Talk:Lojze Grozde

Very important article

Do not cancel this article. For Slovenians it is very necessary. He is one of the martyrs during communism. He is second beatified Slovene in history. Thank you! --Stebunik (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are not many articles about Lojze Grozde? Because during the Communism in Yugoslavia was not free speak about "traditors", peoples, which were dissidents of beleivers. Grozde was devote young man. --Stebunik (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Grozde was poet too

About Grozde as poet shall be written. It is difficultly to translate his poems in English. Very characteristic for him is his permanent presentiment of early, bloody and cruel death.

In English we say "traitors" (Latin is traditor); "believers" and not "beleivers". Let we be believers, not traitors and help to others; so shall be the world better. --Stebunik (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not orphan!

Article about Martyr and poet Lojze Grozde is not orphan. Here are many references, links and literature. I think more as by other simile articles. Why has always this sign of orphan? Moove it!--Stebunik (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is POV

This article is POV and it quotes ideological references. What Church thinks about Lojze is irrelevant, what is relevant is what historians think about him. Žarišče (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree! --AndrejJ (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please contribute to this article by providing additional references and historical sources. Doremo (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Intolerance against Church

What Church thinks about Lojze is irrelevant, what is relevant is what historians think about him, said user Žarišče on 16th September 2010. And user Andrejj agrees with him!

So then. I cannot agree with this affirmation: »What Church thinks about Lojze is irrelevant«. It seams that »historical sources« are only on »other site«. What Church thinks about Lojze, is relevant too: but not only it. Church thinks on basis of historical documents. (Slovenian: Cerkev ne trdi nečesa kar tako na pamet, ampak na temelju zgodovinskih dokumentov. Sodelavci pri Grozdetovem procesu so imeli na razpolago žive priče in mnogo več dokumentov, kot so pa dostopni javnosti in torej tudi meni. Tako izražanje kaže zaničevanje, nestrpnost in morebiti celo sovraštvo do Cerkve, ki je danes žal v slovenski javnosti kar v modi. S tem ne trdim, da Cerkev glede na zgodovinske vire lahko kar tako sama kaj določa. Znano je namreč, da je tak proces podvržen mnogim preiskavam in upošteva tudi vsa mogoča nasprotna stališča in mnenja).

Between documents is a letter of commandant Nedeljko from year 1943 (partisan) to CK KPS too. But Lado Kocijan (partisan) writes in newspaper Dolenjski list after 1990 exactly on the contrary (withouth from him promissed historical sources!). So is irrelevant Kocijan and not the Church. He affirmed, that Lojze brought to domobranci one letter, but Nedeljko wrote, that so one letter Lojze did not bring. and as sources are Rtvslo.si, Dnevnik.si too (these are liberal sources, not ecclesiastic, I think). Why partisans did not write about Grozde earlier? Maybe they wrote, but I did not find that sources. Let you give me them, and I will citate them. »What Church thinks about Lojze is irrelevant«. This sentence expresses intolerance, disrespect and maybe hatred against Church. Sources are on both sites, when they are true and when the men have not political backgrounds or special motifs. Let you see original article in Slovenian Wikipedia about Lojze Grozde! I cannot enough English, so this article in English is waiting for my future adaptation of text.

Let you watch between mentioned literature the book of Milanka Dragar: ZVEST KRIŽANEMU, Knjiga o Grozdetu, Ljubljana 2010, Založba Dragar, 518 pages, ISBN 978-961-92879-0-3. This book is not ideological and not one of Church: it contains enough of documents and citations. Let you translate some of them in English too, and I shall use them! --Stebunik (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

The article is far from being encyclopedic and uses a lot of verbiage that doesn't belong here. I suggest a rewrite to make it more neutral, but since this is a touchy topic, I'd like to propose the rewrite here and have input from other editors here. So here goes:

Lojze Grozde was a Slovenian student who was killed by partisans during World War II. His death is recognised as martyrdom by the Catholic Church. He was beatified on June 13, 2010.

No problems so far. I would clarify "partisans" to "Yugoslav partisans", with a wikilink.

Grozde was born on May 27, 1923 in the village of Gorenje Vodale, Tržišče near Mokronog in Lower Carniola, Slovenia. He was an illegitimate child. When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother. Later, because Lojze was a good pupil, the stepfather became friendlier towards him, and so he remained at the house and his aunt took care of him. She saw to his schooling and sent him to a school in Ljubljana, where she was working as a servant. Some benefactors helped her support her nephew. He stayed at the Marijanišče boarding school and attended classical secondary school in Ljubljana. There he was an outstanding student and writer. He was a member of Catholic Action [1] and a member of the Marian Congregation. Towards the end of his high schooling World War II was approaching. Circumstances were becoming increasingly strained. This was also the time when Lojze had to make a decision about his vocation. He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others.

This is where things get a little worse. Do we really need to know about the stepfather chasing him out of the house? Did he chase him away from his fourth year on? Where did he usually stay, if his stepfather chased him away? Did he just live on the streets? Or did the stepfather chase him away later on, when he was already studying? It's all very vague. (I'm assuming that the "he" in the sentence "His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother." is referring to Grozde - the sentence is ambiguous, it could be read as "Every time the stepfather wanted to come around and see Grozde's mother(who was in her house, with Grozde), he chased Grozde out of the house (where Grozde usually was)" or "Every time Grozde came (from somewhere else) to the house to visit his mother (who was in the stepfather's house), his stepfather chased him away.") What difference does it make? If the point we are making is that his stepfather warmed up to him later in life, there are easier ways of putting this - How about: "When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather did not like him and refused to let him see his mother, but later on warmed to Grozde, because he was a good pupil, and eventually allowed him to stay at his house where his aunt took care of him."? Still clumsy and ambiguous around the edges with all the "he"s, but a bit better and more concise, don't you think?

Next: was Grozde and outstanding writer and pupil, or was he an outstanding pupil who was also a writer? This needs clarification.

"He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others." This could probably be worded more precisely, it sounds too vague for an encyclopedia. Did he decide to become a priest? Did he just decide to study and pray a lot? What?

During his summer vacation of 1942 he did not go home because there was a lot of violence and it was not easy to travel. It was only for New Year 1943 that he decided to visit his relatives. He asked for a permit to travel home. First he visited a friend of his at the village of Struge. On 1 January 1943, the first Friday, he attended mass at the monastery at Stična, where he received communion for the last time in his young life; then travelled by train from Ivančna Gorica to Trebnje, where he found he could not travel further because the rails had been destroyed. He decided to continue to Mirna on foot, and on the way he rode in a cart. By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him. On him they found a devotional book, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis and a booklet on Our Lady of Fatima. He was taken to a nearby inn and interrogated, tortured, and killed. Three hours earlier the seminarian Janez Hočevar, who wanted to visit his relatives in nearby Šentrupert, had been also shot. Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted.

The first sentence here hangs in the air. Home where and from where? Reading the previous paragraph, I assume he stayed in Ljubljana and didn't go home to Tržišče? Clarification needed. Also, the wording could be better, this isn't the Simple English wikipedia. How about: "Due to the difficulty of travel during the wartime conditions, Grozde couldn't leave Ljubljana to visit his relatives in Tržišče in the summer of 1942 as he had planned and it was only on New Year's day of 1943 that he finally decided to visit home."? This still leaves the problem of when was the last time before that that he visited - was it in 1941? 1940? If we stress that he couldn't travel home in summer 1942, why is this important? If it isn't, maybe we could just skip the whole thing and go with: "Traveling during wartime was difficult, and Grozde decided to visit his relatives in Tržišče on New Year's day, much later than he would have wanted.". Again, some sources wouldn't hurt.

"where he received communion for the last time in his young life" is not exactly encyclopedic. Something more neutral, like "...where he received the last communion of his life"? I don't know, the whole thing strikes me as not particularly significant to the article. Opinions?

"By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him." What first house? Do we expect a random reader to be familiar with the geography of this particular village? I suggest: "By the time the cart had reached Mirna, it was pulled over by the Yugoslav partisans and he was seized and interrogated."

"Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted." The second part is terribly POV. Have there been interviews and research into what the partisans that killed him thought and felt? If so, sources, please. If not, then this is just a lot of speculation. I also think casually exchanging "partisans" for "communists" is not kosher - the one doesn't not necessarily equal the other. If you by all means want to have that particular word in the sentence, then some explanation would be necessary: "The Yugoslav partisans who were led by a Communist movement, saw in him..." Either that, or maybe a source that proves that the brigade that killed Grozde was particularly Communist. But frankly, I think it'd take a lot of stone-hard sourcing for that sentence to even stay - a wikilink to Yugoslav partisans is enough, I think. Of course, we could include it as part of a quote.

Soon rumors spread about cruel way the Tone Tomšič Partisan Brigade, which had conquered Mirna, celebrated the New Year. Some others maintain that Grozde was not tortured.[2] Other sources state that he was tortured.[3]

"Celebrated their New Year"? Please. "Soon, rumors spread about Grozde's death" is quite encyclopedic enough, don't you think? Or, if you want to be more precise and can back it up: "Soon, rumors of Grozde's grizzly death spread."

Also, "conquered"? From whom? The Germans? In that case the wording would have to be "liberated", since the Germans were the occupiers and the Yugoslav partisans the home guerrilla force that fought them, and as far as I know, Mirna was originally Yugoslav territory.

On 23 February 1943 the fate of Lojze Grozde was partly revealed, indicating that he had been tortured. Schoolchildren picking snowdrops found his corpse. Although there were traces of torture on his body, the corpse itself was uncorrupted. His body was taken to nearby Šentrupert, where a committee made a report. The body of Lojze Grozde was buried at the cemetery in Šentrupert because it was impossible to take it to his home parish of Tržišče under the difficult circumstances of those days. The news of the violent torture and death of this innocent student struck fear among people and shocked the students in Ljubljana.

Some redundancy and bad writing in the first two sentences. I say put the children before the torture: "On February 23rd 1943 the fate of Grozde was partly revealed. Schoolchildren picking snowdrops found his body, and there were indications of him being tortured, although the body itself was uncorrupted." I'm not quite sure what the "although the body was uncorrupted" part means, though. Is it just that it was frozen and decay hadn't started yet, or is this some Catholic expression? The reason I'm struggling with this is the "although" - although he was tortured, the body hadn't decayed yet? How do the two connect? Would under other circumstances the body start decaying because of torture? Would bodies of people that weren't tortured not decay? Also, absolutely wikify "snowdrop". Also, some sources for the "struck fear among people and shocked students" part - what people? Everybody? The villagers from his home village? People who knew him? What students? Everybody? Students across Europe? Students from the same school he went to?

On the 50th anniversary of the death of Lojze Grozde, the Archdiocese of Ljubljana started a process to recognize his martyrdom and also his beatification and canonization.[4] When Pope John Paul II visited Slovenia for the first time in 1996, he mentioned Lojze Grozde twice. He said, "The servant of God Lojze Grozde is just one of innumerable innocent victims of Communism that raise the palm of martyrdom as an indelible memory and admonition. He was a disciple of Christ." Pope Benedict XVI said that "saints are not the past, but they represent the present and the future of the Church and society. They fully realized love in truth, which is the highest value in Christian life; their figures are like prisms that in various casts reflect the unique light of Christ."[5]

No problems here.

On March 27, 2010 the news came from Rome that Pope Benedict XVI had affirmed the martyrdom of Lojze Grozde. Thus a solemn beatification is allowed that took place at the Slovenian eucharistic congress in Celje on June 13, 2010. In his introduction to the biography of Lojze Grozde by Anton Strle, who is also a candidate for sainthood, Taras Kermauner wrote: "Grozde combines the ardour and apostolate of Friderik Baraga, the asceticism and suffering of Janez Frančišek Gnidovec, a gift for organization, and the Slovenian national consciousness of Blessed Anton Martin Slomšek ... He symbolizes the entire martyrdom suffered by Christians and Catholic Slovenians during World War II and afterwards for their affiliation to their faith ... His personality should be returned to the common Slovenian consciousness of heroes that have been praised and elevated to the first plane as the only models. Today a man like Grozde is needed as our model – a martyr, a saint. Not a man of aggressive military action thinking he will put forward God with arms and the blood of other or foreign people ... I do not fear to write that Grozde belongs among the greatest young Slovenians; that his attitude is fitting and most precious."

No problems here, either. I suggest wikifying "Rome" into "Vatican" not the city "Rome", though. Like this: Rome. I would also like to ask, are the " ... " parts omission from the quote? In that case, they are usually written like this: [...].

Film and TV

[1] Moj glas zliva se v prošnjo (My voice melts together in supplication - Slovenian) Documental Emission – Film on RTV Slovenia-1, Programm One. Speaks Archbishop and Metropolite from Belgrade Stanislav Hočevar, Jesuit Miha Žužek and others.

Again, no particular problems here. I would exchange the grammatically odd "Speaks" at the beginning of the second sentence with "With Archbishop..."

Since the beatification of Grozde did raise some dissenting voices as well, I think the article should also have a "Criticism of beatification" section - the criticism is well documented. Conversely, accounts vary as to what really happened the night he was killed, and some different perspectives wouldn't hurt either.

Comments? Opinions? If there are none, I'll implement the changes in about a week.TomorrowTime (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I only just noticed the links section - that will have to be rewritten to conform to standards of neutrality too. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments and answer

Dear TomorrowTime! When I have more time, I should answer on your questions. Thank you for analise of my article. Sorry I cannot enough English. If my English shall be bad, let you correct it. My Slovenian friends am most can well critize, but not help. Thank you once more!--Stebunik (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Palm is substituted with Palm-tree

[[palm]]|m01}} Let you help by other disambiguations, I cannot it. Thank you! --Stebunik (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

I wrote to one person, who can answer of all questions, maybe. --91.148.66.99 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I recieved answer: that person shall answer, when has time. --Stebunik (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know all answers

I know to say you all answers on objections in article in English about Lojze Grozde, but I need more time, that I have not. All is written in book of Milanka Dragar about Grozde, with all documentation. Let you have patiention and answers will come later. My English is not enough good. --Stebunik (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Perko-Grozde 1992.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Perko-Grozde 1992.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have permission from a painter Tomaž Perko

File:License Perko-Grozde 1992.JPG

Free License for picture of painter Tomaž Perko in Slovenian with his hand to me on 11. VIII. 2010 in Grahovo and on 3. VIII. 2011 in Grahovo too.

--Stebunik (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First part of answers:

Answers to TomorrowTime

The article is far from being encyclopedic and uses a lot of verbiage that doesn't belong here. I suggest a rewrite to make it more neutral, but since this is a touchy topic, I'd like to propose the rewrite here and have input from other editors here. So here goes:

Lojze Grozde was a Slovenian student who was killed by partisans during World War II. His death is recognized as martyrdom by the Catholic Church. He was beatified on June 13, 2010.

No problems so far. I would clarify "partisans" to "Yugoslav partisans", with a wikilink. In that time they were not Yugoslav partisans, but Slovenian partisans. „New Yugoslavia” is declared (with dictate of KPJ) in Jajce on 29. XI. 1943. Grozde is killed on 1. I. 1943. This dictate however was not democratic: was revolutionary, without free elections.

Grozde was born on May 27, 1923 in the village of Gorenje Vodale, Tržišče near Mokronog in Lower Carniola, Slovenia. He was an illegitimate child. When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother. Later, because Lojze was a good pupil, the stepfather became friendlier towards him, and so he remained at the house and his aunt took care of him. She saw to his schooling and sent him to a school in Ljubljana, where she was working as a servant. Some benefactors helped her support her nephew. He stayed at the Marijanišče boarding school and attended classical secondary school in Ljubljana. There he was an outstanding student and writer. He was a member of Catholic Action [1] and a member of the Marian Congregation. Towards the end of his high schooling World War II was approaching. Circumstances were becoming increasingly strained. This was also the time when Lojze had to make a decision about his vocation. He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others.

This is where things get a little worse. Do we really need to know about the stepfather chasing him out of the house?

It is important to know, that Lojze was illegitimate child. His father married, but not mother of Lojze. Mother of Lojze was not married with father of Lojze. When she married, to little Lojze was forbidden to be on nuptial photography. He would to be there, but his stepfather closed him in stable. That is cruelty great for those circumstances too! Lojze was poor, proletarian; and partisans, who „battled for proletariat”, has killed him. In this is his great tragedy and irony too.

Did he chase him away from his fourth year on? Where did he usually stay, if his stepfather chased him away? Did he just live on the streets? Or did the stepfather chase him away later on, when he was already studying? It's all very vague. (I'm assuming that the "he" in the sentence "His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother." is referring to Grozde - the sentence is ambiguous, it could be read as "Every time the stepfather wanted to come around and see Grozde's mother(who was in her house, with Grozde), he chased Grozde out of the house (where Grozde usually was)" or "Every time Grozde came (from somewhere else) to the house to visit his mother (which lived in stepfather's house), his stepfather chased him away.") What difference does it make?

He lived not in house of his stepfather, but in house of his grandparents and aunt. His father is married in other village.

In biography wrote: Every time, when little Lojze visited his mother on her new home, his stepfather chased him away. Though his mother loved Lojze, she would not show her love to him, because was from other father and illegitimate. Sometimes in spite of difficulties he met his mother. He was only four years old and he did not understand these changed circumstances.

If the point we are making is that his stepfather warmed up to him later in life, there are easier ways of putting this - How about: "When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather did not like him and refused to let him see his mother, but later on warmed to Grozde, because he was a good pupil, and eventually allowed him to stay at his house where his aunt took care of him."? Still clumsy and ambiguous around the edges with all the "he’s, but a bit better and more concise, don't you think?

It is not ambiguous: he stayed always in house of his aunt and only some times visited his mother on her new home. He was not pushed from his native home! He was good pupil and his stepfather would now proud on him. So permitted him to visit her mother and half-brothers, which are born in new house of mother.

Next: was Grozde and outstanding writer and pupil, or was he an outstanding pupil who was also a writer? This needs clarification.

Grozde was a pupil, who was writer and poet too. He was publisher of pupil-newspaper in school in Ljubljana and he wrote articles and poems for it: some times he wrote nearly whole number alone.

"He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others." This could probably be worded more precisely, it sounds too vague for an encyclopedia. Did he decide to become a priest? Did he just decide to study and pray a lot? What?

During his school he lived in college Alojzijevišče in Ljubljana. There were educators Catholic priests. Among them were later bishop of Ljubljana dr. Jože Pogačnik (director), dr. Anton Strle (prefect), and later professor of Dogmatic theology in Ljubljana, who is Serve of God. I knew him; he was very devoted and right ascetic man. It had influence on fosterlings too. On beginning of school Lojze was not very devoted, but with time. Usually devotion he brought in Ljubljana already from home, where all relatives and acquaintances (mother, stepfather, aunt, father – who lived in other village) in that time on Sunday went in church and every day pray at house usual prays.

In last year of school he did not yet know, where to go: on civil or religious university. He was uncertain. Maybe round Christmas 1942 he decided (conclusion through reading of his poems) for theology.

During his summer vacation of 1942 he did not go home because there was a lot of violence and it was not easy to travel. It was only for New Year 1943that he decided to visit his relatives. He asked for a permit to travel home. First he visited a friend of his at the village of Struge. On 1 January 1943, the first Friday, he attended mass at the monastery at Stična, where he received communion for the last time in his young life; then traveled by train from Ivančna Gorica to Trebnje, where he found he could not travel further because the rails had been destroyed. He decided to continue to Mirna on foot, and on the way he rode in a cart. By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him. On him they found a devotional book, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis and a booklet on Our Lady of Fatima. He was taken to a nearby inn and interrogated, tortured, and killed. Three hours earlier the seminarian Janez Hočevar, who wanted to visit his relatives in nearby Šentrupert, had been also shot. Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted.

The first sentence here hangs in the air. Home where and from where? Reading the previous paragraph, I assume he stayed in Ljubljana and didn't go home to Tržišče? Clarification needed. Also, the wording could be better, this isn't the Simple English wikipedia.

His mother in this time was not more in Tržišče, but he could not know, because the traffic of post, train and street was interrupted through communistic revolutionary activity. They made freedom of people in own way: they killed the men, who formed with their religiosity „opposition” to Marxism and Leninism. He was afraid, therefore he asked permission for his aunt Ivanka too; but she did not receive documents of permission.

How about: "Due to the difficulty of travel during the wartime conditions, Grozde couldn't leave Ljubljana to visit his relatives in Tržišče in the summer of 1942 as he had planned and it was only on New Year's day of 1943 that he finally decided to visit home."? This still leaves the problem of when was the last time before that that he visited - was it in 1941? 1940? If we stress that he couldn't travel home in summer 1942, why is this important? If it isn't, maybe we could just skip the whole thing and go with: "Traveling during wartime was difficult, and Grozde decided to visit his relatives in Tržišče on New Year's day, much later than he would have wanted.". Again, some sources wouldn't hurt.

In normal circumstances he went home regularly: during Christmas and summer vacancies. Revolution however became more and more bloodily, so he did not go home in summer 1942, because:

„Pripadniki VOS (Varnostno-obveščevalna služba) v Ljubljani in okolici oziroma partizani drugod po Sloveniji so do konca leta 1941 likvidirali 120 Slovencev, leta 1942 povrzočili 2000 smrtnih žrtev (protirevolucionarna 220), v letu 1943 pa 2500 (nasprotna 650). (English: „Member of VOS (Office of Securitate&Denunciation) in Ljubljana and surroundings respectively partisans in other parts of occupied Slovenia to end of year 1941 killed offers 120Slovenes, in year 1942 caused 2000 killed men (contra-revolutionary 220), in year 1943 however 2500 (adversary 650).)

where he received communion for the last time in his young life is not exactly encyclopedic. Something more neutral, like "...where he received the last communion of his life"? I don't know, the whole thing strikes me as not particularly significant to the article. Opinions?

From this event is evidently, that Lojze was very devote: every First Friday in month he received holy communion (Devotion to Jesus' Heart - but he went to mass and communion every day too), once in two weeks he went to confession. He was so more devote as his fellows.

"By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him." What first house? Do we expect a random reader to be familiar with the geography of this particular village? I suggest: "By the time the cart had reached Mirna, it was pulled over by the Slovenian partisans and he was seized and interrogated."

"Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted." The second part is terribly POV. Have there been interviews and research into what the partisans that killed him thought and felt? If so, sources, please. If not, then this is just a lot of speculation. I also think casually exchanging "partisans" for "communists" is not kosher - the one doesn't not necessarily equal the other. If you by all means want to have that particular word in the sentence, then some explanation would be necessary: "The Yugoslav partisans who were led by a Communist movement, saw in him..." Either that, or maybe a source that proves that the brigade that killed Grozde was particularly Communist. But frankly, I think it'd take a lot of stone-hard sourcing for that sentence to even stay - a wikilink to Yugoslav partisans is enough, I think. Of course, we could include it as part of a quote.

Sorry, they were not Yugoslav partisans yet, but Slovenian: command was in hand of Communists in Ljubljana with whole infrastructure. (I shame that Slovenes made so great injurity and cruelity, because I am Slovene too). New socialistic-communistic Yugoslavia is planned and proclaimed only on 2nd session of AVNOJ in Jajce on 29th November 1943. „VOS naj bi služila narodnoosvobodilnemu gibanju, v resnici pa je služila KP. Njeni člani so bili izključno člani ali kandidati KP ter komunistične mladinske organizacije SKOJ. „ (VOS would serve to national-liberation movement; in fact it served to Communist Part. Its members were exclusive members or candidates of KP and communist-youth organization SKOJ)

Communists are guilty for Grozde’s death through Command-responsability too!

I write a little correction for this supplement now.--Stebunik (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New correction and supplement for First part

The article is far from being encyclopedic and uses a lot of verbiage that doesn't belong here. I suggest a rewrite to make it more neutral, but since this is a touchy topic, I'd like to propose the rewrite here and have input from other editors here. So here goes:

Lojze Grozde was a Slovenian student who was killed by partisans during World War II. His death is recognized as martyrdom by the Catholic Church. (The Catholic Church recognized his death as martyrdom - auto-corrector of computer) He was beatified on June 13, 2010.

No problems so far. I would clarify "partisans" to "Yugoslav partisans", with a wikilink.

In that time they were not Yugoslav partisans yet, but Slovenian partisans. „New Yugoslavia” is declared (with dictate of KPJ) in Jajce on 29. XI. 1943. Grozde is killed on 1. I. 1943. This dictate however was not democratic: was revolutionary, without free elections.

Grozde was born on May 27, 1923 in the village of Gorenje Vodale, Tržišče near Mokronog in Lower Carniola, Slovenia. He was an illegitimate child. When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother. Later, because Lojze was a good pupil, the stepfather became friendlier towards him, and so he remained at the house and his aunt took care of him. She saw to his schooling and sent him to a school in Ljubljana, where she was working as a servant. Some benefactors helped her support her nephew. He stayed at the Marijanišče boarding school and attended classical secondary school in Ljubljana. There he was an outstanding student and writer. He was a member of Catholic Action [1] and a member of the Marian Congregation. Towards the end of his high schooling World War II was approaching. Circumstances were becoming increasingly strained. This was also the time when Lojze had to make a decision about his vocation. He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others.

This is where things get a little worse. Do we really need to know about the stepfather chasing him out of the house?

It is important to know, that Lojze was illegitimate child. His father Franc Udovč married, but not mother Marija Grozde of Lojze. Mother of Lojze was not married with father of Lojze. When she married with Franc Kovač, to little Lojze was forbidden to be on nuptial photography; wedding was however on Marija’s home. He would to be there always, when photograph would to make photo; so one of wedding-guests at last closed him in stable.

• Illegitimacy was great impediment for priesthood.
• Gospa, pri kateri je teta Ivanka služila, je na več krajih poskusila, da bi ga sprejeli na stanovanje, pa ga niso hoteli sprejeti: „Naša pravila ne dovoljujejo sprejema nezakonskih otrok…” (English: Misses, where aunt Ivanka served, on more places went in search of lodging, but nobody would to receive: „Our rules do not permit to receive of illegitimate children…”)

Did he chase him away from his fourth year on? Where did he usually stay, if his stepfather chased him away? Did he just live on the streets? Or did the stepfather chase him away later on, when he was already studying? It's all very vague. (I'm assuming that the "he" in the sentence "His stepfather chased him away each time he wanted to see his mother." is referring to Grozde - the sentence is ambiguous, it could be read as "Every time the stepfather wanted to come around and see Grozde's mother(who was in her house, with Grozde), he chased Grozde out of the house (where Grozde usually was)" or "Every time Grozde came (from somewhere else) to the house to visit his mother (which lived in stepfather's house), his stepfather chased him away.") What difference does it make?

He at first did not live in house of his stepfather, but in house of his grandparents and aunt in Gorenje Vodale. His father is married in other village.

In article it is written: „Every time, when little Lojze visited his mother on her new home, his stepfather chased him away.” Though his mother loved Lojze, she could not always to show her love against him, because Lojze is born as illegitimate from other father.

If the point we are making is that his stepfather warmed up to him later in life, there are easier ways of putting this - How about: "When he was four years old, his mother married. His stepfather did not like him and refused to let him see his mother, but later on warmed to Grozde, because he was a good pupil, and eventually allowed him to stay at his house where his aunt took care of him."? Still clumsy and ambiguous around the edges with all the "he’s, but a bit better and more concise, don't you think?

It is not ambiguous: he stayed some times in his native house and some times lived by his mother in Impolje. He was good pupil and his stepfather would now, when he went in Ljubljana, proud on him. So permitted him to visit her mother and numerous half-brothers, which are born in Impolje. Sometimes in spite of difficulties he would to visit his mother, but aunt did not permit him to go at night there. Later went he however to dwell on mother’s new home, but after one time he was driven back to Gorenje Vodale. He felt him without home and later, in 4th class of lyceum he wrote:

Mladost ti moja, Bog te blagoslovi, kot črna noč so tvoji kratki dnovi… (My young age, God bless you! Your short days are as black night.)

Next: was Grozde and outstanding writer and pupil, or was he an outstanding pupil who was also a writer? This needs clarification.

Grozde was a pupil, who was writer and poet too. He was publisher of pupil-newspaper in school in Ljubljana and he wrote articles and poems for it: some times he wrote nearly whole number alone. About him wrote his educator and biographer Anton Strle: „Njegov razvoj se kaže tudi v slovstvenih spisih, med katerimi je največ pesmi.” (His evolution is shown in literary writings too, between them are am most poems.”)

"He sought his path in life through meditation and learning, in deep prayer, and in apostolic work for others." This could probably be worded more precisely, it sounds too vague for an encyclopedia. Did he decide to become a priest? Did he just decide to study and pray a lot? What?

During his schooling he lived in college Alojzijevišče in Ljubljana. There were educators Catholic priests. Among them was later bishop of Ljubljana dr. Jože Pogačnik as director, dr. Anton Strle as prefect. He was later professor of Dogmatic theology in Ljubljana in 1959, before 6 years in prison, because wrote biography of Lojze Grozde „Mladec Kristusa Kralja” in 1944. Now he is Serve of God. I knew him; he was devoted and right ascetic man, but learned too. He had so great influence over fosterlings. On beginning of school Lojze was not very devoted yet; but later, with time. Elementary devotion he brought in Ljubljana already from home, where all relatives and acquaintances (mother, stepfather, aunt, father) in that time on Sunday regularly went in church and every day prayed at house usual prays.

He was excellent pupil, but in last year of school he did not know yet, where to go forwards: on civil faculty or on theology. He was uncertain. Maybe he round Christmas 1942 he decided for theology.

During his summer vacation of 1942 he did not go home because there was a lot of violence and it was not easy to travel. It was only for New Year 1943that he decided to visit his relatives. He asked for a permit to travel home. First he visited a friend of his at the village of Struge. On 1 January 1943, the first Friday, he attended mass at the monastery at Stična, where he received communion for the last time in his young life; then traveled by train from Ivančna Gorica to Trebnje, where he found he could not travel further because the rails had been destroyed. He decided to continue to Mirna on foot, and on the way he rode in a cart. By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him. On him they found a devotional book, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis and a booklet on Our Lady of Fatima. He was taken to a nearby inn and interrogated, tortured, and killed. Three hours earlier the seminarian Janez Hočevar, who wanted to visit his relatives in nearby Šentrupert, had been also shot. Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted.

The first sentence here hangs in the air. Home where and from where? Reading the previous paragraph, I assume he stayed in Ljubljana and didn't go home to Tržišče? Clarification needed. Also, the wording could be better; this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia.

His mother and his half-brothers-sisters in this time were not more in Tržišče. Lojze could not know where they are, because the traffic with train or car, the post or telegraph was interrupted through war-revolutionary activities. Partisans tortured and killed those, who were „opposition” to Marxism and Leninism. Lojze was afraid from those horrible rumors about events, therefore he asked permission of travel by Italian occupation authorities for him and his aunt Ivanka too; but she did not receive permission, only he.

How about: "Due to the difficulty of travel during the wartime conditions, Grozde couldn't leave Ljubljana to visit his relatives in Tržišče in the summer of 1942 as he had planned and it was only on New Year's day of 1943 that he finally decided to visit home."? This still leaves the problem of when was the last time before that that he visited - was it in 1941? 1940? If we stress that he couldn't travel home in summer 1942, why is this important? If it isn't, maybe we could just skip the whole thing and go with: "Traveling during wartime was difficult, and Grozde decided to visit his relatives in Tržišče on New Year's day, much later than he would have wanted.". Again, some sources wouldn't hurt.

In normal circumstances he went home regularly: during Christmas and summer vacancies. Revolution however became more and more dangerous and bloodily, so he did not go home in summer 1942, because:

• „Pripadniki VOS (Varnostno-obveščevalna služba) v Ljubljani in okolici oziroma partizani drugod po Sloveniji so do konca leta 1941 likvidirali 120 Slovencev, leta 1942 povrzočili 2000 smrtnih žrtev (protirevolucionarna 220), v letu 1943 pa 2500 (nasprotna 650). (English: „Member of VOS (Office of Securitate & Informing) in Ljubljana and surroundings respectively partisans in other parts of occupied Slovenia to end of year 1941 killed offers 120Slovenes, in year 1942 caused 2000 killed men (contra-revolutionary 220), in year 1943 however 2500 (adversary 650).)
• V velikih počitnicah 1942. leta je mesec dni delal na železnici… (English: During great holidays 1942 he one month worked on railway…)

where he received communion for the last time in his young life is not exactly encyclopedic. Something more neutral, like "...where he received the last communion of his life"? I don't know, the whole thing strikes me as not particularly significant to the article. Opinions?

From this event is evidently, that Lojze was very devote: every First Friday in month he received holy communion (Devotion to Jesus' Heart - but he went to mass and communion already every day through four years), once in two weeks he went to confession. He was so more devote as his fellows. He had great influence on them with this.'

"By the first house at Mirna he had to get out of the cart because a partisan guard seized and interrogated him." What first house? Do we expect a random reader to be familiar with the geography of this particular village? I suggest: "By the time the cart had reached Mirna, it was pulled over by the Slovenian partisans and he was seized and interrogated."

"Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted." The second part is terribly POV. Have there been interviews and research into what the partisans that killed him thought and felt? If so, sources, please. If not, then this is just a lot of speculation. I also think casually exchanging "partisans" for "communists" is not kosher - the one doesn't not necessarily equal the other. If you by all means want to have that particular word in the sentence, then some explanation would be necessary: "The Yugoslav partisans who were led by a Communist movement, saw in him..." Either that, or maybe a source that proves that the brigade that killed Grozde was particularly Communist. But frankly, I think it'd take a lot of stone-hard sourcing for that sentence to even stay - a wikilink to Yugoslav partisans is enough, I think. Of course, we could include it as part of a quote.

Sorry, they were not Yugoslav partisans yet, but Slovenian: command was in hand of Communists in Ljubljana with whole infrastructure. New socialist-communist Yugoslavia was planned and proclaimed only on 2nd session of AVNOJ in Jajce on 29th November 1943. „VOS naj bi služila narodnoosvobodilnemu gibanju, v resnici pa je služila KP. Njeni člani so bili izključno člani ali kandidati KP ter komunistične mladinske organizacije SKOJ. „ (VOS would serve to national-liberation movement; in fact it served to Communist Part. Its members were exclusive members or candidates of KP and communist-youth organization SKOJ)

Communists are guilty for Grozde’s death through Command-responsibility too! --Stebunik (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lojze Grozde.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lojze Grozde.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Lojze Grozde.jpg

The file File:Lojze Grozde.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Lojze Grozde.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of File Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg

I do not understand, why is deleted bio-picture of blessed Lojze Grozde and I did not recieve report about it, only once I so: that file is deleted. For this picture I have all valide permissions and I sent it already twice or more on OTRS. Deleted picture was already however before more as one year undeleted. I recieved permission from photograph Blaž Jelen, and from author Tomaž Perko too: for free use on Wikipedia and overall. Please so, undelete this file! File Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg has not fair, but free use, for all project of Wikipedia and overall. I loos enough time for it.--Stebunik (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

date of commemoration

This article says May 27 but other sites (e.g. http://catholicsaints.info/blessed-lojze-grozde/) say Jan. 1, which is the day of his death. Why May 27? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder/execute

An IP editor has tried to change "murder" to "execute" in the article lede; "murder" is appropriate based on dictionary definitions (Merriam-Webster) and "execute" is not:

• murder: "... the killing of a person secretly or with concealment ..."
• execute: "... put to death in conformity to a legal sentence ..."

If a hypernym for the otherwise factually correct "murder" is desired, "kill" ("... to deprive of life : put to death ...") would be acceptable. Doremo (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

the mentality

"Lojze Grozde was suspected of being an informant; the communists saw in him the mentality that they deprecated and persecuted." The communists hated informants? Everyone does. Except those on the side of the informants. Did they kill him because they thought he was an informant? or because he was a Catholic?--142.177.181.146 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Grozde.jpg
• GrozdeZaplaz.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted an article while working - help me!

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for 15 years in several languages, especially in Slovenian, as it is my mother tongue. Something like today has never happened to me. Today I was compiling an article on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia about a well-known pro-life worker called Dr. Anton Lisec. It is understood that the article did not yet have all the necessary additions, such as external links, literature, notes - as it was still in the making. While writing, there is a user: Edgar A. Poe

He simply deleted the article twice with some arguments that are not accurate. I think that in the background is only his intolerance towards those who have a different point of view on certain things, so doctor Anton Lisec defended life against abortus. I think that such an act is an outrageous insolence and it would be right if this user was warned about it. The article, which is still in the making, cannot yet be equipped with the entire critical apparatus. I wanted to add that. That this doctor Anton Lisec is not an insignificant personality is shown by the fact that 102,000 results appear on the Internet (today, 10.II.2024). I wonder how an administrator on Wikipedia can be such a dictator who deletes himself without first consulting with others or for others to present their arguments. I think that such behavior is possible and acceptable only in the Balkans, where the laws of general civilization are not respected, but the government is not the one that has arguments, but force.--Stebunik (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, without a valid argument, he first threatened to delete and then also deleted my article about the book "Pope Dictator", which was actually just a translation of the article in English, where it is marked as a "good article". Thank you for your understanding and possible intervention.--Stebunik (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User Edgar Alan Poe is even so brazen that he deleted my entire user page a while ago. They don't do that on any Wikipedia. Previously, the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia was tolerant - but now this user-admin acts as a ruthless dictator.--Stebunik (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)