Talk:Gregorij Rožman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see a serious error in this article. The bishop was sentenced to 18 years of maximum security prison and not 18 months. This is a known fact, recently repeated all over Slovenian media (There is a case of exonerating the bishop in the Slovenian courts. Doubtless this whole article is somewhat connected to this legal farce as it was created less than a month ago).

Also, the statement of loyalty" to the Italians is disputed by some historians as being forged by the occupation forces themselves. In my opinion, this article should be marked as stating disputed information. Bob Novak 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that almost every source says that Rožman was sentenced to 18 years. However, if you click on the link that the article cites (the New York Times of 31 August 1946), it says he was sentenced to 18 months. By Wikipedia standards, to put that he was sentenced to anything else requires a reliable source. Do you know of one? If so, please feel free to change it, quoting your source.
The statement of loyalty is only disputed in the sense that what Rožman wrote was then published in a polished form in Slovenec newspaper three days later. The actual words he wrote, as cited on the official website of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia (http://www.rkc.si/aktualno/D000806.html), not those published in Slovenec newspaper were "Ekselenca! Danes je bil objavljen dekret, s katerim se po italijanski armadi zasedena slovenska zemlja pridružuje Italiji. Ko je jemljem to na znanje, se zahvaljujem Vaši Ekselenci da nam je tako vsaj na teritoriju škofije omogočen razvoj v kulturnem in verskem oziru pričakujoč, da se v smislu dekreta avtonomija narodovega življenja tudi v korist vere in morale skoraj izgradi. Izražam popolno lojalnost in prosim Boga, da blagoslovi Vaše in naše prizadevanje za dobrobit našega ljudstva".
Those are the words translated in the article.
However, it is also the case that he never retracted or distanced himself from either his own words or those which were published.
The "legal farce" to which you refer was not the inspiration for the article. The timing was coincidental. However, if the article helps people to find out more about Rožman at this time, when his case is receiving a lot of attention, that is good. AlasdairGreen27 09:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a book called "Rožmanov proces" (Rožman trial) published in 1996 that meticoulously examines various accusations regarding his cooperation with occupation forces in great details. As of yet I have not read the book, however I have read some citations over the years in various publications and I have to say that public view of bishop Rožman has to be revised - also in articles like this. The truth is not black and white, which is also the case with World War II in general.
Regarding the sentence. This article (and referenced NYT article) are the first I have ever seen stating 18 months imprisonment. In this case I believe that the NYT journalist made a mistake and obviously nobody cared enough to correct it. Perhaps the discrepancy stems from confusing hard labour camp imprisonment (e.g. gulag-like facility) with freedom, who knows. Anyhow, I will try to find something useful in local library, which should have more material available.
Bob Novak 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are not many things in life, and especially not in war, that are 'black and white'.
Regarding the 18 months/18 years issue, I suspect you are entirely right that the reporter may have made a mistake. However, bearing in mind Wiki standards on verifiability, it is at present the only primary source that we have, as it was contemporary. All of the reporting and media coverage in the last week very much counts as secondary. If you are able to find a good source in your local library or anywhere else to resolve this, that'd be great. AlasdairGreen27 13:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

Please see the discussion at User_talk:AlasdairGreen27#NPOV:_.22Gregorij_Ro.C5.BEman.3B_Ljenko_Urban.C4.8Di.C4.8D.3B_Domobranci.22 Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to move that to the Article Talk Page, please? The NPOV tag is above THIS article and the reasons should be stated here. Just a quick note, though... try disputing actual SOURCES, not just the things you don't agree with, because you "KNOW" it was not like that. And no, it's not as simple as "it was between 1945 and 1990, it was all fake." It doesn't work like that. Bottom line, we need that discussion here, it's much easier for everyone who wants to discuss. This article is not just about two people, AlasdairGreen and Viator Slovenicus. --JTrdi (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll paste the discussion below. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rožman, Urbančič...

Really? NPOV tags are normally added by people who just don't like what they are reading, but can't come up with any sources to 'correct' it. Otherwise, other material would be added to 'balance' the alleged NPOV article. So let's go through each article line by line, and you can point out what is POV rather than fact. Every statement is referenced, so you'll need counter sources. Pa znam slovensko... ni problema. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, I have little time right now to edit the articles; I'm planning to do it after next week. In the meantime, I think is correct to put a NPOV notice for people who might read those articles. I'm strongly convinced they are not balanced enough. I've carefully read through all three articles (as well as the one on Leon Rupnik, which I find OK) - especially the sources. There are a lot of newspaper articles, references to web forums, clearly biased journals like Mladina etc., but I noticed a complete lack of relevant historical bibliography (save from some articles from the Yugoslav times - and I guess you know that in those times there used to be a strict rule what you can and what you can't write down). The essential and commonly accepted book on the matter is Boris Mlakar's Slovensko domobranstvo, then works by Tone and Mitja Ferenc, Bojan Godeša, Jerca Vodušek Starič, to name just a few. What do I find most problematic in the article on SD as it is? To put it generally, things are not put into perspective, there is little written about the genesis of the SD, the groups that composed it, the internal currents (I guess you know there was a pro-British current, represented by the Lieutenant Peterlin, deported by the Nazis to Dachau in 1944) and struggles. Rupnik’s anti-Semitic and proto-Fascist current was just one of many (of course, it is clear why the Nazis put him in charge). Secondly: the mention of the “prominent members” is completely arbitrary. Thirdly: the claim that the SD as such was anti-Semitic is exaggerated. Shortly: it seems that the whole thing is more of an accusation rather than an encyclopedic article. That's why I tagged it with NPOV.
As for Rožman’s article: I believe it’s highly incorrect to start from the assertion that he was a collaborator, an anti-Semite and a friend of Ante Pavelić and Roesener (the last two claims are unreferenced; which is logic, since they are false). The whole article doesn’t follow the standard format for an article: he was first of all a theologian, bishop of Ljubljana, and then you can go on saying that he is a controversial figure for this and this reason. The whole stuff on Nazi gold can of course be mentioned, but not as a matter of fact, but as a theory or accusation. And, just for the record, Rožman did do other things in his life other than collaborate with the Germans during WWII (although the term "collaboration" is much more problematic here than with the SD). And of course, contrary views have to be integrated.
Urbančič: the claim that he was a war criminal is a strong one. The only reference is an obituary from a journal. Too little. Reference on his life previous to 1941 is poor; the claim that he was sent to Gonars because he tried to organize a pro-German guard is very unlikely to be true - again, no reference. In this case, too, I have decided to put the NPOV sign (rather than the the warning on possible factual inacurrance), because the whole article looks like anti-Urbančič propaganda. Now, I don't want to defend him: but wp is not a denounciation site.
As you see, there are a lot of things to debate and, I think, to change in the articles. I hope we'll manage to do this in a civilized way. About your allegation: I haven't put the NPOV warning because I'm pro-domobranci or anything, but because I believe the article is in fact biased. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reply

I make no allegation that you are biased. I know that you are not, and everything goes forward under WP:AGF.

However, you cannot throw tags such as

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

without providing evidence. It is so important to point this out... just because Wiki is the free, democratic encyclopedia, doesn't mean that you can throw whatever you like into any article. So explain and justify what you want to say please...
Come forward with sources, as I have done, and help make the articles better. Until then, I'll take your tags off, not because they are in bad faith, but because they have no references. They are just your opinion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you accuse somebody of being a war criminal based on an obituary in a newspaper and start from there, that's biased. (Urbančič) In Rožman's case: it is stated that he was a friend of Pavelić and Roesener. In the very beginning of the article. No reference. Now what do you want me to do? To quote you a source saying that he was not a friend of Pavelić or Roesener? The allegation on the Nazi Gold: dubious reference (journalist articles, not an accepted historical work); again, should I find a source that demonstrates he wasn't involved with this malversations? I'm afraid it doesn't work like this. If there is an accusation on an individual based on no source or poor source, and this accusations are put in the very beginning of the article and put togeher with phrases such as "he was a fervent anti-Communist" (again, at the very beginning of the article, before even the reader gets to know where the guy was born), then I think I have all the right to tag it with NPOV. As for the SD article I gave you a source: Boris Mlakar, Slovensko domobranstvo (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2003), published by a renowned historian and a renowned publishing house and which goes basically against everything written in the wp article as it is now. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viator.

I think, that this article should be tagged with

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(Juny 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

. Enourmous number of sources can not be the measure because they are mostly irrelevant, cited from forums, a lot of them has nothing to do with Rožman and are biased.

Ambrozd (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict

Viaticus, please, I beg you, be careful. I have taken enormous care on what are contentious issues in Slovenia to source everything. If you have additional information, please bring it to the table. I welcome it. I will happily incorporate it into the articles, if it is well sourced etc. But your edits and talk page contributions this evening indicate a WP:POV as you added controversial tags to the articles without first discussing it at the talk page, or presenting alternative ideas. What exactly do you want? Just to rubbish the article?
And Wikipedia is not a wedding: WP:NPOV tags cannot be thrown around like confetti because somebody feels like it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the SD article I'll be more precise and will tag only what is problematic. And just to let you know: a lot of the stuff isn't sourced: newspaper articles are not sources. As of the Rožman's article, I can't but leave the NPOV on the whole article. You can see by yourself that most of the allegation aren't sourced ("friend with Pavelić", "Nazi Gold", etc. - again, ahat you quote there are accusations, not proofs). As of the nice confeti metaphor: I've been here for more than a year now and as far as I remember this is the first time I've NPOV-ed sth. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, check out the Dutch and Slovenian article on Slovensko domobranstvo: that I think is how a neutral article should look like (and no, I haven't contributed to either of them). Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Photos

Why don't you go through the links in Gregorij Rožman? Why don't you look at Rosener's execution notices, and then the photos of Rožman happily shaking hands with him two years later? I don't know what more proof you need. Uran has sucked you in. I'm disappointed in you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You know the photo form the Yalta. Are Roosevelt and Churchill smiling because they supported millions of Stalin's executions and exiles to Gulags? Ambrozd (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosener

The links are to f+++ckng scans of the execution notices. Photos, if you like. You are taking me down a path to war, and I don't want to go there. Revert your changes, or I'll go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment says it all. In short: the articles have to be rectified; until then, the readers have to know that their neutrality is disputed, so they can be careful with the data they're getting. That's all. We can debate on this when I start making some modifications in the articles, but until then I'll have to persist that the warning stays. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you want? I've said that constructive edits are welcome. But so far you've indicated that you want to make Wikipedia a love up to Erwin Rosener. --AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not reverting the changes, I'm repeating my claims: the warning has to stay, in my opinion, for the following reasons:

1.) SD-article:

The assesment on who the leading figures were is arbitrary and clearly aiming to give an interpretation of the SD as a Fascist Anti-Semite organization. This interpretation is in my opinion incorrect (see the above source Mlakar, cit.) and misleading. The pro-British elements are not considered and the actual stucture of the SD with all its internal divisions is forgotten (see the articles in the Slovenian and Dutch wp). How couls have Urbančič been a "leading figure" of the SD? He was a kid at the time!
There is no doubt that there were anti-Semitic elements in the SD; the claim, however, that the whole SD was anti-Semitic or even that it was its predominant feature is false (again, see Mlakar or the late Mladen Aleksander Švarc, ex president of the Jewish Community of Slovenia, in his articles: "Ni monopola na antifašizem" (Slovenec, 12.IX.1992), "Judje kot objekt teoretičnega izživljanja" (Razgledi, 14.X.1998) - these are of course personal recollections, but I believe they have some relevance coming from the president of the Jewish Comunity: he says basically the same as Mlakar - there was anti-Semitism in the SD, but several members of the Liberation Front were anti-Semites, too, and during the war both hatred as help for the Jews came from both directions).
2.) Rožman's article:
I don't know where to start. From the very beginning, there are dubious claims ("close to Pavelić"), very little mention of his life previous to wwii, no mention at all of his help to Jews and anti-Fascists (as you may know, the mother of the Communist hero France Tomšič was not allowed to testify in Rožman's trial that the bishop tried to help her son; cf. Tamara G. Pečar&F. Dolinar, Rožmanov proces, Ljubljana: Družina 1996). Several dubious and certainly non-neutral claims, such as that he was a leading figure of the SD - this is highly disputed even among historians that are very far from Catholic sympathies (see Janko Pleterski, "Ob knjigi "Rožmanov proces: Človek, ki je aneksijo "vzel na znanje", Delo 4.I.1997).
3) Urbančič's article: the claims that he was a war criminal, ex-member of the ZBOR (although this might be true, it's not sourced), that he was imprisoned by the Italians for being too pro-German (also not sourced). The claim the he was known as "Ljubljana's little Goebbles" is sourced by an Australian political speech! How neutral is that? I don't say that all the data in the article are wrong. I'm saying they're poorly sourced and arranged in such a way to make the whole article non-neutral. That's why it needs to be tagged until it gets put a little bit in order.

That's all. No need to take it personally. If you want to get a "conflict manager", that's fine with me. The discussion it's here, everybody can check it out. I'll submit to an outside decision. But I'm gonna revert back if you try to cancel the NPOV tag. Sorry, but I think I've explain why I think so. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, dubious claims etc

Viator slovenicus, you criticize the articles for "dubious and certainly non-neutral claims", while being happy to quote Tamara G. Pečar & F. Dolinar, Rožmanov proces, Ljubljana: Družina 1996... You know what Družina is? It's the publishing house of the catholic church in Slovenia.

You say that there are no sources that Rožman and Rösener were friends. The evidence is right there at the top of the page, on the right. Plus this [1] and this [2] and this [3] and this [4]... All of these photos were taken, by the way, after this [5] and this [6] and this [7]. That Rožman "was a leading figure of the SD" is evidenced by this [8] and by his giving the mass prior to them taking their infamous oath of allegiance at Ljubljana stadium on 20 April 1944. That SD was in essence anti-Semitic is evidenced by this [9] and this lecture by its leader [10] (click on Dokumenti to find it).

Regarding Urbančič, you say "He was a kid at the time!" (he was not. He was born in 1922) and you also say "the claim that he was sent to Gonars because he tried to organize a pro-German guard is very unlikely to be true - again, no reference". Well, I do repect WP:AGF, but firstly, "very unlikely to be true" is simply your opinion, and secondly, yes, it is sourced. It's in his obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald, right there at the bottom of the page [11]. But it seems that you prefer to dismiss sources if you don't like what they say.

I could go on and on. Simply put, I would suggest that you look at the articles again, taking careful notice of the sources provided. Don't just rubbish sources you don't like and dismiss things as "very unlikely to be true". If you'd like to add to the articles, as I've said before, I welcome that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is not leading anywhere. As I said, we can debate this in detail when I start editing the articles. I'm not going to do this now, among other beceause I don't have enough sources with me. I think that with your last responce you only confirmed your bias; among other with the statement about the publishing house Družina. Yes, it is Catholic, so what? With your statement, you proved not only your bias, but also your little knowledge about the whole context? Don't you know that the Catholica in Slovenia have been highly divided on the issue? Don't you know that most of the clergy in Slovenia, as well as the whole hierarchy in the Diocese of Maribor rejected the Domobranci? By having implied that being a Catholic (or being sponsored by Catholic institution) automatically presupposes being pro-Domobranci or pro-Rožman, you showed your poor knowledge on the state of things. Ever heard of Egon Pelikan, Vekoslav Grmič, Edvard Kocbek, the journal Revija 2000? Do you know who the editors of the Publishing house Družina are? If not, then I'd suggest you inform yourself before you make superficial accusations.
Anyway, you happen to be right, although for the wrong reasons: the book I quoted is in fact non-neutral, but not because it was published by Družina, but because of its authors. But if you looked again, you'd see I didn't quote it to confirm an assesment or an interpretation, but to quote a documented fact. Namely, the fact that Pepca Tomšič, the mother of the Communist martyr Tone Tomšič, wasn't allowed to testify in favour of Bishop Rožman at the trial, against her explicit wish. It was because of things like this that the trial was invalidated last year by the Supreme Court. And I quoted it just as an example of all the things that are missing in the article on Rožman, confirming the overall non-neutral stance in the article.
Again - and I'm repeating this for the last time-: the "sources" you quote are not sources; they are accusations, allegations or, in the best of cases, laic interpretations made by journalists. Most of the articles you quote are taken from Mladina which is everything but a neutral source: it's a politically engaged journal which has no pretension of becoming a historical source; none of the authors is a historian.
When I wrote that "the claim that he was sent to Gonars because he tried to organize a pro-German guard is very unlikely to be true" - I reiterate it - I didn't base my opinion on nothing. There are several reasons why I find it unlikely: to begin with, I've been reading books on WWII in Slovenia for 10 years now, but I've never come across the information that there was such an attempt in the Italian-occupied Slovenia. Would you share with us what was the name of this group or of some of the individuals involved in it? (I presume we are dealing with a group, since it's rather difficult to organize a guard composed of one person). As far as I know, Urbančič wasn't involved in any of such - unexistent (please prove me wrong if you can) - attempt, but it seems he was part of a group called "Petrova garda". You can check in every decent history book on WWII in Slovenia what "Petrova garda" was - it was an unsuccesful attempt to form an anti-Communist resistance movement, made by a small group of Slovenian Yugoslav nationalist (mostly former Sokols and members of Petar Živković's "Yugoslav National Party") that were loyal to the Yugoslav Royal Government in Exile (in London) - thus the name "Peter's Guard"). Sources? Here you have it: [12] It's also an obituary, but this time making the exactly opposite claims as you made in the article... That's the problem: for every claim in the media there is a counter-claim from the other side. Just check the net and you'll find hundreds of pages that tell basically a completely different story on all three articles. We just won't get anywhere like this. We have to look at better sources, like history books. I don't have any with me right now, that's why I don't dare to edit the articles. Until then: if you use sources from media which tell only one side of the story and don't distance yourself in the text (by phrases as "it has been claimed by xxx", "xxx have suggested", etc.) and you take biased sources and interpretations for granted, then the articles (all 3 of them) have to have the tag I put on them. That's it for now.I have made my case and I'm not going to argue on this any more. Your interventions on the matter have even more convinced me that the main part of the articles were written by a biased author. I'm not removing the tags, I think I have explained why. If you try to do it, I'll revert it and, if necessary, take other due actions. Pa brez zamere, nič osebnega. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, I've left all your tags untouched, precisely because I don't want to get into a revert war about this or anything else. Regarding Rožmanov proces, the fact is that the Church commissioned a book with the intention of clearing their man's name. They chose Pečar and Dolinar to do the job for them. Simple as that. Pečar came up with the goods; Dolinar was a little more restrained, as far as I remember. I've read the obit to Urbančič in glasslovenije. It's, shall we say, brief on his activities between Gonars and the end of the war, a subject that for other sources is the principal concern about him. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the findings Pečar-Dolinar's book was written with the direct attempt to clean the bishop's name. I'm not arguing that. But there are some documents published in the book that are veriable facts and shed a different light on the final assesment on his role. I think this other part has to be incorporated in the article, too. Just in order to re-assure you: I think all verifiable data can be incorporated in the article, including almost all of the quotes and facts present in the current version. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've already used Pečar-Dolinar and www.rkc.si as sources where appropriate.
:-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)



My two cents and I tried to have an open mind here. I will be talking only about this article.
1. Viator, I think it's not fair, that you want to discredit certain sources based on your perception of them. Mladina has been attacked as a left and right-winged magazine as far as I remember. It all depends from POV.
2. I agree with Viator, that the article lacks pre-war content. Who was Rožman before the war? Where was he born, what was his childhood, what was his life like? That's some major lack of content in my opinion. There is one paragraph, but maybe there could be more (if it's known)
3. I don't agree that there's a problem with labeling Rožman as a collaborator. What I mean by that is, that one of the first if NOT the first sentence should have some kind of mention of why is this person actually notable, what is the main thing for which he is known for. He has his own wiki article because of his controversal role during WW2. So this HAS to be mentioned early on. However I do also agree, that the first paragraph could be cleaned up a bit and most of the accusations moved to the following sections. Perhaps the opening paragraph is too "harsh" and has too much information. Almost a hate speech, if you know what I mean. I would imagine that the reader might get NPOV doubts from the 1st paragraph, even if it's all true and the reader has no prior knowledge of the situation. I would like to give one example of what I mean: Wiki article about Adolf Hitler. He was a monster, but the opening paragraph compared to opening paragraph of Rožman is like comapring a lamb to an evil wolf.
4. Photographs are also sources, why shouldn't they be? It all depends on interpretation of the photograph(s).
5. As it looks right now, I have a very bad feeling, that Viator slovenicus intends to delete everything he considers a bad source. If there is one thing that this article can't be accused of, it's lack of sources, quotes,... Now the main priority for the discussion should be to see, which sources are good and which sources are not. So a discussion about the sources, not just editing the article the way you see it appropriate.
6. I have one comment, which I personally consider very important. What do we want to do here? Writing a nice NPOV article. The article as it is now can be better, but it is nice work already. Well sourced, good info, huge amount of work. However, we should all stop pretending that we don't have our own opinion regarding the subject. Most of the revert wars IMO comes from the situation where somebody claims to be completely unbiased and all other editors are supposedly biased. Of course, the other "side" thinks the same. I won't be talking about Slovensko Domobranstvo, it's not black and white, but I will say that it's my opinion that Rožman was a collaborator. AlasdairGreen27 thinks the same. And Viator Slovenicus thinks that his historical role was not negative, shall we say it that way. We need to realize our biases in order to express a NPOV. --JTrdi (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what JTrdi wrote. I don't have much time to go into a debate now, I just want to rectify some disagreements:
1.) I have no intention of deleting any sources. Rožman was a controversial figure and the article should mirror that. What I think is important is to distanciate from the sources. If Spomenka Hribar writes an article in Mladina (as far as I remember that's one of the sources), you can't just write, for example, "Rožman was a collaborator and a friend of Ante Pavelić" and put her article as a reference. What you can write is sth. like: "according to some interpretors, among whom Spomenka Hribar, Rožman's was among the spiritual leaders of the SD. Others, like xxx, however..." What we have now, are apodictic statements with referenc to journalist sources (and here it's absolutely the same if these sources are left or right-wing; they are not used properly, that's my argument)..
2.) I have nothning against the photos.
3.) Just to clarify my position here so we don't have to debate this any more. Who says I think Rožman's historical role was not negative? I think it was essentially negative. Was he a collaborator? Compared to other prelates from Nazi-occupied Europe (also his Slovenian counterpart in Maribor), yes, he was most likely over the line that divides the usual and necessary relationship with the occupying powers from active ideological, spiritual and political support. Was there anything criminal in his actions? I don't think so; nothing has been proved (the trial against him was a construct). Was he the initiator or the "spiritual leader" of the SD? Did he have any influence whatsoever in the strategic and tactical decisions of the Slovenian counter-Revolutionary forces? This is what we were told by the official pre-1990 narrative, but historical analyses in the last 20 years seem to have proven otherwise. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Viator. I'd only put a question mark on the last part. "Was he the initiator or the "spiritual leader" of the SD? Did he have any influence whatsoever in the strategic and tactical decisions of the Slovenian counter-Revolutionary forces? This is what we were told by the official pre-1990 narrative, but historical analyses in the last 20 years seem to have proven otherwise".
So that we don't debate sources, I'll simply offer this, the three leaders of SD at the parade in Ljubljana, after once again SD had sworn loyalty to the 3rd Reich, January 1945: [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"but historical analyses in the last 20 years seem to have proven otherwise. " - Could I see these proofs, properly sourced, please. Because knowing Rožman's ideologic stance in the 30's even common sense tells us that he was spiritual leader of SD. Of course the definition of spiritual leader might be different. Is seems that Rožman was:
- a person whose rejection of SD plans would seriously undermine the project's chances of success.
- a person whose actions prior to and during the war were clearly creating the SD philosophy, giving SD the reasons and directions for their actions.
Btw, being a collaborator with occupying forces is considered a crime. Not only in Slovenia and not only by their opponents. The wiki article about the subject says, that it "implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power" for instance. Once again I am very interested in sources for the claim that I have quoted at the beginning --JTrdi (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To AlasdairGreen27: I think the question I've posed can't be answered by a photo.
May I ask what, if anything, is unclear about that photo? Does it not make the situation abundantly clear? Or perhaps you prefer this one, with the three stooges happily chatting again [14]. You see, I'm trying to respond in a way that gets round your personal decision that "official pre-1990 narrative" = bad; "historical analyses in the last 20 years seem to have proven otherwise" = good. Your choice of words is revealing, if I may say so: 'official narrative' as opposed to 'historical analyses'. Hmmm. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To JTrdi: My statement (the one you quoted) refers to the last question, "did he have any influence etc." If I had sources with me, I'd start editing the article instead of just tagging it as non-neutral. But unfortunately, I'm not in Slovenia and most books on the subject are currently unavailable to me. Anyway, check out Pleterski's article I quoted above, and Boris Mlakar's book which is probably the best available work on the subject. Nevertheless, I completely agree with your first claim (that Rožman's rejection of SD plans would have seriously undermined the project's chances of success), while I'm a little more skeptical about the second one (that his actions prior to and during the war were clearly creating the SD philosophy, giving SD the reasons and directions for their actions). You'll have difficult time convincing me that there was such a thing as a "SD philosophy": we know the SD was composed of very different groups, ranging from Yugoslav anti-Clerical nationalists (Urbančič), up to some anti-Fascist exiles from Primorska, with anti-Communism as basically the only common trait (again, check out Mlakar). It is however a fairly acceptable assessment that without the staunch support of the Diocese of Ljubljana the SD would have been unlikely to gain such a massive support. In this regard, Rožman's historical responsibility could difficultly be denied. But from there to the claim that he was SD's "spiritual leader" there is a step I'm not comfortable taking in the view of the facts; it is however a widespread opinion and can of course be mentioned in the article as such (with due sourcing of course), but not as a commonly accepted interpretation. Once again: my aim is not to write a hagiography of Rožman, just to put the article in a more neutral frame.
About the collaboration issue: the statement you quoted says it all, the term collaborationist "implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power". I don't think one can prove Rožman committed any "criminal deed in the service of the occupying force." Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Viator slovenicus, request for progress on this

Viator, you have had a few weeks in which to bring forward changes to this and related articles that you are unhappy with. I notice from your contributions that you have lots of time at your disposal for Wikipedia, a luxury which I have recently lacked, although I hope things will improve shortly for me. Now, I feel I must press you to justify your tags. The most sensible way to do this is collaboratively, although I have allowed myself the luxury of removing the most patently ridiculous of your tags, the one which suggested it was POV to say that Rösener ordered the mass execution of civilians in Slovenia. I won't even dignify your tag with an explanation of why I have removed it. Unless you are a better authority than the execution notices signed by Rösener himself, and maybe you, Viator slovenicus, are even a better authority than the Nuremburg trials. Whatever.

I am aware that you feel somewhat disadvantaged because there are books to which you would like to refer that you do not have access to. So therefore I think the way forward, in a spirit of compromise, is for you to suggest improved wordings of the sections that you think are unfair in this and other articles. Feel free to edit the articles directly (although avoiding spelling mistakes would be good), and I'm sure we can make progress. Rather than throwing your tags into articles and then walking away, perhaps you might give us the benefit of a positive contribution or two.

There are many thousands of Wiki articles that greet the reader with ancient tags that somebody has put there without sufficient knowledge to add positively to the article. I know you must feel a bit awkward to say the least about this edit [15] and my subsequent reply, but it's time to move on from that, wouldn't you say? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to re-word the opening paragraph. I know you don't like it. I've spent half an hour trying to think of a way to meet you half way. To remove the word collaborator, for example. I've tried variations on a theme of "maintained a close relationship with Italian and German occupying forces" and such like. But given that a) he's mainly notable for his shall we say "non-pastoral" activities during and after WWII, b) there's the photo of him in happy conversation with Rösener at the top of the article and c) nobody disputes that he wrote "only by this courageous fighting and industrious work for God, for the people and the Fatherland will we, under the leadership of Germany, assure our existence and better future in the fight against the Jewish conspiracy" (NŠAL, Tekoči arhiv, št. 3465, 30.11.1943) frankly I would welcome suggestions. What is that quote if it is not a call to collaborate?
But there's always the option, clearly open here, that we can go down the road of Wiki-nonsenses like "According to some within the mathematical community, 2+2=4, although significant and notable dissent remains" because neutral Wikipedia must be a bastion of the rights of the dissenters to equal coverage. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's clarify something. As far as I know, there is no wp policy urging me to edit a page I've tagged as non-neutral, just to sufficiently justify the tag. I think I have done that extensively. If you have no new argument, I'm not going to engage in futile repetitions of what I already wrote. The tags stay. If you disagree, you can call a third party, an administrator, whatever you feel necessary. My argumentation is written down and everyone can verify it. I reiterate my strong conviction, which I have exposed with arguments, that the article is far from being neutral.
Now, for your personal information: if you go to my user page, you'll see that this article is among the ones I intend to edit. When I will do it, I don't know. Maybe soon. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's clarify something, Viator. Why don't we do exactly that. Not for the first time, you are quite mistaken, I'm afraid. "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral". [16] Once again, you are making statements without checking things.
For your personal information, I am trying to find a resolution here, as I have been from the outset. I'd like to see these articles improved and untagged. You, sadly, have on no occasion attempted anything as constructive. You have done nothing to this or any related article except add your tags.
I've been to your user page. You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

Can somebody please provide Rožman's original quotations in Slovene, at least those sourced? I sense some small mistranslation. "The masters sent from God" sound strange. At first glance, I'd guess it's actually "power" (oblast) sent from God, which of course a reference to St.Paul. Thanks. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see one of our biggest problems here, Viator, is your refusal to actually read any of the sources in the article. I don't understand why you only read the article, not the sources given. It would save you a little trouble to simply click on the references provided. However, as always, I am happy to help you to understand things more clearly.
The quote you have asked for is in Rožmanov proces, page 50. "Škof Rozman je ... v nedeljo, 20 aprila 1941, obiskal visokega komisarja. (...) Grazioliju je izrazil 'hvaležnost duhovščine in vernikov, da je vojaštvo mirno zasedlo pokrajino, ohranilo red in pustilo svobodo ljudstvu, zlasti v verskem oziru, kar pa se tiče sodelovanja predstavnikov Cerkve z novo oblastjo fašistične Italije, je za nas katoličane merodajna božja beseda, ki pravi: Vsak človek bodi višji oblasti pokoren, ni je namreč oblasti, razen od Boga, in te, ki so, so od Boga postavljene (Rim 13,1). S tega stališča priznavamo oblast, ki je nad nami in bomo po svoji vesti radi sodelovali v časno in večno korist ljudstva, med katero nas je božja Previdnost za duhovnike postavila' (citat iz: Ljubljanski škofijski list, 4-6, 31.7.1941)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the last part though ie "new masters sent from God". I inadvertently presented Griesser Pečar's words as Rožman's. She follows the above quote with "Po vsem tem se torej jasno vidi kaj je hotel Rožman povedati, češ, "da so Fašisti in okupatorji od Boga poslani novi gospodarji, katerim se moramo Slovenci podrediti", čeprav nas imajo za barbare in nas nameravajo iztrebiti". She was paraphrasing. I have removed her words from the article as they were not Rožman's. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)