phrase. The title of the book is "The minister and the massacres", and that was criticized. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is taking a bad title to an even worse title. I recognize that more than one massacre occurred (authors can refer to the events as a collective massacre) and that they occurred outside of Bleiburg, but I can't see "tragedy" as a more neutral option. Tomobe, Tolstoy's research and lack of impartiality on the matter was very heavily criticized (for example see Pavlowitch's review above.).-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
(See above about Tolstoy.) Authors do actually often refer to the whole set of events as tragedy, in a phrase, as demonstrated above. I don't see anyone criticizing the phrase for neutrality. For example, Slavko Goldstein's text, referenced in the article, says Tu su i korijeni blajburške mitologije: nad stvarnom tragedijom namnožili su se deseterostruki brojevi žrtava, a godišnje komemoracije pretvorene su u političke mitinge s huškačkim porukama, natopljene mržnjom. That's a well-known left-wing person who explicitly criticizes the right-wing approach to the topic, but uses the term tragedy to refer to the events (a "real tragedy" even). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Some googling produced me a fairly critical Politika article from 2009 - [5] - that says „masovne grobnice nastale nakon Drugog svetskog rata” u događajima koji se u Hrvatskoj nazivaju Blajburška tragedija i Hrvatski križni put. They cite one part, but not the other, which leads me to believe they don't have prejudice towards it, at least not enough to bother disputing it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
To be brief, the term is used, but its also unused in many more publications. And "massacre" is used as well. This is an encyclopaedia. -- Director (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Goldstein uses the word "tragedy" as a description, not as a term - there is a difference. Politika "quotes" the term ("koji se u Hrvatskoj nazivaju", itd.), does not use it. This confirms that the term is is general use in Croatia (no real dispute about that), but also hints that is not universally accepted (granted, Politika is far from the gold standard here). GregorB (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I should note here that I wouldn't support a move to the extended names, Way of the Cross, "of the Croatian people", anything that makes it sound like the epic tragedy of the nation. Sources indicate consensus for a tragedy, from a multitude of standpoints, and that's all I'm proposing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In addition to what GregorB has pointed out, many scholars that employ the term do so with skepticism and use scare quotes. [6][7][8] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Which is actually nice support for my proposal if you think about it :) It confirms that the term as such exists as the name of the events in both Croatian and English literature. Therefore, we describe it at its common, non-neutral title. There's a similar example right around the corner - Western betrayal. It's not "Numerous acts of mass murder precipitated by forced repatriation" or something like that, it's just "Western betrayal". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In addition to Joy's points about WP:POVTITLE, I would also like to expand my point about the lack of precision (per WP:CRITERIA) involved in using "Bleiburg massacre". No-one was actually massacred AT Bleiburg, so the current title is in fact misleading. The killings that occurred on Austrian territory were a very small part of the overall aftermath of the forced repatriations and subsequent mass killings, which are the subject of this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, an event need not have occurred in the town itself for it to carry its name. That's not "misleading" or "imprecise", its just the name. Either way, "Bleiburg tragedy" is far more vague and imprecise. There isn't even a hint as to what didn't happen in Bleiburg.
And I'd appreciate it if you fellas stopped misquoting WP:POVTITLE: "Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality with colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Tragedy" falls very nicely under the category of a biased, colloquial term for these events, and I cannot think of a more obvious alternative term for mass killings than "massacre". -- Director (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
@Joy: You're ignoring the context and manner which the phrase is used as you did with Goldstein and Politika. The links show that the phrase, taken from Croatian and disputed even in Croatia, isn't accepted by those scholars. Those sources dispute the validity of the phrase and can't be seen as support from those reliable sources. I note a good portion of the sources that do use the phrase "Bleiburg tragedy", without scare quotes and without questioning its validity, appear to be unreliable sources written by Croat diaspora (I counted 5-6 on the first page alone). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
@ PRODUCER. Your refs to scare quotes, as if they can only have one meaning, is misleading. They have a range of purposes, and you cannot possibly know what purpose all those authors intended by using them. They are often used merely as a way to signify that the author does not endorse the sentiment, but accepts the term, as well as that they question it, or even that they reject it and consider its use ironic. The likelihood that authors working in a language other than english understand the intricacies of their use is a big step. No-one here has read all of these sources, and we are merely dealing with them in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. You are drawing a rather long bow. @Director, I resent your accusation that I am misrepresenting WP:TITLE. 'Nope' is not a response, it is uncivil, dismissive and very poor wikiquette. Since when does the location given in the name of the massacre not have to have anything to do with the location of it? Give me an example of another massacre where there is a location in the name but where none of the people killed in the massacre were actually killed at that location. Please. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The sources use them to "express doubt about its validity or to criticize its use." Perica refers to the matter as a "myth", Locke precedes it with "so-called", and Fischer avoids endorsing it and states it's from Croatian memoirs. WP:COMMONNAME is concerned with "reliable English-language sources", not articles in Serbo-Croatian and unreliable sources written by Croat diaspora. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
And Wilmer and Segesten, both university professors publishing in English, use scare quotes on "Bleiburg massacre". What's the difference? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If there's no difference, then there's no reason to move. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, despite your glib riposte, my point is that the scare quote thing is irrelevant because it is done by WP:RS with both titles, so as far as I am concerned that aspect of the argument is null and void. I am not suggesting there is no difference between the titles, otherwise I would not have supported Joy's RfM. Still waiting for the name of the massacre whose location is in the title but no-one was actually killed there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
What? They "cancel each-other out"? Of course its relevant. We're not here to justify the current title, we're talking about "Bleiburg tragedy". And if it is mentioned in scare quotes that's a minus. And while you wait, could you point me to the "tragedy" that occurred at Bleiburg. Surely you're not suggesting the term "Bleiburg tragedy" offered here refers to the perfectly legal and mandatory repatriation of enemy troops? Come to think of it, I don't think the NDH troops were actually repatriated in the town of Bleiburg either, seeing as how its in Austria and all. As far as I know killings first took place in and around Bleiburg, thus Bleiburg massacre. -- Director (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with much of your interpretation of those sources. Perica's book you linked describes the Bleiburg myth, and then makes a point to quote it as the "Bleiburg Tragedy of the Croatian People" - that's the kind of exaggeration that clearly indicates one's talking about a specific far-right talking point. I wouldn't support that title either. Locke's use of "so-called" isn't critical there, but he later says "this massacre" in reference to the whole set of events, so that could rather be the indication of support of the current title or something of the sort. Fischer's description says clearly it's terrible incidents known collectively as the "tragedy at Bleiburg" or "the Croatian way of the cross" - that's an assertion of commonness of these phrases. It actually support my claim of WP:POVTITLE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried to verify this, but found only this Politika article where Vojislav Pavlović in a joint interview with Antić says:
Represija je bila inherentna tom sistemu. Ona je 1945. artikulisana kao pokolj ratnih zarobljenika u Kočevskom rogu i u Blajburgu i streljanje političkih protivnika u Beogradu i Srbiji 1944-1945.
So Pavlović is referring to the specific massacre in Bleiburg as a massacre, ditto for Kočevski rog - not to the whole story as a "massacre". Can you provide a citation with a source attesting to the contrary? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why don't I cut this exchange short by pointing out there are an estimated 205 published sources that use the term, and about 1,250 that use those terms in conjunction, most of which are spot-on (incidentally, I get 1120 when I check for "tragedy" and "Bleiburg" being used together). -- Director (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to discuss Google searches, let's first start by actually bothering to read Talk:Bleiburg_massacre#title where I already demonstrated that there are more sources referencing the tragedy phrase, in an effort to prevent repetitive and circular discussions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You know, calling someone a "jerk" for no real reason might also fall into the category of "acting like a jerk".
I rewrote that part soon after writing it, because I realized I shouldn't allow your Usenet-flamewar-like methods to get to me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't much better, Joy. In fact its worse. Like "Bleiburg tragedy", really :). -- Director (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course I read everything, I was just pointing it out here again to illustarte the futility of this particular exchange about what one source meant exactly. So as I was saying, there are 205 published sources for "Bleiburg massacre", and about 105 for "Bleiburg massacres". In addition, there are about 1,250 that use "Bleiburg" and "massacre" in conjunction, most of which are spot-on. On the other hand, I get 1120 when I check for "tragedy" and "Bleiburg" being used together. So, in addition to all the other objections (emotionalism, bias etc.), I contend that there's no real overwhelming advantage in Google tests either. There's a small advantage, but that's all. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
But you're still ignoring the comparison of the tragedy phrase, which is 2.4 : 1 more common compared to the massacre phrase. If we have an existing, common phrase in use, which isn't contradicted in sources as such - the sources always lament its many exaggerations, use in victimization and other abuse - then it's no less suitable for the article title than another demonstrably less common phrase. When both phrases are WP:POVTITLE material, then we have little reason to prefer the less common one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I might add that the attacks that occurred on the column approaching Bleiburg that occurred inside Austrian territory were attacks on an armed column who had refused to surrender when called upon to do so. That doesn't make it a massacre, it is a legitimate use of force under the laws of armed conflict. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker, imo you were nitpicking before on whether the killings actually took place in the town of Bleiburg itself, but this is going beyond even that. What does it matter whether this event was named after the right town? We all agree on the first word anyway ("Bleiburg"). A "massacre" is an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people". It need not necessarily be unjustified or inflicted upon helpless victims.
The point here is that a massacre took place, and its named after the town of Bleiburg. Those are just facts. Whether said massacre was a "tragedy" is a matter of personal opinion. Such a title not only fails to denote what this article is about, but its also a biased description of the event covered in the article.
Re the Google tests, I'm getting strange results.
At best, in the second test, there is a 1.5 : 1 ratio in favor of "tragedy" (not 2.4 : 1). In the first search, "massacre(s)" are the majority. And, as I pointed out above, "Bleiburg" and "massacre" are used together more commonly than "Bleiburg" and "tragedy" ("Bleiburg tragedies" gets no hits [9]). I would not say this is a clear-cut case. -- Director (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
But there's no such thing as a neutral conflation of phrases "massacre(s)" (singular + plural). You can call it subtle in the phrasing, but there's a clear semantic difference between the notion of one massacre of Bleiburg, one massacre at Bleiburg, and several massacres of Bleiburg. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There was more than one "mass killing session" here, that we all know. Whether one chooses to refer to these events as a group, calling them a "massacre", or elects to refer to the series of killings as a collection of "massacres" is really irrelevant for our considerations. He's referring to the same thing using the same term, and obviously considers it appropriate. -- Director (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not 'nit picking' to point out that "Bleiburg massacre" is misleadingly imprecise (per WP:TITLE) not only because a. there is no source for the numbers killed 'near' Bleiburg, b. because the current title explicitly implies that there was a massacre at Bleiburg, or at least nearby, and c. that the current title explicitly implies there was ONE massacre there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I don't see your point? These mass killings, whether they were a "tragedy" or not, are named after Bleiburg. If there wasn't any mass killing (massacre) at Bleiburg, then there wasn't any "tragedy" at Bleiburg either.
And right there's the problem - you act here as if you didn't actually read the article to understand how the more historically notable and verifiable set of events (what happened after the repatriation) has been named after the less historically notable or verifiable set of events (the repatriation itself). What I proposed would name the article after the common name for the first set of events, rather than the less common name that is also a controversial and barely verifiable name for the second set. Alternatively, this article should be split to properly delineate the two sets and avoid misrepresenting the facts, as I mentioned before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And the proposed title equally implies there was some "tragedy" at Bleiburg. So either you're suggesting we replace "Bleiburg" with something, or this whole line of discussion is pointless really. The title is not "Massacre at Bleiburg", but "Bleiburg massacre". For whatever reason these mass killings were named after the town (and if I recall correctly that's because it was the location of the first killings) - that's their name. The only issue here is whether it is appropriate to refer to these mass killings as "tragedy" or not. -- Director (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you not split my posts every time, Joy? People won't know who wrote the above, and I don't want to turn one post into several because you can't be bothered to use alternative methods of denoting which segment of my post you've elected to single-out in a partial response. It basically alters other peoples' posts, and its just rude.
Frankly, I disagree completely with your entire evaluation above, and I find it unnecessarily convoluted. The subject of this article are the mass killings, named after the town of Bleiburg, and it is completely unnecessary to split this article into two parts. The movements of the columns, the repatriation, that is the background to the subject of this article - the massacre. For the purposes of this discussion, I do not care why the town of Bleiburg was chosen as the name for these mass killings - it was, and the "why?" isn't something for us to concern ourselves with here. In addition, the idea that the term "Bleiburg tragedy" is some kind of "umbrella term" is your own conclusion - the "tragedy" there are obviously also the mass killings, not the perfectly legal and mandatory repatriation of enemy troops.
If "massacre" is "controversial" I imagine labeling these events as a "tragedy" is even more so. I have no idea what you're talking about with "barely verifiable", and whether "tragedy" actually is more common is debatable, as I've outlined above. Even if it is, we're talking about a narrow margin in one test, with others turning out in favor of "massacre".
I'll say it once more. This article is about mass killings named after the town of Bleiburg. The maneuvers, the repatriation, etc. they are just the context and the essential background to the immensely more notable event that is the subject of this article - the Bleiburg massacre. I'm sorry you disapprove (for some reason) of the fact that the killings were named after Bleiburg, but that's no reason to alter the article or its title. Particularly with such a biased and unencyclopedic term. -- Director (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason I answer inline is that I want to indicate clearly which part of the post I'm replying to, and to which I'm not. When we do it like this, it requires the readers to examine much more text and remember a lot of different contexts along the way. In addition, such a discussion often devolves into a set of monologues.
The explanation of how the massacre at Bleiburg is barely verifiable is in the article and at #location distinction above.
As discussed above, your analysis of commonness is flawed because a) you first google sets of words rather than phrases b) you assume you can conflate different sets and phrases. It would be far less unconvincing if you actually cited some of those sources that explicitly support your claim in contrast to mine. For example, PRODUCER linked and partially cited three individual sources - granted I did find 3 out of 3 interpretation errors, but still, we're well past the bird's-eye view.
I do not disapprove in any way of the fact that the killings were named after Bleiburg. I accept it as such because that's what the sources do. OTOH you don't seem to accept that most of the sources refer to the whole set of events as the Bleiburg tragedy, whether they're positive or negative towards it. You want to disregard it because you basically don't like how it sounds, it's biased. Well, I don't particularly like how it sounds, either. I really don't like how "Independent State of Croatia" sounds. Yet, those are the names in actual common use and the encyclopedia needs to describe them, with all of their shortfalls. Using the other name in less common use, an particularly one that has more explicit factual problems, is not useful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There are alternative methods that do not break-up another's post. Point-by-point discussion. Or quoting the specific sentence you're answering. But you know this?
It is completely irrelevant for our considerations here whether a massacre actually took place in the town of Bleiburg itself. "verifiable"?
As discussed above, I disagree with your assertion that "Bleiburg massacre" and "Bleiburg massascres" should be treated as different sets of hits, somehow giving you the excuse to have "tragedy" outnumber them singly. I really can't believe you actually went there, and frankly, that's rhetorical nonsense: the authors are using the same term for the same thing. And the whole premise of "Bleiburg tragedy" being the COMMONNAME is debatable at best.
Yes, in addition to the above, WP:POVTITLE specifically states that we should avoid "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". Labeling this massacre of pro-Nazi troops a "tragedy" is biased, unencyclopedic, and there is a far more encyclopedic, obvious alternative term.
As I said: a massacre took place, and its named after the town of Bleiburg. Those are just facts. Whether said massacre was a "tragedy" is a matter of personal opinion. Such a title not only fails to denote what this article is about, but its also a biased description of the event covered in the article. -- Director (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how the question whether a massacre actually took place at Bleiburg could possibly be completely irrelevant if you're proposing to name the event "Bleiburg massacre". And then in the very next sentence you talk of matters being encyclopedic and obvious. Either we apply obviousness and verifiability as criteria, or we don't, you can't apply them haphazardly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Please try to explain it in your own words, because DIREKTOR's explanation isn't working at all for at least two people. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, are you having trouble understanding the argument I laid out? I believe you have it up there in several iterations, but if there's some aspect I may clarify..? I just don't see the sense in asking another user to explain my reasoning for you. -- Director (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I meant that sometimes the conventional names for things are not as semantically accurate as one might wish; like the Hundred Years' War (which actually lasted 106 years), or the Battle of Bunker Hill (which actually took place on Breed's Hill, not Bunker's Hill), or the Battle of Tannenberg (which actually took place near Allenstein (Olsztyn), not Tannenberg). But we're stuck with those names. So the killings are named after the town of Bleiburg even though they mostly didn't take place in Bleiburg (DIREKTOR's point). On the other hand, I now see that the term "Bleiburg Tragedy" is also well represented in the literature (I should have looked at that more closely), so I won't object to a move based on frequency of the term in published sources, but I would be uncomfortable with a move based solely on semantic grounds (i.e., singular/plural massacre(s) or location of the event in Bleiburg or not). Doremo (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my contention is indeed that the tragedy title is such a conventional name. I spent most of the proposal introduction explaining the problem with the current name that is also such a POV title, but indeed a less common and often contested one, so there's little reason to prefer it; in retrospect, I should have argued more for the other title without the assumption people will immediately read the previous discussion, particularly in section #title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the more common name should be used (with an "also known as ..." clause in the lede). If "Bleiburg Tragedy" is most common in reliable English sources, then I'm fine with that. Like I said, the semantics (whether it was a massacre or a tragedy—just like the philosopher's stone wasn't necessarily a stone) aren't as important as the most common name. Doremo (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Google Books finds me references to the phrase in American sources in the 1960s and 1970s.
Both names are characterized as equally biased by Christopher Booker's 1997 book (according to the search snippet): Certainly such phrases as 'the Bleiburg massacres' and 'the Bleiburg tragedy' had been used by historians sympathetic to the Croats, such as Prcela and Guldescu in Operation Slaughterhouse.
A search for pre-1990 English books gives just 3 "Bleiburg massacre" phrase references out of 9 results, while the analogous search for "Bleiburg tragedy" gives many more out of 94 results. OTOH, when I shift the time period, it's ~105 vs. ~75. So as the event started to go mainstream, 'tragedy' started to morph into 'massacre'.
And then at some point, we get to 2010 travel guide references that may well be influenced by the Wikipedia title as much as anything else.
So, in summary, I'm afraid you're not going to have an easy time making a decision if your overreaching criterion is "commonness" :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Language is a slippery thing. :-) The point about WP-influenced discourse is a good one; I've also seen it happen. Some linguist should write a paper on the topic. I have to admit that "tragedy" sounds more emotion-laden and that "massacre" is a rather common label for such events (List of events named massacres), so if there's not a clear frequency-based reason for the move then taking no action (leaving it as "Bleiburg massacre") is probably the better choice. Doremo (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can't give a definitive opinion here yet - been a bit busy last couple of days, so I did not have time for more thorough research. My concern right now is not so much the POV aspects of "Bleiburg tragedy", the suggested title, but the degree to which it is prevalent. My impression is that, if one limits the search to scholarly sources in Croatian (and discounts references to Bleiburška tragedija hrvatskoga naroda, a well-known book by Vinko Nikolić) "Bleiburg tragedy" may not be dominant at all. Hopefully I'll be back with a more complete analysis, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems plausible. In addition, having done some tests myself, it appears that "Bleiburg massacre" and "Bleiburg massacres" put together are more common than "Bleiburg tragedy". Joy seems to think we shouldn't add them up though. I think it makes sense to do so, since "massacre" and "massacres" are the same word really, and I don't think we should quibble over plural and singular (I certainly wouldn't if the positions were reversed). -- Director (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I've seen a book that calls it "Bleiburg" massacres - that's quotation marks (because it actually happened elsewhere) and plural (more massacres rather than just one). Interesting but way too rare to be considered. What is also interesting is that there are sources that use metonymy throughout: they call the event(s) simply Bleiburg. GregorB (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed common, in .hr the whole set of events is well known as simply "Bleiburg", as a notion. Heck, it's so common, the Croatian Wikipedia could easily have the town at "Bleiburg, Austrija" and this article at "Bleiburg". At the same time, nobody actually says "Pokolj u Bleiburgu", which is the location of the article there - matching this title, and proving my point about how all other Wikipedias sometimes track en: as if they were its minions :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support

I think that Bleiburg tragedy is far more acceptable then Bleiburg massacre. Also, in Croatian language, people more ofter use "tragedy" term then "massacre" (Blajburška tragedija).

Also, yes, massacre started in Bleiburg but 99% of other victims were killed ealswhere, through Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Vojvodina. --Wustenfuchs 12:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter at all for us here whether the massacre took place in Bleiburg itself or not. You making figures up ("99%"? why not 120%?). And to label this event a "tragedy" on an encyclopedia is contrary to policy (as explained above in detail). Its even doubtful whether its the commonname or not, seeing as how "Bleiburg massacre(s)" appears to be more common. But of course, as always, this is a matter of national pride somewhere in the Balkans.. Should this actually go through, I've got half a mind to request a move back on the same grounds, i.e. that "massacre" is more common. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Chill out, it's not a matter of national pride of Balkan people. I just find this "tragedy" more correct then massacre. This percentage I made isn't correct, I just wanted to represent how small number of people was killed in Bleiburg.
  • Oppose

For me, "tragedy" is unencyclopedic in this context. Also, there's enough in the English language references cited in the article to verify that the events that took place in and around (and on the way to) Bleiburg in May 1945 can be called a "massacre". Oz Cro (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, although it is a close call. "Bleiburška tragedija" does beat "Bleiburški masakr" hands down in an unconstrained Google search. If the search is constrained to papers at http://hrcak.srce.hr, things are much less straightforward - discounting the Nikolić's book (see my remark above), there is no clear advantage for either version. If one tries "Bleiburg tragedy" vs "Bleiburg massacre(s)" at Google Books, it's 447-335 - still an advantage, but it is a far cry from the unconstrained search. The problem, in fact, lies precisely here: the discrepancy between scholarly and general sources only goes to show that scholarly sources seem to avoid "Bleiburg tragedy" to a significant degree. Saturation of "Bleiburg tragedy" hits with right-wing or far-right sources is also fairly obvious, and this explains a part of its general popularity.
Ultimately, the question is whether WP:POVTITLE trumps WP:NPOV here, i.e. whether the POV title is "evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" (emphasis mine). I'd say the answer is no, although, as I said, it is a close call. At the same time, "Bleiburg massacre" is clear enough, neutral enough, and familiar enough, so it is not likely to surprise anyone, and is not likely to sound like an artificial solution or a some sort of compromise. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisting break

  • Admin relisting comment - its evident from the dicussion todate that both massacre and tragedy are neither comprehensive or neutral as descriptive titles. But, unfortunately, there is little consensus as to which way to go. After having read the article and the arguments above, as a descriptive and neutral title, I might suggest Bleiburg repatriations since it was the act of repatriations at Bleiburg and other proximate locations that led to the other assorted events. I'd like the participating editors to think about this title suggestion as a compromise. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Personally, I would prefer "massacre" or "massacres", but I would agree to "repatriations". -- Director (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that would require splitting the article into two parts, one for the repatriations, and another for the abuse. Otherwise we risk playing into the pro-Ustashi propaganda - the implication that repatriations as such were criminal, which they apparently weren't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree. This was one event and should be covered as such, not to mention that the repatriations are hardly noteworthy in and of themselves. And I can see no implications in the term "repatriation". -- Director (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • If the repatriations are "hardly noteworthy", then what could possibly be the reason to name everything after them? These bizarre leaps in logic really bedazzle me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Right, I thought you might go there. The point is the notability of the substance of the article. When we talk about titles, we discuss WP:NAME - while notability concerns the subject and scope of the article. These events are certainly noteworthy, regardless of how we choose to call them. So the repatriations themselves are not why these events are noteworthy, the killings are, but if we choose to refer to the whole (noteworthy) set of events as "repatriations" that's fine. All that said, I did state I prefer "massacre(s)". -- Director (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think the dubious moral nature of the repatriations should be ignored, the rewriters of the 3rd Geneva Convention did make a clear change to the repatriation provisions to try to mitigate such extrajudicial killings. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Ignore? Certainly not, but without the actual extrajudicial killings the repatriations themselves are imo not worth an entire separate article. -- Director (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
              • I was more responding to Joy than you Director. My view is that the repatriations are notable on their own for the fact that their legality and morality have been widely covered in WP:RS, BUT I think it should remain one article covering the repatriations AND the results, as they are inextricably linked. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful :) So it'd have to be even more clumsy to be precise. Hence my concern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ugh.. no it wouldn't. The repatriations took place in the general area and vicinity of the town of Bleiburg, and these events are generally named after that town. If we're not going with "massacre(s)", "Bleiburg repatriation(s)" makes perfect sense. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Director on this one. The repatriations we are dealing with were from the general area of Bleiburg back to Yugoslavia. That's reasonably precise. It certainly is more precise than massacre and tragedy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If others can confirm this is consensus, I yield. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Surrender and massacre" section

There appears to be some bias in the section's "tone". From what I've read, the NDH column refused to surrender - and was consequently treated as an enemy force (which usually involves getting shot at). I mean yes, these NDH troops were a ragged bunch by this point, and it was certainly no fair fight, but that's what happens when you're cornered but consistently refuse to surrender. The British had already refused to accept their surrender. I can't imagine what the Partisans could possibly have done other than shoot at the enemy troops at such a point. I mean the tone of the section just presents the whole thing as if these were surrendering civilians or something along those lines. What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that it must be emphasized these are soldiers refusing to surrender that were being attacked (not to mention the whole part about the column actually being obliged/ordered to surrender, seven days ago(!), at this point). -- Director (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

couldn't agree more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Even the title, "Bleiburg surrender and massacre", is kinda slanted. It implies there was a surrender followed by killings, whereas the narrative in the section states the column refused to surrender - and was subsequently attacked. The text is also rather confusing in that it first talks about how the NDH troops "began surrendering" and were hoisting white flags, moving on swiftly to the part about the planes and the mortars, with just a brief mention of the fact that they did not, in fact, surrender at that point. If there are no objections I'd like to see about slightly shifting the narrative back into an NPOV position. -- Director (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok.. it seems that most of that section was written either according to locally-published, Croatian sources - or Tolstoy. The latter being noted for his biased approach to these events. And most of it is based on the testimony of a Croatian(?) fellow supposedly on the scene - Teodor Pavić. And I wouldn't be surprised if that guy was actually part of the column. Its practically all Croatian-published sources based on testimony from Croatian people in the column. I feel like deleting the whole paragraph.. -- Director (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Please don't randomly meddle with the content, e.g. you removed:
According to a testimony by a diplomatic courier one Teodor Pavić,[1][2] [...]
After the expiry of Basta's ultimatum, the Partisan forces started strafing the crowd in the Bleiburg field with machine guns and shooting them individually.[3]
The involvement of the 3rd Battalion of the 11th "Zidanšek" Brigade and the 3rd Battalion of the 1st "Tomšič" Brigade was later confirmed by a Slovene soldier Franci Strle, and their records noted at least 16 deaths, mainly from the machine gun fire.[4] A survivor Zvonimir Zorić also confirmed that massacre in the Bleiburg field.[4]
The section used to be an inclusive list of all five or six people who corroborate these claims, and now it's a random sample. You actually made it look more slanted with these edits.
And you also broke several references. I'm reverting this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The removal of the text based on this reference:

Bastina rezolutnost manifestirana je i na samim pregovorima gdje je izdao ultimatum hrvatskim predstavnicima u kojem traži bezuvjetnu predaju u roku od jednog sata, u suprotnom prijeti da se neće pridržavati normi međunarodnoga ratnog prava[49].
49 Taj ultimatum prenosi grof N. Tolstoj u svojoj knizi “Ministar i pokolji“; Zagreb, 1991. na str. 108:
Zahtijevamo bezuvjetnu predaju cijele vaše vojske za jedan sat. Ako prihvatite, žene i djeca mogu se vratiti svojim kućama. Vojnici i oficiri ostat će ratni zarobljenici….Ako ne prihvatite uvjete, za petnaest minuta započet će opći napad i vi se nećete imati pravo pozivati na internacionalne konvencije Crvenog križa.

...cannot be done on the grounds of "Oh Tolstoy is biased". This is a direct quote - has anyone accused Tolstoy of actually fabricating it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You must think I'm supposed to take this sort of unprovoked abuse from you. "Meddling"? "Screwing up"? And all the earlier insults? Because I opposed "Bleiburg tragedy"? I brought up my concerns with that section a day in advance so that anyone (you) might voice any disagreement. I'm done being nice about this. I request that you please apologize before we continue here. If you have no intention of doing so, please say so as well. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Of all the talk of 'encyclopedic' matters, you have acted in a way that made the article sound vague, and changed the sourced sentences in a way that no longer represents the same sources. That's simply not encyclopedic, and if you want an apology, all I can say is that it's you who should be making one. Notice how Peacemaker67 acted unlike you - they said "this source contradicts this other source, and one is more relevant than the other"; they didn't go for the editorializing aspect first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not really interested in what "mistakes" you believe I've committed in my editing here. I am not your subordinate, and do not answer to you, that I might be expected to "apologize" for editing an article. Your implication of the contrary can be seen as another insult. In fact I believe my post here explicitly challenged the reliability of those same sources you are accusing me of misrepresenting. The next step would be discussion and the removal of said sources.
But what interests me here is whether you, as an admin, consider it appropriate to characterize user's edits as "screwups by User:XY" or "meddling by this user", "unadulterated censorship by User" etc. I mean, I'm no paragon of civility, but then that's why I'm not an admin after six years on Wiki. And I don't really ever use foul, uncouth language of that sort. What's next? Will you be informing me of my "fuckups"? Recant or don't, I don't care, I just hope you're aware this unprovoked hostility and abuse is starting to pile up. -- Director (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not acting towards you as an admin, so that's of no relevance, other than perhaps to indicate you have some problem with authority; I'm not acting from a position of authority, I'm telling you that we normal editors don't settle a WP:V dispute by way of assertions and claptrap on Talk; we settle it by way of referencing more and better sources. When you don't do that, especially when you consistently fail to do that (at least I can't remember any new inline citation from you on this article in the recent history), you can't expect much sympathy from editors who actually make the effort to do that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not require your "sympathy", Joy - an absence of insulting language will do just fine. My contributions on this article were not extensive, but they're there, complete with their inline citations. And no Joy, we settle the problem of badly sourced, challenged text - by removing it. Better references come afterward. And all I attempted to do was keep the continuity of the narrative in the section. But I won't stand here justifying my editing to you, in the hopes of not getting insulted further ("problem with authority"? "normal editors"?). Instead of addressing your offensive language and tone you continue to criticize my editing from above. I got the message: you have no intention of apologizing or striking your offensive comments, you consider yourself as not having crossed the line, and may and will continue in the same manner. Did I miss something? You at last succeeded at creating a confrontation where there was none, kudos. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, you're wasting my time with these endless flamewars because you fail to engage in a modicum of non-destructive action that proves actual good faith. Assertions of good faith on talk coupled with disruptive editing in the main space don't amount to a positive result in my book. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My view is that this article gives far too much credence to supposed 'eyewitnesses', when as Tomasevich (2001) notes on p. 757-758, Basta (the Croatian Serb Partisan political commissar) and Crljen (the chief of the Ustasha propaganda office) agree on the basic facts of what occurred during the negotiations with the British and Partisans on 15 May, and there is no mention of the Partisans opening fire on the column. They agree that the column surrendered. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's my view: ditch all locally-published sources (esp. Croatian ones), ditch Tolstoy (what he's doing here in the first place I don't know), ditch eyewitness accounts, and just go with what the reliable sources (like Tomasevich) have to say. Call me crazy.. Eyewitness accounts are known as the worst form of historiographical primary sources, and I should think especially for cases such as this: how can you possibly take as a reliable source someone who's buddies may or may not have been murdered here? Or someone who may or may not have been responsible for killing said buddies? Its ridiculous. And Tomasevich (apparently) agrees.
As for Tolstoy, please lets not make me go and search the archives for the numerous denunciations of his work that were posted all over the place through the years. Count Dracula isn't a reliable source, and yes, that means everything quoted from or by him isn't reliable either. That's the point of being "unreliable". -- Director (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy for all WP:RS to be used, I just think that the repeated 'eyewitness' stuff (whether recorded by Tolstoy or others), struggles to justify the weight it is currently given here when a key Partisan and a key Ustasha that were involved (both of whom have a reason to inflate/exaggerate what happened) corroborate each others versions of the surrender, and Tomosevich clearly considers them credible. He also notes that Bethell supports the Basta/Crljen version of events. As a result, much greater weight should surely be given to Tomasevich over Tolstoy, for example. This is my point. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and Tolstoy isn't WP:RS. Also I think using Croatian-published sources that relay statements from Croatian witnesses from the NDH column cannot be viewed as anything other than a biased coverage of these events. I mean, I might not mind if they were attributed properly and the reader were cautioned as to what exactly this was that he was reading (e.g. "Croatian author(s) XY bring forth eyewitness accounts from members of the NDH column that claim this/that, etc."), but to de facto present it as part of the narrative is a textbook violation of WP:NPOV. A clean, objective narrative should be put forward from reliable sources, and then the eyewitness accounts can maybe be added as an addendum. -- Director (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I to take it, Joy, that you have no intention of apologizing or recanting the above PAs? Because that's the only conclusion one might eventually draw from your lack of response here. -- Director (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have copied these reviews of Tolstoy's book from the article on Tolstoy. They were published in respected review journals, and are by respected historians Sir Alistair Horne and Stevan Pavlowitch.
  • Horne, Alistair (February 5 1990). "The unquiet graves of Yalta.". National Review 42: 27. ISSN 00280038. "Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer. [...] his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy. [...] in it [The Minister and the Massacres] Tolstoy jeopardized what claim he had to be a serious and objective historian by his tendency to shape the facts around conclusions he had already formed."
  • Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (January 1989). "The Minister and the Massacres review". The English Historical Review 104 (410): 274-276. "The story, as told by Nikolai Tolstoy in his most controversial book, The Minister and the Massacres (London: Century Hutchinson, I986; pp. 442. £12.95), is apocalyptic, at the level of the massacres, and shady, at the level of British officialdom. It is a tale that should be told and clarified. The trouble is that the author identifies so strongly with the victims that he is obsessed with the need to find and name the individuals who, on the British side, were ultimately responsible for their fate. [...] Tolstoy's book is history seen from the point of view of the victims, and as the survivors now wish it to be remembered. [...] Tolstoy does not believe that there was a generally accepted 'deal' with Tito, for which he can find no explicit evidence, and he prefers to believe in a 'conspiracy', for which he can find no motive."
On that basis, I think Tolstoy's work is questionable as a WP:RS at the very least. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And there's a lot more than that. Tolstoy came up several times and each time the conclusion was he's unreliable. -- Director (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Tomasevich page 758 in the gbooks preview; I'd appreciate it if someone can reproduce it. It doesn't seem to me that it's likely for it to directly contradict the story presented by Grahek-Ravančić at page 42 here, which also cites both Crljen and Basta, about the weapons fire at the Bleiburg field; but I'd want to see the exact text first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC) BTW that seems to be an English version of something I cited earlier - part of the paragraph recently censored by User:DIREKTOR. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I'm happy to type it up, but before I do I want to make it clear that Tomasevich doesn't state that the Partisans didn't open fire on the NDH columns, it just isn't mentioned, despite the fact that he discusses Basta, Crljen and Bethell. I would also point out that the information about firing on the column at Bleiburg field on page 42 of Grahek-Ravančić is not from Basta, who states (without further explanation of exactly what was involved) that British tanks in the northern end of the valley 'assaulted the Ustashas compelling them to withdraw and surrender', although this is contradicted by Zoric (whose statements are presented in Tolstoy's work) who says the British were there but there was no resistance. The rest are also contradictory and conflicting sources, such as Brajovic (who says machine guns and mortars were used for 15-20 minutes) and whose quote Grahek-Ravančić preface with the words, 'In fact,', and 'Otvoreni dossier' (whatever that is) which says that only machine guns were used and around 16 people were killed. Then Zoric says 'dead and wounded people were falling down as sheaves'. Basta/Crljen agree that the NDH troops raced to surrender quickly. I must say I am a bit sceptical about Grahek-Ravančić given the above. There is no explanation of why they conclude that 'it is highly probable that there were victims in these conflicts'. I also note that Grahek-Ravančić regularly uses the term 'extradition' in place of 'repatriation'. These are complete separate terms with very different legal meanings. From what I can see, noone was 'extradited' at Bleiburg. Some people (mainly Germans who were accused of offences against the Yugoslav people) were extradited later from Allied POW camps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I share your concern, but it seems apparent to me that if the whole mantra of Bleiburg as a location is of paramount importance to the story, then the encyclopedia article must describe it in context, and debunk the myths that the historians debunk, too. We certainly shouldn't remove the entire mention of these handful of confusing and inconsistent first-hand accounts; we should describe how the secondary sources describe them - for example, convey Tomasevich's main point - that there was no big British involvement like in the case of Lienz Cossacks, and that that was instead just Ustasha propaganda - and convey Grahek-Ravančić's main point - that the notion of an outright massacre at Bleiburg is dubious at best, because the most liberal interpretation of the sources doesn't give credence to the claim of a massacre of relatively very small proportions. I should note that I also made an effort to convey Vuković's main point - that the responsibility for the whole thing rests not only on the Partisan vengeance, but very much so on Pavelić &co., an aspect often overlooked by mainstream coverage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Tomasevich essentially places the responsibility for the whole lot on the Ustashas, but particularly Pavelić. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
So then you agree with me that these sources aren't really inconsistent? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I moved in that direction. If someone helps make the other page available for me to read, I'll gladly add more. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree, and you've made significant improvements. I'll dig out Tomasevich and provide source information regarding this. Probably tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My OCR scanner worked for a change, hopefully I've picked up all the typos, so here it is. Once you've had a read, let me know if you feel you need p759 and I'll do likewise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Bethell's book was 'The Last Secret', London 1974. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Good, but can you please reference the exact page for that factoid? It's not part of the text on p758. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, please feel free to add p759. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Surrender at Bleiburg section

This section has two paras in the middle which are essentially legal editorials regarding the applicability of the Geneva and Hague conventions to the surrendering NDH troops. They are unsourced and not on topic. They appear to be aimed at inferring that the British did something wrong by refusing to accept the surrender of the NDH troops. I propose replacing these unsourced paras with a summary of the sequence of the negotiations and surrender per Basta and Crljen as accepted by Bethell and presented in Tomasevich 2001, pp. 757-759, ie when the head of a column some 40-60 kms long reached the vicinity of Bleiburg, the Ustashas approached the Brits, were rebuffed and then confronted by the Partisans who gave them a one hour deadline to surrender, which the Partisans extended by 15 minutes. Then they surrendered. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the editorializing part isn't sourced. I say we trim the pontificating about the Geneva Convention, but keep the basic Shaw reference, and then simply include Tomasevich's description of how they had no case, and explicitly state how their later claims were void. IOW don't skirt the issue, address it.
Incidentally, I remember how this very issue also came up at Western betrayal many years ago, and I had to correct it there. The notion exists 'in the wild', so it merits an explicit debunking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I think Tomasevich debunks this comprehensively. Let me know what you think once you've read p758? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Gah, I lost access to p757, so a part of the context is missing again. If you can throw that in, in addition to p759, please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Done here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

victim counts - Glenny, Brajović, Hrženjak

None of these three sources seems to be reviewed, and they make wildly different claims. I think this is another part of the article that needs to be put in context - the value in mentioning these sources is only in demonstrating the confusion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

agreed. We need to expand the lead to preface this issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cited in Tolstoy, 1986
  2. ^ Grahek-Ravančić, 2008, p. 546
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vuletić-135 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Grahek-Ravančić, 2008, p. 545
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bleiburg_repatriations/Archive_3&oldid=1079335261"