# Talk:Raid at Ožbalt

Why this title? Raid was near place Ožbalt. Now Ožbalt is indeed near Lovrenc na Pohorju, but still it's not Ožbalt. Title should probably be Raid at Ožbalt.
I will correct some of the text and add a picture of the memorial plaque commemorating the event. Žarišče (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Be advised: Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name in English. In English sources, the raid is called "Raid at St. Lorenzen". All else is completely irrelevant. Please, do NOT start move-warring or you may be reported.  --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What sources in English are you referring to, Direktor? I've looked at all the sources for this article and none of them refer to this as the 'Raid at St Lorenzen'. Only one actually even names St. Lorenzen as being the place the POWs were taken to after they were freed. In fact, as far as English usage is concerned, there was no raid at St Lorenzen at all, so the current title is actually misleading, as it indicates there was a raid there. There is no reason I can see that the article cannot have its title changed to reflect the actual place the incident occurred, as User:Žarišče has suggested. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I might have made a mistake up there a year ago. I am not particularly familiar with the details of this event. I assumed this was a simple case of Slovene users demanding that the current Slovene name be used instead of the contemporary German name (St. Lorenzen), and therefore I pointed out WP:COMMONNAME. In short, I have no idea why the article was named this way. That said, and pointing out again that I did not write this article and do not know much about this obscure episode, it seems the raid is mentioned as having occurred in St Lorenzen in one source [1]
"A post of the Allied mission in northern Slovenia had found that at St. Lorenzen, about 30 miles from Marburg [today "Maribor"], there was a working camp not well guarded from which a raid by Slovene partisans could free all the prisoners..."
The first order of business is to see what roles the towns of Ožbalt (St. Oswald im Drauwald) and Lovrenc na Pohorju (St. Lorenzen am Bachern) played in this raid, i.e. where the damn camp was really located. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
it is pretty clear from the references to the railway (which runs along the Drava) that it can't have occurred at St Lorenzen. The fact that the Partisan memorial plaque is located in Ožbalt (St. Oswald im Drauwald) which is on the railway between Marburg (Maribor) and Dravagrad is enough for me to change the title to Raid on St. Oswald if that works for you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Basically, the work party went out on the train from Maribor POW camp each day and the POWs did work on the railway line. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I understand your logic and, while I won't oppose any changes you make on those grounds, its still for the record very much WP:OR. Its a leap of faith to assume that the POW camp was not in St. Lorenzen, esp since the above source (such as it is) states pretty explicitly that it was. The facility might have been there, and the prisoners might have been marched over to the work area or who knows what kind of arrangements might have been made. And even if we assume that the facility was in Ozbalt, the raid need not necessarily be named after that town, e.g. the POWs hypothetically might have been evacuated to or from St. Lorenzen and the name might have been derived from that. I'm not very comfortable with changing the title with this little information. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Your concern is noted. In deference to your view, I will continue to search for secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now obtained a copy of Churches' account. He and a British POW called Laws led this escape. While this is clearly a primary source, given the paucity of sources, it seems fair to reflect the events as he describes them. He states that the Partisan's briefly liberated Lovrenc as a temporary base for operations, to influence the population, recruit etc, and that it was a 10 km hike cross country to Lovrenc from the railway. He states that the POWs liberated by the Partisans were working out of an working camp in Maribor (a subcamp of the Stalag) and went out by train each day to work on the railway that ran west along the Drava. At the time of the escape they were working near the village of Osbalt (St Oswald). It is clear that while the Partisans did conduct a raid on Lovrenc (St Lorenz) to achieve a number of purposes, the raid to liberate the second group of POWs was at Osbalt. Given that the subject of this article is the escape/rescue, not the temporary Partisan liberation of Lovrenc, the article title is incorrect. I propose changing it to Raid at St Oswald. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, we need a source that this was the actual name of the raid. I.e. we're not supposed to pass judgement on what the name "should" be. I am unaware of any evidence that there were two raids. -- Director (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Direktor. The reference for the moved article title I have used is Churches' book, page 56, although he refers to it as 'the raid at Ozhbalt' (he explains at the beginning of the book that he uses the phonetic spelling of Slovenian words throughout). It is used in the caption of a photograph from 1985 showing Churches and two of the Partisans that conducted the raid. Churches' book is a primary source, however his identification of the raid taking place at Ozbalt is 'a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that any educated person, with access to the book but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the book', as per WP:PRIMARY. ie, Churches clearly states that the raid that freed the POWs occurred at Ozbalt, and any educated person with access to the book, ie me or someone else with a copy, can verify that the book supports that fact. In fact, the book is crystal clear that is where the raid occurred, and that it therefore did not occur at St Lorenzen/Lovrenc. There is no source listed in this article (or as far as I am aware, in existence, except this article) that calls the raid that liberated the POWs (the subject of the article) the 'raid at St Lorenzen'. As far as I can see, that is all that WP requires to change the title (in which case the name should perhaps be 'Raid at Ožbalt' rather than 'Raid at St Oswald' as I rendered it). The title of the article should not remain one which clearly is completely unsupported by any source, despite there being a source (albeit primary) which provides an alternative title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not doubt that the raid took place at Ozbalt, but that's not the point. I just don't want to touch anything without a source for the name of the raid. And "Raid at St. Lorenzen" sounds very familiar.. I think I read about it somewhere under that name, but I just can't remember where :P. Also, the article was created under this name by a friend of mine here on Wiki, who's now retired. AlasdairGreen27 was a Slovene user very knowledgeable about the Partisans. And think about it: if the raid was at Oswald, why would anyone name the article after St. Lorenzen? I strongly suspect that the raid was named after Lorenzen regardless of the details of its execution.
But fine, I acknowledge the lack of a real sources conflict. If you move the thing back to "Raid at St. Oswald", I won't revert. -- Director (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
given the only source calls it the raid at Ozbalt, I will move to that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, look at this. A book entitled Raid at St. Lorenzen. There must be something to this.. I tried googling the damn title [2]. And note that the source does not capitalize the "r" in the phrase "raid at Ozbalt". -- Director (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia content book, like the ones LLC Books publish. It's a self-reference to this article. There is a mark on the front cover that indicates that it is 'high quality content from Wikipedia'!
and what does the capitalisation have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that because the only source doesn't capitalise the r in Raid, we stick with the current, completely unsourced title? If not, what exactly is your contention? Your reliance on your recollection and your affinity with a retired user who did not even use a source that used the current article title is very frustrating. Sources. We have ONE, that's it. There is no source conflict, and my move is completely justified on policy grounds. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Its a Wikipedia content book?? Incredible. Alright. We have consensus. -- Director (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

G'day, there are some images at the Australian War Memorial that could possibly be used for the article. I only searched for Churches, but other search terms might bring other images also. [3] Just a suggestion Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A couple of other suggestions that I have are:
"Australian Army infantry soldier of the 2/48th Battalion who had been captured during the Allied withdrawal from Greece". I might be wrong, but I don't recall the 2/48th being sent to Greece. Is this correct? Maybe he was detached from the unit when he was sent to Greece?
Absolutely right, he was attached to ANZAC Corps HQ. Missed that one. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
where you state "There is one passing mention of the raid in the 'Prisoner of War' volume of the Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War" and "The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War states that the raid occurred at St Lorenzen (the German name of Lovrenc na Pohorju), and that the raid was planned by two British officers", you should include an inline citation to the page under in the source;
Done. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
in the Aftermath, this probably needs a citation: "Immediately after the operation and freeing of prisoners, the Germans re-located all working camps from Slovenia to Austria";
I've removed it as I could find a reliable source for it. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
is it possible to expand the Aftermath a bit? For instance, is it possible to say what the Churches and Laws did after getting back to Italy. Did they return to their units, or take part in the war in some other way? Is this known?
Have done that for Churches, Laws' movement are unknown. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, good work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Cheers! Will get onto the suggestions and bring it back when I'm done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Bringing back for B-Class assessment. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Partisan 14th Slovenia Division was under the command of Tito's Supreme Staff. While it was largely recruited from Slovenes, that does not make it a separate formation of the Slovene Partisans. By the time this operation occurred, the Slovene Communist Party had accepted all the resolutions of the Jajce conference, which included unified command. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All Partisan units were ultimately under the control of Tito's Supreme HQ. This is part of a larger, simplistic, national view that's distorting the coverage of this conflict in Slovenia. The first-ever Slovene state was established by the Partisans and the struggle there is drenched in national significance. The Slovene Partisans article makes little or no mention of the fact that the movement was part of the Yugoslav Partisans. It is presented as if they only became a part of the movement in 1944, whereas the fact that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) controlled all state councils and Partisan activities is conveniently forgotten. -- Director (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This is all original synthesis. Provide a source for 'Yugoslav Partisans'. And there is no need to go into detail about the autonomy of the Slovene Partisans in this article. --Eleassar my talk 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
No, its not OR. The WP:BURDEN is squarely on your shoulders for the exceptional claim that the 'Slovene Partisans' were a separate faction in this war. -- Director (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any such original research in the article. The sources report that the raid was carried out by the Slovene Partisans, and that's what we should write here. How much they were part or not part of the Yugoslav movement belongs to the article "Slovene Partisans", not here. We may also ask for a WP:30, of course. --Eleassar my talk 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I will add to the mix that Churches uses the term 'Slovene Partisans' when he refers to his liberators. I retract my objection to the use of the term. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 05:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raid at Ožbalt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This bit seems redundant since we already know that they were rescued by Partisans. occupied Slovene territory escorted by Partisans, 99 POWs
agree, have cut it.
The first two paragraphs of the background section should be combined as they both cover roughly the same subject. Not sure what to do about the 3rd para in the section as it's too short to exist on its own. It should be combined with another para, but I'm not sure exactly where to put it.
I cut out redundancies and combined them all into one.
Why do we have soldiers' ID numbers?
Old habits die hard I guess... no idea... deleted.
The REME were not the same as the Royal Engineers.
The REME was not created until late 1942 (ie after Laws was captured). Several Corps had their own EME detachments until then. The 127th was definitely an RE unit.
Rework this sentence, the third clause would read better, IMO, as the second one. Churches had learned to speak passable German during his captivity, and when he resigned the role so he could be involved in the escape, had been the camp leader of the work camp for eighteen months.
Done, let me know what you think?
You already told us his full name once, why are you doing so again? Private (later Sergeant) Ralph Frederick Churches
Are there any accounts from the Slovenes?
They have published his account in Slovenian, but other than that I'm not aware of any. I've added a sentence about Churches and Laws visiting Slovenia and their reunions with their former Partisan comrades.
Pictures are OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
All addressed I think. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Sturm!