Talk:Banjica concentration camp

message: 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)
replies: text: , but original coords were  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)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: 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 ), 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,  lists Josip Benković, painter (killed in Banjica), and  Vlastimir Pavlović Carevac, musician (Banjica erroneously translated as 'tub'). No such user (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a notable inmates list is a good addition to concentration camp articles. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: OK, will do. No such user (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable inmates 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Go for it. I'm done editing for the night. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to Nedic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  False and imprecise 

message: 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)
replies: text: Was it published by Texas A&M University Press in the positive way you are asserting? As noted in this old RS noticeboard discussion  there is, based on this  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, . 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)
replies: text: G'day . 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete reading and arbitrary translation of Begovic 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political pamphlet