Talk:Banjica concentration camp

Dubious text

This claim is not supported by any valid reference

Dragi Jovanovic signed the document to this effect and the first prisoners were brought in on May 9. Svetozar Vujkovic was appointed director of the Serbian part of the camp where there were only Serbian police. The smaller German part was directed by members of the Gestapo[dubious — see talk page]. The commander of the camp and along with his assistant were German. The German and Serbian parts of the camps were completely separate.

The camp was established by Germans and run by Germans. The collaborationists had here just a secondary role. See, for example, Encyclopedia of Holocaust, entry Banjica

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates are supposed to point to Banjica concentration camp, which is near Belgrade, Serbia. Instead, they seem to point to near Pristina, Kosovo... Looks like a politically motivated "joke" ... :(

—109.245.184.73 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed, but original coords were added by an automatic process, The Anomebot2, so if it was a joke it was a pretty elaborate one... — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable inmates

I don't have a particular opinion whether the article should have a list of notable inmates. Should you want to add it, here's a reliable source (excerpt from this book [1]), which lists:

• Aleksandar Belić, linguist
• Aleksandar Deroko, architect
• Miloš Đurić, philologist and philosopher
• Mihailo Ilić, politicologist (killed in Banjica)
• Petar Kolendić, literature historian
• Viktor Novak, author
• Veljko Petrović (writer)
• Vaso Čubrilović, politician and historian
• Jovan Erdeljanović, ethnologist
• Risto Stijović, painter
• Aleksandar Leko, chemist
• Nikola Vulić, historian & philologist
• Ivan Đaja, biologist
• Tihomir Đorđević, ethnologist

Additionally, [2] lists Josip Benković, painter (killed in Banjica), and [3] Vlastimir Pavlović Carevac, musician (Banjica erroneously translated as 'tub'). No such user (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a notable inmates list is a good addition to concentration camp articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not a list, but maybe a paragraph titled "Notable inmates" in the "Legacy" section? Also, I'm not really comfortable with all those redlinks and I don't think a GAN reviewer in the future will be, either. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, notable inmates list should be added to Banjica concentration camp article. Regarding redlinks, 7 out of 10 listed have biographies present on other non-english wikipedia links.

Aleksandar Belić Miloš Đurić Veljko Petrović Jovan Erdeljanović Aleksandar M. Leko Ivan Đaja Tihomir Đorđević

It is fair to belive that those articles will be translated to english Wikipedia, some day. With regards,--SadarMoritz (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If these people meet WP:GNG, then redlinks shouldn't pose a problem at GAN. The whole purpose of redlinks is to point to articles that need creation. I've been pulled up at FAC because an article I nominated had NO redlinks (because I had created them during the process of developing the article). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can ascertain that all of them meet WP:GNG; as SadarMoritz pointed out, several of them have articles on Serbian Wikipedia, and others immediately show up in Google searches (that's how I filled up their occupations, above). No such user (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then a list titled "Notable inmates" should be added to the end of the article (as long as its well-sourced and the format is in line with the (sfn) one already established). 23 editor (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do. No such user (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dedinje

The article should explain why the Germans called it Dedinje and not Banjica. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)  Done

The current supposed German name is in any case wrong, as the German spelling would be "Anhaltelager" and not "-leger" as it reads now. German sources seem to refer to it as KZ Banjica, however. "Anhaltelager" was a term used for camps for political prisoners (including many Nazis) by Austrian fascists before the Anschluss, so that probably the name used here is a foreign misunderstanding based on poor understanding of terminology. In any case the Nazis would not have been likely to use the name Anhaltelager, and no German sources support it either. -89.68.177.124 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banjica concentration camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm having trouble reconcilign some facts in the article: from the lead: "By 1942, most victims were executed at the firing ranges.... 23,697 individuals were detained....At least 3,849 of these perished" 3000 is not "most" of 23000. Can you clarify please? Also, you use the term "firing range" twice, but wikipedia's own article shooting range defines "A shooting range or firing range is a specialized facility designed for firearms practice", which does not seem appropriate. I think you need to reword this.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I do not see any MoS concerns. The list of notable prisoners seems reasonable.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references are well laid out and in keeping with the MoS. However, not all the websites and eBooks have retrieval dates, which need adding please. All book refs look to have page numbers given, which is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is generally very well cited indeed, for which the editor is to be commended. However, all controversial statements or simply those that are shocking or likely to be challenged require refs, some of the statements in this article currently lack them, eg: " inmates would spend several days in the custody of the Gestapo and in Special Police prisons, where they would be tortured and beaten. By the time they were transferred from these detention centers to Banjica, some of the prisoners would already have displayed signs of serious mutilation.", "He collaborated enthusiastically with the Gestapo" are a few that do really need cites
	2c. it contains no original research.	I spotted no signs of original research
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The coverage of the history of the operation of the concentration camp is very good. The coverage either side of this is very weak. How was the site sourced? What was there before? Who built it? What happened afterwards? Was it torn down? Is any part of it left?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is tightly focused on its topic and does not stray off-topic at all.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'm not sure that I'm happy with the focus on Jews in the lead. The lead reads "23,697 individuals were detained in Banjica throughout the war, including 455 to 688 Jews". If Jews were only 3% of the inmates by your quoted figures, why are you referencing them? Is it not more notable to address the 97%? We need to be neutral, notable and objective here and focus on the scope of this article. This needs changing please, since it is not appropriate as it stands: this is an article on a concentration camp in a general encyclopaedia, not in some register of Jewish deaths. The focus on Jewish deaths is disturbing. I'm not clear if its pro-Jew, or anti-Jew, but it is not neutral, and not appropriate. I also don't like the following wording in the "background" Section: "Upon capturing Belgrade, the Germans ordered the city's 12,000 Jews to report themselves to the occupational authorities; 9,145 of them did so. On 14 May, Jews were removed from all official posts and a series of anti-Jewish laws were passed which prohibited Jews from performing a variety of tasks that ranged from going to restaurants to riding streetcars.[5]". Why is this relevant to the article? If the article was "Anti-Jewish behaviour in Belgrade in WWII" it would fit, but on the facts from the article itself, the Jewish population of the camp was negligible (3%). I suspect you are sourcing figures from Jewish holocaust memorial groups. They inevitably have something of a a slant or agenda. I just don't think it is relevant or notable. Lets not make the story what any Jewish groups want the story to be, lets stick to the facts. If 97% of the inmates were not Jewish, what *were* they, why were they there, why where they being prosecuted, *that* needs to be the focus of the article. The article itself admits "The camp itself was used mostly to intern anti-fascists", but the listing given when listing who was interred is "...torture and execute Jews, anti-fascists and those deemed unworthy of life" and elsewhere "....camp was later used to hold Serbs, Jews, Roma, captured Partisans" etc - note the undue emphasis at the head of each list of "Jews". You do a disservice focusing in a non-neutral way on the Jewish victims. This is probably the fault of your sources rather than you, I appreciate, but the GA review is a FAIL for this alone I'm afraid.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Both the main editors "23 Editor" and "No such user" appear to have recent dispute resolution/edit war marks against them (for Ivica Dačić and Novia Sad. I do not see any sign of this in this article in particular, but it is not a good sign. I will mark this as on HOLD and spend more time than usual reviewing the edit history of the article, as well as its neutrality.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I am happy that they are both correctly sourced and are both valid for inclusion
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are correctly captioned and are appropriate for the article. I would however like to see them swapped. The image used at the top is quite charged: a distinction is drawn between concentration camps and extermination camps, and this camp seems to be classed as a concentration camp, and actually had relatively low fatalaties as a percentage of its inmaates, looked at objectively: my concern therefore is that the image of the soldier is not the most appropriate, since visually and in its camption it suggests extermination, which was not the norm at the camp, and is a misleading impression to give. I am not saying don't include that image, it is historically valid and should be included in the article. However it does not best sum up and represent the article. I would swap out the secondary image to the top of the page.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a FAIL today on grounds of neutrality. The article places far too much emphasis on Jewish victims, and is biased and unencyclopaedic in that respect. We are not a Jewish holocaust remembrance organisation, we present the facts. The main victims were anti-fascists, this needs emphasising, and the Jewish angle de-emphasising. This is simply to bring this article in line with the facts. We must not be emotive in this article, or seek to fit in with a wider narrative, we stick to the facts only. I am happy to re-review this article speedily when some of my concerns above are addressed, to save you waiting several months for another GA review! -PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banjica concentration camp/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi 23 editor, I'll be glad to take this one, though be warned that it may take me 3-7 days to post a full review. I've read the previous review and will check some of the article's sources to see what emphasis they place on Jewish victims, since that seems to be Dan's main concern. We can check together about Dan's concerns re: unsourced information. The lack of retrieval dates he mentions is not an issue for the GA criteria, though it wouldn't do any harm to fill them in. I also think the selection of images (and their placement) is fine.

More to follow soon! Thanks in advance for your work on this one. As a side note, have you noticed how many concentration or death camps have gone through GA this month? You've got two up, Diannaa and I just did Auschwitz, and another user is doing Treblinka, which I also hope to review if no one beats me to it... -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't noticed all the camp nominations but its great that the quality of such articles is being improved. :) Anyway, I'll be glad to address any constructive comments you might have and I appreciate you taking this one on so quickly. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this article appears to cover main aspects, be neutral and stable, and to be well-sourced; again, I appreciate the work you've put in on this.

The biggest issue I see is that it appears to contain a good deal of close paraphrasing, which creates unintentional copyvio problems. Some sentences are well-summarized with original language, like "On 14 May, Jews were removed from all official posts and a series of anti-Jewish laws were passed which prohibited Jews from performing a variety of tasks that ranged from going to restaurants to riding streetcars." But I'm concerned that in other places the sentences from the sources are reproduced with only superficial changes to a few words. I've listed some examples below--this isn't comprehensive, but just the result of a few spotchecks.

• The phrase "who was known to have pro-Axis leanings," is word-for-word from the source
• "Afterwards, the Germans set up numerous concentration camps in Serbia with the intention of using them to incarcerate, torture and execute Jews, anti-fascists and those deemed "unworthy of life". " -- too close to the source in structure and phrasing
• "After German occupational authorities gave orders for its establishment in Belgrade, Mayor Dragomir Jovanović had the former 18th Infantry army barracks of the Royal Yugoslav Army converted into a concentration camp" --too close in structure and phrasing
• "The camp was notorious for its brutality, and executions were frequent and random" -- original says "Banjica was notorious for its brutality, and for everyday, frequently random, executions"
• "Despite this, imprisoned anti-fascists defied the Germans by singing Partisan songs, shouting their support for Tito and Stalin, and by holding lectures, discussions, one-act plays, recitals, and even folk song and dance performances on the campgrounds" -- almost word-for-word from source
• "the incineration of the corpses was organized by a unit of the Kommando 1005, headed by SS-Standartenführer [Colonel] Paul Blobel, the man responsible for erasing traces of German atrocities throughout German–occupied Europe" -- almost word-for-word from source

I don't mean to suggest that you've done anything sinister here, as close paraphrasing issues can be a gray area that I myself struggle with. For review purposes, though, these examples are closer than I'm comfortable with for the GA criteria, often adopting both the exact word choice and sentence structure of their sources, and I found them by only checking a few citations. It seems to me that this article is going to need a thorough check and rewrite to put it in more original language, and that this would best happen outside of the review process.

For this reason, I'm not listing the article at this time, though I hope you'll check and rewrite this content and submit again very soon; the article seems good in other respects. WP:PARAPHRASE has good suggestions for how to address this; in some cases, some of the more granular detail (like the types of camp events) may simply need to be cut. I'll also be glad to pitch in myself if there's a way I can help. Most of all, I'm sorry that Dan's irregular review means that you've had to have two fails on this in 48 hours. I hope the third time will be the charm for this important topic. Thanks and all best -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate your input. I'll go over to the Guild of Copy-Editors and have someone from there give this article a good copy edit. Once that's done, I'll re-nominated it (might take a few months) and see what happens next. Again, thanks for your time. 23 editor (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Nedic

I don't understand the removal of the reference to Nedic from Singleton. Please explain. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Nedić government was established after the camp came about, hence not really background material. I'm still debating how to introduce Nedić into the article without coming off as anachronistic. 23 editor (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the same sentence from Singleton could just have been moved down to the Operation section to precede and introduce the SDS? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm done editing for the night. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False and imprecise

These two sentences

Banjica was operational from July 1941 to October 1944. It was jointly run by German occupying forces under the command of Gestapo official Willy Friedrich and the Serbian State Guard. The Serbian administrator of the camp was Svetozar Vujković, a pre-war policeman who enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans.

are false and imprecise. The konzlager was established upon the oberst Ernst von Keisenberg order and started functioning on July 9 1941. The konzlager was under the Sonderkommando beim KCL Banjica rule and the head of guards and administrator of one third of konzlager was Svetozar Vujkovic. The Sonderkommando head was Willy Friedrich most of the time. Other Sonderkommando heads, predating Willy, were oberleutnant Schubert, leutnant Lehr and oberleutnant Winter. Vujkovic was subservient to the Sonderkommando head and effective decision making about the life and death of the knozlager inmates belonged to the Sonderkommando. For details see Sima Begović: Logor Banjica 1941–1944 I and Sima Begović: Logor Banjica 1941–1944 II--109.92.171.133 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the removal of this information is that it is reliably sourced, as your information appears to be. So we compare and contrast where sources differ, we don't delete the material that isn't consistent with one source. You've also removed information about Vujkovic being tried. Please don't remove reliably sourced information, just edit the article to compare and contrast the information you have sourced with that already in the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Which source here you have in mind? What makes you to claim it reliable? How something might be reliable if it's not accurate? "Viktor Novak, author[31]"? Viktor Novak was a notable historian, not an "author". From the Viktor Novak article we read: As an ardent Yugoslav patriot and anti-fascist activist, Viktor Novak was during the Second World War arrested and spent some time in the Nazi detention camp at Banjica, near Belgrade--109.92.171.133 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Antić. That is what the material in the body is drawn from. What makes Antić unreliable? Perhaps you could suggest how the lead should reflect the involvement of Vujković and the Serbian State Guard in the running of the camp? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ana Antic is not a historian, she is psychologist. Sima Begović was a historian and his two volume book Logor Banjica 1941–1944 is far more reliable and complete than the Antic's article. Begović has no nice words about Vujkovic either and Vujkovic has his own Wikipedia bio. There are other monsters like a German physician and giving more attention to Vujkovic than needed does not make the article better. More balanced and factual approach to this issue is needed.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Antić is, she's studied the topic and is reliably published. I don't think you understand the way reliability works. Sometimes authors disagree on a particular point, so we compare and contrast what they say. Are you saying that Vujković and the Serbian State Guard shouldn't be mentioned in the lead? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohen

This man is not a historian, he does not speak neither German nor Serbian. His book is no more than a pamphlet written initially in the Queen's English by some ghost writer. His claim

It is estimated that half had been dispatched by the German Schutzstaffel (SS), while one-third were sent to the camp by various Serbian collaborators.[10]

makes no sense. More elaborated account comes from Sima Begović: Logor Banjica 1941–1944 I, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd 1989 p. 36

Deportations to the Banjica concentration camp by

Deportations to the Banjica concentration camp by	Number of deported
SS units and Gestapo	12 651
Regular German army	1230
Feldkomandature	1 018
German UgB police	4 076
Germans overall	18 975 or 80.3%
Serbian police	2 533
Serbian State Guard, Ljotic's units and Chetniks	1 096
Criminal police	774
German Serbian collaborators overall	4 403 or 18.6%
Unknown	319 or 1.1%
Overall	23,637 100.0%

--109.92.171.133 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohen has undertaken a study of the subject, the book is well footnoted, has a strong bibliography and is published by a university press. That makes it reliable for en WP. As I said, we compare and contrast where sources differ. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, Cohen footnotes this information to Venceslav Gliśić (1977) and Milan Borković (1979), he didn't just make it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This table is not an accurate reflection of the table in Begović. The 4,076 figure is for the Specijalna policija, also known as the Belgrade Special Police, which was also a Serbian collaborationist organisation, overseen by the Gestapo. It should be included on the collaborationist side of the ledger, taking that figure up to 8,479, or 35.8%, well over one-third. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your bad reading (are you reading Serbian, at all?) of Begovic leads you nowhere. Specijalna policija Uprave grada Beograda was actually a Gestapo branch employing Serbs to resolve the language issues. Moreover, all execution lists of the konzlager inmates were signed by German authorities. So my table is correct. Cohen book is a pamphlet and cannot be used here as a reference. He has no academic career of a historian, does not speak languages allowing him to read the WWII documents which are exclusively in Serbian and in German. The question is who is the ghost writer of this book.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I read Serbo-Croatian well enough if I concentrate, and I certainly can read pages 44 onwards of Volume 1 well enough to know that the Belgrade Special Police were Serbs, not Germans, even if, like all members of the collaborationist regime, they were being supervised by Germans, in their case, the Gestapo. I could care less about your views of Cohen, it is what is written in Begović that indicates that Cohen is correct with his indication of one-third of the detainees coming from the actions of Serbian collaborators. From a quick look, Begović makes it clear that Serbian collaborators brought around 9,000 people to Banjica, which fits with my grouping of the statistics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohen is not correct on other account (German Schutzstaffel (SS), table shows other Germans involved too). About Cohen - there are many negative reviews about "his" book. I can only repeat: the Special UGB police was a Gestapo branch and not subordinated to the quisling regime.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why does Begović state on page 36 that "Blizu devet hiljada zatočenika sproveli su u logor kolaboracionistički policijski i vojni organi,"? My (rough) translation is: "nearly 9,000 prisoners were brought to the camp by collaborationist police and military commands" 9,000 of 23,637 equals 38%, so 35.8% seems fair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reading Begovic's book is out of the context. Begovic wrote on p. 67

Nemačke vlasti, koje su u svojim rukama držale sve konce vojnih, upravnih i policijskih poslova na teritoriji okupirane Srbije, mada su prividno prepustile izvesnu samostalnost kolaboracionističkoj upravi i policiji, bile su pravi zatočenici i gospodari koncentracionih logora, pa i logora na Banjici. U raznim periodima okupacije rukovodeću ulogu u organizovanju i funkcionisanju logora imale su razne okupacijske službe. Ali samo formalno. U centru zbivanja bila je e uvek, van svake sumnje, Tajna državna policija, svemoćni Gestapo.

Further, all lists of the executed and deported Banjica inmates were signed by German authorities. Cohen cannot be advertised here for the advertisement cannot be allowed here. He is already disqualified by historians as pamphletist. All data coming from Begovic's books are more credible and more precise. So, I'm going to remove Cohen completely.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Detailed academic appraisal of the Cohen's "book" is given here and here.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How is it possible to get that out of context? It is written in the context of presenting the table. He clearly says nearly 9,000 prisoners were brought to the camp by collaborators, it is simple maths that equals around 1/3rd. Whether the Special Police signed execution orders has nothing to do with whether they brought the prisoners there, and that is what we are discussing. They were Serb collaborators, they were supervised by Germans just like the rest of the collaborators such as the SDS and Ljotic's people. I've restored Cohen, you need consensus to remove it, and you don't have it, an IP has already reverted your deletions once. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll say this again, you do not have consensus to remove Cohen, an IP (other than you) has reverted your removal, as have I. So, stop removing it. As I have noted at the Cohen article, his book has been reviewed variously, both positively and negatively, but it is clear that it meets our reliability policy, so leave it alone. Further examples of removal will be taken to ANI or a similar forum for community action, which could result in a block or ban. I will place a ARBMAC warning on your user page so you are clearly aware of the discretionary sanctions available to uninvolved admins in this area. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How did you get consensus supporting your advertisement of Cohen? Cohen is not a scholar and the current text is sufficiently supported by more reliable sources.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

there is obviously consensus for the use of Cohen, as both I and 66.213.126.195 have reverted your removal of Cohen. I suggest you self-revert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Editors who participated in DRN discussions here and here know that IP editor here is only one of many editors who presented valid concerns about reliability of Cohen's work. Taking that in consideration, I think it is wrong to present this issue as an issue which resulted with an obvious consensus between only three editors here. I also think that it would be good to use additional sources in cases when valid concerns are presented, especially in case of exceptional assertions. This is my last comment in this discussion, so please don't expect me to come back here to reply. All the best.

Signature template

I was topic banned on 20 July 2014 "in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" because a small group of editors involved in disputes with me reached the consensus to ban me. On 16 August 2016 the ban was lifted (diff) without any conditions. In the topic area I was banned from, I plan to adhere to the following restrictions until 16 August 2018:

• 0RR restriction - this means that I can only make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content
• limiting the number of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, If I want to insist on the position I presented, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• If any member of the small group involved editors who banned me and wanted to keep me banned explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to a relevant noticeboard within a reasonable period of time.
• limiting the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the number of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Since this page belongs to the above-mentioned topic area, I want to clarify these restrictions.

• Comments: 1/1 today, 1/2 out of two totally in this thread, including the number of times I responded to other users' comment in this specific thread. Please don't expect me to reply. If I insist on the position I presented although after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• Sections: 0/1 this month, 0/2 this year new sections I made on the talkpage of this article

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors closing discussions are reminded: ...to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. In this case, "irrelevant arguments" include a number of SPA's and allegations of bias against other editors. After weeding out such arguments, I find that there is a rough consensus for considering this book a reliable source as it relates to the article subject. Its reliability on other topics is not at issue and not being judged. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Is Philip J. Cohen's Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History reliable for this subject? A number of academic reviews of the work are summarised in his biographical article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Reliable see my comment in the threaded discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Reliable I see a lot of backlash, but with anything balkan related that will be true. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"anything balkan related that will be true"!!. This vote shall not be taken as a serious one. Moreover, we are not allowed here to vote.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable - as far as I can see it meets the requirements of WP:RS, but would need to be contrasted with other reliable sources where there is divergence (as has already been proposed). Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Primitive political propaganda Getting two anonymous Wikipedia users to "classify" this book as reliable is frivolity. A few academics gave already detailed appraisal of the Cohen's "book". Dermatologist, who does not read neither German nor Serbian! Laughable!--109.92.171.133 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)— 109.92.171.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't you come up with something else than this less-than-useless comment?Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Saber From a notable scholar: In 2011, Miroslav Svirčević of the Institute for Balkan Studies of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts reviewed Cohen's book in its journal Balkanica. Svirčević was highly critical of the book, and stated that it belongs to "pseudo-scholarly publications, not infrequently swaying on the verge of ugliest war and racist propaganda". Svirčević further pointed that "In fact, the Cohen’s book teems with forgeries, half-truths, incompetent use of historical sources, overstrained theses and ill-intended inferences." [14] In the same year, the historian Klaus Buchenau criticised Cohen for drawing heavily on contemporary press accounts to demonstrate the "fascism" of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and failing to take into account "the omnipresent censorship and manipulation" in the Nedić-controlled newspapers.[15]--178.221.137.49 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That source is quoted in the Cohen article, as are other more positive reviews. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see serious more positive reviews there.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Then your English comprehension needs work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Very dubious therefore unreliable. For details see Philip J. Cohen article.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)— 178.221.137.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Probably ok given what I can see of the criticisms. My only suggestions are to ensure that the source isn't too heavily relied upon, that opinions are attributed in text where applicable and to ensure that contrasting interpretations are also mentioned where appropriate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• On the surface, very dubious, the work hints at being an almost textbook example of propaganda-by-proxy (similar to the work of Samuel Weems and Erich Feigl). May be usable for certain specific claims. However, since there is no indication in this RfC about what content it may be going to be used to support, it is impossible to say more. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Support --The book is quite a reliable source w.r.t to the Balkan history.But I would still have reservations on the book being heavily relied upon in the article.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Weak support Agree with the two above comments. It can be used to cite certain claims, but if those same claims can be found elsewhere (e.g. Milazzo, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch, etc.), I'd much rather use those sources and avoid attributing it to Cohen altogether. That's been my "policy" the last few years. 23 editor (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support , If facts are disputed then contrary views should be presented, same reservations as others about overuse of one source. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Contrary views are not necessarily presented if they are fringe viewpoints not widely held by mainstream academia or not expressed at all by mainstream academia. There is no indication in the question about what content or facts this source would be used to support, and the previous discussion that mentioned this source seemed to indicate that better sources exist that would make its earlier proposed use unnecessary. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is material in Cohen not available from other sources, as there is in many sources. Of course there will always be information that should be attributed in-text, particularly if being contrasted with a differing view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For the usage you mentioned in an earlier thread, in your own words "Cohen footnotes this information to Venceslav Gliśić (1977) and Milan Borković (1979)" - so for that content it should be those sources that are used, if all that is being done in Cohen is repeating the information. This RfC is worded in too vague a way for a decision to be reached. What do you mean by "for this subject"? It is never going to be possible to obtain a blanket permission to use all of any source's claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the Banjica concentration camp, obviously. If Cohen is reliable then he can be used, that is the way reliability works. Just because Cohen footnotes material to other sources does not mean that they are available to me. I find your argumentation here quite strange, frankly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable First of all this RfC is misplaced. Cohen's book is off topic here, his writing about the camp are either inaccurate or unnecessary here for having ample of sources covering the same events as his book.

As author. Not educated as a historian, no much needed languages knowledge (German, Serbian), apparently selling his name to "the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery." (Almuly, see the Philip J. Cohen article) Almuly "asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed".

Book content From the Philip J. Cohen article:

• Cohen's book belonged to "the current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly"(D. Reinhartz);
• (the book) was the culmination of a two-track strategy by the Croatian media aimed at "damage control" regarding Croatian atrocities against Serbs ( M. Živković);
• "a controversial pro-Croatian revision of Serbian history"(B. MacDonald);
• is the book "in which censorious zeal trumps balanced scholarship". (D. Djordjevic);
• "In fact, the Cohen's book teems with forgeries, half-truths, incompetent use of historical sources, overstrained theses and ill-intended inferences." (M. Svircevic);
• criticised Cohen for drawing heavily on contemporary press accounts to demonstrate the "fascism" of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and failing to take into account "the omnipresent censorship and manipulation" in the Nedić-controlled newspapers. (K. Buchenau);
• Cohen's book contains the false claim (A. Mirkovic)

Note to closing admin I hope the RfC closing admin will discard the votes like "I see a lot of backlash," or "as far as I can see it meets the requirements of WP:RS" or "The book is quite a reliable source w.r.t "--KanteP (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)— KanteP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 My primary account is the Serbian Wikipedia account, not a single-purpose account. All my edits there and here are *in topic* and supported by references. I hope you understand Wikipedia No personal attacks policy to which you have to adhere.--bez potpisa (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, with a total of 59 edits on all wikis since 13 January, you are a SPA to me (and everyone else who actually looks at your edits on en WP). You've never edited in en WP before, and your first edit is on an article that several Serbian IPs have suddenly found interesting? Referring to you and your mates as SPAs is not a personal attack, it is a reflection on demonstrated behaviour, which the closing admin will surely take into account. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, I was "suddenly" interested in this book when finding it everywhere referenced in Wikipedia's articles, even if it makes no sense, and seeing you as the most ardent advertiser of this product of "the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery." (Thank you, Jasa Almuly). What else is YOUR account if not a SPA account?--bez potpisa (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that you are a SPA and your "advertising" comment gives you away re: your other unregistered edits. On the other hand I have over five years of contributions on a range of topics with just this account, and use Cohen carefully and with attribution when necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:KanteP has now been blocked as a sock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable - Per WP:RS; Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses - Texas A&M University Press is fine here. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes - Google scholar indicates 83 citations, not a huge amount but still significant. So indeed, it has entered mainstream discussion. That said, the book has been the target of significant criticism in the course of this, in light of that fact, it should not be relied upon heavily and when possible it might be a smart move to have a supporting reference as well. From a previous version I see Cohen accounts for 10 of about 65 citations, this is more than most other sources used in the article but is not excessive in itself. Especially given that Cohen is cited to single sentence statements and not vast paragraphs; e.g. citation 14c to Antic. For reference, the previous version I am using is; [4]. The current version does not use Cohen, but, is significantly relying on Begovic, which has 3 citations on Google Scholar, and Tomasevic which has 282 citations and is published by Stanford University Press. I am keen on favouring Tomasevic over Cohen where possible, but, that's just a recommendation. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with this comment (diff). I will underline its part which refers to this RfC. Peacemaker67 initiated a RfC about whether Cohen's book is "reliable for this subject", but did not ask "reliable for what content", making the RfC mostly meaningless.. Somebody who does not AGF might get impression that lack of the appropriate context in this RfC might indeed be aimed in hindsight...to enable that book's inclusion as a source for other more controversial content, for the addition of the actual opinions of Cohen. Especially after above attempt (diff) to proclaim that there is obviously consensus for the use of Cohen although both RSN discussions ended without consensus that this work is reliable. Cohen's book will be as reliable for data as the sources Cohen derived that data from, but it is not going to be a reliable source that allows the insertion of opinions that are very fringe or indeed held only by Cohen.

Signature template

I was topic banned on 20 July 2014 "in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" because a small group of editors involved in disputes with me reached the consensus to ban me. On 16 August 2016 the ban was lifted (diff) without any conditions. In the topic area I was banned from, I plan to adhere to the following restrictions until 16 August 2018:

• 0RR restriction - this means that I can only make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content
• limiting the number of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, If I want to insist on the position I presented, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• If any member of the small group involved editors who banned me and wanted to keep me banned explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to a relevant noticeboard within a reasonable period of time.
• limiting the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the number of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Since this page belongs to the above-mentioned topic area, I want to clarify these restrictions.

• Comments: 1/1 today, 1/2 out of two totally in this thread, including the number of times I responded to other users' comment in this specific thread. Please don't expect me to reply. If I insist on the position I presented although after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• Sections: 0/1 this month, 0/2 this year new sections I made on the talkpage of this article

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Obviously whether his book is reliable for the subject of Banjica concentration camp, which I have already made clear. This RfC arose due to a claim above (by an IP that is clearly a sock of KanteP) that Cohen was wrong in stating that one third of all the inmates were sent there by collaborationists. In fact, Begovic states 9,000 were, which is more than one third. So, it is clear from Begovic that Cohen is correct in his statement. I point this out to demonstrate the reliability of Cohen in respect of this subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No, its obviously not obvious. On the contrary. When another editor raised concerns about Cohen's work How someone who is not a historian, does not speak languages (German, Serbian) could ever write such a book? How come that the first edition of the "book" was written in the Queen's English by someone who is born and lived all his life in the US? (diff), instead to address his concerns, you replied with this comment (diff) I have opened a RfC to establish a wider consensus regarding the use of Cohen on the talk page of the Banjica concentration camp article. That is the obivous announcement that this RfC will be used as a proof that there is wider consensus regarding the use of Cohen. Otherwise, why would anybody initiate RfC just for one single assertion, after two failure to reach consensus for reliability of Cohen's work at RSN for the whole subject of WWII, when there are other sources which are indeed reliable for this single assertion. This is my last comment in this discussion. All the best.

Signature template

I was topic banned on 20 July 2014 "in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" because a small group of editors involved in disputes with me reached the consensus to ban me. On 16 August 2016 the ban was lifted (diff) without any conditions. In the topic area I was banned from, I plan to adhere to the following restrictions until 16 August 2018:

• 0RR restriction - this means that I can only make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content
• limiting the number of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, If I want to insist on the position I presented, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• If any member of the small group involved editors who banned me and wanted to keep me banned explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to a relevant noticeboard within a reasonable period of time.
• limiting the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the number of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Since this page belongs to the above-mentioned topic area, I want to clarify these restrictions.

• Comments: 1/1 today, 2/2 out of two totally in this thread, including the number of times I responded to other users' comment in this specific thread. Please don't expect me to reply. If I insist on the position I presented although after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• Sections: 0/1 this month, 0/2 this year new sections I made on the talkpage of this article

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is, Antidiskriminator. Your drive-by comment doesn't add anything to the discussion, and only repeats nonsense about Cohen's book that has been thoroughly debunked by Marko Attila Hoare. You repeating Savich's nonsense doesn't make it true. And please stop appending this enormous collapsed signature template to every comment you make. No-one cares about your tendentious complaints about being "hard done by" with your TBAN. It is just using up oodles of space on talk pages and WP servers every time you comment on anything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not Reliable For the following reasons: (a) a search of JSTOR finds that the book was not touched for a review by any peer-reviewed journal, (b) Philip Cohen does not have the educational credentials that qualify him to write an academic text on social history, (c) Cohen was too connected to one party in the conflict about which he was writing. There are enough other reputable sources about this topic that this volume isn't critical to building a balanced and accurate article. We should err on the side of caution. BlueSalix (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• BlueSalix did you look at the Cohen article as suggested? There have been several academic reviews of the book, which are summarised there, including one by Professor Charles W. Ingrao of Purdue University's History Department in Nationalities Papers, which is peer-reviewed as I understand it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I did and as per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia is not a RS. My research of RS indicates the article does not contain appropriate breadth or scope of the academic consensus to support the conclusions advanced in that article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

CIRCULAR doesn't apply to this, what is cited in the author article is the reviews of the work itself. Editors were directed there to see what has been said by reliable sources about the book, rather than cite them here. That is all. They have been accurately represented, and your initial research clearly was clearly lacking, as you completely overlooked the Ingrao review in your JSTOR search, which is in a peer-reviewed journal. What research have you conducted? What alternate conclusions would you draw from the RS? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

As can be seen from Cohen's biographical article, the book has its critics, but it has also been praised by academics who specialise in Balkan history and others more generally, and the more extreme Serb nationalist claims about the book have been debunked by Marko Attila Hoare. It has a foreword by a Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard and was published by Texas A&M University Press. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Was it published by Texas A&M University Press in the positive way you are asserting? As noted in this old RS noticeboard discussion [5] there is, based on this [6] no "(c) Texas A&M University Press" statement on it, just "(c) 1996 by Philip J. Cohen." Almost all publications separate out the text copyright from the book copyright. The text is usually the author's copyright, the book (its look and design, the typesetting, the layout) is the publisher's copyright. The lack of a publisher's copyright statement is irregular, and a similar irregularity is found in other Texas A&M University Press publications, [7]. Out of curiousity, I had a look at books I have that have university press imprints, almost all had a copyright statement by the university press as well as by the author, those that didn't were works that were reprints or revised editions of works published elsewhere. It suggests there is something different in the publishing procedures at this publisher. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Tiptoethrutheminefield. With respect, I'm not sure that is an indication of "irregularity". I have several books sitting on my desk, all published by university presses in the US, and some have a publishers' copyright statement, and some don't and the copyright statement is just to the author or whoever holds the copyright. For example, a book written by Walter Roberts (writer), Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, doesn't have an author copyright, and is just copyrighted to Duke UP, Jozo Tomasevich's War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: Occupation and Collaboration, is copyrighted to the Trustees at Stanford (not Stanford UP, who published it), and Stevan K. Pavlowitch's Hitler's New Disorder, is published by Columbia UP and is copyrighted only to Pavlowitch. Seems to me that different UPs have different approaches to asserting copyright, depending on the circumstances pertaining to the publishing of the book. I am pretty sure Pavlowitch's book wasn't "irregularly published". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hitler's New Disorder" was first published in the UK by Hurst Publishers in 2008, so the edition you are mentioning is the one for the US market which is why there will be no (c) Columbia UP note - there is nothing in it that Columbia UP could claim as its copyright. The Cohen book is different - Texas A&M University Press is its first publisher. So why is it not asserting copyright at least for the layout and design. It suggests either minimal actual Texas A&M University Press input, that in this case it was little more than a printer or distributer, or an unusual copyright agreement exists (perhaps to allow for later reprints paid for by other agents). You were mentioning its publisher to suggest the book carried authority arising from it having that publisher. I don't think such a positive assertion should be assumed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was mentioning the publisher because that needs to be considered under reliability. What about Tomasevich? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid the central theme of this thread lacks evidence. Sabrina P. Ramet's Three Yugoslavia's is published by Indiana University Press, and is copyrighted only to Ramet. The contention that a copyright to Cohen only means that the book was "irregularly published" hasn't been proven. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"irregularly published" is your phrase - so I don't know why you are repeatedly placing it in inverted commas. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You said "The lack of a publisher's copyright statement is irregular". Your claim is not borne out by any evidence, just your bald assertion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It IS irregular not to have a publisher's copyright statement in a book. The majority of books have one. When they do not, it will be for a specific reason. We do not know the specific reason in this case. Based on some of the other books published by this publisher, it could be that these books are almost self-published, with the press acting just as a distributer or agent. Based on my experience with works similar to this book's type, one could speculate for this specific title it could also be to allow for the easy production of reprints for free distribution for lobbying/propaganda purposes while retaining the cachet of having a "university press" publisher. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

But you have no evidence for that assertion. Saying "the majority of books have one" is meaningless, your guess as to why this book doesn't have one is plain OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Background

This section is unnecessary long. It shall be reduced to a few sentences highlighting main reasons for the camp existence. The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia already covers most of this section and there is no need to repeat the same things here.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, it is necessary to understand the context in which the camp was established and the German and collaborationist structures that were in place around it. Saying that, I may be able to trim the pre-invasion bit slightly, and the last para can probably go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For the context no need more text that the one given in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, i.e. a few sentences. The German and collaborationist structures are detailed and explained in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, accessible by the internal link.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think the Establishment section should be trimmed too. Also, a better references reading is a must.--KanteP (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Neither of you have any idea what constitutes a reasonable background section on an article on en WP. Take a look at Kragujevac massacre to get some idea of what is reasonable in terms of background for an article approaching GA class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. You wanted to say, "Look at me, look at me"!. Yet another place to advertise the Cohen's book, a product of "the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery." Going to tag the Kragujevac massacre the same way!--bez potpisa (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You only have to look at a FA such as Gudovac massacre to see that a proper explanation of the context in which something happened is expected with a comprehensive article en WP. Stop trolling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that those parts of the article should be shortened, I encourage you to open a RfC to that effect, your IP "mate" doesn't count. In the meantime, I'll be ignoring the tags, because you have no demonstrated knowledge of what is required in a comprehensive article on en WP. Of course, if you have brought an article to FA or even GA under another user name, feel free to point me to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No need for a new RfC. You did not ask anybody to enter redundant and irrelevant text into the article.--bez potpisa (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to, we are all here to build an encyclopaedia, and I am trying to do that in good faith, using reliable sources, to make this article comprehensive. And that includes providing sufficient background so that the operation of the camp can be put in its proper context of the German occupation and collaborationist puppet administrations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the ridiculous tags on the basis of the above. There has been no substantive argument about why creating a proper Background or Establishment section is WP:UNDUE. The rest of the article will be expanded in a similar way in due course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete reading and arbitrary translation of Begovic

I'd like to point at a few bad things inside the article. First, I've fixed the claim that Vujkovic was the camp commandant, replacing "commandant" by the accurate one "administrator". Now I see "administrator" meaninglessly replaced by "chief" as an arbitrary translation of the Serbian word "šef". The sentence translations here must be context dependent, i.e. based on the full knowledge of words meaning inside of the context. Let's see how this Vujkovic's position is translated by other scholars

• "Svetozar Vujkovic fut nommé administrateur du camp; déjà dans la période d'avant-guerre, c'était un criminel de triste réputation, qui était" in Nous ne verrons jamais Vukovar, Louise L. Lambrichs, P. Rey, 2005
• "The manager was a local policeman, Svetozar Vujkovic." in That's "Yugoslavia". Ost-Dienst, 1990 p 42

It's clear from a few excerpts fom the Begovic's book

Nemačke vlasti, koje su u svojim rukama držale sve konce vojnih, upravnih i policijskih poslova na teritoriji okupirane Srbije, mada su prividno prepustile izvesnu samostalnost kolaboracionističkoj upravi i policiji, bile su pravi zatočenici i gospodari koncentracionih logora, pa i logora na Banjici. U raznim periodima okupacije rukovodeću ulogu u orga- nizovanju i funkcionisanju logora imale su razne okupacijske službe. Ali samo formalno. U centru zbivanja bila je uvek, van svake sumnje, Tajna državna policija, svemoćni Gestapo. page 67

U logoru na Banjici postojao je privid dvojne uprave: Gestapoa i Specijalne policije, nemačke komande i srpske uprave. Ali kada se zna kakav je odnos među njima postojao, jasno je da je ta dvojnost postojala samo radi lakšeg obavljanja nadzora nad zatočenicima. Svaki od ova dva partnera vodio je računa o onim krivcima koje je isleđivao i priveo. page 73

Further, there is a claim that "Nearly 9,000 of the inmates were sent to the camp by Serbian collaborators." is taken out of the context and creates a false impression to reader that the collaborators did that bad job instead Germans. We see from Begovic's book that existed third category of inmates which were peasants who did not pay taxes, black marketers, small businessmen violating the pricing policy, criminals, etc. This category of inmates would stay in the camp between a few weeks to two years and were not subject of deportations and executions. They were under sole Vujkovic's responsibility and the collaborationists administration. That means the camp was used as a regular prison too. In addition, Begovic stressed the fact that a number of camp prisoners were brought by Germans and shortly after executed without any bookkeeping of their presence in the camp.--bez potpisa (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You are using "That's Yugoslavia" as a reference to corroborate your translation? Give me a break. Next you'll be using Lonely Planet Serbia... My understanding is that šef can mean chief, or manager, among other things, depending on context. What is clear from Begovic is that Vujkovic had a key leadership role in the camp, and that he had German supervisors (both of which are already in the article). Your selective quoting of Begovic doesn't help your case, it hinders it by revealing your POV. Begovic makes it clear throughout both volumes that the SP UGB and other Serbian collaborators like the gendarmerie had a significant hand in the running of the camp and the executions of those that were killed after being held there, including taking to the firing range those to be executed. The 9,000 number is verbatim, and includes the SP UGB who were Serbian collaborators working for the Gestapo. It couldn't be clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to learn that each reading and understanding of a scholar work must be complete and thorough. All translations of the Begovic's book must be context dependent, there is no notion of the verbatim translations. So, at the end, I am going to clean this article of the inaccuracies you've added.--bez potpisa (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to delete properly sourced material, I will report you for vandalism. Stop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The 9,000 figure

The article currently states: "Nearly 9,000 of the inmates were sent to the camp by Serbian collaborators". The figure of 9,000 comes from this paragraph on page 36 of Begovic:

Kao što se vidi, preko dve trećine uhapšenika deportovale su nemačke policijske i vojne jedinice. Blizu devet hiljada zatočenika sproveli su u logor kolaboracionistički policijski i vojni organi, uključujući i sreska načelstva.

My translation of this is:

As you can observe, over two-thirds of the prisoners were brought to the camp by German police and military units. Close to 9,000 prisoners were brought to the camp by collaborationist police and military authorities, including district offices.

Serbo-Croatian isn't my first (or even second) language, I spoke it a little when I was in the former Yugoslavia 20 years ago, and I read it a bit. So my question is, how is my translation wrong? Should it just say they were "brought to the camp", or is "sent to the camp" more accurate? @Srnec, GregorB, Joy, and Thewanderer: (a few native speakers) for third opinions on my translation. The book being quoted from is here if you want to read page 36 in greater context to make sure you understand what is being said. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More precisely: "over two thirds of the arrestees were deported by German police and military units" (but I don't think it makes a difference here). "Brought" is about right (cf. wikt:sprovesti), it is slightly more correct than "sent". The translation is fine. GregorB (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the history and this is not even subtle - this edit doesn't actually explain any possible subtleties of sproveli, it just says it's "misleading". The onus is on User:KanteP to explain their bold edit simply because any discussion of foreign-language sources on the English Wikipedia cannot be based on implicit understandings. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I already explained why the number of 9000 is taken out of the context and why it is frivolously inserted into the article. I'll make it more detailed

 Specijalna policija — produžena ruka Gestapoa
 Pored Gestapoa i esesovskih jedinica prilikom akcija na terenu najviše je hapsila i uhapšenike sprovodila u logor na Banjici beogradska Specijalna policija, koja je od samog početka bila izuzeta iz kompetencija Aćimovićevog komesarijata za unutrašnje poslove i podređena neposredno policijsko-bezbednosnim službama. Za sve vreme trajanja okupacije njen rad je kanalisao i nadzirao Gestapo. page 44-45

• The above quote shows clearly that the arrests made by the German UgB police (beogradska Specijalna policija), 4 076 persons, were the German arrests and cannot be included in 9,000

 Samo III kategorija imala je vremensko ograničenje od tri meseca do dve godine dana konfinacije ... a u III lica koja su posle određenog roka mogla biti puštena ili takođe upućena na prinudni rad u Nemačkoj. page 80
 Znatno ređe je učestvovala u hapšenjima i upućivanju u logor feldžandarmerija i to uglavnom za manje prekršaje okupacijskih naređenja nepolitičke prirode. Seljake koji nisu ispunili previsoke kvote za obavezni otkup žitarica hapsila je najčešće feldžandarmerija. pages 34 -35

• The above quote shows that the camp served as an ordinary prison where were brought criminals, peasants not delivering wheat to the collaborationist administration. So the third category shall be excluded from 9,000.

 Drugi, još važniji razlog je što pojedine grupe koje su se vrlo kratko zadržavale u logoru, obično samo jednu noć, da bi već sutradan bile izvedene na streljanje, nisu uopšte upisivane u banjičke knjige. Pouzdano je utvrđeno da grupa, koja je izvedena na stratište u Jajincima 8. oktobra 1942. godine, a sprovedena u Banjički logor iz zgrade Gestapoa u Ratničkom domu, nije upisana page 74

• The last quote shows that those arrested by Germans sometimes weren't even bookkeeped, i.e the Germans arrested, brought to the camp and executed more people than it might be seen in the books. Incomplete and frivolous reading of the sources leads to confusion and misinterpretation of the sources--bez potpisa (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• It says nothing of the sort. The SP UGB was a collaborationist anti-communist police force established from the interwar Belgrade General Police. It was not staffed by Germans, it was supervised and directed by the Gestapo, but was not German. The Serbian State Guard was controlled and directed by the German Higher SS and Police Leader, but that doesn't mean they were German either. They were collaborationists. The quote you have provided does not say that they were Germans at all. They therefore are included in the collaborators numbers, which brings them up to the 9,000 figure. It is self-evident. The rest of what you have written is original research. The book clearly states that 9,000 of the recorded inmates were brought there by the collaborationist agencies, so that is what the article should say. Your personal opinion of who should be included is completely irrelevant. In terms of the 9,000, it is irrelevant why people were brought there, it is about who brought them there. The ones the Germans killed without recording are irrelevant, because they were not recorded, and are therefore not included in the figures in the table. Talk about misinterpretation of sources... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to wrestle this issue yesterday, but I couldn't make sense of it, so I thought maybe I was too tired and called it a day. A night's sleep did not help, apparently, as I still don't understand.

"The above quote shows clearly that the arrests made by the [Belgrade Special Police] were the German arrests and cannot be included in 9,000". Not really: it shows that the Belgrade Special Police was controlled by the Germans, but that doesn't make it German, as duly noted by Peacemaker. In what sense the Belgrade Special Police is not "collaborationist police"?

"The above quote shows that the camp served as an ordinary prison where were brought criminals, peasants not delivering wheat to the collaborationist administration. So the third category shall be excluded from 9,000." Why exactly would they need to be excluded? GregorB (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banjica concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051213221438/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/warcrimcon.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/warcrimcon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banjica concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816043321/http://www.mgb.org.rs/sr/stalne-postavke/banjicki-logor/album/33 to http://www.mgb.org.rs/sr/stalne-postavke/banjicki-logor/album/33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510003722/http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/41119/slavne-zene-dalmacije to http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/41119/slavne-zene-dalmacije
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328194448/http://www.mgb.org.rs/info/index.php?option=com_jwallpapers&view=category&id=33&Itemid=81 to http://www.mgb.org.rs/info/index.php?option=com_jwallpapers&view=category&id=33&Itemid=81

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Political pamphlet

It's well-known and documented that Cohen's book is a pamphlet written by some Croats. Wikipedia is not a place for spreading political propaganda or advertisements.--178.221.173.111 (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been a RfC about it (see above). And you are a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)