Talk:Srbosjek (knife)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

1 POV-Check
2 Machetes
3 Other Comments
4 References to each one of the claims presented
5 German factory
6 accuracy of sources section
- 6.1 ==The winner of this competition, Petar Brzica allegedly cut the throats of 1360 prisoners and won the competition.[4]
  - 6.1.1 Jared Israel article(Strong Serbian Ultra-Nationalist POV.Jared Israel is a Srebrenica Massacre denier,Srebrenica execution video denier and Bosnian-Serb Death Camps denier.)
7 RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV
8 Okay, let's discuss
9 Neutral reference
10 Horrific testimony
11 Delete/Rename
12 Merger proposal
13 Verify credibility and citation needed tags
14 What the...?
15 The Brzica story
16 Verification
- 16.1 Comments
17 Tag trolling by Croat nationalists (neutrality etc.)
18 External links
- 18.1 External Links
- 18.2 See also
19 Troll-tagging again (neutrality, sources)

[edit] POV-Check

All references on which the contents of this article are based, are of serbian origin, accusing another nation, the Croats, of WW2 wartime atrocities. There are, as of now, no third party sources having ever acknowledged the existance of such a knife, which is especially important to mention, since this knife is allegedly a part of the Holocaust, which in most has been throughly verified and checked by neutral third parties. The references to the key statements of the article are all based on old, unavailable serbian books, from the communistic post-WW2 Yugoslavia, whose breaking up culminated with a rather bloody war between Serbs and Croats. An article consisting of _just_ one war party acusing the other of war crimes without having anyone anywhere and any time acknowledging thoise accusations is rather silly for an internationaly available and supposedly "verified" wikipedia article. There are no sources on this topic on the net. Only the serbian authors of the article have access to those books, and nobody can check if those statements have actually been taken from those books. even more, the neutrality of those books is not given. One side in a war writing books acusing the other of war crimes, the books being half a century old, only in serbian and available only somwhere on the balcans, no third party verifying the accusations at all. Also, the only authors on this topic being serbs, teaming up and actively linking articles by serbian right-wings and lately even trying to somehow link the alleged WW2 knife and Croatia's war of independance (you'll guess: independance from a Serb dominated yougoslawia state), aka the 90s Balkan wars by perpetually including a sentence that someone somwhen heard of a knife which wasnt actually a knife but more of a machete which then someone else called a "Srbosjek". This article was twice nominated for deletion. It was deleted the first time. It was deleted several times on the german wikipedia and several times on the Croatian wikipedia, as of my knowledge. The second time here on the english wikipedia there was "no consensus" because there were several Serbs defending "their" article and the admin let it stay, but.. I mean... just give me a break. Is this what I now should understand as Wikipedias verifiability requirements? NOBODY can verify anything from this article, but the authors, and they probably didnt read those books themselves but just looked up their titles on google or somwhere else. I am sure somebody can find a book by a crazy Croat in which all imaginable atrocities done by Serbs during their siege of Croatia are described, no matter if real, exaggregated or just simply imaginative. Should this mean that anything from such a book should be copied into the Wikipedia, without anyone having a possiblity to check the accuracy of those accusations? --Rhun 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so because they're Serbian sources they are not reliable? In any case, the work by referenced Howard Blum is an English language source. // laughing man 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machetes

There have been one or more users penetratively trying to add a sentence which contains an statement ICTY witness from the Milan Martic trial, which mentioned that someone during the 90s Balcan used something that looked like a machete. What does this actually have to do with the knife described in the article? Nothing but a name, isnt it? Is this knife in the article now the "Srbosjek", a glove knife or not, or is it really just a general name for a knife which the Serbs used against the Croats and vice versa? Please refrain from adding this sentence to the article until we have found enough sources for this statement here on the talk pages. Greetings, --Rhun 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your argument ((GriffinSB) (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Verifiablity issues

Since the books cited are not available in English and also not available online, practically nobody of the article's present and future readers will have a chance to verify that the information you presented here really originated in those books. Everybody reading the articles practically will obviously just have to believe you anything you say you have read in those books.

The Wikipedia guideline on Verifiability says:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

The Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself ranks verifiability higher than pure hearsay hamstering, when he says:

"Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" --Rhun 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

References are provided, and this issue has been discussed at lenght at deletion proposal page. Sources exist, and reliability of them is according to highest standards here - that is academic books used at universities, (for instance, Colic book is obligatory at Zagreb university; the template is clearly misplaced and is possibly in bad faith. The books need not to be in English or to be available online, that is not a requirement for verifiablity.Hvarako

This issue has been discussed, but ended without consensus. I can not estimate the "reliability" of the book at all, since I can not get hold of it and understand it, so I and everybody else can obviously just blindly let you write the article, since you can substantiate every edit with "it's in those books". That those books are used in some Serbian universities does not "verify" their contents at all, because of the usual strong POV and _no_ third party verification. You do not provide those books along with some international publishings, you provide them as exclusive sources. You also seem not to act in "good faith" at all, because you seem to really clinge on bulajic, who is even as a scholar pretty bad as a source on anything, let alone his rampant nationalism. You also seem not to be getting the article right in the usual wikipedia sense, but mainly presenting the "Serbian side", as you wrote on my talk page. --Rhun 10:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Issues

Hand in hand with the verifiability issues go POV issues. Almost all of the sources cited are of serbian or yougoslaw-communist origin, both known not to be too fond of their Croatian neighbours, who fought two wars in the last hundred years to get free from Serbia's/Yougoslawias iron grip. In such a ambiente, it is too common for both sides to spread propaganda and accuse the other side of war crimes and so on. I can not estimate how biased the cited books and their authors were, but atm the whole article about a croatian war crime tool is based almost exclusively on serbian sources (which only the original serbian editors can get hold of and understand.), the most prominent of them, Bulajic, being an ultra nationalist and self-confessed Srebrenica denier. --Rhun 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. NPOV is not what you think it is. It is about writting in neutral way, attribution etc. You either are not able to understand this or pretend not to understand this. Also, your dismissal of Bulajic is very much a slanderous POV pushing. He, as a source, while disputed (unlike Colic, whose book is used at very university of Zagreb, capital of NDH from which much of the ustashe criminal policies originated, or the Croatian witness etc), is certainly of high relevance as he presents an important side of the story - he is president of Genocide research foundation in Belgrade, a prominent figure in the area. That, according to WP:NPOV means not only that his external link should be kept, but also that his views on the issue should be presented in the article. Hvarako 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I did now not remove the Bulajic link, but chose to comment on it, since his wrings certainly do not represent a NPOV but a strnong pro-serbian POV. --Rhun 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR issues

Direct citations of some witnesses from the ICTY trial is not published, peer reviewed information. If you base the content on "some witness said so" you could also write "my grandmother said so" or "I tend to say such things when I get drunk". Wikipedia guidelines classify such unverified first hand hearsay information as a primary source:

"Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews."

See WP:NOR: "Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies."

So please provide reliable third party sources (again, some serbian blogs wont suffice) that deal with the apperance of the knife during the 90s, and then put back in the removed sentence.

Also the ICTY links have been removed from the linked sources list since also both do qualify as primary, and thus are unusable for Wikipedia. Again, see WP:NOR for further information. --Rhun 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is not a smallest piece of OR here. The witness said what he said, and that he said is verifiable from the ICTY transcripts. Thats verifiability, not original research. ICTY transcripts are also reliable as to what was said in court. What Serbian witness said is clearly relevant to the article, and this is to be included in it on this grounds. There is not a question of OR here at all. Again, you apparently fail to comprehend the policy. Hvarako

I begin to seriously doubt your good faith. This is what NOR policy says of primary sources - they are explicitly allowed:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The only requirement that primary source was published by a reliable source (ICTY site certainly is a reliable publisher of its own transcripts) and that anyone can verify that passage agrees with primary source - again, trivial in this case, as checking what witnesses said. There is nowhere in wikipedia where "unverified first hand hearsay" was defined as "primary source"; you again seem to fail to understand the concept. Wikipedia relies on its sources, does not try to go into verifying them. What is to be verifiable is weather a source says this or that, not weather it is true what the source claims. In fact, checking and estimating truthfulness of the source is precisely OR that you tried to speak about. When facts are in question, the reliability is an issue, and for instance university books and academic work is considered most reliable. Hence, as for the facts, Colic book is as reliable source as you can get, it is used at Zagreb University as book for subject Modern Croatian History. In the case of Serbian witness his testimony is not considered reliable, but the fact that he said so is reliably sourced by ICTY transcripts. Hence, attribution is needed in the case of ICTY witness, whereas facts from the Colic book can be presented as they are, because Colic as a source is highly reliable, according to wikipedias own criteria. Hvarako 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self published sources =

The linked article by Jared Israel falls under the category of "self published sources".

The Wikipedia guidelines say about this: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Since the articles by the linked author are self published and do not under go any form of scholary peer reviews, as is required by wikipedias verifiablity requirements, they have been removed from the linked sources list. --Rhun 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you apparently fail to understand what the policy says. It is about sources, not external links. The purpose of external links is not sourcing but linking to related external sites, though sources are in some articles still put among the external links, not using the quotation system. A source is something used to confirm claims made in the article. There is nothing in Jared Israel's article that is used as a source. Also, I disagree that Jared is a self published author, he is a journalist who happens to write for some websites too, and is a rather well known figure in the Jewish discourse. Hvarako 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Comments

There are some horrible accounts in the book by Nikolic, Croatian doctor. I remember vividly his descriptions of srbosjek, maybe we can have some parts of the book quoted in the article. Aurelie-makedoski 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On this link http://www.un.org/icty/transe39/050425IT.htm, I haven't found any word that mentions the "srbosjek/srbosek", or a "knife" that is called "serb cutter" or "serb slayer". Only a person was called "serb cutter" (**. I don't know who it was by ... why he was given the nickname of "Serb cutter"...). Kubura 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to each one of the claims presented

Since Hvarako seems to be the most active contributor atm, please provide the sources.

1. Naming, should be ok now, since the admin decided to let it stay as it is.

2. especially designed knife, used mostly for speedy slaughter of Serbs

Since you have changed the wording from a general "inmates" to "Serbs", please provide the source that the knife was especially designed for murdering serbs and not for other inmates.

3. Although the original blade was manufactured in WWII, some hand made specimens were also used during the 90s.

Except a brief mention in the ICTY transcripts, there are as of yet no sources documenting the use of such a knife during the 90s, especially not from neutral third-party sources. Please back the claim up.

4. under a special order from the NDH government

I think such a statement will be impossible to back up, but I'm curious what you will come up with.

5. The srbosjek knife was designed after Ante Pavelic held a session of his NDH government, where one of the items on the agenda was what kind of a knife should be designed

Please cite more than one source, preferably non-serbian.

6. Dr. Milan Bulajic, Genocide research foundation, Belgrade

Bulajic is a right-wing extremist, even amongst Serbian scolars, and should not be cited in a serious encyclopedia.

7. http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/times1.htm Jared Israel article

Israel's article is, admittedly dealing with present day croatian neo fascism, also spreading a lot of unbacked claims about the state of crioatia and thus should not be referenced here. His mention of the knife is not referenced and thus not more of a "source" than a personal blog. Greetings, --Rhun 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the sentence says. The sentence says that it was used mostly for slaughter of Serbs, which does not mean only Serbs were victims. Serbs were by far the largest proportion of the inmates, and NDH had policy of genocide which had Serbs at its focus.

The sentence should be kept, but attributed in NPOV manner. It is relevant information.

The sentence is backed up by a reference, and you keep deleting it. That is not allowed. Pavelic had a session of the government and result was this special order.

The sentence is backed up by a reference, and you keep deleting it. That is not allowed, to repeat. Except at the given reference you can also find information on ICTY trial (though Colic is probably primary reference for this or some other book).

That is your POV. His article is provided in external links, and is relevant. Even POV external links are appropriate. Again, stop your deletion vandalism.

It was added in the course of discussion. It does not adress srbosjek specifically. Again, please note the difference that external links are links to related sites on internet, not necessarily NPOV. In fact, even references of this sort are allowed, and you should not remove references or links just because it disagrees with your POV. Hvarako 08:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would ask you once again not to change and reformat my comments in your replys without my permission. Now, to your claims:

> The sentence says that it was used mostly for slaughter of Serbs

Then the sentence should be worded to say that the greatest part of the victims were Serbs. I'll do that.

>> some hand made specimens were also used during the 90s.

> The sentence should be kept, but attributed in NPOV manner. It is relevant information.

The statement is not backed up at all, its informational content is zero. I'll remove it until you present reports (not again some opinion pieces by serbian blogs) that verify such things.

designed after Ante Pavelic held a session of his NDH government, where one of the items on the agenda was what kind of a knife should be designed

> The sentence is backed up by a reference, and you keep deleting it. That is not allowed. Pavelic had a session of the government and result was this special order.

For such a wild claim there is not enough just to cite a single book written by someone. Multiple reliable third party references are required. Just citing a _single_ book without any third party check and verification is just bad science, especially if this includes some nation accusing some other nation of historical war crimes. I am sure that there also exist dozens of documents of croatian nationalists accusing the serbs of some wild war crimes, inflating numbers, deflating their own ustashe warcrimes, and so on. What if some croatian nazi claims that the serbs ate croatian babies, and writes a book about it. Should such propaganda be immediately copied to the wikipedia without some third party verification? Dont be ludicrous. Without unbiased third party check such claims, numbers and war time hearsays are just worthless, so the wiki article can an will not be based on them.

>>Bulajic is a right-wing extremist and should not be cited in a serious encyclopedia.

>That is your POV. His article is provided in external links, and is relevant.

So Dr. Seselj also wrote a book recently, again, dealing with some croatian war crimes. Are you gonna cite him next? Right wing propaganda is not a matter of POV.

> Again, stop your deletion vandalism.

Stop linking obscure serbian nazi articles in the Wikipedia.

> you should not remove references or links just because it disagrees with your POV.

Again, when providing links, you should not rely almost exclusively on right-wing sites for you "information". Cite reliable, neutral, non hate agitating sources, and neither I nor anybody else will remove them. Neonazis are not allowed to spread their hate pamphlets (a.k.a. their "POV") on the wikipedia, and so will not be you. --Rhun 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

> The sentence says that it was used mostly for slaughter of Serbs

Then the sentence should be worded to say that the greatest part of the victims were Serbs. I'll do that.

>> some hand made specimens were also used during the 90s.

> The sentence should be kept, but attributed in NPOV manner. It is relevant information.

The statement is not backed up at all, its informational content is zero. I'll remove it until you present reports (not again some opinion pieces by serbian blogs) that verify such things.

Now, you fail to grasp what attributing and NPOV mean. Statement is that serbian witness at ICTY claimed that, and that statement is clearly verifiable and true. It is also relevant.

designed after Ante Pavelic held a session of his NDH government, where one of the items on the agenda was what kind of a knife should be designed

> The sentence is backed up by a reference, and you keep deleting it. That is not allowed. Pavelic had a session of the government and result was this special order.

that is not true; one reliable source is enough. I am sure Colic wouldnt be used at Zagreb University if his book was not recognized. Also, documents surely exist to this extent. Or do you perhaps think that there was no order from the factory - how come it is produced all way in Germany? Do you suppose they just sold srbosjek all over Third Reich.

>>Bulajic is a right-wing extremist and should not be cited in a serious encyclopedia.

>That is your POV. His article is provided in external links, and is relevant.

:: So Dr. Seselj also wrote a book recently, again, dealing with some croatian war crimes. Are you gonna cite him next? Right wing propaganda is not a matter of POV.

Bulajic is historian, director of genocide research foundation. Seselj has no such claim, though in principle anyone can be quoted, put into proper context. That you think Bulajic is not reliable is your POV and your problem, it is not basis for exclusion. Zerjavic is seen in the same light in Serbia (in fact even Kocovic claims he is Croatian ultranationalist), does that mean his references should be excluded from wikipedia? Your POV is no basis for exclusion of external links, the only basis is relevance.

:: > Again, stop your deletion vandalism.

Stop linking obscure serbian nazi articles in the Wikipedia.

This is very abusive language. Bulajic certainly is no nazi; Jared Israel is not even Serbian. Your attitude is noted! Hvarako 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

> you should not remove references or links just because it disagrees with your POV.

There are plenty of references that even you, with your skewed definition of "right wing" and "nazi", do not consider right wing. "Exclusively" is certainly out of place. Try to control your bias and realize that your lack of tolerance for different POV is strictly against wikipeda NPOV approach, according to which sources are not to be judged by the community, that takes strictly neutral approach. If you have some neo-ustashe source that you love, you can put it if it is relevant for the content, that is how it works. It is left to the users of wikipedia to judge information, that is presented in NPOV way. Hvarako 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer:

Now, you fail to grasp what attributing and NPOV mean. Statement is that serbian witness at ICTY claimed that, and that statement is clearly verifiable and true. It is also relevant.

It is a statement from _some_ witness on some trial. It is neither verified by the court nor is there a way for anybody to ever verify this statement. Verifiability is a strong requirement for the content provided here. If you provide a way for me and any other reader to verify that the knife existed and was used in the 90s (by whom, croats or serbs?) except requiring that we just believe some unreliable witness from a trial Martic hopelessly lost... then I'll let it stay. Until that, it will not stay.

that is not true; one reliable source is enough. I am sure Colic wouldnt be used at Zagreb University if his book was not recognized.

I dont know. I am curious to find out how it really was, so several sources are needed. You obviously have never done any research at all. Research does not mean just using one book and copying information, especially such details, without questioning the information. Especially when it is far and wide the only source for this previously public information.

Your POV is no basis for exclusion of external links, the only basis is relevance.

Again, Bulajics "scientific work" has never been more than very self deceiving agitation reading.

> Stop linking obscure serbian nazi articles in the Wikipedia.

This is very abusive language. Bulajic certainly is no nazi; Jared Israel is not even Serbian.

Your attitude is noted!

And that means what exactly? That I will not let you link serbian ultranationalist's pamphlets as "sources" in an intrnational excyclopedia? Then so be it.

lack of tolerance for different POV is strictly against wikipeda NPOV approach,

Dude, the "POV freedom" does not cross the border of hate speech and propaganda, which Bulajic is exactly known for, and for which there is no place in an encyclopedia.

sources are not to be judged by the community, that takes strictly neutral approach.

Ultranationalism of the kind of the "Serbian radical party" is not tolerated nonetheless.

If you have some neo-ustashe source that you love, you can put it if it is relevant for the

content, that is how it works.

That is how _YOU_ think how it works.

It is left to the users of wikipedia to judge information, that is presented in NPOV way.

No.

--Rhun 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Now, you fail to grasp what attributing and NPOV mean. Statement is that serbian witness at ICTY claimed that, and that statement is clearly verifiable and true. It is also relevant.

Please read WP:NPOV. The validity of attributed statemet needs not to be verified. What needs to be verified is that the one who it has been attributed to made the statement in question. Is that so difficult to understand?

::: that is not true; one reliable source is enough. I am sure Colic wouldnt be used at Zagreb University if his book was not recognized.

Weather I have done research or not you dont have the slightest idea. You should however know that wikipedia is no place for original research. It has its rules, and while more sources are desirable, they are not an absolute requirement. In this case in fact there is the Colic book quoted as a source and a ICTY link; if someone finds more sources only the better, these are certainly not the only books about NDH though Colic is considered to be most authoritive on the NDH matters (in Croatia). However, that you are not happy with number of references should not give you excuse to remove the information. Hvarako

Your POV is no basis for exclusion of external links, the only basis is relevance.

Again, Bulajics "scientific work" has never been more than very self deceiving agitation reading.

Says who? Same can be said about Zerjavic's biased work and holocaust denial. Of course, from Serbian POV. Wikipedia has WP:NPOV exactly because of that. Hvarako 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

> Stop linking obscure serbian nazi articles in the Wikipedia.

This is very abusive language. Bulajic certainly is no nazi; Jared Israel is not even Serbian.

Your attitude is noted!

And that means what exactly? That I will not let you link serbian ultranationalist's pamphlets as "sources" in an intrnational excyclopedia? Then so be it.

That it is a ultranationalist pamphlet, is just your subjective opinion. For wikipedia purposes, it is reference from one of the interested parties - just as Zerjavic is one of the sources for Jasenovac victims.

lack of tolerance for different POV is strictly against wikipeda NPOV approach,

Dude, the "POV freedom" does not cross the border of hate speech and propaganda, which Bulajic is exactly known for, and for which there is no place in an encyclopedia.

there is not a shred of hate speach in the article, and if you think it is POV (or as you say "propaganda") then you modify it according to WP:NPOV. Deletion is not the way to deal with it.

::: sources are not to be judged by the community, that takes strictly neutral approach.

Ultranationalism of the kind of the "Serbian radical party" is not tolerated nonetheless.

That is your assesment which is just that - that you think that something is ultranationalist or nazi, does not mean you are right - in fact, you patently proved that you are missing by far by calling people like Jared Israel to be nazis. thats just ridicilous. As for the content of wikipedia, WP:NPOV is the main policy about how to deal with controversy.

If you have some neo-ustashe source that you love, you can put it if it is relevant for the

content, that is how it works.

That is how _YOU_ think how it works.

You miss some basic knowledge about wikipedia policies, do not understand what attribution and NPOV means, clearly wikipedia does not work how you think. Hvarako 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German factory

Sorry for not believing fantasy statement that german factory Gebrüder Gräfrath has been creating this knife only for Ustaša killings. Can somebody tell for what else has this knife been used in time of 3rd Reich. This is must important question about this article ! Why ? Because if it has been used for other things then it is now Srbosjek !! Rjecina 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gebrüder Gräfrath did manufacture knifes and bayonets under the trademark "Gräwiso". According to the sources, the jasenovac knife had this trademark engraved on it, so you can assume that it was manufactured by Gbr. Gräfrath. That it was manufactured _especially_ for the use in Jasenovac, by explicite design requirements from Pavelic himself is an assertion User:Hvarako desperately tries to push through providing only some old tito era serbian book as a single reference, but since nutty statements from defence witnesses from the Milan Martic trial (where their testimonies tried to prove why he _just had_ to start the war in Croatia) seem to satisfy his requirements for wikipedia inclusion, you can be happy that its a real book he managend to dig up and not some hearsay a drunk full bearded coachman once told him when he was 12. (A book available only in serbian, and only in some library on the Balcans, no citations, nothing. We just have to believe Hvarako that such informations exist in this one single book and just completely base the Wiki article on anything he tells us he read in this book.) --Rhun 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A potential reference: [1].

To add to confusion, it appears that srbosjek is actually nickname used for different knives. Nikola 07:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accuracy of sources section

Can you please keep re-adding this section. As it is written, it is entirely original research. // laughing man 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is a summary of the possible accuracy issues of the very sources used to write the article itself and provided with the article. Since all sources are in serbian language and very old, and possibly unavailable, there is no way for a casual reader to get them. Also they accuse another nation of severe war crimes, and there should be mentioned to a casual reader that as of now there are no third party sources verifying those accusations, and that they can be fake and usual war propaganda, you know, something like Colin Powell's completely fictitious "smoking guns". So until we gather more sources, preferably from neutral third parties, we should let the notice stay in the article. Greetings, --Rhun 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation above is original research -- it is what YOU came up with. Do you disagree? // laughing man 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is what I came up... about the sources used to write the article with. If no third party sources have been found about something, making a statement about this circumstance and its possible impact on the article contents is no "research" on the article topic itself. How else would it be possible to mention to a casual reader of the article that there are no third party sources? Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't give you the right to create an entire section of original research/analysis of the sources given in the article. If so, can you image how many other articles would have a similar note? Can you please try to find a source that backs up your analysis, otherwise I really don't think it belongs in the article. // laughing man 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is rephrased somehow so that it doesn't sound so "Original-researchish", I would agree on an insertion of such a text. Thus as it seems to me - a somewhat personal comment on sources of the article itself - it doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, IMO. Not just because it isn't referenced. Although this is first what came to my mind (original research, citation needed, lack of sources for the Accuracy of the sources), I think that a problem arises in self-referencing also. My approach would be to avoid words as ... those are exclusively serbian sources accusing .... Maybe even completely delete this and the following sentence (As of now those are exclusively serbian sources accusing their wartime enemy, the Croats, of war crimes, and thus to take with a certain bias. Even as the Jasenovac camp is a part of the Holocaust, which is internationally rather well documented, there are practically no third party sources describing this knife.) Just my thoughts. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you then have an idea how to deal with the situation that an article about a severe war crime is solely based on the documentation one of the war sides provided? --Rhun (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having an 'accuracy of the sources' section, but it needs to be sourced itself. At the moment, it looks like the least credible part of the article, simply because it doesn't have any references. Please do what you can to help this - for example, are there any criticisms of the Srbosjek story from serious historians we can quote? If it really is such a controversial/unreliable story, there must be plenty of articles debunking it out there, so please provide some of them. Thank you. Terraxos (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I cut down the 'accuracy of the sources' section to a single sentence. More than that risks violating the neutral point of view policy, by giving more weight to the rebuttals of the Srbosjek story than to the story itself. Terraxos (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All the sources exept ICTY ones ,are pro-Serb Ultra-Nationalistic websites,which deny Srebrenica Genocide,Srbrenica execution Video and Bosnian-Serb Death Camps.The websites also spread serbian propaganda including the nubmer of Serbian victims around Srebrenica which was proven by ICTY and ICJ to be made up.( (GriffinSB) (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) )

[edit] ==The winner of this competition, Petar Brzica allegedly cut the throats of 1360 prisoners and won the competition.[4]

This is so stupid and there are no NPOV refrences. Does somebody expect people to believe that someone can assamble few thousand people and they would all stand in line quietly and wait to get slaughterd??? I'll bet anybody 100 euro's that in few years the number of victims in that competition will be 2000 to 3000. This article is retared. ((GriffinSB) (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Jared Israel article(Strong Serbian Ultra-Nationalist POV.Jared Israel is a Srebrenica Massacre denier,Srebrenica execution video denier and Bosnian-Serb Death Camps denier.)

This guy denies everithing Serbs did. His website is full of hate towards Croats,Bosniaks and Albanians.((GriffinSB) (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)). These are the lies Jared Israel is spreading..[2] [3] --(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

laughing man,stop removing the comment about Jared Israel.He is a serb-apologist.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop adding your own personal opinions to the article, they don't belong in an encylopedia. // laughing man 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinions??? Jared Israel is one of the most aggresive serb propagandists.That's not my opinion,that's a fact. Howcome you are using him as a reliable source,when that idiot is denying everything Serbian Army did during the Balkan war????????--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

He does not use the jared article as a "reliable" source, but as a web link. Its purpose is not to inform a casual reader, but to serve a certain, serbian ultranationalistic cause. Thats also why he (they) insists on linking Bulajic, although they well enough know him being a ultranationalist, Milosevic supporter and Srebrenica denier. Ultranationalists like him (them) started a war some 15 yrs ago, in which tens of thousands died. So its just consequent to keep conducting some kind of nationalistic information warfare when there is no real war any more. --Rhun (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to do something about this Jared Israel article???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take to get a responce on this article???Is wikipedia allowed to spread hate speech and fabrications???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a user-driven encyclopedia. There is no "anyone" to do something about a article you do not like. You also will not get any response if nobody feels he has to respond. If you think the link to the Jared article is not appropriate, remove it. Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ok,thx...--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the un/links because they have nothing to do with the article.The article is about ww2 and this alleged knife and the icty inditments are about the war in the 90's.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The old sources need to go because of the serb ultranationalist POV. I didn't discuss the history of NDH and the Holokaust ,but only this case which to me is something like a urban legen with no credible evidence to support it. During the communist era lots of writers competed to write books about cruelties of Ustase and Chetniks. I think this would be commentated. It's very possible that the bastard guards of Jasenovac camp were holding some kind of competitions,but this comic figure Petar Brzica(Brzica meaning Fast in Serbo-Croatian) doesn't exist or at least there is no proof. If he is hiding in USA as Serb sources say,why the hell doesn't someone find him??? And why are no other competants known??? He competed with who??? Himself??? One more communist ingredient is that Ante Pavelic was somehow invlved in the knifes creation/ordering or whatever.That is so cliche...especialy during the communist Yugoslavia. What are the names of the witnesses?When did his killing on 1360 people accured?He is sopouse to have done this in one night??? Jesus Christ! Do the math...

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV

This article makes no sence.It is a wide-spread rumour and the external links added are very POV.

Jared Israel

Does someone actually thinks that this moron should be included in an encyclopedia???[4] [5]

UN links are not about ww2 era,an in those ICTY testemonies a person is called a Serb-cutter. There are no sources with NPOV in this article.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How the F long does it take to get some response here????--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait few more days for a response.If nothing happens i'm deleting this trashy article becuase it's a poorly sourced,Ultra-nationalist Serb POV and crap.

Wikipedia... legalize your bull.... right here!!!--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with the RFC bot for history, which means that nobody has seen this RFC. Until it is fixed, users have been manually adding requests to the history list. You could ask for help at WP:Help desk for how to do it. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind - someone already added it to the list. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this entry and it is not of particular interest to me, but my conscience is bothered by allowing an entry about an artifact of the Holocaust to be deleted without trying to locate the needed references for it.

It should be noted that the editor who initiated the request for this review made some very questionable changes and additions on the very same day he/she submitted the request. Among these changes: that the glove was made from Serb skin, that Serbs can only be killed with silver like werewolves, and the like.

I have now looked into the history of this entry and find that it originally had more reliable sources which have somehow been discarded over the course of many edits and reverts. I do not believe these are sufficient, however, and will look into finding additional reliable sources at the university library in my city, if necessary.

Finding sources is not a simple matter. For those unfamiliar with the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia, I would like to point out that the death camps were liberated by Tito's Partisans, not Allied troops, and a number of camps were destroyed before the Partisans could reach them. Furthermore, the Jasenovac Memorial was ravaged in 1991, and some artifacts and records in the archives were destroyed. Finding multiple independent sources is problematic, as the United States Holocaust Museum website points out, due to the destruction of many relevant documents, the long-term inaccessibility to independent scholars of those documents that survived.

There was once a supporting link in this entry to an image in website of the United States Museum of the Holocaust, but it appears that the museum has changed their exhibits around (as museums do to keep them fresh) and this link no longer works.

Finding sources on the web is quite difficult. I was able to come up with the following sites so far:

Jasenovac Research Institute This appears to me to be a reputable source. Materials from JRI are sometimes cited in American Masters theses about the Holocaust, including a few I have located which mention the Srbosjek. This source was cited in the early versions of this entry, and I cannot imagine why it has been discarded.

Archives of the Republic of Srpska I see in the entry's history that this site was cited as a source early on. It is a UNESCO portal site and looks to me to take a scholarly approach to researching the Holocaust in the former Yugoslavia. I wonder why it was deleted as a source and never restored?

The Pavelic Papers This site is a bit difficult to navigate, as the owner changed the urls around after receiving death threats. It is actually hard to find, and I thought it was gone at first. The only reference I found so far on this site is a mention of a curved Graviso in Excerpt from Wanted: The Search for Nazis in America. However, it is not clear that the curved knife in question is the srbosjek, as no mention is made of a glove. Unless it can somehow be proven that "Graviso knife" was a common metaphor for Srbosjek and not merely a reference to the manufacturer, this reference is not applicable. Numerous books and articles are listed on the site which may yield usable references, however.

The Simon Wiesenthal Multimedia Learning Site Online is still down at the time of this writing, but may yield a linkable source when it comes back online.

I will update if I am able to find more sources. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

It appears that much of the content of this entry is based on the testimony of a witness who testified in the Hague during the course of the Milan Martic trial. This witness was the translator of a book about the Holocaust in Croatia by an Italian author, Marco Aurelio Rivelli.

The authors of the most part of the entry just did not have better sources than that. Epecially there are no croatian sources about this, which is the country where the Jasenovac camp was situated. However poor it may be to base an article about the Holocaust just on a hearsay from a defense witness of a later convicted war criminal (sic!) and on old sebian communistic (POV issue) books nobody reading the article can ever get hold of and actually verify the information in the article (so everybody just has to "trust" the authors on this), it has not been deleted in the last AfD-discussion since so many Serbs (one of the authors of the article actually organised voters on the serbian wikipedia, which Srbosjek article btw almost borders on hate speech) which never tried to work on the article itself and on the gathering of the sources, got to "vote" and rabidly defended "their" article from deletion, and then dissapeared again. Under these circumstances its great you found references in english, and hope you will scan the pages regarding the knife here for the other authors to verify. Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The trial transcript was deleted from the list of sources in this entry on 2008-04-06 on the grounds that the transcript contained no WWII era information. This is obviously a mistake, as the witness was clearly testifying about the contents of the book about this era which he had translated.

I believe it would be better to cite the book itself, rather than the translator's testimony. This book does not appear to be available in English, however, and I am unable to translate Italian. The references to the "Serb cutter" begin at line 20 on page 8192 of the ICTY transcript of the Martic trial of 2006-09-12. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply. I am new and have trouble following when someone replies to me in the middle of my post. Yes, I plan to scan the pages when I am able to access the books (I will have to photocopy the relevant pages at the library, then scan on my home computer). I hope others with access to good libraries will also double-check and verify the references once I am able to locate them. I had no intention of disparaging earlier editors. As I noted, better sources have somehow been removed from the article. Again, if the book by Rivelli is a reputable source, and someone can translate the Italian, this would be the proper course, not quoting ICTY testimony by the translator. Civilaffairs (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

[edit] Okay, let's discuss

This is not my favourite subject, but it is an historical truth. Isn't pretending that this gruesome thing never existed as bad as pretending that Zyklon B never existed? Of course we all wish these horrors had never been thought of, let alone used by human beings against their fellows, but they were. These ghastly things existed and have been documented.

I agree that some of the sources here are not mainstream, but let us see if we can fix this.

How about some new sources to consider?

A quick google found this: http://www.archipelago.org/vol1-2/butler.htm The Museum of the Holocaust/Simon Wiesenthal site is down at the moment, but will check later.

I have a whole shelf full of history books written by respected authors. Many of them cover the former Yugoslavia. Why don't we give this a reprieve, hmm? Civilaffairs (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I only have problems with external links for propagandic porpouses cq. Jared Israel and his crap. If the article is refferenced properly than it should stay,but it's not. It's the same thing with the Petar Brzica article.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And Zyklon B is well documented in all international sources. But on this article all the www links were extremly serb ultranationalist POV. Like Bulajic (Srebrenica Gencode denier),two ICTY testemonies from the 90's war where a person was called a serb-cutter and not a knife. And Jared Israel... need I say more?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have made this objection before. Please note that SFRY was closed off to the Western world at the during and after WWII. There no Nuremburg trials, no international teams investigating war crimes. I see no need for hasty deletion at this point. I have come across a couple of Master's theses online which made mention of this ghastly little weapon and which were accepted by respected American universities. They may yield good sources. Please be patient. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

If the sources are from universities then it should be mentioned.That's not my problem.My problem was the external links bull. Jared Israel,Milosevic's ally and Serb apologist,Bulajic and ICTY links.The problems I have with some articles are only if the websites like Jared Israel's Emparor's clothes and Serbian Fascist Propaganda box Srpska Mreza.There are quite a few Serbian propaganda websites on the net that are dealing with revisionism only for political pourposes and they are all based on self-created wide spread rumours. I'm allergic to genocide denials,taking statements out of context to suit propagandic goals and abusing of facts like some people do. A good example was the Srebrenica Genocide article.At one point some idiots tried to justify it by saying that it was a retaliation to Operation Strom!?!?!? Which happened 3 weeks later!??!!? That's the kind of crap i really hate.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My proposition is finding sources which are speaking about court decision against Andrija Artuković in 1986 or 1987. If in court documents there is srbosjek then article is OK, if not ....--Rjecina (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, Rjecina. I don't think that whether a reference can be found in one court decision should be the sole arbiter of whether or not this article is deleted. Any entry should rely on multiple reliable sources.

GriffinSB, the sources cannot be the universities themselves. The sources should be sources cited in the Masters theses, which I will check out as I have time. Universities have very strict requirements for sources, especially when considering a thesis for awarding a Masters (far stricter than Wikipedia, of course). This sort of work cannot be done in one day and may require a trip to the university library in my city. I don't mind checking on this next time I am there for other research, but it may be a couple of weeks as I have a broken foot at the moment.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should never cite propaganda web sites as sources, be they Serb, Croat or whatever. I have never contributed to this entry and have no special interest in it, however my conscience is bothered by the idea of capriciously deleting an article about an artifact related to the Holocaust before sufficient time time has been given to look into finding reputable sources.

I applaud your passionate concern about genocide denials. Given that this entry is about an artifact of the Holocaust, which certainly qualifies as genocide, I hope you will join me in searching for reputable sources. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I have decided it best to continue the conversation in the RFChist request section above. Please see that section for updates. Civilaffairs (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The Ustashe Genocide on Serb civilians is not Holocaust.Holocaust is a term used only in the case of the nazi genocide on Jews.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should contact the directors of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and explain to them that they should remove their exhibit on the genocide of Serbs, Jews and Roma in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. Of course that may only serve to convince them that Roosevelt was right.Civilaffairs (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Wrong because United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is saying:"In the German puppet state of Croatia (established in April 1941), the Ustasa (Croatian fascists) instituted a reign of terror and systematically killed Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies). Croatian fascists murdered or expelled hundreds of thousands of Serbs".

Nobody is speaking about genocide. Persecution yes but genocide no.--Rjecina (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The original dispute was whether this was an artifact of the Holocaust. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum defines the Holocaust as follows: The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators...During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others).

Regarding Collaboration the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states the following:

In Europe, antisemitism, nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-communism, and opportunism induced citizens of nations occupied by Germany to collaborate with the Nazis in the genocide of Europe's Jews. Such collaboration was a crucial element of the "Final Solution". Collaborators committed some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust.

A number of German allies (the Axis countries) cooperated with the Nazis by promulgating and enforcing anti-Jewish legislation and by assisting in the deportation of Jews to extermination camps. In German-allied states, fascist paramilitary organizations terrorized, robbed, and murdered local Jews, either under German guidance or on their own initiative.

The pro-Nazi Ustasa government of Croatia built its own concentration camps. By the end of 1941, two-thirds of Croatia's Jews (more than 25,000) were deported to the camps. Most were killed on arrival. The Croats also killed at least 250,000 Serbs.

About the WII-era Independent State of Croatia, it has this to say:

In the German puppet state of Croatia (established in April 1941), the Ustasa (Croatian fascists) instituted a reign of terror and systematically killed Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies). Croatian fascists murdered or expelled hundreds of thousands of Serbs. In the countryside, Ustasa guards burned down entire Serbian villages and killed the inhabitants. Croatian fascists raped Serbian women and tortured Serbian men.

By the end of 1941, about two-thirds of the Jews of Croatia had been imprisoned in camps throughout Croatia (Jadovno, Kruscica, Loborgrad, Djakovo, Tenje, Osijek, and Jasenovac). The Ustasa murdered more than 20,000 Jews in the Jasenovac concentration camp, roughly 60 miles from the Croatian capital of Zagreb. In 1942 and 1943, about 7,000 Jews were deported from Croatia to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Finally, we have the museum's exhibit on Genocide of the European Roma: In Croatia, the Ustasa (Croatian fascists allied with Germany) killed as many as 26,000-28,000 Roma. Many Roma were interned and killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

It is quite clear that the Ustaše-conrolled Independent State of Croatia was engaged in the genocide or the Serbs, Jews and Roma according to the above definition. It is also quite clear that the destruction and deportation of the Jewish population by the Independent State of Croatia was indeed part of the Holocaust (and why it is included in the exhibits of the Holocaust Museum) and why this artifact was displayed there. (It was not only used to kill Serbs, but also Jews and Roma, according to the article in question.) Civilaffairs (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Like I have been saying earlier USHMM is not speaking about genocide of Serbs.

Civilaffairs you have taken killing of Serbs in NDH and definition of genocide. From that your conclusion is that genocide of Serbs has happened. There is only 1 problem with your thinking. It is against Wikipedia policy. You need to read Wikipedia:No original research. Short version of that is you are not allowed to write your conclusions!--Rjecina (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of the term Genocide is in the timeline.Genocide wasn't a legal term during the ww2.However Holocaust of the Jews happened also before 1948(UN declaration of Genocide) but it is considered a Genocide.The F***** Ustase have comitted Genocide on the Serb population on the territories of former NDH and by that betrayed the Croatian people and humanity.By that they also gave an excuse to Serb ultranationalists to try to kill us all in the 90's.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rijecina, I am aware of the "no original research" policy. I have not contributed anything to this article, and you can rest assured I have no intention of contributing anything based on original research. Although I could prove my point using books and scholarly journals, I have no desire to get into a long and time-consuming debate, nor spend hours searching the internet to meet your demands for internet sources (as you did in your comments in the article), as genocide is not mentioned in the article anyway. A quick search of google scholar turned this up right away: Victims and Perpetrators in the Yugoslav Genocide 1941–1945: Some Preliminary Observations.

GriffinSB: True about the 1948 declaration. Even the word "genocide" did not exist prior to WWII. Regarding your earlier comment about Brzica, yes, this claim does seem to defy ordinary logic. I don't see how this could have been achieved unless all the victims had been immobilised prior to the contest and assembled in one place. Other claims made about what went on in Nazi-era death camps also seemed beyond all reason and comprehension at one time, yet they proved to be true. Brzica is not mentioned in the article in its present form, and I see no reason to include him unless this story can be substantiated through reputable sources.

One thing I do propose: if reliable sources also include Roma and dissident Croats among those killed with this implement, they be included along with the Serbs and Jews in the article. Civilaffairs (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

It is funny how you are going again and again toward Serbian sources Victims and Perpetrators in the Yugoslav Genocide 1941–1945: Some Preliminary Observations :))--Rjecina (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not delete other people's comments from this page!

About 12000 Croats also perished in Jasenovac.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC) and that was only Jasenovac. Serbian Chetniks killed abourt 68.000 of anfi-fascist Croats in Dalmacija and Istria(in co-op with fascist Italy) The communists executed 40-55000 at Bleiburg,then the old conc.camps were used as prisons for all "enemies" of the communist regime including democrats,religious officials...you name it.Partisans who were for a democratic Croatia outside of Yugoslavia were also executed.

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, avoid posting out of topic statements; in addition, avoid throwing data from nowhere explaining nothing.

Rijecina, if you consider a source from the Oxford Journals' Holocaust and Genocide Studies copywrited by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to be pro-Serb or anti-Croat, that is your perogative. Perhaps you think the author is a Serb judging by his name. I confess I am a foreigner and cannot always guess these things. But all of this is neither here nor there because there is no mention of genocide in the article, and therefore no need to argue it at this point.Civilaffairs (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

This is not a basis for contributing to the article, but I have met and talked at length to several survivors of Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska and also to some of the very few people who survived the carnage in Drakulic, Motike and Sargovac on 7 Feb 1942 and in neighbouring villages five days later. Some of them have memories of horror almost beyond description, but not a single one of them ever saw this famous knife. (All the killing in those three villages mentioned was done without a shot being fired, but maybe that episode was earlier than the knife is supposed to have existed.) As I said, none of this could be used to verify a Wikipedia article, but it does make me look with a critical eye at the sources cited, which are a long way short of convincing.

For instance, although Bulajic is a published author and therefore editors are entitled to cite him, it is worth noting that even within Serb circles he is a highly controversial individual - openly at loggerheads for instance, with the reputable Jasenovac Research Institute which someone cited above. And the Republika Srpska archive, also cited above, does indeed strive for a scholarly approach, but in truth it doesn't have much to say about the knife. (Note that the its illustration, linked above, is a sketch and not a photo.)

One other point. I don't know how the discussion strayed to this, but anyone who thinks the Ustase campaign was not genocide is simply running away from reality. It was a planned attempt, announced in advance, to eradicate all Serbs, Roma and Jews from a large part of Yugoslavia. That's genocide.Kirker (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with determing the quality of sources. I am no expert on the subject of this article, nor am I particarly interested in it. Correct me if I am wrong, but what I saw on that Archives of Republika Srpska page was both a photograph and a sketch. Ah, yes--the photograph is the lower left corner. Civilaffairs (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Yes, you're right of course (ie Civilaffairs). Sorry. Kirker (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral reference

I found this book talking about "Srbosjek"

Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mitja Velikonja, Texas A&M University Press pages 32, 327 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.18.147 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The book can be bought from Barnes and Noble, ISBN-13: 9781585442263. I've got it from College Du Page Library, Lombard IL.

This is very helpful. I will check the university library in my city next week. Google books has this online, but page 32 is unfortunately not included in the preview. For more proposed references, please see the section above with the heading "RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV"Civilaffairs (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I found that Martin Broszat in his Der Kroatische Ustaschastaat referenced Nikolic's book by mentioning 'Kehlescherblock' i.e throat cutter - so we have enough evidence supporting the existence of the 'Srbosjek' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.52.88 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please copy the citations in here? A "Block" in German does not actually mean a knife, so you are not actually able to deduce from this name that a special knife for throat cutting is used, and that it was actually called "Srbosjek", like this article suggests. --Rhun (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I advise you to get the book yourself and read it. And learn some manners, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.204 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horrific testimony

Here is a Nuremberg Trial testimony quoted in the

Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964

on page 101:

"The mass conversion was organized and the peasants as expected arrived at the Serbian Orthodox church in Glina. Two hundred people turned up for the event. They were met and greeted by six Ustashe members. When all (the Serbs) were inside, the church doors were locked shut. The peasants were forced to lie on the ground and the six Ustase started hitting them with spiked clubs. More Ustase appeared and one after another every single peasant was murdered in this fashion"

NoteThe above text is about an event which took place some time in July 1941 (town Glina) - when Croatian Ustase 'offered an amnesty' (to a group of Serbs) if they would convert to Roman Catholicism. Translation of the quoted text is mine.

I am going to include this book to the references of this article - see my note about the throat cutter above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.204 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And what does this has to do with the knife???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously nothing. I thought he would quote the paragraphs/sentences directly mentioning the knife. --Rhun (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my note above. Also discuss only references that you have had ever read--71.252.102.204 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "note" is worthless. I'm not gonna get the book. You stated that the book mentions the knife, so cite the appropriate paragraphs. Put up or shut up. --Rhun (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete/Rename

The "Srbosjek" article? LoL Please! I'm not the one to belittle Ustaše atrocities, but I can't believe that this article is on Wikipedia. Is there any actual non-biased, third party proof that this knife was any different from other combat glove knives used around the world at that time?
I remind everyone that the Balkans are absolutely packed with sites motivated by strong nationalism of the previous wars (Croatian and Serbian alike). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about nationalist sites, yes, run by those of that ilk on all sides. I honestly don't know whether this thing is any different from other glove knives. In fact, I didn't know there were other glove knives in common use during this era. (Hey, I learned something -- thanks!) I have got the impression this thing has taken on a sort of symbolic significance which is important to some members of the victim populations. Whether the basis of this symbol lies in fact perhaps needs to be determined.

This item is not of special interest to me, nor is this my field of expertise. I believe that it is best to err on the side of caution when dealing with anything that touches on the Holocaust, however. I am extremely uncomfortable with editors deleting reasonable sources, leaving only highly questionable sources, and then complaining about bad sources and calling for deletion. (Please see my post under the heading "RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV" on this page for explanation. Also have a good look at the history.) This same tactic was apparently used with success in the deletion of another article recently ("Ethnic cleansing in Croatia" -- an article I thought should be deleted anyway on other grounds.) I prefer to solve things through reasonable discourse and careful investigation. Perhaps you can help with that?

I have located some American Masters' theses which refer to this thing. Maybe a big hoax made it though the universities which granted degrees based on these theses? I don't want to say "yes" to that question before getting a chance to check the sources listed in the footnotes of these theses at the university library in my city. My broken foot is healing, and I hope to do that soon. If you have any helpful information or can comment on some of the sources suggested on this page (especially the book by Marco Aurelio Rivelli -- I am not familiar with him), it would be most welcome. Also, would you like to suggest an alternate name? Civilaffairs (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The references are credible, physician Nikolic is a credible Nuremberg Trial witness. If someone is talking about bias - that person shall give undeniable proof that (s)he read all the references given here. DIREKTOR is absolutely packing nonsense here. One of them - clearly visible here - is 'I'm not the one to belittle Ustaše atrocities'.--71.252.102.204 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just comment to remind you that you also were asked to cite paragraphs from this one book dealing with the knife, but you refused. --Rhun (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(LoL, Mr.IP does not appear to know much about my editing :) I'll read through the (LONG) discussion more carefully and get back to you guys. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

For many different reasons, not the least of which is the policy on people notable for one event, I don't think Petar Brzica is notable enough to have his own article. If the information on him must be kept based on whatever sources we have which, by the way, I find questionable at best, I believe he should have a section in this article devoted to him instead of an entire article.
Opinions, please.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, plain and simple. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

At present, Brzica is not included in this article. I gather references to him were deleted due to lack of current reliable online sources (see discussion above in section "okay, let's discuss", also "RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV"). Perhaps if people with open minds tried to track down information on this guy and determine the quality of that information, a decision on :whether to include him at all in Wikipedia could be reached by consensus.

So far, most of what I have been able to find about him online seems to track back to Howard Blum's book Wanted: The Search for Nazis in America(Quadrangle, New York: The New York Times Book Company, 1977). According to this site, information about Brzica is on page 187. He is also mentioned on page 154, according to this online excerpt. Does anyone have this book? If not, I can check when I am able to get to the library.

According to this site, "Dr. Nikola Kilolic, a Croat and a Catholic, was an eyewitness to the deed." Who is this Dr. Kilolic? I have never heard of him (not being an expert on this matter in any way). Civilaffairs (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

It is correct that at present he is not included in this article, rather there is an entire article devoted to him. The issues of verifiablity of his very existence have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petar Brzica and the article was kept. I don't think the information we currently have is good enough to reliably source such a controversial subject but, in my honest opinion, a second AfD would not end in a deletion at this point in time. So the information on him will have to be kept for now despite the poor second rate sources but I believe it is better to keep that information together with this article than to keep it separated. The biggest benefit, I think, in having these 2 articles merged is that the information about these 2 subjects will always come from the same sources and any issues raised about verifiablity of the subject and reliability of the sources about the knife or Brzica can be discussed together in one place. I think it will be easier to build consensus if we centralize those discussions. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of better (but perhaps not adequate) sources have somehow been deleted from the article regarding the knife itself (again, see sections "okay, let's discuss", "RfC: external links are very serb ultranationalist POV" and "Delete/Rename"). Sources supporting Brzica appear to be rather sparse, on the other hand (so far as I have been able to determine). In other words, most of the sources for the knife do not mention Brzica at all. The two subjects are not inextricably tied together by any means.

I don't have a dog in this fight (I do not belong to any of the ethnic groups involved), and, again, I am no expert on this matter. I do care about proper sourcing and believe open discussion and reasonable debate is the best course. Surely we can gather sources, discuss them and decide on whether Brzica should be included at all? I have no objection to merging the two articles IF proper sources can be found to support the inclusion of Brzica. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

You're confusing me slightly, Civil. I think you and I are arguing the same thing but from different perspectives. You and I are both questioning the verifiability of Petar Brzica through reliable sources. Brzica already has a full article about himself and the debate about his inclusion in Wikipedia ended in a consensus that information should be kept. Barring a second AfD debate that results in a delete, we have no choice but to keep the information about him on Wikipedia. What we do have is a choice whether to keep that information in a separate article or to merge it into an article that already speaks of his alleged exploits and, according to the Brzica article itself, he is not notable for anything else other than his supposed connection with the Srbosjek. So, if we can't properly verify his existance nor his notability, I think it's more appropriate to include him into this article that already mentions him rather than keep an entire article about him. Again, WP:ONEEVENT is part of official policy and, in my opinion, Brzica is only notable for one event.

Also, we may be able to find sources about the knife without any mention of Brzica but I don't think the opposite is true. I couldn't find any single reference to Brzica that does not mention the knife. The two are, I believe, inextricably tied together in the same sense that Siegfried & Roy are. There are possibly thousands of reliable sources about Roy Horn and his tiger injury but he still doesn't get his own article. Petar Brzica is far less notable and verifiable and I don't believe he deserves his own article. True, including him in this article would mean that we are inserting information whose sources we don't all agree upon but I think that this is a better option than having a full article about the same subject whose sources we don't all agree upon, especially if the article about the person explicitly states that he is famous for nothing more than using the knife described in this article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reject There are at least four references in English not linking the serb cutter knife to Peter Brzica ...

Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mitja Velikonja, Texas A&M University Press pages 244, 327

The Library of Congress World War II Companion by David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn; Publisher: Simon and Schuster, 2007 pages 640, 646-47

Hunting the Tiger: The Fast Life and Violent Death of the Balkans' Most Dangerous Man by Christopher S. Stewart page 139

Wanted!: The Search for Nazis in America by Howard Blum Quadrangle New York 1977 Times Book Co. page 187

... and two in Serbo-Croatian:

Jasenovacki logor smrti by Nikola Nikolic

Vatikan i Jasenovac: dokumenti by Vladimir Dedijer Rad Beograd 1987 page 343

--71.252.101.67 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verify credibility and citation needed tags

It is possible to see that all internet sources has been deleted because they have been NPOV sources. Only sources which has stayed in article are obscure books which has been added by nationalistic SPA accounts. In near future article will be nominated for deletion because of Wikipedia:Verifiability and users which are thinking that article is NPOV to find reliable NPOV internet sources. Like I have shown many times before obscure books are not NPOV sources. If you have not seen why books are not reliable sources in controversial article I will show 1 old wikipedia example.

Tags citation needed are on wrong place because article is having many POV statements without source. For example I will take opening statement:"Srbosjek (literally serb-cutter in Croatian, often mentioned as cutthroat) was a specially designed knife ..... Please can somebody show me source for statement that this has been "specially designed knife" ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the...?

Every single word needs sources, and every single source that is already present is unreliable?

If anyone thinks that Dedijer is so outright unreliable source, he or she is very wrong. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Brzica story

As has been pointed out by people who have done the maths, it is wildly improbable - to say the least - that anyone could knife to death 1350 people in a single night. I would not be surprised if something unpleasant happened at Jasenovac on 29 August 1942, but if so it has been exaggerated beyond belief. Even if the slaughter took place as described, has any witness claimed that a specially designed knife was used? In my view Brzica doesn't meet the standard for a Wikipedia entry of his own, and (on the evidence so far) has no place in this highly unsatisfactory article.

Milan Bulajić, about whom I have expressed my views earlier on this page, credits the Brzica anecdote to an Ustaša who apparently took part in the competition. In "The Role of the Vatican in the Break-up of the Yugoslav State" (pp156-7) Bulajić writes: "The Ustashi genocidal criminal-slaughterer Mile Friganović told the incredible story about how Franciscan Pero Brzica, a scholarship holder at the Široki Brijeg monastery, slaughtered 1,350 prisoners in only one night." He then quotes Friganović claiming that "after a few hours" he himself had killed 1,100 people, and describing in macabre detail the particularly sadistic way in which he dispatched "some Vukašin from the village of Klepci near Čapljina whose whole family had been killed and who was sent to Jasenovac after working in the forests." Bulajić then quotes Friganović saying: "Franciscan Pero Brzica won the bet because he had slaughtered 1,350 prisoners and I paid the bet without a word."

In the immediate following paragraph Bulajić refers to Friganović as "Zile" rather than "Mile". He writes that a Professor Nedo Zec "was a witness to this event and claims it took place in January 1943" - a discrepancy of five months from the date usually given.

Civilaffairs linked to a website that cites a Dr Nikola Kilolić. The surname would have been a typo and should have been Nikolić. Nikolić was a medical doctor who was imprisoned in Jasenovac and who later documented his experiences, which included having to watch certain atrocities specifically because he was a doctor. From memory I think his testimony was incorporated in Viktor Novak's somewhat propagandist history of Ustaše atrocities, Magnum crimen.Kirker (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree that sources about Petar Brzica's exploits and even his very existence are questionable at best and that most of the information about him may very well be anecdotal, I am confused by the comments questioning the basis on which he is included in this article. If you truly do believe that Brzica does not deserve his own article and, barring any new evidence you may provide to overrule this decision, please provide a suggestion on how you would like to see the subject of Petar Brzica treated. If all of us who have so far weighed in on the notability/verifiability of Brzica agree that he doesn't deserve an article of his own and we all know that it can't be deleted due to the unsuccessful AfD, what do we do? Clearly, we must include him (again, unless new evidence can be provided to a 2nd AfD nomination), so where do we do that? Where do we write about him if not in an article about himself? Please provide a suggestion.

Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirker quoted the Brzica "anecdote" from Bulajic's book, but he forgot to quote the corresponding footnote, which would have given us the true source of the passage: Nedo Zec, "Do your job, child!" - a horrifying confession of the cruelest slaughterer - Messages - The newspaper of the Jasenovac Memorial region", year I, no. 1., July 4th, 1970. Nedo Zec was a renowned Bosnian neuropsychiatrist and Jasenovac inmate, who became health minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina and professor at the University of Sarajevo.

In January 1943, Ivica Matković, who was commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp at that time, ordered a "doctor's committee" to be formed, which was to examine a certain number of Ustaši cut-throats and give him their professional opinion regarding their state of health. The Ustaši liutenant Prpić was appointed head of this "commitee", and Dr. Nikola Nikolić and Dr. Nedo Zec were chosen to carry out the examinations. A day before the "committee" was to begin work, Zec was taken to the officer's flats, where Žile Friganović, one of the most bloodthirsty butchers in Jasenovac was waiting for him.

So we have Ustaša butcher Žile (not Mile) Friganović talking to psychiatrist Nedo Zec, and mentioning (franciscan) Pero Brzica as the winner of a slaughtering competition (other sources speak of Brzica having slaughtered 3500 people on that occasion, not 1350, please check the original source). There appears to be no mention of the Srbosjek knife in Friganović's account, but any honest Croatian Wikipedian could check the sources above to make sure, since, unfortunately, Bulajic's book is ridden with typos.

The Brzica story (as told by Zec) can also be found in the book "Otpor u žicama", I, pp. 61-65, which appears to be available in Croatian libraries as of today.

Nikolić was a medical doctor who was imprisoned in Jasenovac and who later documented his experiences,

Yes, Nikola Nikolić was a physician and Jasenovac inmate, a colleague of Nedo Zec. He published a report about the methods and instruments used for killing in the Jasenovac concentration camp. Nikolić's report was published in Dedijer's book on Jasenovac, which is available in English and German. It appears to be the primary source for the knife in this article. I quote the relevant passage from Nikolić's report:

"The Ustaši butchers in the camp received special knives fastened to armbands, which were made in Germany. These knives were used in Gradina and were later found by the Partizans. This 12cm long knife was curved with the blade on the inner side and was fastened to a curved, conic copper plate, which in turn was attached to a thick leather armband. The killer would fasten this band around the wrist and push his thumb through the hole made for this purpose, while his fingers remained free. The arm band was pulled tight around the wrist with leather belts. When the killer struck the victim's neck and pulled the knife toward him, the blade would turn in the body and immediately cut all the tissue by the sheer force of the movement.

At the base of the knife, close to the copper plate, stood the inscription "Grafrat gerb. Solingen", and the name of the German company "Greviso" was stamped on the leather.

The executioner would keep turning this knife in a circular movement, making the stroke of his arm seem like a continually turning wheel, cutting the throats of the victims, which his helper would place under the knife. It was like a machine for cutting throats. A conveyor belt for slaughter!"

(Quoted after: Gojko Škoro, Genocide over the Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, Belgrade 2000)

[edit] Verification

My two cents are here

1) Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mitja Velikonja, Texas A&M University Press pages 32, 327</ref>

The page 32 is not relevant to this article - it shall be page 244 which supports the leading paragraph.

Texas A&M University is a Tier 3 (state) university; dr. Mitja Velikonja is a tenured professor of history at the Sloveni State University in Ljubljana

2)The Library of Congress World War II Companion by David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn; Publisher: Simon and Schuster, 2007 pages 640, 646-47

All pages referenced are ok and supporting the text of leading paragraph. This work was commissioned by the Library of Congress and written by a number of prominent American historians and university professors. Published by the world-renown Simon and Schuster publishing company

Bottom line - both the sources are reliable and verifiable.

3) Searching the book indices of the digitalized books visible and available through my library tools I found a number of references supporting existence of a special knife used by Ustashi to slaughter people. They are:

New Blackfriars: A Monthly Review. Folkstone 1964 page 61, "The Crusades had won a prize in competition for the slaughter of the Orthodox by cutting the throats of 1360 Serbs with a special knife"

Smokescreens by Jack T. Chick Chick Publications 1983 page 29-30: "Bets were made a to who could liquidate the largest number of inmates. Peter Brzica cut throats of 1360 prisoners whith a specially sharp butcher's knife. Having been proclaimed the prize-winner of the competition, he was elected King of Cut-throats. A gold wtch, a silver service and a roasted suckling pig and wine were his rewards."

The Golden Age Is in Us: Journeys and Encounters by Alexander Cockburn, Publisher Verso 1996

Page 216: "He slit the throats of no less than 1360 Serbs with a special knife and was duly awarded a gold watch, a silver service, a roast suckling pig and some wine."

The Ideological Weapons of Death: A Theological Critique of Capitalism by Franz Josef Hinkelammert Orbis Books 1986 Christian sociology Edition page 210: "Wild priests, led by Croatian Franciscans, set out to eliminate the Serbs. ...etc ... using a special knife, cuts the heads off 1360 men. On May 4, 1945 ..."

4) The knife, in the references available to me, is not attributed to Brzica. So I do not see reason for merging these two articles.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

5) I found three books more - written by eyewitnesses

- 44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu by Egon Berger Publisher: Graficki Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb 1966

- Jasenovacki logor smrti by Nikola Nikolic Publisher: NISP "Oslobodjenje", Zagreb 1975

- Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat by Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat 1941-1945 Publisher: Deutsche Verlags-Ansalt Stuttgart 1964

Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat is based on eyewithess accounts of the Hungarian journalist Ladislaus Hory, who was his country's diplomat in Zagreb in 1941. His testimonies were expanded by the German historian, Martin Broszat, who drew upon the rich, partly unpublished materials from German archives. The comlete book review will is in progress. Berger and Nikolic were Jasenovac concentration camp prisoners and survivors. Both mentioned throat-cutter knife and not attributed it to Brzica. Nikolic described 58 means of killing inmates where he mentioned throat-cutter or srbosjek too.

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Velebit you must know that it is very simple. You need to show us NPOV internet link. --Rjecina (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, forgive me if I have a hard time assuming good faith from someone whose very first Wikipedia edit is a controversial revert on a very controversial article. Second, if you do not believe the articles should be merged, please discuss that in the above section titled Merger proposal but do not delete the tags on the article's page because that prevents other editors from putting in their 2 cents the way you did. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "articles" about Petar Brzica(Speedy) mention just a knife,and not Srbosjek.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Or sometimes, GriffinSB, it is described as "a specially sharpened butcher's knife," as may be the case, if I remember correctly, in that self-published rubbish by Jack T Chick. Most of the references cited by J A Comment credit Brzica with 1360 murders. This and some similarities in wording might lead a suspicious mind to suspect that some of them go back to a single source. In some other accounts a figure of 1350 is used. Both figures are plainly ludicrous. For my money this, together with the fact that the competition has been ascribed to "29 August 1942" and "January 1943," is enough to cast serious doubt on the whole episode. I may add that the three people I know (all Serbs) who were in Jasenovac at both those dates never heard a word about either the episode or the knife, and the Jewish historian Slavko Goldstein has never mentioned them. Kirker (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not find any of the comments above rational.--J. A. Comment (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag trolling by Croat nationalists (neutrality etc.)

A group of well-known Croat clericalist-nationalist Wikipedians (Rhun, Rjecina, ...) are persistently attempting to dispute the existence of this article's subject.

Let's repeat what we have learned from the above discussion threads, so that everybody understands it:

The knife was described by Dr. Nikola Nikolic, a physician and Jasenovac inmate, who was a colleague of famous psychiatriast Nedo Zec. Nikolić's account was published in Dedijer's Jasenovac book and probably elsewhere (what about Antun Miletić's Jasenovac monography?). So there definitely is at least one reputable source for it, regardless of the veracity of the fact: the knife might be an invention of Yugoslav communist propaganda, but you would have to provide reputable sources saying so (like, for instance, David Irving disputing the authenticity of Hitler's political testament). See also this edit, which sounds very credible to me, it mentions a few more sources.

AFAIK no independent research has been conducted on the German side, if or where this type of knife had been manufactured. But the claim does not seem totally unlikely, since "Grevizo" appears to have manufactured pocket knifes for the Hitlerjugend (see the RfD discussions on the German Wikipedia). Any help in researching this further would be greatly appreciated.

So to sum it up: the description of the knife can be traced to its primary source, Dr. Nikolic, a physician and Jasenovac inmate, who appears to have been respected even by the Ustaša. This is quite unusual for Wikipedia standards as of today: usually tertiary or quinary sources are quoted, and rarely does someone know the original source of a particular statement. But there are secondary and tertiary sources citing Nikolic's findings as well (see the few hits at Google books) so there seems to be some consensus on the knife's existence.

On a side note, this discussion reminds me a bit of the discussion in the German Medjugorje article, with some Croatian nationalists persistently denying reputable sources by means of (poorly conducted) WP:OR. It is also worth noting that Rhun successfully filed a RfD for this article on the German Wikipedia (see the Rfd of January 15, 2007, the article has been repeatedly deleted there). If you want to play Wikipedia on a hard level, try writing this article for the German Wikipedia ;) --El Cazangero (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed the following section from the article:

[edit] External Links

Photos from the Jasenovac museum

http://www.un.org/icty/transe9/021206ED.htm

[edit] See also

Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat: Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964
Dave Hunt: Die Frau und das Tier Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft der römischen Kirche © 1994 by Dave Hunt, Herausgegeben von Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon - Das Abschlachten der Serben Chapter, pages 289-301
The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan Ozark Books 1988 or online
44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu by Egon Berger Publisher: Graficki Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb 1966

I think that articles should include only selected and relevant weblinks, and not just any weblink mentioning the subject. If you need to include them, please quote something from these works. Egon Berger's account is already mentioned as a source in the discussion. --El Cazangero (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you - the references above are contextual references which role is to give the broader highlight of the Srbosjek term. Therefore, I will put it back for not seeing your explanation rational enough. --71.252.83.33 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead, if you must, but please consider the following:

Ladislaus Hory and Martin Broszat: Der kroatische Ustascha-Staat, 1941-1945 Stuttgart, 1964

I have ordered this book and will skim it. If it contains any references to the knife, i will add it, with the exact page numbers.

Dave Hunt: Die Frau und das Tier Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft der römischen Kirche © 1994 by Dave Hunt, Herausgegeben von Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon - Das Abschlachten der Serben Chapter, pages 289-301

What's this book good for in an article about a knife? There are so many works covering the topic of "Abschlachten der Serben" during WW2.

The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan Ozark Books 1988 or online

This one would be better suited in an article about either the Holocaust or the Vatican. Again, all these sources ultimately quote either Nikolic, Zec or Egon Berger, so what's the point in using them? It only serves to bloat the references list.

44 mjeseca u Jasenovcu by Egon Berger Publisher: Graficki Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb 1966

This looks like a very good reference, but do you own it or have you actually read it? If yes, then you can surely write one simple sentence quoting something interesting from the book, and enter it under "references". Why the "see also"? You can put anything under "see also". --El Cazangero (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos from the Jasenovac museum

Why not find out the photo source and upload them to commons? There is already a picture of it in the article.

ICTY transcript

The only thing that looks relevant here ist the mention of the JNA military police finding a "Srbosjek" knife in Pisari in the spring of 1992. But was that an original "srbosjek" from WW2 or was it a modern replica? If it was a modern replica, who made it and where? Are there any contemporary knives similar to "srbosjek" today? --El Cazangero (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

- OK - but why you are removing from See also a reference before reading it? Following your logic - any person can remove anything form the references claimining - 'I did not read it yet'. As to the ICTY transcript - it simply echoes memory on the real srbosjek knife and therefore worthwhile mentioning. As to the rest of references - they are simply contextual ones - helping to better understand the time related to the srbosjek knife existence and use.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider me a bit radical, but I'm very critical of "see also" sections, because they often serve as a cointaner for random associations. They also bloat the article, and I try to keep disputed articles short. If you had checked the sources, it would not have been necessary to include them under "see also", you could have quoted and referenced them in the main text, and no reasonable author would have disputed it. Of course I can't check every source, there's always some potential for error, but if you stick to the rules and keep your facts short (as opposed to hiding them in a cloud of text), those errors can be quickly found and corrected. Sorry for the mistrust, but I wasn't sure about your identity either, and I thought that those sources are either of limited relevance or that they need some additional checking. Plase do not consider it as a sign of disrespect for your research on the article, which I consider valuable. There is always the possibility of using the talk page for pointing to further sources. The talk page is not a "second class citizen", and disclosing a valuable potential source on the talk page is nearly as good as quoting it in the main article. Do not be discouraged by the tactics of some people to maunder around on the talk page, without offering substantial sources or clear explanations. --El Cazangero (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

- - I noticed that you have created your own criteria and then concluded they are not met: ICTY link - you asked several questions which are not answered - after deciding to remove the link. That way you can remove anything - for it is always possible to find questions which are not answered; See also - nobody put under this title NBA finals or Roland Garros - whether the titles under this section are better suitable somewhere else - I did not put them there for reading absolutely all of them before - I simply noticed that some of them were in this article and were removed without discussion. Definitely, a number of contextual references is always welcome - for the reason of shedding a broader light on the subject of this article. If you want to remove something from the article - first check it (read it) as you advised it to me then put a note (the reason for removing or keeping it) here on the talk page before removing it. From my side - I ordered three of the books (Broszat, Nikolic, Berger) - for which I have to wait 4-6 weeks in order to get them. After getting and reading them - I'll put my note here and possibly alter the article.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Troll-tagging again (neutrality, sources)

I beg you to quote just one reputable source which disputes the knife's existence, for example Franjo Tudjman calling "srbosjek" "an example of the Serbian Jasenovac myth" in his books, or anything else, by a well-known or reputable author, and I will gladly add it to the article myself. The fact that you disagree with the described topic does not empower you to add neutrality tags to the article at will (it took me a while to realise that myself). So if the article is written from a "dominant" POV as found in selected reputable sources, then it is your task to provide selected reputable sources that prove the opposite. When dealing with disputed topics, it helps to keep the article short and to the point. Please avoid playing tricks like trolling with tags, excessive writing (text smokescreens), selective quoting or reference bloating, because it will hunt you down sooner or later. Try to explain things in a way so that everybody can learn by reading the discussion. --El Cazangero (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)