Talk:Magnum Crimen

Mile Budak quote

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

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

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

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

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

Slobodan Kljakic

Can somebody please explain me how is possible that Slobodan Kljakic statement about book:"A major piece, written by the academician Viktor Novak..." is in article. Wikipedia reliable sources rule is clearly saying different thing. Serbian ministry of information during Serbo-Croatian war is reputable source like Nazi Germany ministry of information during Holocaust, Iraq ministry of information during Iraq-Iran war, ......

I am not having anything against this statement, but we must add more information about publication publisher and war situation or it is against wikipedia reliable sources rule and it must be deleted--Rjecina (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. However, we could mention that the Vatican listed it on the Index librorum prohibitorum, citing him. That's at least not controversial at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now an odd problem. I can't see to find the book's listing on any of the lists (or databases) located at Index Librorum Prohibitorum. That's really strange. Maybe there's something more to your questions about its reliability, Rjecina. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Ricky, I can't find much about this either. Except that the claim seems perhaps to have been first made not by Kljakić but by Novak himself in the 1960 edition. "Vatikana, a Santo Officio stavio djelo na Index librorum prohibitorum" ("The Vatican and Santo officio put the work on the Index librorum prohibitorum"). See this - although it is not clear exactly which work Novak is referring to. His own or another? Now, without any external verification, (I can see merely *possible* verification here), such a claim by the author himself, and repeated by Kljakić, would certainly need to be treated with a certain amount of caution. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is Index Librorum Prohibitorum from blogspot and nothing. Letter M and N, letter V

In my thinking that statement has been true, but book publisher is not reliable. My mistake--Rjecina (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been long enough. I removed the section here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If this book wasn't on the list should it be removed from the list of banned books article (mirrored elsewhere...)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this particular article you have in mind? There's nothing linked here, and it's not at List of books banned by governments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor at List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. In researching the article a bit I came across a bunch of mirror sites (http://www.google.com/search?q=Magnum+Crimen+Index+Librorum+Prohibitorum&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1]) based on the Wikipedia article, but perhaps they are not updated and that bit was already removed from the relevant articles. Thanks for checking it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To counter assault on this article and its authors

I started writing the Russian version of this article based on the latest uncensored version of this article. My plan is to find people who could help me in writing French, Italian, and Spanish versions.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note about Vatican's ban

In the Serbian daily newspaper, Politika (February 21. 2006) there is an article ('Dva izostavljena poglavlja iz knjige Viktora Novaka' by Slobodan Kljakic) which one of its paragraphs states

Vatikan je Novakovu knjigu, ubrzo posto je objavljena, uvrstio u "moralnu kugu", stavljajuci je na Index Librorum prohibitorum. Kako je pisalo u zagrebackom "Narodnom listu" u jesen 1948 godine, "Vatikan je i ovdje postupio po starom receptu: Sant' Officio je rekao 'Spali!'" '

In short, the Politika states in their article that Vatican marked this book as a 'moral plague' putting it on the Index Librorum prohibitorum. The article quotes the Zagreb newspaper "Narodni list" (autumn 1948): "Vatican here acted according to the old recipe" Saint' Officio said 'Burn it'".

So, evidence is given here that this book was on the Index Librorum prohibitorum as of autumn 1948.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's evidence... unless someone has a better source contradicting this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the article available online? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you read Serbian?--138.88.255.130 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Per above, isn't the fact that none of the versions of the Index at Index Librorum Prohibitorum include the book more persuasive? Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's right. I think it's more likely a single author in a Serbian newspaper got it wrong over every single listing of the Index is wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm come to think of it, the article quote above does not explicitly state the book was added to the Index Librorum prohibitorum... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Calling upon Wikipedia as a source? All universities, colleges and even high schools in America excluded Wikipedia as a reference for anything. Index Librorum prohibitorum was open by Vatican, but never went public i.e. there is no digitzed copies of any of the Index' lists.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the links provided here. I don't see it here, here or here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first 'here' is a Wikipedia garbage article. The second 'here' lists books up to 1559 (we are talking about 1948). The third 'here' is a garbage that lists some entries from 1990 and after, if selecting 'Serbian' as the language - which shows nothing in common with the index. The fourth 'here' gives an incomplete list of the Index until 1944, even though claiming up 1948 (we are talking about 1948). If typing the author's name in the third 'here', say Malaparte, I've expected to get the correct information: - La pelle, storia e racconto - Decr. S. Off. 31-05-1950 i.e. Malaparte's book La Pelle (The Skin) being put on the Index as of May 31, 1950 by the Decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. I did not get anything! This poor soul Ricky81682 continues throwing nonsense after nonsense. Does he still think that he deserves any attention here?--138.88.255.130 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean this Malaparte? A source which I repeat again doesn't show Novak's work? If you could knock off the personal attacks, I'd be happy to discuss things reasonably with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• You mentioned personal attacks, eh? All time you are calling upon references which have nothing in common with the subject. Can't you accept that the Bacon for Freedom of Expression does not have anything in common with the Index? If you ever saw the Index, then, as I mentioned it above, the Index will show the author name (say - Sartre, Jean-Paul), the scope of the prohibition (Opera omnia, i.e. all the works he wrote up to ... October 27, 1948) and the decree timestamp (-Decr. S. Off. 27-10-1948, i.e. Decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition as of October 27, 1948). The Bacon has no single entry I've found in the Index. Please, be so kind, do not waste my time by harassing common sense and not showing any relevant knowledge of this subject.--MagnumCrimen (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I got Beacon for Freedom from the listing here. If you want to continue to be insulting, feel free but, I will continue to question you about something that seems off. As noted above, all we have is a single Serbian newspaper article that mentions this (and it's questionable itself). The incivility though is tiresome, even as you do change IP addresses and names constantly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's noted here that Sartre was on the list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, pay attention to the facts:
Slobodan Kljakic is a university professor who published a book that passes the scrutiny of an editorial board
We have below information coming from Prof. Novak - his book was on the Index
The Index condemnation was echoed in Narodni list (newspaper).--166.32.193.81 (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More information about the Vatican ban

In the foreword of the Velika optužba (Magnum crimen): pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj, Volume 2 by Viktor Novak, Svjetlost, 1960 on the page 28 (found in the University of Michigan Library) is written in Serbo-Croatian language:

... a Santo Officio stavio djelo na Index librorum prohibitorum, zacijelo žaleći samo što pisca njegova ne može da izvede na lomacu, da i s njime uprilici jedan monstruozno svecani ...

Translation: ... and Santo Officio put the work on the Index librorum prohibitorum, certainly regretting for not being able to burn the (book) writer at the stake ...

As we all know it, that time Novak was alive and, apparently, as a serious author and the university professor, would not allow a false statement into the foreword of his book - if it were a false statement.

As to the Index, after 1900 the Index became updateable. So some books were put then removed from this Index, which makes historians to dig through other sources of information (newspapers, books) to get the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: Le génocide occulté: état indépendant de Croatie, 1941-1945 by Marco Aurelio Rivelli, Published by L'AGE D'HOMME, 1998 page 18:

Loin de se repentir, donc, le Vatican s'est tu. L'auteur d'un ouvrage sur ce massacre, le Dr Viktor Novak, historien yougoslave d'origine croate, a vu son ceuvre, Magnum Crimen, publiée à Zagreb en 1948, à l'Index librorum prohibitorum en meme temps qu'il etait excommunié--166.32.193.81 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the Index was last updated in 1948. Its entire content is accessible online (for example, here) and there is no mention of Novak in there. In fact there is no piece of evidence coming from the allegedly banning authority (Catholic Church) that they ever banned the book. The only ones claiming so were Narodni list (in 1948), Novak himself (in the 1960 edition) and Rivelli (in 1998, for whom we have no idea where he got that information from). Until someone actually finds a source confirming that the book was banned by the Vatican from 1948 to 1966 (when the Index was abolished), I will delete this claim. Timbouctou (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete only if providing a credible reference supporting the claim that this book was not on the Index. The Index was updated i.e. its content was changed which means that some entries were removed. The online index is apparently incomplete. For example, Malaparte's La Pelle was prohibited by Roman Catholic Church and was on the Index, which is not visible on this online list. Moreover, on that list are not even Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Milton, Pascal, Locke, Voltaire, Hume, Russeau, Flaubert, Zola, Sartre who were prohibited by RCC as per How to Be an Existentialist: or How to Get Real, Get a Grip and Stop Making Excuses (Google eBook) by Gary Cox, A&C Black, Jun 1, 2010 page 116--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A "credible source" is what I linked above. It lists the entire 1948 edition of the Index (which is the only version that could have theoretically included Novak). Galileo, Flaubert and the like may have been censored previously but have been removed from the list by 1948. Unless you can produce an actual Catholic Church source listing Novak's book as prohibited (or censored or whatever), this is just unverified hearsay from second and third hand sources. Equally dubious is the claim that Novak had been a Catholic priest at any point in his life - the 1986 edition is available online and neither the publisher's introduction, Blazevic's foreword nor Horvat himself mention anywhere that Horvat had ever actually been a priest. The 1950 review by Neumann (which you and Milos insist on copying word-for-word) seems to be full of factual errors. Timbouctou (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Counter references by references, if you have any, not by your opinion.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not work that way. Oskar Neumann could have just as well written that Catholics are really shape-shifting lizards back in 1950. But that does not mean we should take it for granted. On the other hand, every single book ever included in the Index is well documented as we have access to all editions of the Index. And Novak is not present in any of them. So Neumann obviously had no clue what he was talking about. Timbouctou (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop writing nonsense. The "Index" is apparently a fragment of the real Index, therefore a false reference per se.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say it is "a fragment" exactly? Does it even matter? Is there any list published anywhere by anyone at any time which includes Magnum Crimen in it? Or do you think that having a secret list of prohibited books contributes to their prohibition in public usage? Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Alphascript Publishing reference

I've removed the following VDM Publishing reference:

The latest, and the most comprehensive (80 pages long) survey of this book, is the one edited by Miller, Vandome and McBrewster: Magnum Crimen by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor) Alphascript Publishing, London (March 5, 2010) ISBN-10: 6130717385, ISBN-13: 978-6130717384. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged racist attitude of clergy?

Here is an excerpt (page 990)

Page 990

Nadbisku Stepinac svake godine o Novoj godini predvodi svoje svećenstvo Paveliću i pozdravlja Pavelića sa željama da Pavelić uspije i do kraja izvrši "konsolidaciju" NDH moli za dug život Pavelića i njegove uspjehe a tako isto i na njegov imendan 13 VI i na rođendan 14 VII. Sam najsvečanije celebrira in pontifikalibus o godišnjici NDH i dopušta da se u katedrali najsvečanije izvode zadušnice za najvećeg ustaškog krvnika komandanta "Crne legije" Juru Francetića.

There is far more about the clergy and their involvement in monstruous crimes committed during the WWII--Remind me never (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Online and downloadable this book pdf copy

Magnum Crimen

Please, add it to the article sources. --71.178.103.23 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

Please, has anyone ever translated this book (or a summary or excerpts of it) in English, or French or any other language? If you have any information about this (or about such a project) please contact me:

jdebetz@gmail.com

Thank you.

Jean P.W.

English language translation of the book Magnum Crimen is available here (talkwww.magnumcrimen.org www.magnumcrimen.org.

Please, add it to the article sources.

Locked

Why this article is locked for years?--Milos zankov (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Because vandals and POV warriors circle here on a regular basis? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception unbalanced?

It is nowhere explained which way this book reception is unbalanced. I'd be glad to add more information if I see which way is the book reception unbalanced.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Milos - actually, if you look at the prior version of the article,[1] you'll see a comment pointing to Talk:Magnum Crimen/Comments. The explanation is there. I'd say that the problem with balance is still present. GregorB (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've read your comment and I couldn't accept Lovrenovic as a scholar. Not all comments are valuable. Any comment is welcome and acceptable if it's substantiated and sourced. In addition, there are direct links to two negative comments John Neubauer [23] and Robin Harris.[24]. Harris' comment is an opinion, which, I don't think shall be inlined

The scale of the atrocities which now occurred was subsequently greatly exaggerated for political purposes. Viktor Novak, in his slanderous work Magnum Crimen (1948), created out of it a theory of fifty years of Croatian "clero-fascism."

--Milos zankov (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did not suggest Lovrenović was a scholar: I quoted his words to illustrate a wider sentiment about the book. Also, I don't think that critical views of the book - if they're as strong and as widely held as in this case - have to come exclusively from scholars to be mentioned in the article.

The sentence about the "authors who left just short notes about this book" is the crucial problem. Authors who had positive things to say about the book are quoted, but it just so happens that Harris and Neubauer - with their extremely negative assessments - are not, and their views are laconically summarized as merely "short notes about this book". This is precisely the lack of balance I was talking about.

I'll try to find more of the critical views and list them here. GregorB (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, let me fix 'short notes'--Milos zankov (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Croatian Encyclopedia[2] describes the book as "controversial" and notes Novak was actually excommunicated by the CC - maybe that's worth putting in, the intro only mentions an "anathema".

After a quick scan of online sources I've found this:

• Nothing much on the book in English beyond what is already in the article (but is not fleshed out, as agreed).
• Many Croatian sources seem to mention the book only in passing.
• Negative views come largely from sources associated with the CC - no surprise there.

I'll be back with more details in a couple of days. GregorB (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to add a Croatian book review to the article, the more substance, the better. About Novak's excommunication, I'd suggest to add this information to his biography.--Milos zankov (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

But it is precisely because of the book he got excommunicated, that's a remarkable fact (even more so than being added to the Index librorum prohibitorum), so it deserves at least a mention. I might add it myself, I'll make a pass or two through the article. I think I'll gather some sources about the reception first - hopefully in a day or two. GregorB (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not against what you wrote above. If you think that his excommunication suits better to his book review than his biography, go ahead that way.--Milos zankov (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

English language edition [2011]

I've added this section to the article. The two omitted chapters are online available as the whole book (its earlier edition). Please, leave your comments here.--Milos zankov (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

The Background section, added in July 2010 by a blocked socketpuppet of User:Velebit, is identical to the summary published at http://magnumcrimen.org/. The Content section seems to be suffering from the same problem. Timbouctou (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The sockpuppet text, you are referring to, comes from Oscar Neumann. He says,

"The name of the author is not completely unknown to students of Latin paleography. Another question is how many of his articles and books on various aspects of Croat national history may have reached either private or public libraries in America. Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples."

in his book review article titled as: Novak, Viktor, Magnum crimen. Pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj (A Half Century of Clericalism in Croatia). Zagreb, 1948. Pp. 1124 in Journal of Central European Affairs - Volume 10 - 1950 Page 63.

So, your rewording (An ethnic Croat by birth, he has been, since 1924, active as a priest among ethnic Serbs, who are traditionally Orthodox.) of the bold text above is actually rewording of a quote, and makes no sense. Please do not reword the article text if you just do not understand it.

• Your "...edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian, ..." is inaccurate (not friend, rather schoolmate), and tagging an historian as a nationalist is POV which has no place here.
• The same text you tagged by and by is unchanged for more than six years. Please, explain on the talk page why the tags are necessary.
• Refrain from rewording the quoted text, too.--Milos zankov(talk) 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

An example of unacceptable use of a source, according to WP:Plagiarism, is:

Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes from a source under copyright—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.

So, it's not that the original text should not be changed - if it's not an attributed quote ("according to Lutz, Novak was 'blah blah'"), it must be changed, i.e. paraphrased. GregorB (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have apparently removed some {{cn}} tags. Note these need not be "explained" (what is there to "explain"?), and should not be removed without providing an inline ref. I'm therefore tempted to revert your edit but let's see what Timbouctou has to say... GregorB (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right about plagiarizm. The source is added. I cannot accept yours "blah, blah". What I did is a usual way of citing authors in scholar works and Wikipedia nowhere is against it. Quotes are not necessary. Any rewording of someone's text must preserve the text original meaning, not distort it. There are numerous examples of such way of referencing other works. One mistake on my side, the author is Oscar Neumann which I fixed now. Quoted text cannot be reworded under no circumstances if the text is already quoted.
• About {{cn}}, yes it has to be elaborated. If one man thinks it's necessary, the other might not think so.--Milos zankov (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid a possible misunderstanding, "blah blah" was meant as a generic placeholder for quoted text, not as a reflection on the content.

I merely wanted to point out that your criticism of Timbouctou's paraphrasing was not valid. Regarding the choice between quoting and paraphrasing, this is an encyclopedia after all, so the latter is preferable to the former. It is not uncommon to have articles with hundreds of sources, and the text in which every other sentence began with "According to Smith, ..." and "According to Jones, ..." would be quite odd.

{{Cn}} has to be elaborated? That's news to me. Is there anything to that effect in Template:Citation needed instructions, or anywhere else for that matter?

I have no time to take a closer look at the article - tomorrow perhaps. GregorB (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, if calling upon Wikipedia guidance, you shall stop ridiculing my posts ("blah, blah", then "That's news to me"). Then, the second time you are falsely referring to Wikipedia guidance. From the Template:Citation needed instructions, " (also known by the redirects and ) is a template used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source.". Therefore, provide the proof that the marked text is questionable.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, "blah blah" was meant to be a generic placeholder, not a comment on the text and definitely not ridicule. Sorry if that led to a misunderstanding.

The "news to me" part may have sounded sarcastic, but that was not my intention at all. I meant it in a quite literal sense: a surprise for me, because I've been editing the English Wikipedia for almost 10 years now and I'm completely unaware of a guideline that would require an explanation as a prerequisite for using a {{cn}}. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but nothing in the template's instructions suggest this is so. It's "particularly if questionable", not "only if questionable". The same instruction clearly says that "an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason", the only exception being "common well-known facts" (e.g., "the Moon orbits the Earth"). Note also WP:MINREF criterion #2. I believe this should be abundantly clear. If you disagree with this interpretation, you're free to ask for a second opinion at the Village pump or some other venue. GregorB (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Milos zankov

I have reverted wholesale changes reverted to by Milos and would like him to dicuss these changes point by point here. A word of advice - arguing that something had been "in the article for six years" is not really an argument. Also, there is a difference between referencing a fact by supplying its source and directly quoting every single thing verbatim as it appears somewhere. Timbouctou (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Intentional distortion of the quoted text then deleting reference and changing the referenced text arbitrarily is vandalism. Refusal to justify your changes in the text is refusal to collaborate. All this is against the five pillars of Wikipedia.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously. What do you mean by "intentional distortion of the quoted text"? Examples, please. Also, I believe I have a good grasp of the five pillars you are referring to after spending some 9 years on Wikipedia. You have been here less than a month. Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case. Timbouctou (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A reset

May I suggest a reset of the discussion?

We all want to see an improvement to this article. As I already noted,[3] I'm satisfied with the general direction and I think changes are generally a good thing. I really appreciate the willingness and effort that's behind them, even if I disagreed with some of the edits.

Let's discuss our concerns here and refrain from major changes without prior explanation (preferably discussion). That's all there is to it. There is no deadline. I'm sure the article will benefit. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions related to basic editorial rules, validity of the text changes, and civilty

Unproductive exchange that is going nowhere. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was in a stable state for more than six years. Now we are facing with

• Removal of the references here here
• The referenced text altered after removing reference: "Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs" turned into "An ethnic Croat by birth, he has been, since 1924, active as a priest among ethnic Serbs, who are traditionally Orthodox."
• Huge number of clarify, fact, and POV without any justification or explanation on the talk page, and refusal to do it, when asked;
• POV and disqualifying: "As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian, who also wrote the foreword to the edition".
• Sidetracking of the issues arised on the talk page, baseless accusations for not following Wikipedia rules and ridiculing the opponents in discussion
  • Examples: I requested avoiding removal of references and distortions of the quoted text which was countered by ridiculing the request "it's not that the original text should not be changed - if it's not an attributed quote ("according to Lutz, Novak was 'blah blah'"), it must be changed" by GregorB then again by the same user "That's news to me". The next incivilty was addressing me, not the issue: "User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously". even though I was very specific in my written request earlier on the talk page, which user User talk:Timbouctou refused to address and then the most outrageous and false claim came from the same user "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case."

To verify the quotes seehere and here.

• WorldCat is an academic inter library search engine in use worldwide and Troicki's review of Magnum Crimen is not questionable therefore all valid references.
• Serbian reprint [1986] Amid a rise in nationalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s Magnum Crimen was reprinted in Belgrade in 1986, the same year as the SANU memorandum.[8] Dragoljub Živojinović and Dejan Lučić also released their Varvarstvo u ime Hristovo: prilozi za Magnum Crimen (Barbarity in the Name of Christ: Supplements for Magnum Crimen) in 1988.[8] Magnum Crimen was released with a new foreword by Jakov Blažević, a lifelong communist official and the prosecutor at the trial of Aloysius Stepinac.[18] burdened by political connotations which are un-encyclopaedic per se and of no importance to this book review.
• The addition "According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]" is completely fabricated and not verified by reference [31].
• Logical fallacy: "According to Croatian historian Bogdan Krizman, he was present at a meeting where his father Hinko Krizman (then minister of social politics in the new Croatian communist government), Duško Brkić (then minister of justice) and Viktor Novak agreed to prepare the work for Stepinac's trial.[23][dubious – discuss] Ultimately, it was published by the state Publishing Institute of Croatia in 1948."

Stepinac's trial ended in September 1946, this book was finished and published in 1948. Krizman nowhere said it, it's Kristo's who said 'Krizman said'.

At the end, the described behavior of the users mentioned in this request for comment and damaging text changes shall be stopped.--Milos zankov (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Serbian reprint [1986] Amid a rise in nationalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s Magnum Crimen was reprinted in Belgrade in 1986, the same year as the SANU memorandum.[8] Dragoljub Živojinović and Dejan Lučić also released their Varvarstvo u ime Hristovo: prilozi za Magnum Crimen (Barbarity in the Name of Christ: Supplements for Magnum Crimen) in 1988.[8] Magnum Crimen was released with a new foreword by Jakov Blažević, a lifelong communist official and the prosecutor at the trial of Aloysius Stepinac.[18] burdened by political connotations which are un-encyclopaedic per se and of no importance to this book review.

I don't see how separating a clearly political book from its political context is even possible in an encyclopedic article about the book, so I would tend to disagree. It is common knowledge that there was a "rise in nationalism" in the 1980s in Yugoslavia, and "lifelong communist official" is merely a pretty neutral factoid that helps explain who Blažević was. Also, please acquaint yourself with the way discussions are led on Wikipedia. Adding your comments inside your previous comments makes the entire thread difficult to follow. Timbouctou (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring will hardly get you anywhere and I refuse to discuss this wholesale. List your concerns point by point if you want to engage in a fruitful discussion. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and btw this is not a "reference". It is somebody's translation of the primary source, published on somebody's blog. Please discuss changes you want to see introduced here before altering the article. If you are able to provide reasonable arguments for your edits we will not have a problem. If you don't, we will. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The RFC displays a serious violation of WP:AGF. I'm not interested in further involvement with the article under these circumstances. I'm therefore removing it from my watchlist, but I'll be still available for comments. GregorB (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have concerns about the attitude apparent in this RFC. The edits complained about seems to me quite reasonable. The requestor appears to have assumed ownership of this article and seems unwilling to assume good faith. Statements like "...and shall be stopped." are not helpful and indicate a readiness to "edit war". Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and wikipedians need to have a thick skin. Complaints about incivility are based on very scanty evidence. Additionally, I agree with the removal of references that originate from a foreign language blog. Jschnur (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Jschnur Never had an idea that I own the article. The Good Faith must be demonstrated not required after bad words about me. Solicited comment for seeing just one side?--Milos zankov (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I was randomly selected to comment on this RFC. See my talk page. Your inability to assume good faith is telling. Jschnur (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• User Jschnur: Your comment should be impartial and honest. At least, you should notice that this RfC was vandalized by Timbouctou several times, his bad words about scholars, other user, the book are not a proof of good faith, soliciting publicly support from his compatriot administrator, etc. See more below.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• RfC The article change history shows that the copyright violation is on the .org side which copied most of the Wikipedia article. Removal of the valid and already used reference, then tagging a paragraph with POV makes no sense which Timbouctou did. Rewording a quoted text is a bad practice, assumption of the article ownership is on the Timbouctou side. I do not read Serbo-Croatian, therefore abstaining from a detailed comment about the content and I'll fix which I see wrong. In addition, I agree with the RfC request saying that numerous clarification-needed and citation-needed shall be discussed and justified--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI we don't know if the "quoted text" is indeed quoted, as it is not represented as a quote at either magnumcrimen.org, nor was it referenced when it was originally added in July 2010 by a blocked socketpuppet. The only idea that any of the text is "quoted" comes from Milos Zankov, a single purpose account who showed up some four years later and who had nothing to do with adding the "quote" in the first place. Also, the "quoted text" is way too long to be considered a quote, and even if we had a reference and page number for it - we still wouldn't be able to use it because of plagiarism. But even if all that is deemed irrelevant - the fact remains that the majority of the article which Milos Zankov wants to see unchanged and included in the article WAS COPIED VERBATIM from a WEBSITE WHICH SAYS IT HOLDS COPYRIGHT TO ITS ENTIRE CONTENT, AS STATED ON THE SAID WEBSITE IN PLAIN VIEW. Timbouctou (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou: Please, do not shout. Here is the proof that you are talking nonsense: https://www.google.com/search?q=Viktor+Novak%2C+a+Croat+by+birth%2C+has+been%2C+since+1924%2C+active+among+the+Serbs.+He+has+held+the+Chair+of+Croat+History+which+was+founded+at+the+University+of+Belgrade+in+order+to+promote+mutual+understanding+between+the+two+kindred+peoples.&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl . This link show you that the quoted text came from a reference dated back to 1950, way before the internet era, not from the .org.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also read the Magnum Crimen footnote: Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Therefore the Magnum Crimen article is copyrighted way before the .org article!--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So entire paragraphs originally published in a 1950 book review in a journal (written by someone called O. Neumann about whom we know nothing about and presumably copyrighted) were copied verbatim (non-attributed to any source and unreferenced) to Wikipedia in 2010 (which publishes its articles under creative commons), and then copied (unattributed) again to magnumcrimen.org in 2015 (which claims copyright over its entire content). And then User:Milos zankov (and you yourself) edit-war on the article in order to have the 1950 text restored verbatim - but attributed to the primary work itself, (more specifically "Magnum Crimen [1948], pages I-XV" - which even you yourself say is not really the source of the paragraph given. Sorry but this is a blatant case of WP:PLAGIARISM. Which makes it even worse, as the entire paragraph needs to be deleted or paraphrased, including the vague descriptions such as "active among the Serbs" and the like. Using your circular logic anything copied to Wikipedia can become public domain by virtue of it being copied to Wikipedia. This is even more absurd since you and Zankov seem to prefer citing a book review for biography facts about the book's author, who was pretty well known, who was a member of the academy of science and whose biography must be available in a million other places. Timbouctou (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Timbouctou Please, refrain further from your old rant. There is no plagiarism because the whole paragraph you deleted is properly sourced now. You have to learn what is the plagiarism and when to use this word. A text written in 2015 (magnumcrimen.org) cannot be copied in 2010 (into [Magnum Crimen]) because the time is not running backward.--Milos zankov (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Read my comment a few more times and perhaps you may begin to grasp why your response makes absolutely no sense. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate text

I've removed this addition

"The second part of Novak's trilogy Josip Juraj Strossmayer: apostol Jugoslovenske misli was published in 1941 by the state-sponsored Sokol Federation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a unitarist organization founded in 1929. Its reprint in Belgrade in 1987 was retitled as Magnum Sacerdos"

It is already visible who was publisher, for this reference is given. The phrases "state-sponsored" and "unitarist" have political connotation therefore they are just a personal opinion.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

These hardly qualify as "personal opinion" if these facts are widely known and not disputed, per WP:BLUE, and one can argue pretty convincingly that these are relevant for providing a context for readers. I mean, this article is undoubtedly about a book that has some sort of a political agenda. Not saying who published it, where and when, would be misleading. Timbouctou (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLUE:This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.
• Also, the same essay WP:BLUE says
  Over-tagging
  Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that need verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See Wikipedia:Template messages. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable.
  then
  Over-citing
  Further information: Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available. The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea.
  Bottom line: Make difference between opinions and facts and better read and understand what you're suggesting for reading to others.--Milos zankov (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbian reprint [1986] and First edition [1948]

Amid a rise in nationalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s Magnum Crimen was reprinted in Belgrade in 1986, the same year as the SANU memorandum.[5] Dragoljub Živojinović and Dejan Lučić also released their Varvarstvo u ime Hristovo: prilozi za Magnum Crimen (Barbarity in the Name of Christ: Supplements for Magnum Crimen) in 1988.[5] Magnum Crimen was released with a new foreword by Jakov Blažević, a lifelong communist official and the prosecutor at the trial of Aloysius Stepinac.[15]

All above has a marginal meaning and it is written in a political tone with negative hints about someones bad intentions tied to this book. I removed the whole section as per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Further,

According to historians Sabrina P. Ramet and Ljubiša S. Adamović, the work originated as preparation for the trial of Aloysius Stepinac in 1946.[5] According to Croatian historian Bogdan Krizman, he was present at a meeting where his father Hinko Krizman (then minister of social politics in the new Croatian communist government), Duško Brkić (then minister of justice) and Viktor Novak agreed to prepare the work for Stepinac's trial.[6] Ultimately, it was published by the state Publishing Institute of Croatia in 1948.

is a tell-tale which I removed from the First edition [1948]. --Michelle Ridomi (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume only you and your alter ego agree with that proposal, so I guess you don't have consensus for that. The paragraphs above are valuable for the book publication's context. Again - Magnum Crimen is a political book, envisioned to promote a political goal, published exactly at moments when it was supposed to have political impact. Ignoring it all is hardly helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I told you, don't call upon your opinion. You are violating WP:NPOV repeatedly. Avoid further any incivilty ("your alter ego")!--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits need consensus and consensus consists of opinions. You don't own this article, and neither does your sock/meat puppet Milos. Sorry. Perhaps you could write about this topic on your blog instead? Timbouctou (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Michelle Ridomi I fully support your changes you have made. We see that Novak started writing Magnum Crimen in the autumn of 1941 and finished it in 1948. Apparently this book cannot be seen as a preparation work for the Stepinac trial which ended in 1946.--Milos zankov (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• As a support to Michelle's removal of the work originated as preparation for the trial of Aloysius Stepinac I offer the quote I found in the Broszat-Hory book, Als wichtigste Veröffentlichungen dieser Gattung sind zu nennen: Sudjenje Lisaku, Stepincu, Šaliću i družini ustaško-križarskim zločincima i njihovim pomagačima (Der Prozeß gegen die Verbrecher des Ustascha-Kreuzzuges, Lisak, Stepinac, Šalić und ihre Helfershelfer ) Zagreb 1946. Ferner; Viktor Novak: Magnum Crimen. Pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj (Das große Verbrechen. Ein Jahrhundert Klerikalismus in Kroatien) - Zagreb 1948. Werk (1119 S.) behandelt in seinem zweiten Teil die Zeit des Pavelic-Regimes. Es stützt sich dabei vornehmlich auf Dokumente aus den jugoslawischen Archiven der "Landescommissionen zur Erforschung der Verbrechen der Besatzungsmaechte und ihrer Helfershelfer" sowie die Ustascha und die kirchlich-katolische Presse in Kroatien.--Milos zankov (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Milos zankov: I used google translate to understand the quoted text above. It's quite logical what Hory/Broszat wrote. --Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary source vs secondary and tertiary references

I added some secondary sources and now we have 14 secondary sources out of 36. I think that we can remove now the tag requesting additional secondary and tertiary sources.--Milos zankov (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The majority of inline citations still refer to the primary material. That is not acceptable and should be improved. Timbouctou (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Milos zankov: I see you added a number of references. We cannot expect that all references based on the book itself shall be replaced by secondary aand tertiary sources. This is the book review and we are supposed to read this book. I'm reading the English translation of this book. Go ahead and remove the tag if you want.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we expect that? An article about the book is supposed to have information coming from people who we assume are experts and what they said about the book. Timbouctou (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me just comment on using the book as a primary source: I believe it should be OK to use the book itself to support straightforward, non-interpretative claims about its content. (I have not verified, though, that this is indeed the case here.) GregorB (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How long will User:timbouctou be allowed to vandalise this aricle?

Just curious, because his/her behaviour is hideous and the fact it is tolerated here makes Wikipedia as flippant about promulgation of extreme right-wing Croatian Ustashi ideology as the so-called "Croatian Wikipedia" (to wit: Wikipedia in that language) has been when it caused a stir all the way to Croatia's government and Wikipedia founders getting involved. This is happenning again, only now on Wikipedia in English where the likes of User:timbouctou are removing everything that remotely informs on, let alone problematises, the facts of Croatian extreme right wing and Roman Catholic church in Croatia's atrocities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

VATICAN'S HANDS OVER THIS ARTICLE?

It is not possible to undertand what is MAGNUM CRIMEN! Too many details without importance are given but there is no simple explanation what it is all about? I suppose that Vaticans' paid agents have written some of parts that hide the truth and understanding and I suppose that it all about their crimes in Croatia over Serbs. The Jeruslaem Post has written in an article "Mass Grave of History: Vatican's WWII Identity crises" about priests who took part in competitons "who can split more Serbian throats in a night" . "On August 29, 1942, a friar from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg, named Petar Brzica, won first place for killing the most Serbs in the shortest time, boasting 1,350 throats slit in one night." write JP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)