Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jastrebarsko concentration camp/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2019 [1].

Jastrebarsko concentration camp

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II, part of the genocidal policies of that regime towards Serb people living in the puppet state. Records are incomplete, but at least 450, but perhaps as many as three times that number of children died at the camp in its short history from July to October 1942, mainly from malnutrition, neglect and illness. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans in August 1942, which prompted its closure a couple of months later, with the remaining children largely farmed out to sympathetic families, although some of those that were briefly liberated were later rounded up and killed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

[edit]
Yes, they are reliable sources, but I want to be sure that sentences in the article do not say something, while a source says otherwise. Also, Ref. No. 1 has "Fumić 2011, pp. 52–55". These are four pages. It should be more specific. Two pages tops.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There will not be preview-accessible links to all the sources. The page range is completely fine, I've used wider page ranges in many FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you used a wide page range before, then you have problematic FAs. Help:References and page numbers: per the verifiability policy, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." By your logic, one can simply add ten pages as one source and expect from the reader to search for specific claims. But that is not the way it goes. Precise claims should have precise page numbers.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what your problem is. Instead of an ambit claim for links to all sources and a demand for more precise citations, perhaps you could indicate where your concerns lie. What statement is it that you are questioning? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that fn 1 from Fumić includes a page (p. 54) consisting entirely of photographs and their captions. I could change it to pp. 52–53 & 55, but that seems unnecessarily pedantic. I have summarised different elements of two and a bit pages of text into a large para, which is quite reasonable in my opinion. If you have specific queries, I can provide quotes in the original Serbo-Croat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CITEPAGE. You need specific page numbers for each specific claim in the article. Meaning, instead of a broad "pp. 52–55", you should break the pages into "pp. 52–53", "pp. 53–54", etc.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a huge page range (two and a bit pages), and I say breaking it down to two-page citations is unnecessary. I ask again, what are the specific claims you are concerned about? Perhaps if we start with the para cited to fn 1? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At your insistence, I am currently breaking it down and citing more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have had a crack at tightening the citations up, also discovered The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany published last year, which contains a bit about the camp, corroborating some of the material from local sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. The issue is resolved now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let me know if you see anything else that needs addressing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Note that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has very few edits to WP:FAC in their entire history, and that was not a source review: [2]. Suggest taking their "insistence" with a large grain of salt—if at all. Cheers, 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:8827:7142:6445:EB5C (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Disease and deaths" section says: "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children". How did they took advantage? What did they do specifically? Can you elaborate this a bit?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is fairly well written, considering the amount of available reliable sources at this time, stable and reasonably professional, I support its inclusion in the FA list.
P.S. Just a quick question, outside the review process. Yesterday, I clicked the Croatian Wikipedia page of this article. Curiously, it has an "Accuracy disputed" tag on it. Then I went to its talk page. On it, the admin of Croatian Wikipedia claims it is a "falsification from the communist times" and provides two links to websites that claim it was not a concentration camp, just an orphanage or children's home. I'm just curious: how would you respond to his statements?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian Wikipedia has some really serious problems, see Croatian Wikipedia for sourced information about this issue, also this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Anyway, I support that this article should be promoted to a Featured article, but hey, since I have so few edits at FA reviews, who cares about my opinion, right? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

[edit]

Very interesting (and horrifying) article. I did a little copyediting. Please make sure I didn't mess anything and revert anything you feel doesn't improve the prose. I agree that there's nothing wrong with summarizing several pages of a source at a time.

  • The body of the article dives into the topic rather abruptly. I think a little background infomation would be helpful. You could describe the social and military situation in 1942, what the NDH and the Ustase were, and tell readers about their policies and actions towards Serbs. The government's relationship with the Catholic church could also be of interest, considering nuns' involvement in the camp.
  • "The decision to establish the camp was taken due to the large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up during genocidal anti-Serb massacres conducted by the forces of the Ustaše-led government of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) since April 1941.[1] Children had also been taken during anti-Partisan operations conducted by German, NDH and collaborationist forces between April 1941 and June 1942, such as the Kozara Offensive" Were the massacres and anti-partisan campaigns really distinct events? My understanding was that German anti-partisan operations in the Balkans were incredibly brutal and involved a lot of massacres. Also, who were the "collaborationist forces"? I thought the Ustase were the Nazi collaborators in Croatia.
  • What happened first was a series of massacres and other racial and religious persecution mainly of Serbs by the Ustaše, this resulted in an uprising, which the NDH forces responded to, soon assisted by the Axis occupation troops and collaborators. During counter-insurgency operations, more massacres and other persecution occurred. Chetniks collaborated with the NDH and Axis troops against the Partisans, for example during the Kozara Offensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reception" section is confusing to me. First, I would consider renaming it to "Arrivals" or something like that, because this sounds like a section about the way an album was received. The section starts by describing the children's arrival at the camp. Then, it talks about where they came from and where they were placed in the camp, but this is already partly discussed in other parts of the article. So, I think this information should be moved, since the section then goes back to describing the arrival.
  • "He personally feared a nun, Sister Mercedes, but all the children feared Pulherija" Is this really relevant?
  • "In response, the Croatian Red Cross and some locals" In response to what exactly?
  • "Tatjana Marinić [sh] (1897–1966)" I don't think inline interwiki are particularly helpful and would suggest removing this one, but I understand they are somewhat common. You don't give birth and death years for anyone else.
  • "Monthly mortality figures were" Apparently, the numbers are disputed, but they are presented as if they were true.
  • "One source states that 1,500 children died in the camp" What source?
  • Fumic is the main source for this article. Unfortunately, I can't read Serbo-Croatian (surprise!). Based on the publisher, this doesn't look like an academic source and as far as I can tell based on a quick search it doesn't appear to be cited in the literature on this topic. Could you talk about what kind of source it is and why it should be considered reliable? --Carabinieri (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumić is published by the national peak body that represents former Partisans (SABA RH), which has published many books about WWII in Yugoslavia, including unit and formation histories, and has run conferences about controversial aspects of Croatia's wartime history. I have found them to be reliable and consistent with other sources where they overlap, if a little biased towards the Partisan point of view. Fumić himself is a former president of SABA RH, and holds a Master of Science degree. This is such an obscure subject that there isn't much academic work in which Fumić could potentially be cited. Most other sources that mention this camp do so in passing, not in the detail of Fumić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • For someone not conversant with Yugoslavia during WWII the first sentence of the main article seems to take a lot for granted. How about something like 'In April 1942, during WWII, Germany led the Axis conquest of Yugoslavia. Much of the country was occupied and the rump state of the Independent State of Croatia was created under a collaborationist Ustaše-led government. Ustaše forces embarked on a series of genocidal anti-Serb massacres. During these large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up. Children had also been taken to ...' Just a quick thought, but IMO, more "scene setting" is definitely needed. (See what you think about this: I will probably want to make a similar point about the lead once this is settled.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good, on the whole. A couple of thoughts:
  • "expelled large numbers of Serbs from the NDH,[4] and also murdered large numbers of them." "large numbers ... large numbers ..."
  • "resulting in the conclusion that it was genocidal in both intent and in practical terms". In the previous sentence it says "the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe" so this seems a bit of a redundant duplication.
  • "...the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe". Isn't this kind of contentious wording? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much". Based on what info can we say that this was "the most brutal" and the "bloodiest" puppet regime, in the entire WWII? Who claims this? Who holds the 2nd and 3rd place? I would say that just using "brutal and bloody", without superlatives, sounds much more encyclopedic.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramet says "The NDH regime was the most brutal and sanguinary satellite regime in the Axis sphere of influence during the Second World War" sanguinary≈bloody. Ramet is a highly respected scholar on WWII in Yugoslavia, and from what I know about the NDH, I think the description is entirely justified. I've attributed it to Ramet in-text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO a sentence or so of background needs inserting into the lead.
  • "Those children that had not been killed" "that" → 'who'.
  • "representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross began to place" Comma after "Cross".
  • "The buildings earmarked to accommodate the children were Dvorac Erdödy – a former castle that had been a children's home before the war, the nearby Franciscan monastery" Either the comma should be a dash, or the dash should be a comma.
  • "and the former Italian barracks and stables" Were these established by the Italians pre or post April 1941? Were the buildings purpose built by the Italians?
  • "a chief Ustaše ideologist and high-ranking NDH official" Optional: "chief" → 'senior'.
  • "The staff otherwise consisted of members of the Ustaše Youth and female Ustaše." Optional: Something like 'members' on the end of the sentence?
  • "while a third, consisting of another 850 children were transported" Comma after "children".
  • "The last group arrived at the nearby village" Suggest "The last" → 'A final'. Currently "The last" reads as if you are referring to the group which arrived on 5 August.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2
[edit]
  • "stated that she was dragged away from her mother at the sub-camp and they were packed tightly into railway wagons for the journey" You start with the singular "she" and "her" and then switch to "they" and "were". Similarly in the next sentence, where "they" are not identified.
  • "The healthy and stronger children" According to the previous paragraph there were no or few "healthy" children. Suggest 'healthier'.
  • "The former castle comprised the camp "hospital" and accommodated about 300 children, and another 250 girls were housed in the nearby former Italian barracks" I don't see that this merits the connective "and". Suggest two separate sentences. And why is this not in the previous paragraph, as that covers where different groups were housed?
  • "the floor covered with straw" Just checking that you mean this, and not 'the straw-covered floor'?
  • "did show love and attention to the children" Suggestion only: "love" → 'affection'. (Or 'demonstrate affection and pay attention'?)
  • "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children" This isn't too clear to me. Could you be more specific?
  • "all the children that could walk" "that" → 'who'.
  • "the Bosanska Krajina" The definite article reads a little oddly. You sure?
  • Note a: "The figures stated by Fumić add up to 449" "stated" → 'given'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have addressed your comments, Gog. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker. That all seems fine. Given that there seemed a lot going on, I didn't review the lead above, nor, obviously, the background section; so there are some comments on them below.
  • "In October 1942, about 500 of the surviving children were dispersed among local families by the Catholic aid group, Caritas; 1,637 boys and girls were taken in by families in Zagreb, Jastrebarsko and surrounding villages ... " The bit after the semi colon seems to contradict the bit before[?]
  • "resulting in the conclusion" To my eye this seems to beg the question of who was concluding. I assume Ramet, but I had to reread the paragraph to still not be certain. Perhaps a nudge to the reader's memory?
  • "with some Catholic clergy actually participating in forced conversions" Does "actually" add anything?
  • "the NDH ... which incited widespread massacres [...] In particular, the Ustaše regime ... was also involved in widespread mass murder" Consecutive sentences which seem, in part, to be communicating much the same information.
  • "again withdrew most of their troops in this area" "in" → 'from'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye it is looking good now. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus

[edit]

Unfortunately, I'll have to Oppose for now per condition 1b as incomplete. I agree with the comments above: while generally in good condition, the article is lacking background information and assumes knowledge on the part of the reader.

I've added a Background section, see what you think, Praemonitus. More, or enough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to mention the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and the subsequent establishment of the Ustaše-led government.
  • The article lists an organization titled, "Land Commission for the Determination of Crimes by the Occupiers and Their Supporters", but it is unclear who ran this.
  • This is sloppy translation, clarified that this was a Croatian state-run commission, run by what was then the Partisan-run Federal State of Croatia, one of the regional government organs the Partisans created while Yugoslavia was still partially occupied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a map of the camp and an image of the monument in the Jastrebarsko cemetery that could be included?
  • I put in a request with Wikiproject Croatia for a photograph of the monument in 2016, but didn't get a nibble, which is a shame as it is so close to Zagreb. I haven't bothered with Croatian Wikipedia because there are some real problems over there. I'm not aware of any maps of the camp itself, only the photograph of the "castle" which is already included in the article. There are internal camp photos in Fumić's book, but as far as I know they wouldn't be PD-Croatia. I'll go back and check to make sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 makes mention of the UNS evacuation of camps around Gospić, supposedly because of the pending occupation of the area by the Italian army.[3] This doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article, instead making it appear the Italians were fully complicit. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a bit complicated, Praemonitus. The Italians had occupied, withdrawn, occupied then mostly withdrawn from what was known as Zone III of the NDH between April 1941 and June 1942. By the time this camp was established, they had withdrawn from the immediate area but were still theoretically occupying Zone III in a limited way. And this camp was located in Zone III. So this went on in an area for which the Italians were theoretically responsible, but in which they no longer had any real occupying force located, mainly being concentrated in large population centres and along railways. It isn't clear why the USHMM makes this point about the camps around Gospić, as that has nothing to do with this camp, which was in the Italian zone anyway. I've never read anything linking the clearing of the Gospić camps in summer 1941 (prior to the initial Italian re-occupation in August) with this camp. I've added a para mainly from Tomasevich explaining the occupation two-step the Italians engaged in, and made it clear they were not still garrisoned there while the camp was in operation. Hopefully this addresses your observation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I read the USHMM article, the occupation by the Italian army directly led to the creation of the camp system, of which Jastrebarsko was the "centerpiece". Hence it's not clear to me why you say it has nothing to do with the camp. The USHMM article lists a couple of sources. Praemonitus (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jasenovac concentration camp was without any doubt the centrepiece of the concentration camp system, definitely not this camp. Jadovno concentration camp was the first concentration camp established by the Ustaše in April 1941. Jasenovac was established in August 1941 (on the German side of the Vienna Line), at the time the Italians re-occupied their side. At the time of that Italian re-occupation, Jadovno (which was on the Italian side) was closed. This is what the USHMM are referring to when they mention the closure of the camps near Gospić (Jadovno is near Gospić). However, it isn't clear what connection the USHMM is trying to make between the closure of Jadovno in August 1941 and the opening of this camp in July the following year. According to Fumić, none of the children came from there (they mostly came from the Jasenovac complex), although it is possible that some had previously been in Jadovno and had been transferred to the Jasenovac complex in August 1941, then to this camp in 1942. However, we don't have a source that says that. Frankly, I find the Gospić mention under this camp's entry confusing and irrelevant, and think it should have been under the Jasenovac entry, not under this camp. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: as a result of concerns raised by a couple of the above reviews, I have become aware that this article does not reflect an important academic viewpoint about the nature and primary purpose of this camp, and that I have not properly taken into account the ideological currents in at least one the main sources used. I therefore ask that this be nomination be withdrawn. Once I have reworked the article substantially, I will re-nominate. Thanks to all who have reviewed this time around, it has been improved significantly as a result of your efforts. Can I have dispensation to nominate a fresh article for FAC? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, re. a new FAC, standard practice is to treat a withdrawn nom same as other archived noms, i.e. a two-week hold on nominating any article unless the withdrawn/archived nom's had little commentary, which isn't the case here. Are you okay with proceeding on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd rather go ahead with a new one, but rules are rules. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jastrebarsko_concentration_camp/archive1&oldid=905415444"