Talk:Magnum Crimen

message: Ok, this is a secondary source, but an article in The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science cites page 605 of the 1986 version as saying:
:Mile Budak, a minister and a deputy head of state in the Pavelic's Ustasha government in Croatia, is on record as stating at a rally in Gospic on 22 July 1941, "One part of the Serbs we shall kill, another part we shall resettle in other places, and the remaining part we shall convert to the Catholic faith and thereby melt into Croats."
Would anyone object if I threw that into the article (citing the article citing the page)?  Someone who has the actual book should be able to find it and correct me.  However, this will really throw all the J.A.'s ibids into a mess since (I'm guessing) he is using the 1948 version and I don't want to introduce confusion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm only concerned about people being able to find sources if they are paginated differently.  Otherwise, contentwise, where should this go?  The whole content section is a mess of history, theories about church doctrine, and just random asides.  Again, in my version I took J.A.'s work and split it into subheadings so that the difference between the complete history and the random asides are clear.  Again, reverted, so what now?  My biggest problem was that there were never any dates or any real details in the article (just vague references to time).  If the book really is a great scholarly work, it should have that level of detail.  I guess it should go after "the Ustache terrorism" (oh that word should go too) sentence.  That sentence though is extremely conclusionary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mile Budak quote 

message: I started writing the Russian version of this article based on the latest uncensored version of this article. My plan is to find people who could help me in writing  French, Italian, and Spanish versions.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To counter assault on this article and its authors 

message: In the Serbian daily newspaper, Politika (February 21. 2006) there is an article ('Dva izostavljena poglavlja iz knjige Viktora Novaka' by Slobodan Kljakic) which one of its paragraphs states
Vatikan je Novakovu knjigu, ubrzo posto je objavljena, uvrstio u "moralnu kugu", stavljajuci je na Index Librorum prohibitorum. Kako je pisalo u zagrebackom "Narodnom listu" u jesen 1948 godine, "Vatikan je i ovdje postupio po starom receptu: Sant' Officio je rekao 'Spali!'" '
In short, the Politika states in their article that Vatican marked this book as a 'moral plague' putting it on the Index Librorum prohibitorum. The article quotes the Zagreb newspaper "Narodni list" (autumn 1948): "Vatican here acted according to the old recipe" Saint' Officio said 'Burn it'".
So, evidence is given here that this book was on the Index Librorum prohibitorum as of autumn 1948.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's evidence... unless someone has a better source contradicting this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Is the article available online? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per above, isn't the fact that none of the versions of the Index at Index Librorum Prohibitorum include the book more persuasive?  Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's right.  I think it's more likely a single author in a Serbian newspaper got it wrong over every single listing of the Index is wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm come to think of it, the article quote above does not explicitly state the book was added to the Index Librorum prohibitorum... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  I'm talking about the links provided here.  I don't see it here, here or here.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Did you mean this Malaparte? A source which I repeat again doesn't show Novak's work?  If you could knock off the personal attacks, I'd be happy to discuss things reasonably with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Again, I got Beacon for Freedom from the listing here.  If you want to continue to be insulting, feel free but, I will continue to question you about something that seems off.  As noted above, all we have is a single Serbian newspaper article that mentions this (and it's questionable itself).  The incivility though is tiresome, even as you do change IP addresses and names constantly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, it's noted here that Sartre was on the list.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, pay attention to the facts: Slobodan Kljakic is a university professor who published a book that passes the scrutiny of an editorial boardWe have below information coming from Prof. Novak - his book was on the IndexThe Index condemnation was echoed in Narodni list (newspaper).--166.32.193.81 (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about Vatican's ban 

message: In the foreword of the Velika optužba (Magnum crimen): pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj, Volume 2 by Viktor Novak, Svjetlost, 1960 on the page 28 (found in the University of Michigan Library) is written in Serbo-Croatian language:
... a Santo Officio stavio djelo na Index librorum prohibitorum, zacijelo žaleći samo što pisca njegova ne može da izvede na lomacu, da i s njime uprilici jedan monstruozno svecani ...
Translation: ... and Santo Officio put the work on the Index librorum prohibitorum, certainly regretting for not being able to burn the (book) writer at the stake ...
As we all know it, that time Novak was alive and, apparently, as a serious author and the university professor, would not allow a false  statement into the foreword of his book - if it were a false statement. 
As to the Index, after 1900 the Index became updateable. So some books were put then removed from this Index, which makes historians to dig through other sources of information (newspapers, books) to get the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common knowledge that the Index was last updated in 1948. Its entire content is accessible online (for example, here) and there is no mention of Novak in there. In fact there is no piece of evidence coming from the allegedly banning authority (Catholic Church) that they ever banned the book. The only ones claiming so were Narodni list (in 1948), Novak himself (in the 1960 edition) and Rivelli (in 1998, for whom we have no idea where he got that information from). Until someone actually finds a source confirming that the book was banned by the Vatican from 1948 to 1966 (when the Index was abolished), I will delete this claim. Timbouctou (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete only if providing a credible reference supporting the claim that this book was not on the Index. The Index was updated i.e. its content was changed which means that some entries were removed. The online index is apparently incomplete. For example, Malaparte's La Pelle was prohibited by Roman Catholic Church and was on the Index, which is not visible on this online list. Moreover, on that list are not even Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Milton, Pascal, Locke, Voltaire, Hume, Russeau, Flaubert, Zola, Sartre who were prohibited by RCC as per How to Be an Existentialist: or How to Get Real, Get a Grip and Stop Making Excuses (Google eBook) by Gary Cox, A&C Black, Jun 1, 2010 page 116--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A "credible source" is what I linked above. It lists the entire 1948 edition of the Index (which is the only version that could have theoretically included Novak). Galileo, Flaubert and the like may have been censored previously but have been removed from the list by 1948. Unless you can produce an actual Catholic Church source listing Novak's book as prohibited (or censored or whatever), this is just unverified hearsay from second and third hand sources. Equally dubious is the claim that Novak had been a Catholic priest at any point in his life - the 1986 edition is available online and neither the publisher's introduction, Blazevic's foreword nor Horvat himself mention anywhere that Horvat had ever actually been a priest. The 1950 review by Neumann (which you and Milos insist on copying word-for-word) seems to be full of factual errors. Timbouctou (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter references by references, if you have any, not by your opinion.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not work that way. Oskar Neumann could have just as well written that Catholics are really shape-shifting lizards back in 1950. But that does not mean we should take it for granted. On the other hand, every single book ever included in the Index is well documented as we have access to all editions of the Index. And Novak is not present in any of them. So Neumann obviously had no clue what he was talking about. Timbouctou (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop writing nonsense. The "Index" is apparently a fragment of the real Index, therefore a false reference per se.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say it is "a fragment" exactly? Does it even matter? Is there any list published anywhere by anyone at any time which includes Magnum Crimen in it? Or do you think that having a secret list of prohibited books contributes to their prohibition in public usage? Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information about the Vatican ban 

message: I've removed the following VDM Publishing reference: 
:The latest, and the most comprehensive (80 pages long) survey of this book, is the one edited by Miller, Vandome and McBrewster: Magnum Crimen  by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor)  Alphascript Publishing, London (March 5, 2010) ISBN-10: 6130717385,  ISBN-13: 978-6130717384. Playmobilonhishorse  (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphascript Publishing reference 

message: Here is an excerpt (page 990)
Page 990
Nadbisku Stepinac svake godine o Novoj godini predvodi svoje svećenstvo Paveliću
i pozdravlja Pavelića sa željama da Pavelić uspije i do kraja izvrši "konsolidaciju"
NDH moli za dug život Pavelića i njegove uspjehe a tako isto i na njegov imendan 13 VI
i na rođendan 14 VII. Sam najsvečanije celebrira in pontifikalibus o godišnjici NDH
i dopušta da se u katedrali najsvečanije izvode zadušnice za najvećeg ustaškog krvnika
komandanta "Crne legije" Juru Francetića.
There is far more about the clergy and their involvement in monstruous crimes committed during the WWII--Remind me never (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged racist attitude of clergy? 

message: Magnum Crimen
Please, add it to the article sources. --71.178.103.23 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online and downloadable this book pdf copy 

message: Why this article is locked for years?--Milos zankov (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because vandals and POV warriors circle here on a regular basis? Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 01:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked

message: I've added this section to the article. The two omitted chapters are online available as the whole book (its earlier edition). Please, leave your comments here.--Milos zankov (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  English language edition [2011] 

message: I have reverted wholesale changes reverted to by Milos and would like him to dicuss these changes point by point here. A word of advice - arguing that something had been "in the article for six years" is not really an argument. Also, there is a difference between referencing a fact by supplying its source and directly quoting every single thing verbatim as it appears somewhere. Timbouctou (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously. What do you mean by "intentional distortion of the quoted text"? Examples, please. Also, I believe I have a good grasp of the five pillars you are referring to after spending some 9 years on Wikipedia. You have been here less than a month. Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case. Timbouctou (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Milos zankov

message: May I suggest a reset of the discussion?
We all want to see an improvement to this article. As I already noted, I'm satisfied with the general direction and I think changes are generally a good thing. I really appreciate the willingness and effort that's behind them, even if I disagreed with some of the edits.
Let's discuss our concerns here and refrain from major changes without prior explanation (preferably discussion). That's all there is to it. There is no deadline. I'm sure the article will benefit. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reset 

message: I've removed this addition
"The second part of Novak's trilogy Josip Juraj Strossmayer: apostol Jugoslovenske misli was published in 1941 by the state-sponsored Sokol Federation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a unitarist organization founded in 1929. Its reprint in Belgrade in 1987 was retitled as Magnum Sacerdos"
It is already visible who was publisher, for this reference is given. The phrases "state-sponsored" and "unitarist" have political connotation therefore they are just a personal opinion.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These hardly qualify as "personal opinion" if these facts are widely known and not disputed, per WP:BLUE, and one can argue pretty convincingly that these are relevant for providing a context for readers. I mean, this article is undoubtedly about a book that has some sort of a political agenda. Not saying who published it, where and when, would be misleading. Timbouctou (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate text 

message: Amid a rise in nationalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s Magnum Crimen was reprinted in Belgrade in 1986, the same year as the SANU memorandum.[5] Dragoljub Živojinović and Dejan Lučić also released their Varvarstvo u ime Hristovo: prilozi za Magnum Crimen (Barbarity in the Name of Christ: Supplements for Magnum Crimen) in 1988.[5] Magnum Crimen was released with a new foreword by Jakov Blažević, a lifelong communist official and the prosecutor at the trial of Aloysius Stepinac.[15]
All above has a marginal meaning and it is written in a political tone with negative hints about someones bad intentions tied to this book. I removed the whole section as per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.
Further,
According to historians Sabrina P. Ramet and Ljubiša S. Adamović, the work originated as preparation for the trial of Aloysius Stepinac in 1946.[5] According to Croatian historian Bogdan Krizman, he was present at a meeting where his father Hinko Krizman (then minister of social politics in the new Croatian communist government), Duško Brkić (then minister of justice) and Viktor Novak agreed to prepare the work for Stepinac's trial.[6] Ultimately, it was published by the state Publishing Institute of Croatia in 1948.
is a tell-tale which I removed from the First edition [1948].
--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume only you and your alter ego agree with that proposal, so I guess you don't have consensus for that. The paragraphs above are valuable for the book publication's context. Again - Magnum Crimen is a political book, envisioned to promote a political goal, published exactly at moments when it was supposed to have political impact. Ignoring it all is hardly helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you, don't call upon your opinion. You are violating WP:NPOV repeatedly. Avoid further any incivilty ("your alter ego")!--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits need consensus and consensus consists of opinions. You don't own this article, and neither does your sock/meat puppet Milos. Sorry. Perhaps you could write about this topic on your blog instead? Timbouctou (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Milos zankov: I used google translate to understand the quoted text above. It's quite logical what Hory/Broszat wrote. --Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian reprint [1986] and First edition [1948]

message: I added some secondary sources and now we have 14 secondary sources out of 36. I think that we can remove now the tag requesting additional secondary and tertiary sources.--Milos zankov (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of inline citations still refer to the primary material. That is not acceptable and should be improved. Timbouctou (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we expect that? An article about the book is supposed to have information coming from people who we assume are experts and what they said about the book. Timbouctou (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Let me just comment on using the book as a primary source: I believe it should be OK to use the book itself to support straightforward, non-interpretative claims about its content. (I have not verified, though, that this is indeed the case here.) GregorB (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary source vs secondary and tertiary references 

message: Just curious, because his/her behaviour is hideous and the fact it is tolerated here makes Wikipedia as flippant about promulgation of extreme right-wing Croatian Ustashi ideology as the so-called "Croatian Wikipedia" (to wit: Wikipedia in that language) has been when it caused a stir all the way to Croatia's government and Wikipedia founders getting involved.
This is happenning again, only now on Wikipedia in English where the likes of User:timbouctou are removing everything that remotely informs on, let alone problematises, the facts of Croatian extreme right wing and Roman Catholic church in Croatia's atrocities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long will [[User:timbouctou]] be allowed to vandalise this aricle? 

message: It is not possible to undertand what is MAGNUM CRIMEN! Too many details without importance are given but there is no simple explanation what it is all about?
I suppose that Vaticans' paid agents have written some of parts that hide the truth and understanding and I suppose that it all about their crimes in Croatia over Serbs. The Jeruslaem Post has written in an article "Mass Grave of History: Vatican's WWII Identity crises" about priests who took part in competitons "who can split more Serbian throats in a night" . "On August 29, 1942, a friar from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg, named Petar Brzica, won first place for killing the most Serbs in the shortest time, boasting 1,350 throats slit in one night." write JP!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: VATICAN'S HANDS OVER THIS ARTICLE?