Jump to content

Talk:Sisak concentration camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving "Sisak Children concentration camp" title to "Sisak Concentration camp" is disgusting revisonism.

[edit]

Moving "Sisak Children concentration camp" title to "Sisak Concentration camp" is disgusting revisonism. 2A06:5B00:40A:5A00:D415:3AF8:C05C:BFF1 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this noncense?

[edit]

Why is "Sisak Children concentration camp" title changed to "Sisak Concentration camp"??

Why trying to cover that it was one of the few REAL CHILDRED concentration camps (held by Croatian Nazis during ww2)? 2A06:5B00:40A:5A00:61E:344F:6DDA:D443 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archives of this talk page. There were two sub-camps of the Sisak concentration camp, one for adults and one for children. This article is about the whole camp, including both sub-camps. If there was enough material for a spin-off of this article for the childrens' sub-camp on its own, then that article could have the title "Sisak children's concentration sub-camp". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sisak concentration camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 01:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

  • ...many Croats came to resent Serb political hegemony...which resulted in the passing of legislation that favoured Serb political, religious and business interests. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
The entire paragraph is a summary of what is written in pages 25–34 and 402–403, this includes increasing inter-ethnic tensions due to (among other things) the assassination of a Croatian opposition leader, but also the exaggerated Ustaše claims of killings of Croats by the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, which the movement later used to justify its genocide. WP:FOOTQUOTE states: "Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations." Given that the book is easily accessible on Google Books, I fail to see why replicating almost a dozen pages is needed. If you have suggestions for how to make this paragraph better conform to the source material, I'm all ears, but I'm not pasting multiple pages of text here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording suggests that the Croats' behaviour led to pro-Serbian legislation. I doubt this is a neutral approach. I do not say you should quote the text in a footnote, but here in the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., but were granted protection by Mussolini and thus evaded capture I would form this fragment into a new sentence.
  • ...as its neighbours aligned themselves with the Axis powers All of them?
  • At the outbreak of World War II... When?
  • A link to Royal Yugoslav Government?
  • They placed his teenage nephew Peter on the throne... The underage Peter was already sitting on the throne.
  • Links to Yugoslav government-in-exile, diplomatic recognition, concentration camp, Concentration camps in the Independent State of Croatia?
  • Introduce Zagreb as the capital of NDH.
  • ...the town hosted two sub-camps... Which? (Sisak or Zagreb?)
  • A link to Reich?
  • ...the abandoned Teslić factory... A link? Alternatively, rephrase it. (Perhaps, "an abandoned .... factory")
  • ...the Kozara Offensive... Against whom and where?
  • Introduce Novi Sisak.
  • Explain Sicherheitsdienst.
  • ...authored a report in which he reported... Rephrase.
  • A link to "communist resistance"?
  • ...the homes of local aristocrats... Could you name some of them? A link to Croatian nobility?
  • Introduce the Department for People's Protection.
  • Records kept by Budisavljević containing information about each child detained at Sisak were confiscated by the Department for People's Protection (Serbo-Croatian: Odeljenje za zaštitu naroda; OZNA) and kept from public view... Why?
  • ...protesting the canonization... The canonization or the language used during the canonization?
  • It is still unclear: with the canonization, or with the language used during the canonization?
This news article seems to indicate both. [1] But given that a passage from the protest letter is abundantly quoted, I find this largely to be a distinction without a difference. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my reading, the article says that the Croatian bishops protested because during the canonization only the role of Catholic priests and nuns in the administration of the camp was emphasized and the attempts of Catholic Croats to save the children was totally ignored. I also suggest that the sentence should be verified by a reference to the news article to avoid the direct interpretation of primary sources (two statements by the Serbian and Croatian clergy). Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Independent State Of Croatia 1941 Locator Map.png: some words on the internal borders in caption?
  • File:Map of the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia.svg: add at least one reliable source to verify the map to the file in Commons.
Done. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can verify that page 90 of Tomasevich's 1975 book does indeed contain a map with the caption "Map 3. Partition of 1941", which mirrors the one we have on Wikipedia. If you desire additional verification, feel free to request it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Tomobe03: The Commons-hosted image is sourced to another Commons-hosted image which in turn is indeed referenced to Tomasevich p.90. I have added the missing reference to the appropriate Commons page. Maps should not be referenced in article, but at their Commons page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Done. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Tomobe03

  • Reference 1 (Mojzes, p. 158) does not support the prose it is used to reference. The material on the indicated page does not deal with 1941, but with 1990 - presumably the result of a typo in the page number. However, the source appears to be of poor quality. Specifically, as I was looking at p.158, I noticed it explicitly states kuna currency was introduced on July 25, 1990. This did not happen until May 1994.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where Mojzes came from, the citations were meant to point to Tomasevich. Good catch. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query @Amanuensis Balkanicus: when do you think you can address all issues? I put the review "on hold" for a week. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Borsoka. Sorry for the delay, I was held up IRL. I have changed the phrasings and added the links you pointed out. Sisak Novi (or as White called it, Novi Sisak) doesn't have its own article, so I have added a red link. There is a town in Bosnia called Teslić but it's nowhere near Sisak, so I'm assuming it was someone's surname? In the absence of additional context, I have reworded this to "an abandoned factory". The source mentions generic Croats, not aristocrats. Goldstein & Goldstein's The Holocaust in Croatia may have been the source of this notion. I will have to check. As for why the OZNA never released the files, it was almost certainly because of post-war Yugoslavia's policy of sweeping wartime atrocities under the rug in the name of Brotherhood and Unity, although the source doesn't explicitly say this. Thank you for taking the time to complete this review! If you see any additional room for improvement, please don't hesitate to let me know. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sisak_concentration_camp&oldid=1257666611"