Talk:Prebilovci

Dispute

Genocide of Serbs

This is not for wikipedia because nobody outside Serbia is calling Ustaša crimes against Serbs genocide!

Massacre

In longer version of article there is 18 lines about Prebilovci (together with history) and 28 lines about Prebilovci Massacre !! Wikipedia is having article Prebilovci Massacre so this is for that article !

Virgin Mary

Prebilovci is in Čapljina municipality. Virgin Mary has been "seen" in Čitluk municipality.

Can somebody using arguments tell me what is wrong with this statement ? ---Rjecina 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute - comments

• It would seem that the salient feature of this article could well be the massacre, in which case the two articles should/could be merged here.
• The article needs to be neutral. This means that terms should describe what happened, not whether it was good or bad. E.G. "tragedy" for the more obvious one, but "only" is also value laden.
• Please find references to support statements if possible.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:38 5 November 2007 (GMT).

More comments

If some call it genocide, then it needs to be included here. But obviously just a passing reference, as we currently have, isn't appropriate. StAnselm 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am tired to be attacked by POV editors. From article it is clear that Prebilovci is in Čapljina municipality. Virgin Mary is "seen" in Čitluk municipality (look article Međugorje).

If we look other solutions about massacre it is not possible to merge articles Prebilovci and Prebilovci massacre. This are examples for this statement:Vukovar and Vukovar massacre, Gospić and Gospić massacre. With hope that there will not be "new thinking" how we all need to write on wikipedia I will close discussion about this arguments.

For the end there is need to say that I do not believe in any new graves finding which has been made shortly before or during Yugoslav wars. This "findings" has been made only with wish to create nationalistic tension so that 1 nation start to hate others (finding of this graves has been in 1991). For users which know very little about that it will be interesting to read this small PDF book Globalizing the Holocaust

I am really tired of fighting hate editors !! --Rjecina 15:38, 7 November 2007

Protected for a week

I suggest you use this time to talk about where you would like this article to go instead of reverting. And I'll be happy to unprotect if I see the issues being resolved by constructive dialog. Cheers! henrik•talk 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that only reliably sourced material be added, to begin with? henrik•talk 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess! The best way forward might be to delete the "Prebilovci massacre" article along with all reference to a massacre in the Prebilovci article, at least until reliable documentary evidence is forthcoming that there ever was an atrocity known as the Prebilovci massacre. I readily accept that people from Prebilovci and from other communities in that area were murdered by Ustaše. But, like justiceinwiki, I have not heard that any such crimes were ever known as "the Prebilovci massacre." And it cannot be right, here at the English-language Wikipedia, that the only English-language source cited on the "Prebilovci massacre" page says the victims were rounded up in late June 1941 whereas the article itself says August 6 1941.

Justiceinwiki, please sign your comments on discussion and talk pages as you have already been asked. Just type four tildes (~) and they will be converted into your username and date.

Rjecina, thanks for the link about globalising the holocaust. It's a very complex article and I will need to go through it slowly. At first glance I am not sure it entirely supports your point? If you read it only in English, you did well to absorb it, as I know you think your English is not great (though it is a lot better than my Croatian/Serbian). Kirker 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

user:Justiceinwiki is WP:SPA account [1]. user:64.53.191.173 is WP:SPA account 64.53.191.173. Why we need to discuss about that. We are having 2 WP:SPA account which want to changes wikipedia policy about articles. Even if they are not WP:SPA account I will question how is possible that new user with little or no knowledge how wikipedia works question way in which we write articles. For us her is not possible to make decision if there will be merge of articles Prebilovci and Prebilovci massacre because for making this decision we need send invitations to all user which has edited similar massacre articles so that they can vote against wikipedia policy change. Reason for this invitation is fact that wikipedia do not allow double standards and if we change this article and not others we will have double standard. Compromise about that is not possible !!

It will be nice for this two (or maybe only 1 + sockpuppet) to see for example article Vukovar. He is having 76 lined and only 16 speaks about battle and massacre. Article Vukovar is having 23 lines about town history before World War II, but even this "short" version of article Prebilovci is having 4 lines of history before World War II. Prebilovci are having 570 years of history (from town site) before WW II and all this 570 years are having together 4 lines in article. This article is for me best example on wikipedia of hate editing !! --Rjecina 07:43, 11 November 2007

Both Prebilovci massacre and Prebilovci are very poorly referenced for such contentious material which is likely to lead to these kinds of conflicts. It may not be a bad idea to start over from scratch, with all editors being very strict about verifiability. Remember that wikipedia is only supposed to reflect what others have written about a subject!

Also, Rjecina and Justiceinwiki: Please stop accusing each other of bad faith, it isn't productive and won't help resolve the conflicts here. henrik•talk 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

All in favour of starting again, henrik, in which case the first step is to delete everything from both existing entries.Kirker 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We are having here 2 complete different problems.

First problem is if wikipedia will changes editorial rule that city is having 1 article and massacre which has happened in city or near him another. I am against because this is against wikipedia editorial rules. WP:SPA account user:Justiceinwiki want to change that. His argument is: I want to write about this massacre in city article not in massacre article. I will not accept that and I will always revert not because I am from Croatia but because his demand is against wikipedia editorial rules. I am proud of fact that serbian editors attacks me because I am from Croatia and croatian editors write that I am enemy of Croatia [2] .

Second problem is verifiability, but it is not important for this discussion. I will not anymore write comments in this discussion because my arguments are very clear and it is not possible to defeat them. --Rjecina 16:08, 12 November 2007

Could you please clarify exactly which "editorial rule" do you refer to? henrik•talk 16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given demand for checkuser for account Justiceinwiki because he is helped in editing by similar accounts.

Look this list and connected articles: List of massacres during the Second Intifada . I have choosen this list because there is many articles and they are outside ex Yugoslavia.

Look this articles about massacres in ex Yugoslavia: Plitvice Lakes and Plitvice Lakes incident, Borovo Selo and Borovo Selo killings, Vukovar and Vukovar massacre , Lovas and Lovas massacre, Gospić and Gospić massacre. This is only first half of massacres during Croatia war of independence. For the end you must see article Široka Kula massacre. It is very interesting because article Široka Kula do not exist. This all is showing that our editorial rules are to have 1 article for city or place and another which speaks about massacres. On english wikipedia there is 1000 + articles which are writen in similar way. We can say or think what we want but this is our editorial policy. --Rjecina 17:08, 12 November 2007

Rjecina, I'm not sure it's worth getting too worked up about the need for one article with the heading Prebilovci and another headed Prebilovci massacre. I think you might have misunderstood justiceinwiki a little bit? If I understand correctly myself, his/her point is this: there WAS an atrocity in which people who had been taken from Prebilovci were murdered, together with people who had been taken from one or two other communities. However this atrocity did not occur at Prebilovc and has never been known as the "Prebilovci massacre." If this is justiceinwki's point, I agree with it. And I think if you visited that part of Herzegovina you also might have to agree that people in the area are not aware of anything called the Prebilovci massacre. For this reason I would prefer that there should be no article called Prebilovci massacre. However I see no problem with the Prebilovci article including the fact that many inhabitants were killed in a nearby atrocity during WW2. (But I do still think we need to pin down the actual date beyond argument.) The Ustaša slaughtered groups of people in many places, but we already have general articles about the organisation and about their persecution of Serbs (to which I have just added, by the way). For me that is enough, without every incident also needing to have an article of its own, under a massacre heading. But let me know what you think. You too, justiceinwiki, especially if I have misunderstood your concern. Kirker 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Book

For me shortest possible words about this books are from Vuk Drašković (foreign minister of [[Serbia):

"Serbs are the thirteenth, lost and the most ill-fated tribe of Israel"

and Dobrica Ćosić (president of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

"We Serbs feel today as the Jews did in Hitler’s day.... Today, Serbophobia in Europe is a concept and an attitude with the same ideological motivation and fury as anti-Semitism had during the Nazi era"

I only want to point how Croats are having nationalist mythology how Ustaše has not been bad guys (you can read about that on wiki) and Serbs are having nationalistic mythology how they are historical victims (we are still not having that on wiki). --Rjecina 07:46, 11 November 2007

No one has suggestead anything like this in the Prebilovci article, so I have no idea why you're bringing this up in the Prebilovci discussion page...? But I belive everyone else who read your comments have a sort of sence of why your bringing this up, but I don't want to go any more further with this and make the Prebilovci discussion where you spread nationalistic rethoric that is not even relevant to the article at all. -- the Prebilovci discussion page should consurne what is written in the article! --Justiceinwiki

Justiceinwiki

• Thanks to answering few questions with last edit Justiceinwiki. Now we know that Justiceinwiki is user:125.54.61 [3]. User:125.54.61 is editing wikipedia for last 6 months so he is not new user but old single purpose user: Until now his only edits has been about Prebilovci and "poor" Serbs. His demands that article Prebilovci massacre be deleted and all about massacre be writen in article Prebilovci are bad faith demands. Like evidence I will given this link where is very clear shown that he has in september created links for article Prebilovci massacre [4]. Writing 1 thing in september and saying other thing in november for me is bad faith editing.

• His other edits which on first look are not connected with Prebilovci are in the end connected because he is creating links towards Prebilovci or Ustase. Only during his first 4 days of edits he is not speaking about that but he is in discussions about "poor" Serbs. If he [5] is not single purpose account can somebody tell me what accounts are falling in this category. I will not even comment sockpuppet edits.
• Only question which we have is: Will we changes our editorial policy because of nationalistic single purpose account ? My answer is not. --Rjecina 20:02, 14 November 2007

References

The massacre did take place, and everything else that's written. (That part of the Virgin Mary is based on another article about Virgin Mary and the village of Prebilovci, from a newspaper in the US -- I will write about that in the article when the page is unlocked). I have references to back this up now (booth in English and Serbian) so Rijeca shouldn't be able to delet anything more. (If anyone has a problem with the article, then he/she should write about it in the discussion page and not sabotage, because that's what it is.)

And there is nothing called "Prebilovci massacre" except for in Wikipedia in some page that has no references that talk of that name. That's the problem for me partley. (Therefor we should get rid of the "Prebilovci massacre" page as quickley as possible.) I'll just have to wait until someone unlocks the page (November 17) and I will put in my new article, not from before but a new (with references). Rijeca was right in the beginning -- I should have put in some references before. Sorry. --Justiceinwiki

Dispute Is Over

I thought the dispute is already over: I've got references to back every information; I've change genocide into persecutions so Rijeca and everyone else hwo might dissagrea wont sabotage; the Virgin Mary bit is based on an article from a catholic newspaper about Prebilovci and Virgin Mary and I got references and the article itself; and since there is nothing outside wikipedia and the "Prebilovci massacre" page that talks of that name, the page must be deleted as quicley as possible, that's the obvious thing to do. (The one hwo created the page didn't really know what he was doing, he hasn't even been in the discussion page since this hole ordile started - what does that tell you?). And why hasn't Rijeca stoped sabotating? --Justiceinwiki

1) I have no problem with this article including information about WW2, provided that the Prebilovci massacre article is deleted as justiceinwiki intends. To have both is really overdoing it. I can see one or two problems with the structure (for instance discussing the WW2 persecution in the history section when it belongs in the WW2 sub-section) but I will wait a few days for justiceinwiki, and perhaps Rjecina and others, to get it how they want and then tidy up the English etc.

2) Editors should not let Rjecina or anyone else talk them out of using the word "genocide" for the Ustaša persecution of non-Croats. :-) If the 5-7,000 murders (men and youths only) at Srebrenica were genocide then the Ustaša plan to eradicate ALL Serbs, Jews and Roma from NDH plainly was. Budak's Gospic speech etc is evidence that it was a calculated plan - exactly what Lemkin had in mind when he invented the word "genocide." Such a plan does not need to succeed to qualify as genocide. The fact that it was attempted is enough. See references in the World War II persecution of Serbs article for evidence that this has been accepted by historians and academics, and remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be only a record of what has been said elsewhere.Kirker (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your support for sockpuppet master is really surprise :))

You, I or 1 administrator are not having right to change wikipedia policy.

This have never been discussion about sources for killing but only writing about massacre are for this article or other. Trying to change discussion is for me only example of desperate users which are not having arguments to win debate. --Rjecina 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Rjecina, I am not supporting justiceinwiki, only agreeing with him that I have never heard of an atrocity in that area being described as the "Prebilovci massacre." Surely there were enough Ustaša atrocities without Wikipedia having to give them two articles each? If there is an argument to have the Prebilovci massacre article, I will listen to that. But then we would not need to say much about it in the Prebilovci article. It would be enough to mention it and refer people to the massacre article for more information about that.

2) For the record, justiceinwiki, you are really pissing me off. Constantly changing what you have already said here on the discussion page and editing articles under different identitities looks to me like bad faith. Why are you frightened to use your own name for what you are doing? Also, why are you going back and editing this page to put all your own contributions into bold print? Do you think you are more important than everyone else? Well you are wrong. You are just bad-mannered. Kirker (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1) I wouldn't agree that I have constantly changed what I have said before. (Giva an example. . . ). But that isn't what we should all be focused on, we should insteed turn the attention upon Rijeca, and more seriouse matters, for instins: why is Rijeca constantly changing back the article, deleting the part of the Bosnian Civil War and the Virgin Mary (which is based on an article from a Catholic newspaper in the US, about Prebilovci). At the same time, Rijeca is dared to talk about Wikipedia policy. He is changing back an article with references. (Before, I just thought the problem was that I hadn't enought references.) And the article is not just about the massacre. Soon, I will be able to write more, in the present day section, but untill then, I hope Rijeca will stop vandalising without a cause - against Wikipedia policy for the matter!. And now when most of us agree that the "Prebilovci massacre" page should not exist any further, I hope someone with more higher autority will do something about it soon, so Rijeca can be cooled down for once! --Justiceinwiki

'2) 'My problem with the "Prebilovci massacre" page is that there is nothing refered as that - at least not outside Wikipedia - the free encuclopedia. The fact that the one who created the page hasn't turned up in the discussion page, says a lot already - doesn't it? --Justiceinwiki —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

November edits

Would recent editors of this article please grow up. And would justiceinwiki, in particular, please stop his childish behaviour of putting all his comments on this discussion page into bold text, as though he is somehow more important than everyone else.

Let's remember we are talking about a place with a population of about 50 people. In the normal way of things it would hardly warrant a mention. But the place IS of interest, because of the atrocities and because of the religioius nonsense nearby.

It seems that justiceinwiki wants to mention graves that may date back to the Bogomils. Rjecina does not want that. As justiceinwiki has cited a reference. I don't understand why Rjecina is objecting, though I accept that there might be a reason. Then there is the very important question of whether we should say National park or National Park. (LOL) The term is not used here as part of a proper noun, therefore in English national park is correct. But probably this detail just got caught up in bigger changes when people leapt to use the revert button. To help take the heat out of the debate, it would be better if editors limited themselves to changing only one thing in each edit, even if this means doing several edits. It would then be clearer to see who is arguing for what.

Lastly it would be a welcome courtesy if justiceinwiki would give a brief summary of each change he makes, like most of us usually try to do. Regards Kirker (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)