Talk:Gregorij Rožman

Recent changes

I have edited the article to incorporate some of the recent changes, even where they are not entirely relevant to the article. I have left out what is POV, what is inaccurate, and what requires sources. Hopefully this will be acceptable. I would think it appropriate to discuss further changes here before editing the article, and especially please bear in mind WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Serb pages, anti-Croat Serbian post-war claims, stereotypical names are not POV? Much of your changes are extremely POV and not neutrally historical. 'Hangman of the Serbs' must be taken out; it is a Serbian propaganda allegation. As are most of the Tito Yugoslav court decisions on 'leading Catholic figures'. I still cannot see how the Royal Italian troops were "fascists". And was Churchill a fascist too? Probably for you as an atheist Slovenian, probably a supporter of another Rozman.Smith2006 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the above comments are worthy of a reply. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AlasdairGreen27. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag - question to Smith2006

Smith2006, you will have noticed that I have removed your tag. For the purposes of us having a reasonable discussion, would you be kind enough to explain what exactly it is about this article that you think, from your obviously highly-informed and neutral standpoint, is not NPOV? Apologies if it is not immediately clear to me, but what should be changed, and why? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to set out your points. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Biased" intro

Smith2006, regarding your changes to the intro, it is hardly appropriate for you to accuse anyone of bias. Given that:

• your knowledge of this topic is precisely zero;
• you are openly anti-Semitic (see, for example this edit summary, or this talk page contribution);
• you seem to question whether Hitler was anti-Semitic [1][2];
• that you edit to say the Nazis were "described as" fascistic [3];
• that you edit articles without sources to make them sympathetic to the Third Reich [4];
• that you devote a significant amount of time to uploading photos of Hitler and his subordinates with the odd edit summary 'subject "died" in 1945' (as opposed to what?) [5].
  No need, therefore, for anyone to wonder about your interest and POV here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Viator Slovenicus and his tags

Viator Slovenicus thinks that this article needs a POV tag. He does not have the knowledge, wit, or bravery to do what is required under the rules, that is, explain why a tag is needed on the talk page. So I say to Viator and anyone and everyone else reading this: let's have a discussion, let's talk about the article, about its strengths and weaknesses, about how it can be improved. Let's open the whole thing up to peer review, expand it, add more references, all that we need to make an article that could maybe go for GA status. That would be great. But drive by-and-disappear Viator-style tagging is wholly destructive, and I would say this to Viator: if you knew anything about the subject, you would be willing and perhaps able to entertain a talk page discussion. You are operating on pure prejudice, without a single reference to support your purely personal POV. Something (else) that you are unaware of is the requirement to justify a tag at the talk page of any article. You are unaware that you cannot simply add them - you have to explain why. So start explaining pronto. You've had enough time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For those that have seen the tag at the top of the article and are heading here in hope of reading, even maybe contributing to, a discussion to justify the addition of a tag that the article is not NPOV, well, sorry to disappoint you, you can't. Viator Slovenicus, the tag adder, cannot assemble the merest morsel to justify his tag. Even though the tag itself says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Sadly, there is no discussion, because Viator thinks it's perfect to add tags and run away and hide from a discussion or debate. I have challenged him on numerous occasions to present his arguments in justification of the tag, but no, never, he can't. So what does that tell us? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

The article has numerous problems. These issues were already discussed some time ago (the discussion has been archived): since then, no major improvement has been achieved. The article doesn't an overall description of Rožman's life and public activity, but focuses on single events during World War Two, which are described without a proper context. There are many omissions, and some of them are especially problematic:

1. there's very few information about his early life, education and scholarly activity before he was named Bishop;
2. there is no mention of his pastoral activity prior to World War Two;
3. there's no mention of his pastoral activity during World War Two, except single statements and actions.

The article makes extensive use of non-neutral and weasel words. "To mention a few: Rožman is known to have believed in a "Jewish conspiracy"" (by whom? who knows this?), he was was "passionately anti-communist"; "On the day of the occupation Rožman had the Church's secret archives in Ljubljana burned for fear of them falling into the wrong hands." (whose hands?); "In 1942, Rožman began to attempt to transform his city from 'Red Ljubljana' into 'White Ljubljana'; in other words, a place less sympathetic to the Partisans, and more to the occupying forces" (terms "red Ljubljana" vs. "white Ljubljana" are not neutral descriptions); "He was on friendly terms with SS General Erwin Rösener" (what does "friendly terms mean?). There are several statements that look more gossip to me than anything else ("He was frequently seen at formal and informal events chatting with SS General Erwin Rösener")
In addition, there are several inaccuracies and dubious statements, such as the claim that he "played a "leadership/co-ordination role" in various anti-Partisan militias" (the link to the source is dead, but the very title of the article suggests that it's not a particularly reliable one), or that he "created the Slovene Convenant (together with Natlačen and Rupnik)": ridiculous claim (the Convenant was created by Slovenian political parties, not by Rožman): btw, the source quote says nothing about this (unless not in the page quoted). These are just few examples: I think that we will eventually need a much more thorough assessment of the article (we may need to go from phrase to phrase and decide of the course of action). Until then, the POV tag should stay in order to warn the reader that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page till Saturday so that you may solve the dispute without resorting to edit warring. Merry Christmas to both. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, as well! Protecting the page is a good idea. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to protect the page. What a daft idea. Nobody has edited it in earnest for years. Viator never edits it, as he doesn't have any knowledge or sources, and there's never been a sniff of an edit war here except when the rampant Nazi Smith2006 was briefly around. Nonetheless, I wish you both a splendid holiday season. AlasdairGreen27 (talk)

Let's go point by point here about the above. Once Viator has conceded all of them, then the silly tag can be removed. First of all - and let's do these one by one Viator, to be clear on all of them: regarding the "Jewish conspiracy", Viator, you make more of a fool of yourself than anyone else could do for you. These were his own words. You haven't even read the article. In a pastoral letter published on 30 November 1943 Rožman wrote "only by this courageous fighting and industrious work for God, for the people and the Fatherland will we, under the leadership of Germany, assure our existence and better future in the fight against the Jewish conspiracy." NŠAL, Tekoči arhiv, št. 3465, 30.11.1943 (the Diocesan Archive of Ljubljana, the Running Archive, no. 3465, 30 November 1943); Friedländer, Saul. 1966. Pius XII and the Third Reich: A Documentation, p. 106. New York: Alfred A Knopf. ISBN 0-374-92930-0; AlasdairGreen27 (talk)

Very shortly (since, as you can imagine, I don't have much time right now): I think the main problem aren't the single claims. I think the best way to proceed is to focus on the general structure of the article: where should we start (probably from his pre-1930 academic activity, followed by his pre-1941 pastoral activity, and not jumping directly to 1941), what should we put in, how should be the section structured. The way it is now, it's written to insinuate one single point: that he was a Nazi/Fascist collaborator. Don't get me wrong: if it were structured the other way around, to exculpate him from these accusations, it would be equally wrong. What we have to do, is to write a reliable encyclopedic article which lists facts; and also different interpretations, of course, but making it clear that these are interpretations. Instead, what we have now is a random list of Rožman's actions (true, alleged, and false) which try to convey a certain image about the guy, but which are completely cryptic, because they lack any context. Do you think anyone can get a picture of what happened from an article like this? The way to improve it, in my view, is to sort his actions according to a chronological time-frame (of course, I understand that the main focus of the article will remain on the war period, which is perfectly ok to me), and then deal with specific issues (like his relations to the Jews) in separate sections. I don't think we need to delete anything (all the properly sourced quotes should stay: although I would summarize the 1942 memo instead of keeping such a long quote), but it should be put in an understandable context. In this regard, the Slovenian and German WP articles seem fairly good to me (although the former is poorly sourced): I would follow their model, but would include the quotes and details present in the English article (as long as the source is reliable). Regarding sources: I know it's a pain in the ass (and one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to start editing the article), but we'll have to double-check most sources, because of the controversial nature of the subject. I suggest monographs by established academic historians should be preferred to activist websites. I also think studies based on primary sources should be given preference to those based on secondary sources (I've seen Ramet & Tomasevich are quoted in the article: I have great respect for both, but I think we should go back and see whom they quote: frequently these are outdated sources, while we should prefer newer, especially post-1990 works). Another thing: I suggest we open a new section, in which we deal with the different interpretations and controversies around Rožman. In this way, we can keep even the most dubious claims (like the Swiss bank issue): not as facts, but as accusations, claims, interpretations, etc. In any case, however, the abundance of weasel words, allegations etc., in the article will have to be cleaned up. Until then, the tag stays. Another thing: yes, I have been reluctant to edit the article. One reason is its controversial nature, and the second reason is that I'm not exactly an expert on it. But then again, wp is an entirely voluntary endeavor, and I don't think I should be reproached for NOT doing something: right now, I'm trying to help with constructive criticism, and if I feel like it, I will edit the article, as well (this mostly depends on whether I'll find an editor who's fun working with and who doesn't behave as a troll - at least not all the time). At the end, I haven't been that short at all. Anyway: vesele in blagoslovljene božične praznike, Viator slovenicus (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing inappropriate about filling in some pre-WWII detail, although nobody that is interested in Rožman is interested in that stuff. It's interesting, nay fascinating, that you have jumped 180 degrees from making single claims on 22 December to (at the point where you realised that you would be challenged upon them one by one) saying that the general tenor of the article is the problem on 24 December. Anyway, you've had about three years to attend to this article's faults, as you perceive them. I perceive a desperate campaign to actually avoid having to add anything of substance to the article in the vague hope that your tag can stay, so that your personal POV that the article does not do justice to your man can remain in place as long as possible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer one or two individual points from the lengthy screed above, there is no "random list of Rožman's actions" - instead, the most important of his actions are presented for the reader to consider, properly sourced. The German and Slovenian WP articles are both, in their own way, rubbish, and would do well to set their standards a little higher, maybe those of this article. The 1942 memo absolutely should not be summarised or minimised. What you are trying to do is belittle a population that was looking for resistance to Nazi occupation in frankly its darkest hour, and one of the most important leaders was urging active collaboration. No my friend, in your words, I would add the savage context to that, and not take down the actual brutal content of what he wrote one iota. Lastly (although I could go on all night) your idea that we should focus on revisionist post-1990 works is charming. Let's start perhaps with Rožmanov proces, a work commissioned, published and paid for by the Catholic Church of Slovenia. Let's use that as one of our leading reliable sources, as you suggested in our previous discussions a couple of years ago. Excellent. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen, dear Viator, my last missive before signing off for the night, in addition to addressing my points above, would you do us all the courtesy of letting us know where exactly in the post-1990 stuff we should look for the exoneration or otherwise of your man? I've been squirreling away but even in the most pro-Domobranci stuff he seems to get cast off as a collaborator. For example, Cornellis, who seeks to exonerate the victims of Bleiburg, discards him completely [6]. Oh dear. Anyway, after you've answered my points above, do point us all in the right direction regarding a bit of lit that says your man is the star. Ta ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your last interventions show whose POV are we dealing with. I will just answer those claims of yours that resemble arguments. It is a random list of actions, not inserted in any context that makes them meaningful; sources are frequently dead links or of very dubious (even libellous) nature. As for the 1942 memo: summarize doesn't mean minimize. But if the whole article gets fixed, and the quote remains as it is, I have no problem with it (in any case, someone will come along later and summarize it, cause it's just the most logical thing to do with such a long quote). About the sources: I haven't thought specifically about it, but I'm sure there's plenty of quality stuff published about it in the last 20 years (of course, there's also plenty of "invectives" and "hagiographies": I think we should avoid both, or at least double check every data with both). Unfortunately, it's true that most of them have a bias (either pro or contra): but with most Slovenian scholars who deal with it (Pleterski, Mlakar, Griesser-Pečar) it's pretty clear when they're exposing some facts, and when they're making a point or advancing an interpretation. If you want, we can try and compile a list. As for the Slovenian and German wp article: why exactly do you think they're, to quote you, "rubbish"? It seems to me they present an example of a good, balanced encyclopedic article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Viator, it's no good you talking about so-called scholars such as Pleterski, Mlakar or Griesser-Pečar. You haven't read any of them. Nor anybody else on this topic. If you had, you wouldn't keep making so many errors. And, by the way, your mention of "libellous" above is another wretchedly silly mistake. You cannot libel the dead. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

From your answers (which I restrain from qualifying with any adjectives), I deduce you are not prepared to involve in any constructive discussion. That's ok with me, too. Happy New Year, Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Viator, you are a total ignoramus who knows nothing about Rožman. How dare you. You've never bothered to read a word about this topic, but you have the strongest opinion in the world. You are the perfect example of why all Wikipedia's best editors are leaving. It is populated by nomarks with all opinions and no knowledge. AlasdairGreen27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.20.170 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The above comment states AlasdairGreen27, but its autosigned for 85.27.20.170. WHO WROTE THE ABOVE COMMENT?! I need to list it in the archives immediately. Also, the above debate shall end NOW. No edit wars shall engage on any articles or they will be blocked indefinitely immediately. Thanks, goodbye. Wait, okay, so 85.27.20.170 is trying to impersonate AlasdairGreen27, and 85.27.20.170 either HATES Viator slovenicus, or just wants to start drama. User:85.27.20.170, you need to stop the drama NOW. AlasdairGreen27 and Viator slovenicus are having a debate that you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with. And also, I don't see anything related to Gregorij Rožman or POV. Please take this debate off this page IMMEDIATELY, or it will be deleted. Leave now, because this above conversation has nothing to do with Gregorij Rožman. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rožman's anti-semitism

85.27.35.54 you are constantly adding that Rožman was anti-semitist, but you fail to give real proof. The pastoral letter you provided doesn't count and here's why (copied from here):

It's a bit more complicated here then it seem at firs sight... During the war in Yugolsavia (1941-1945) there were occupation authorities (first Italians, then Germans) in province of Ljubljana and they were censoring and even heavily modifying every letter, speech, announcement etc. intended for public release. And that pastoral letter counts as one of them. Tamara Griesse Pečar, who has done the most detailed study to date about mid-war activities of Gregorij Rožman, explains and confirms this with many examples (one of them is the his greeting to Grazzioli, which was, as she says, altered by the Italians so much that it wans't recognizable anymore). And this pattern appeared in all the newspapers, radio broadcasts etc.: they were all writing pro-nazi propaganda, and that was in sharp contrast to their beliefs and their pre-war writings. This is why you can't use Rožman's mid-war letters intended for public release for judging his belief

Tadej5553 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is merely your opinion that the "pastoral letter you provided doesn't count". Rožman's anti-semitism is sourced to eminent historian Saul Friedländer. Far from "the most detailed study to date about mid-war activities of Gregorij Rožman", TGP, on the other hand, co-wrote a book that was commissioned, paid for and published by the Catholic Church in Slovenia. Nobody would claim that this was a reliable independent source on these matters. You also claim that Rupnik was not a fascist. This is plumbing new depths in revisionism or wilful ignorance of the facts. Lastly, it is your change, it is opposed, it is therefore for you to justify it, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable secondary source, that would be better verification than a primary source like the pastoral letter. —teb728 t c 12:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why it doesn't count and you have not provided any reasonable proof or explanation against it, except the good old "it's only your opinion". Ignorance to the fullest. As I said, Tamara Griesse Pečar (and other historians too) agrees with me completely, so it's not "only my opinion". Oh, and BTW why doesn't it count if it was sponsored by the catholic church? It is an organization like all the others, that doesn't disqualify it form anything. Instead of undermining my statements you are attacking TGP and Catholic Church... BTW: nobody would claim that her writings are reliable? Pardon me, but you seem to be terribly mistaken: she wrote a study about Rožman for the need of the rehabilitation lawsuit and on the basis of it and other documents prepared for this trial the Slovenian Supreme Court overturned the "trial" against Rožman. And this is hardly anyone? Yes, I claim that Rupnik was not a fascist. Do you have any PRE-WAR documents that show otherwise? I think not. TGP studied Rožman's actions a lot more than your "eminent historian" wich knows the topic only remotely, so I think that her views have much higher importance here. And again: what is wrong with "revisionism": you are using this term in the same way that slovenian communists are... The history about WW2 in Slovenia was until the slovenian independence written only by communist and was largely distorted and false, and you want to keep it that way? Revisionism is good, because it is needed when new documents etc, are discovered, so that the "official history" can be as close to the truth as possibile. But you have problem understanding that. Tadej5553 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything anybody says will persuade you. However, it is indisputable that Friedländer is an eminent historian, even if you disagree, and is therefore a reliable source for this encyclopedia. TGP, on the other hand, in 'Rožmanov proces', was paid to do a job by the church - to clean Rožman's reputation. It's a political rather than historical book. It's interesting that Archbishop of Ljubljana Alojz Uran was always sitting next to her at her book launches. She did what she was paid to do. She looked at and systematically discarded all evidence of collaboration, both documentary and in his activities. This book, which was commissioned, paid for and published by the Catholic Church in Slovenia, cannot be considered a reliable source by objective academic standards. Lastly, regarding Rupnik not being a fascist, perhaps you may find time to read this. Scroll to p 202. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all: provide proof, that this book was ordered by the church to clean his guilt. And I want real proof. But perhaps this is not what matters here: you should give proof, that what she said isn't true? Can't manage that? Now, what are the "objective academic standards" that disqualify her work? Link please? And as I said before: she has made a study for Slovenian supreme court, that doesn't count too? This clearly is a smear campaign against not only Rožman, but against the church and TGP. You don't expect church to stay out of a matter so closely related to it as Gregorij Rožman? And about that "eminent historian": care to quote what he wrote about Rožman? Second of all: Rupnik gave that speech in 1944, and again, it doesn't count. Tadej5553 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that TGP was given the highest medal that can be awarded to the laity by the Papacy, the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice? Why "doesn't it count" because Rupnik gave that speech in 1944? Saul Friedländer not an "eminent historian"? What about his winning the Pulitzer Prize?

The "objective academic standards" that disqualify TGP's work as an academic study are precisely that she was paid to do a job by the Catholic Church. Until his death in 1959 Rožman himself never once claimed that he said or wrote or did anything during the war under duress, or that his writings were edited or changed. This line of argument has only emerged in the last 20 years. Lastly, since I have your attention, given that the Church and its supporters so often claim that Rožman was a man of the people who wanted to protect them and nothing more, how come he fled in May 1945, rather than having the courage, like Aloysius Stepinac, to stay and try to help the people? Do you think that Stepinac put his fate in God's hands, while Rožman didn't have the religious faith or compassion to the people to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you please read Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” policy. In a nutshell it says, “Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.” The article doesn’t have to choose between Friedländer’s views and Pečar’s; indeed it mustn’t. Rather the article should say something like: It is disputed whether <whatever>. Some researchers say <this, citing Friedländer>, but others say <that, citing Pečar>. Does this help? —teb728 t c 02:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that won't be necessary. He wan't able to provide citations of Friedländer, so there is no proof that what he wrote is what anon is claiming :D. TGP has received numerous awards, mostly european and Austrian, see here [7]. The medal proves in no way, that TGP was paid for the book, so that settles it. BTW, stop pulling up straw-men: I didn't say he wasn't an eminent historian... Sorry but how stupid are you anon? Yes, the communist would be totally OK with him if he stayed :D His successor was burned by UDBA at a train station... But I'm not going to argue about that. So for the last time: can you quote what Friedländer wrote, or can you provide any reasonable proof or explanation why TGP is wrong? And no, not why she is "wrong", but why her claims and research are wrong? Otherwise we're done.

And to TEB728: Can't you see that he can't back up his claims and is just trying to smear the church and TGP? Why would I have to make a compromise with him, he hasn't provided EVEN 1 REASON why I was wrong, all he is doing is smearing TGP and "relying" in Friedländer, which he can't cite. Tadej5553 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: when two studies contradict each other, it's usually best to go with the newer one, especially if the there is (like in this case) more than 45(!) years between them. Because there is no doubt that new documents and testimonies have become available since 1990, so there is a high possibility, that the old research is flawed, since it couldn't take new documents in account. Do you agree TEB728? Tadej5553 (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No I do not agree. Subsequent work by Friedländer would supersede his earlier work, but subsequent work by someone else does not necessarily do that. But I have removed the statement that he believed in a conspiracy: without a reliable secondary source that statement is just original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.

Speaking of Wikipedia policy, Tadej5553 please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Do not call another editor “stupid,” and do not speculate on another editors motives. —teb728 t c 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case I believe it does. With the documents available to Friedländer in 1966 I highly doubt that he could make an objective study. But let's wait until anon manages to get a quote from the book. I think, that if the author ever stated such things as that Rožman was anti-semitist (even though he helped jews), he would be relying on the same document as anon is, ignoring (or not knowing) the background. I have explained why he had to write such things and as you see, anon wasn't able to undermine or in any ways deny my statements, instead focusing on smearing TGP. You may say I am "speculating", but if someone insults an eminent historian like Pečar (jut look at her awards...) of being hired and paid by the church (which is not to be confused with sponsored) and fails to provide real evidence of such statement, I think that is obviously a smear campaign. I don't know what other proof you need to see that. This whole article is biased, mainly because it just quotes Rožman's writings and without explaining the background which is, in this case, crucial for understanding his actions... He is, for example, accused of being accused of being "passionately anti-communist", without saying why and how he was "passionately anti-communist". They don't mention, that he asked the Italians to free everyone that someone (usually the relatives of the imprisoned) asked him to - even the communists (including well known slovene communist Tone Tomšič). They don't say that he referred to partisans as "wolves and jackals" because they have in the previous months murdered more than 500 village guards who had surrendered and were promised amnesty (including all the heavily injured and higher-ranking officiers, which were killed on sight!)... They don't mention, that he was actually thinking on attacking the Italians for their brutal action form the Pulpit, but was advised not to by the Pope, because he believed that he can do much more good for the people if he stays in good relations with the occupators. And the list goes on and on... So relying on only one document and a book he can't quote doesn't seem on much importance here, especially by someone who can't even provide reasonable explanation for his statements but instead attacks a well-known historian with trivial and unsupported accusations. Tadej5553 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

TEB728, I'm not entirely clear why you have removed the "conspiracy" content. It is sourced to Friedländer, who is, I believe, a reliable secondary source. Could you explain? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you quote Friedländer, so we can see what he wrote? Because if Friedländer has only cited the document, that doesn't prove anything. Tadej5553 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything as ridiculous or undignified as getting into an argument on the internet, so this is highly likely my last post here. Tadej, you may henceforth decimate this article on behalf of the Catholic Church without interference from me. And given that the school holidays are just beginning, I expect you will have plenty of time to do so.

Just a couple of comments on your propagandist efforts this afternoon: Here you attempt to rewrite history into saying that the oaths of allegience were not to Hitler. They were. The oaths began "I swear by almighty God that I will be loyal, brave and obedient to my superiors, that I will stand in common struggle with the German armed forces, stand under the command of the leader of Greater Germany, SS troops and police against bandits and communism and their allies...". So if you promise to "stand under the command of the leader of Greater Germany", that's not an oath of allegience to Hitler? This is revisionism at its very worst. Next, here you attempt to rewrite history again. The source explicitly says that Rožman recommended Rupnik. It's there for everybody to read for themselves on Google Books. Or is the source not important? Maybe "it doesn't count" for some reason?

I now have first hand experience of exactly why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. Here, any propagandist or semi-educated high-school zealot can come along and change anything they like (often in rather scratchy English), irrespective of what any attached source says. This is a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, and please read Wikipedia:No original research, a Wikipedia core content policy. Note particularly the sentence, “That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.” What did Friedländer conclude from the Rožman quote? If he concluded that that Rožman believed in a conspiracy, then cite what Friedländer said, not Rožman. If Friedländer did not conclude that, then you are presenting an analysis not advanced by the source, which the policy forbids.

Please read also the policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. It is as wrong for you to say Tadej5553’s motive is to propagandize on behalf of the church as it was for him to say your motive is to smear the church and TGP. —teb728 t c 06:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not presenting anything, "an analysis not advanced by the source" or anything else. I was simply trying to prevent material sourced to a Pulitzer-prize winning historian being removed from this article. You, however, agree that the quote should be removed, and I am still unclear why. It is sufficient, in my view, that Friedländer has found or seen this document, the pastoral letter, is satisfied with its authenticity, and has quoted it. I did not add the quote, I repeat, I was simply trying to prevent its removal for obviously political reasons. If you still believe its removal is appropriate then I will comment no further on this issue. Instead, I will ask you to address the concerns I raised above about two particular edits that Tadej made yesterday. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon: I have provided a source that the oath was not to Hitler (even though he is mentioned in the oath):[8]. I had this debate with similar "leftist" skeptics on slovene wikipedia but they quit when I provided them the citation from the book and so should you. What you are doing is original research. My source is historian Boris Mlakar, who is alpha and omega (all historians-even left one- in Slovenia agree on that) on topics about Slovene Home Guard, so there is no debate here. I can even quote him if you want, something you are unable to do. There are many sources that Rožman did not recommend Rupnik, but has (as I wrote) only agreed with Rainer's intention. This can be sourced to Boris Mlakar, TGP, Aleš Nose and pretty much every reliable historian on this matter. Through your provocations you have proven that you have absolutely 0 knowledge on this topic, you don't even now what that Pulitzer-prize winner wrote. Can you say for sure, that he didn't just quote that pastoral letter? no you can't, because you haven't seen the cover of the book once in your life. Tadej5553 (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just this one more thing: I just found out why you might be confused about the oath: wrong translation. if you don't believe me, ask anyone who speaks slovene. Although I suspect you might speak slovene; this is because you appeared out of nowhere to cancel my edits on a relatively unknown former slovene bishop. And to really close the case, here's the quotaion from the book I mentioned earlier (I'm not going to translate it, I fear that my english might be too "scratchy" for your delicate taste; you should use Google translate instead):

“ Glede na datum (Hitlerjev rojstni dan!) in spremljajoče ikonografije je sicer nastal napačen vtis, da je šlo za prisego Adolfu Hitlerju, vendar pa besedilo ne navaja k takemu sklepanju. ”

Tadej5553 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm, no, I don't speak any Slovene. Just a couple of quick questions you may perhaps be able to help me with, since I, as you point out, "have absolutely 0 knowledge on this topic". Firstly, the oath. In its entirety, it was "Prisegam pri Vsemogočnemu Bogu, da bom zvest, hraber in svojim nadrejenim pokoren, da bom v skupnem boju z nemško oboroženo silo, stoječo pod poveljstvom vodje velike Nemčije, SS četami in policijo, proti banditom in komunizmu kakor tudi njegovim zaveznikom svoje dolžnosti vestno izpolnjeval za svojo slovensko domovino kot del svobodne Evrope. Za ta boj sem pripravljen žrtvovati tudi svoje življenje. Tako mi Bog pomagaj". I've read your helpful explanation here. So you say the correct translation is "... with the German armed forces, which stand under the command of the leader of Greater Germany, SS troops and police against bandits and communism..." Where's the logic in saying that the German armed forces stand under the command of SS troops and police? That makes no sense at all. There's no logic to it. Secondly, your source [9] is not much of a source at all without page numbers. Are people supposed to read the whole book to find where you have taken this information? Could you add the page numbers? Thirdly, your quote from Boris Mlakar "Glede na datum (Hitlerjev rojstni dan!)" and so on. Does Mlakar go on to explain why exactly "besedilo ne navaja k takemu sklepanju". Does he expand on this - I'm genuinely interested, but have not read the book. Lastly for now - I may be back tomorrow with more questions, as I rather enjoy our chats - you were saying the other day the Leon Rupnik was no Fascist. Well, just out of interest, could you follow this link, and be kind enough to click on the middle one of the three pictures at the top of the article? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.35.54 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversial article (as you would be absolutely retarded if you didn't know why), so therefore I will request a block on this article indefinitely. YOU'RE WELCOME. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To anon: Yes he does. He then compares the oath to other oaths of Nazi an collaborator units. It's rather long so I only quoted the conclusion. In the same or some other book there is also the original version of the oath proposed by officers of the SD (Slovensko Domobranstvo), which has no mention of Hitler. if you want I can get you the image of the page in the book, on which he explains that, but you'll have to wait a day or two. Oh and BTW that quote is form page 16, I already added that to the article...

And let me explain the confusion you're having with the oath: it does not say that the German army stands under the command of the SS, it says that "that I will stand in common struggle with [German army, under command of Hitler...], SS troops..." I hope you understand, I'm not very good at explaining this.

And about Rupnik: yes, he was "in service" of the nazi occupators, he had to show signs of loyalty. Whenever he asked germans for something (that was presumably in the interest of sloven politics, that persuaded him to ask the germans) he copied their request, wrote "Heil Hitler", signed it and sent it to the germans. That doesn't mean he was a fascist, and neither does that picture. You can't expect help from the occupators without showing the some loyalty. However Rupnik was a controversial person. He may be a closest thing to a fascist (or a nazi) among slovene politicans. He even had a speech in an army barrak after he prevented a communist conspiracy plan in 1938, in which he showed some pro-nazi and anti-semitic leanings. That said, it's still very unfair to call him a nazi or a fascist. Tadej5553 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:85.27.35.54 I understand that the "new version" isn't all objective, but I don't think that simply reverting everything is a good thing. The "new" version is, as far as I've managed to clean up, much better than what was there before. I don't know what exactly do you find subjective (or what you think is purposely left out of the article), so please discuss the subject here (and be as specific as possibile). I already put back some parts, which I think are completely unbiased. Tadej5553 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar errors

The newly added contents (pretty much everything before the "Relations with the German occupiers" chapter) has many grammar errors, I suspect it's more or less a direct translation from some text in slovene. The contents is, I think, very good otherwise, so it would be a shame to just delete it. I'd be very glad if anyone, who is "an expert" (native speaker) in english takes his time to attend the article, since my english is no sufficient to correct everything. Tadej5553 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

POV, again

Wow, did this article make a 180° turn... Looks like User:Tadej5553 has been active here since he was discouraged from spreading this Catholic POV at Slovene Wikipedia. From the looks of it, the article was biased towards anti-religious interpretation before he started working on it, but replacing +1 with -1 has never before produced a 0. This can only be done by adding. I rewrote the horribly biased introduction to better reflect the prominence of both viewpoints among Slovene historians (according to WP:WEIGHT) and presented the problem with judging Rožman's role.

However, the issue with the rest of the article remains, with the text clearly endorsing only the Church's interpretation that is favorable to Rožman and swipingly condemning Partisans (just look at the Literature section, all the mentioned works have been published by the Church through its labels Družina and Mohorjeva družba). For example:

• neglecting to mention Church's influence in forming Home Guard units, which conceals the fact that forming of such resistance had ulterior motives and wasn't in all cases merely the result of Partisan violence
• claiming that all the Rožman's pro-occupation statements were completely falsified by Italian and German authorities, or mistranslated. How convenient (despite the fact that some of them were, in part), but saying what the Bishop would or would never have said is pure speculation.
• ignoring his anti-communist zeal that made life very difficult even for priests in Partisan ranks.

I have refrained from posting the {{POV}} tag for now to hear what the author of this version has to say, but this POV cannot be tolerated if the goal is to build an objective picture. Again, this can only be done by including both prominent viewpoints. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please learn to distinguish between the truth, backed up by sources and your so-called "Catholic POW"... And you obviously don't know much about what was happening with this article do you? I did my best to eliminate anti-religious bias before, I didn't rewrite the article. That's what user Zetale has done. As I said before, I find his edition, although biased and subjective in parts, much better than the previous ones (which was basically just collection of unconnected facts and citations selected exclusively to make his actions look immoral), so I am constantly improving and editing it (and if you look at my edits, you'll find out I have removed quite a lot of bias and other POV).

This I admit, I didn't look carefully enough, with almost all the edits on the last page of the history yours. You were, however in most cases just making minor fixes, removing just "highly opinionated" links from one side and leaving others, etc., etc. While it's true you didn't write most of the text, my criticism is still very much on the mark, see below. And no, the article is not much better, just more subtly biased. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, let me answer to your accusations:

• Please provide sources for this ridiculous claim. As far as I know, even left historians don't speak about any influence of the church in SD, they are speaking about their influence the village guards (I suspect you switched these two). Further more, in the main book about the subject Slovensko Domobranstvo by Boris Mlakar (I suggest you read it), you'll find no mention of the church in the chapter about the organization and forming of the Home Guards.

To begin with, all the members of village guards were automatically included in the Home Guards [10]. The Church also didn't have any objections and endorsed their fight, with Rožman, Natlačen and Adlešič all making similar proposals about formation of such units p.61. Nazi authorities would have a much more difficult time in convincing the people to fight for them if the Church didn't cooperate as passionately as Rožman's sermons indicate. Do you deny this? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• No one is claiming that. Such claim is only made for his greeting of Grazzioli and nothing else. Please don't just generalize like this - have you even read the article? And the claim about bad translation (in Sept. 1942 memo) has no effect on making the bishop look good or bad, and it was there before I even touched the article...

This claim is made for both direct quotes. Again, awfully convenient, no matter who put it in. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please prove that. How exactly was he responsible for bad life of those priests? I'd say that the communist themselves (who were anti-religious) were far more responsible.

The priests in Partisan ranks were unable to perform their service having been rejected by him because of his almost absolute vilification of everything Partisan-related, despite asking him directly for support in letters. What communists did or didn't do for those priests is irrelevant here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And two things specially for you: first of all, I'm atheist and not conservative. I have no intention of writing pro-church POV here, so stop making such stupid accusations. Second of all, I wasn't discouraged from editing on Slovene Wikipedia, I just don't feel like it. I don't remember ever being proven of intentionally putting POV in any articles (I always provided sources), so can you please stop making stuff up? Thanks. Tadej5553 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful selection of sources published by the Roman Catholic Church in this article disproves your claims. Putting in or maintaining POV, what's the difference? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and you're welcome to add your literature. As far as I know, there is only one post-1990 (in Slovenia) book by leftist on Rožman, you can add it if you want. For now, it'll be fine if you stop accusing church of deliberately fabricating the truth. As far as I've seen you have no proof for that and to be honest, I find your knowledge on the subject pretty poor. Tadej5553 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I added one of the sources I find authoritative, which you promptly removed. The article again features almost exclusively the works of Tamara Griesser Pečar, who holds a minority view among other Slovene historians dealing with this period of history. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And congratulations for making the introduction more biased than it was before. Not only have you completely missrepresented the opinion of the "right-wing" historians and publishers (+Church), you have stated several wrong facts (naming left wing "liberal"- I'm not sure they call themselves that, faking a consensus; are Demokracija and Zaveza church owned? I think not...). And you have also added a personal view ("political commentary") on the subject, which is completely unneeded here... I think that the introduction before the rewrite would be a much better option than your pseudo-both sides presented-compromise... Tadej5553 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Demokracija is SDS-owned, which basically amounts to even less as far as trustworthiness is concerned, and Zaveza is also thoroughly connected with right-wing political parties. A part of the issue you have with my rewrite is a matter of semantics (you can replace "liberal" and "conservative" with "left-wing" and "right-wing" if you wish), however, the last part is undoubtedly the core of the issue not just with Gregorij Rožman, but the whole debate about who was right and who wasn't during the second world war ([11], [12]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Em, this style of answering every point separately is a bit hard and confusing for me to do, so I'm going to answer by bullets:

• On removing only selected stuff: Not true. I kept the rkc.si link, because it was used (not by me!) to provide reference for a quotation, while the mladina was not. And as you can see, I never put (or not removed) any kind of right-wing opinionated articles in the external links sections, where serious and non biased or subjective (lef are usually biased while the right are subjective ;) ) articles belong
• On formation of the SD: You would gain much more respect in my eyes if you stop providing Mladina as a reference. If you would have read the Sept. 1942 memo section, you wouldn't be saying that he made a proposal to the Italians now would you? Even in your own link it doesn't say that he created such a proposal - learn to read your own sources! And what you said about formation of the SD is far from the truth (well no wonder - you have awesome sources!), tell me if you want me to explain this to you. For now the fact that you are way off is enough. If you want me to debate your speculations, we're going to do it on your talk page in slovene wikipedia ;)
• On selective quotations:Please take a look at 8th footnote and 1st paragraph of the "Relations with the German occupiers" section. I hope your eyesight is OK. And don't blame me for what someone else didn't do: that is put in relevant quotations that show him as an evil nazi-fascist-collaborator, that can't be explained any other way than by their direct contents.
• On priests:Wrong. Let me give you an example of Metod Mikuž: although bishop objected to his escape to partisans, he secretly provided him with liturgical equipment via his brother. And I find your sudden change statements very interesting: before you said that he "made life very difficult even for priests in Partisan ranks" but now you claim that "were unable to perform their service". Yes, life is tough being unable to perform service. And even this is stupid: partisans (and the priests in their ranks) obviously didn't care about bishops's opinion (as the have already acted against it), so why would his opinion stop them from anything? Did he ex-communicate anyone?? No, you are just making stuff up. Typical.
• About "Church Publications": I don't care about the publisher or who is he owned by. Af far as I'm concerned, the could be owned by KPS, ZZB-NOB, Nazi party etc. I care about the content. Don't you? What youre saying is that anything that is published by church must always and absolutely be wrong, no matter the author or the content?
• About consensus:There were 3 historians listed as authors. I'd say that Pečar's view is shared by a lot of non-left historians (Dežman, Ivo Žajdela, ŠCNS, possibly Mlakar...)

And of those 3 historians, only 1 wrote the chapter (and about the other two historians: one is researching almost exclusively the late-medieval period (Simonitti), the other the early medieval period (Štih). So much about consensus). The book "Med sodbo sodišča in..." has 4 authors (historians) and deals exclusively with his mid-war actions. "Rožmanov simpozij" has I think at least 10 authors. The whole point of your edits was to present views of both sides, now you claim that there is only 1 side and Pečar as an unimportant lunatic, who wants to defend some sort of a clerofascist (LOL). And of course all the books of the other side are unrelevant, because they were published by the nazi-fascist-pedofile organisation called the Catholic Church. Despite there being only 1 very small book and a few internet articles from "the objective side". So I see you are just as biased as "the rest of us" Tadej5553 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Abot Zaveza, Demokracija: Oh, what fun it is to argue with the leftists :D. Demokracija = owned by Dušan Lajovic. Zaveza = a magazine mainly about WWII situation in Slovenia, it's absurd to say it's affiliated with any parties. It supports SDS and NSi, but is in no way affiliated with them. Most prominent members are ex-domobranci, it is some sort of an opposite of ZZB-NOB. And it is not liberal:conservative, it's socialist:conservative. Liberal isn't on this scale. And if you have something to say about WWII conflict in Slovenia, say it in your own words, I'm not going to read a toilet-paper magazine... Tadej5553 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"as a moral authority behind the Fascist occupation government". Again, he had no influence on the goverment, nor did he "morrraly represent" it. Please prove that with a quote, citing pages 33-78 for one short sentence is evading the truth and you know it. Tadej5553 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just reread what you said and I have some new things to say:

• About your speculation: you yourself claim that the SD was a direct descendant of the village guards. Therefor, it wasn't the nazis that convinced anyone. Do you think people who went to SD went there to fight with the nazis? You obviously don't understand the statements of the right side at all: they weren't concerned with the outcome of the second world war (they knew that nazis will lose, everyone did), they were concerned with what comes afterwards. They correctly assumed that in the case of communist "liberation", we will have a communist dictatorship similar to the one of the Soviet Union. You claim that they "chose the lesser evil", which is completely wrong. They never chose between nazis and communists. They did not support the nazis. They allied with the only force available to prevent communist takeover after the war. All that + self defense from partisans. As I see, all you know is based on your leftist dogmas (that's why you first make up a statement (based on those dogmas) and than look for sources to back it up), so you have big trouble understanding what the real dilemma was. You see partisans as a courageous anti-nazi liberators, which did "their fair share" in the fight against fascism and nazism(and this is not true - if they valued freedom so much, why didn't they prevent the communist takeover from happening? They had the courage to fight against the strongest alliance in the world, but not against half-formed, not very strong Yugoslav army? Where were they then, seriously? They all had their weapons and could actually do something...) . Can you tell me how the partisans made life of ordinary people better during the occupation? I mean - were all the minor attacks, sabotages, provocations etc. really effective, or did they cause unnecessary victims, Draconian measures against civilians...? Or if you can't do that - can you tell me how exactly did they harm the Itailans and Germans? Did they actually contribute anything to their defeat (note: only about 1000 german soldiers were killed in slovenia altogether)?
• About your seeing of the issue of "who was right and who was wrong" during the WWII: for 45 years, the left side had exclusive rights of writing history. Everyone who made claims against it was persecuted. The same people, who now claim that "life in Yugoslavia wasn't so bad" and are spewing hatred against their opponents were responsible for burning the archives shortly before independence. And now you are accusing those people, who finally have the right to present the truth (I'd say "their view" but by doing this I would be only supporting your claim) even though subjective in parts (but I'd like to see anyone who was vilified for 45 years make completely objective statements...) of fabricating the truth, not saying a word about the other side (you claim that they were subjective but I doubt you mean that - where were you, when this article was anti-religious biased? Did you provide citations form mladina then, to "present the view of both sides"?). Tadej5553 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one big difference between you and me: I acknowledge that "my" side wasn't right in all aspects (actually in some of them it's been horribly wrong, nobody can deny that), while you are incapable of seeing anything else than black and white, and admit only that the "victim's" version may be a bit emotional. It's perfectly clear whose position is better suited for writing a NPOV article. Besides, you constantly try to minimize the role of the main player here - Roman Catholic Church who has direct economic and political interest in spreading its version of events. This organization has millenia worth of experience in dogmas, so parading 45 years is childish in this respect.

Being prevented from telling their version of history for a long time doesn't give you the right to parade it as the one and only Truth, so please spare us this right-wing propaganda. "They knew that nazis will lose, everyone did"?? In 1943?! This statement is only worth dignifying with one (repeated) syllable: HAHAHAHA!! Try telling that to members of other resistance movements across Europe. The effect of the OF on the German war effort has been acknowledged by the allies and your fantasies about "minor annoyance" are therefore irrelevant for this discussion. Stick to the sources, ok? I already proved this fact with a source here. But far more importantly, the unified resistance under OF showed the rest of Europe that Slovenes cared! I don't know what fantasy scenarios do they feed you with about what would've happened if there was none (probably full independence of Slovenia right after the war, lol), but once you grow up and educate yourself a little, you'll be able to see clearly that about half of present-day Slovenia would not be Slovenia (nor would Slovenes live there), with at least Italy keeping a large part of Slovene territory as a reward for their side-switching in 1943. "Everybody knows Nazis will lose, let's join them so they'd give us a break until they do, maybe they'll stick around after that to help against evil Commies!" Bravo, Einstein.

A couple of other clarifications, in your preferred style.

• On formation of the SD: I have no illusion that somebody with an opposing viewpoint could ever gain your respect, but at least you could've read the article. It quotes Rožman's secretary Stanko Lenič for this statement. Or are you afraid that reading text from the red Mladina will poison your soul with Communist ideology?
• On removing only selected stuff: yes, true. The reference you kept is against all guidelines about reliability of sources. Since you had ample time to acquaint with the rules other people have provided you links to, I can't help but assume that you deliberately ignored this one.
• Abot Zaveza, Demokracija: Yes, Demokracija is, or at least was, owned by Lajovic and SDS p. 59 (SDS was also the co-founder of the publisher, Nova Obzorja), and the president of Zaveza society is Anton Drobnič, the state prosecutor under Janša government. Even ignoring political connections, their bias is clear from their works. While you're having so much fun, you can find me one (1) article in any random issue of Demokracija that is critical of any current member of the opposition or any one of their actions. I'm sure you think that this simply means they're perfect, but every rational person will know that Demokracija is nothing but a political pamphlet.
• About "Church Publications" and consensus: no and no, so please stop making straw-men. If I said that, I'd throw everything out already. The main issue with them is that you consider them the Absolute Truth. Guess what, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so your opinion about sources and re-writing history is irrelevant here. What counts is that I'm presenting academic, peer-reviewed sources (the one that's in now plus the one that you removed to begin with) and you're not. We can debate the relevance of opinions in Mladina and Dnevnik or Družina and Demokracija, but we won't debate the relevance of monographs published by Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino. I never said that TGP et al. are to be dismissed, but presenting their view as the Only Truth is childish and against all rules. Our "debate" about history aside, the rules are clear, so it's completely irrelevant what we think. Again, it's you who wants to keep the opposing viewpoint out of the article, therefore attempting to break the rules, not me. Where was I when it was the other way 'round? In the same place as you, but then your actions caught my attention. What's your point?
• On priests: of course they cared, he was still their superior (see this letter or the one mentioned here, no matter what convenient opinion TGP has about them). The second letter formed the basis of a statement condemning the fratricide, signed by 30 participants of the forum about Rožman. How's that for consensus?
• On selective quotations: try checking your eyesight first, I said "nearly all".
• about moral authoritativeness: why did they parade him around so prominently if he was a nobody as you try to portray him? Obviously they thought his influence will make people much more willing. All his widely publicized statements prove it (again, why would Italians bother with faking what he said if he had no influence?), providing moral justification for the authorities. What people did was at least as much the result of the Church's historic influence as the result of Partisan violence. You know, religious people tend to do what the priests tell them to, even today, and much more so at that time.

That's a far more comprehensive reply than your propaganda is worth, so I'll stop here. I won't debate you any more if you continue with this childishness. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets start with the obvious:

• On selective quotations: you never said nearly all. You said: "claiming that all the Rožman's pro-occupation statements" and "This claim is made for both direct quotes". You directly said that a claim is made for all the quotations and you even clarified what you mean - two quotations, we all know which two... And even if you said that: there are 2 out of 4 (or 5) quotations for which this claim is made, this is far from "nearly all". Is it so hard to admit you were wrong? No more playing stupid OK, if you're wrong you're wrong, there's not a thing anyone can do about it...
• On Zaveza and Demokracija: Since we agreed to the fact, that it's the contents that counts, this section is now obsolete. But I do have some things to say nonetheless: Drobnič was retired far before Janša won the elections, where are you getting the info from, seriously :D About your challenge: OK, no problem... They always were critical of Jelinčič and from not so long ago they are critical of SLS too... And by opposition, do you also mean DeSUS and Zares? If you do, we'll have a lot to go on... But let's stop the nonsense: I never were talking about their political articles, nor does this in any way reduce the credibility of their history aritcles which are on very high level (well compared to mladina at least - the history articles in demokracija usually aren't abused for political means - if you don't believe me read some of them!). If I remember correctly we were arguing (before you rerouted the debate to daily politics) about whether all articles about Rožman are published in publications, owned by the church. The answer to this is absolutely NO. And since I'm having so much fun: why don't you find me any article in madina (not in the old mladina, which actually had reputation of writing unbiased truthful articles) favorable of the opposition or any of it's actions (I mean SDS and NSi to be precise). You don't have to do that, we both know the outcome.
• On removing selected stuff: you are the one who knows all the rules. The source of that quotation is actually Ljubljanski škofijski list, but since few people would actually be able to get it, the user added a interent article with the quotation. I agree that the article in which was published doesn't meet all the criteria for an objective article (well actually, if we lower standars enough to accept the Mladina article as objective - as you demand - it will be objective and immediately added to external links section; one more funny thing: the only real article in which the quotation is in on the internet is besides the zaveza (previously rkc) article the same mladina article you are defending :D), but if you want, you can remove it. You know, be bold, isn't that one of wikipedia's directives? And as far as I'm concerned, you can remove the whole quotation, it's (although it's creation is explained, it still needs to be put in proper context) only there to smear bishop anyway. To be honest, this is the one thing I thought you wouldn't be critising me on: leaving left-wing bias in the article.

Actually you know what: I don't see any point in the source staying, since much of it's other contents (besides the one actually used to provide reference for a quotation) is bothering you so much, so I removed it. The article is still the same as before, accept we eliminated one reference (which I find trivial). I hope you are satisfied now. I also hope you can now stop making retarded accusations of me leaving "selected sources" ok? Tadej5553 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• On priests: Have you read the letter or the statement? Have you even read the interview in you own link?, OK, let me help you: statement, letter. In your own link, Dolinar says, that the letter doesn't mention Rožman and I don't see why would he be wrong. If Vovk actually had an opinion similar to what he wrote in that letter, he wouldn't be burned by UDBA... There are even justified doubts on the authenticity of the letter [13]. The statement (read it) only makes an appeal to end using Rožman for political intentions, id doesn't say that he colaborated (what you are trying to prove here). As you will see now, even Pečar (and other historians that most likely agree with her - Prunk, Granda, Dežman, Dolinar etc.) signed the statement and chances of her signing something that goes against her research are small what do you think? So: there is no consensus about whether he collaborated or not, he did the right thing or not etc.: they only agree that his actions should be left for historians to judge. Trying to prove anything else either from the letter or the statement is doing exactly what the statement appeals against: abusing Rožman for political means. Can we agree on this for now, can you drop your stupid claim of a consensus please?????

Propaganda letters, trying to convince Rožman that OF is "in no way anti-religious" (BTW: captured priests in battle of turjak were forced to sign similar letter - keyword here being forced, as they disagreed with the content), made by the future regime historian are of no importance to me - they are propaganda and are to be treated as such. The regime that sprouted out of the OF (and even the mid-war events), the communist leadership of it, it's paroles ("clerofascism") proved Mikuž wrong (implying he actually believed the propaganda he wrote). Now if they, as you say, cared, why did they enter OF? I am sure churches never denied spiritual care to anyone who asked for it - infact I know many cases in which partisans were ordered to attend a mass... Did Rožman ever say, that the priests in partisan ranks are forbidden from giving spiritual care? Were they ever ex-communicated? Of course he had a bad opinion about them - after all they did join a political army, that intentionally caused many unnecessary victims and performed unspeakable violence - but what exactly required him to have a good opinion on them? And how did that stop them from doing anything. You have come a long way from your original (FALSE) statement, that he made life difficult for those priests. Sorry but their "spiritual life" or their "moral guilt" they had because of his opinion (if any, as I said they obviously didn't give a f*ck about his opinion by joining the partisans) doesn't belong in the article - but perhaps you can convince emonec to write something about it :D. I think we can close this section of the debate as well (assuming you're not going to come up with any proof - wasn't it you, that tried to convince me that primary sources don't count? Oh yes, it was you :D ).

Oh and Yerpo, as much as I despise Herta for her usually ignorant comments it's worth reading this: [14] Tadej5553 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• About Church publications: so glad we finally agree. Well actually I only agree with your main point: it's the contents that counts. This will save us many useless arguing. About one thruth, please consider this:

“ Ne obstajajo, kot je velikokrat rečeno, različne zgodovinske resnice. Obstajajo samo različne interpretacije dejanskosti, različni sklepi in različne moralne ocene dejasnekga stanja. ”

---Tamara Griesser Pečar

And one more thing I missed before: I'm not trying to put anything out (an opposite viewpoint for example), if nothing is trying to get in... Infact, you haven't even tried to present the viewpoint of the other side, just some of your pretty confused pseudo-left-side dogmas and "general knowledge". The only times you actually tried to present the view of the other side (and not some made-up facts like you did in the original 3 bullets) was by claiming that he was "the moral authority" behind fascist government (which still isn't true, left historians actually say this a bit different) and that he excessively collaborated. But you weren't presenting them as the view of the left side! No, you either presented them as a fact or as a "consensus" between most of historians. I would actually let you put them in the article, if you (correctly!) presented them as a view of the left side, expanded those two statements, backed them up by sources (I still stand by my criteria here: if mladina is OK, all articles from zaveza are too) and kept them out of the lead. But that's not what you have done (although you claim otherwise): you couldn't back up either of your claims (the first one not being a consensus, the second one not even being included in your own source), you had to push them in the lead (because you can't expand them and are trying to make the bias as effective as possibile - best way to do that is to put them in the lead where everyone will read the "truth") and most importantly: you were falsely presenting them as facts ad not only the opinion of the other side! Tadej5553 (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• about formation of the SD: I read your source... Lenič doesn't say that he was either involved in formation of the village guards, nor in the formation of the SD. He only says that he "morally supported" them, which doesn't support your claim. Nor is Lenič a reliable source here: if we counted all the statements of the involved figures (Rosenenr, Raiuner, Rupnik etc.)about SD as true we would have a real mess: many of their statements directly contradict each other. That's why you'll need to provide me not with a primary source (funny how your strategy turns against you, eh?) but with a reliable literature on SD here (there is some listed in article about Slovene Home Guard). Case dismissed.

So far I only wrote about things, that I think we can both easily agree on. About his authoritativeness and the whole WWII situation in Slovenia: after you respond to this. I first want to close these sections, so that all you 3 original bullets can be refuted. Than we continue with more ideological stuff... Tadej5553 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I want to clear up the confusion on a "moral authority behind fascist government" now. So, here it goes:

• In the source you provided as a reference for you claim the only text about Rožman is on page 42. And what it says about him is not supporting your claim at all. Far from it. And since you have no reference for you stupid claim now, I am spared from answering to your mainly anti-religious (well, actually only anti-RKC, I seriously doubt you have the same opinion on any other religion - although I bet you'll start convincing me otherwise :D ) propaganda bullshit. Enjoy. Tadej5553 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First, the obvious:

• On selective quotations: we were talking about two different statements ("nearly all" referring to the references published by the Church), but Rožman's quotes are still presented in a biased way: two direct pro-occupation quotes in the text are being downplayed as either faked or non-attributable, and the one non-disputed is hidden in footnotes, with only a summary in the text. The other quotes aren't pro-occupation, but only anti-communist, again largely hidden in footnotes. And you dare to accuse me of "trying to make the bias more effective" where I only started with the intro and asked you for comment before continuing?? I realize now that it was a wasted attempt.
• On Zaveza and Demokracija: no, we never agreed that only contents count, stop faking consensus. At least as important is whether we can trust those contents. And no, you can't trust political propaganda, so what you say about the level of their history articles is worth less than the server space it's written on. As for Demokracija, you're right, I forgot that SDS' propaganda machinery also can also turn against dissident opinions in opposition's own ranks. The challenge should be to find an article critical of SDS or one of its current members. History is nothing but a tool for political gain for them (don't get me wrong, same goes for any political party) so it certainly reduces the credibility of their history aritcles. I admit that I was wrong about Drobnič and Nova Zaveza, but I still distrust publications that claim to present historical facts and are titled as "The Truth about....". You should, too, if you wanted to have an objective look at the situation, but of course, this claim of yours is nothing but a farce. There may be just one truth, but nobody can really know what it is, so in every attempt to understand history, we must rely on interpretation of what primary material is obtainable (here, go educate yourself a bit about that). As for Mladina, "favourable of the opposition"?? You clearly aren't capable of understanding what Mladina is about - i.e. being critical towards anyone in power (which it still is, also unbiasedly reporting various opposition's actions). It's clear that you only see as "truthful" those that bark up the same tree as you. Guess what, it's irrelevant!
• About Church publications: no, we still don't. I really don't see what you're trying to say with that quote, because you're the one operating with The One Truth, not me. The link you provided is not working so I can't say whether it's ripped out of context or what, but from what I understand, you're trying to pin your own misconceptions at me. Sorry, but no go. "To be honest, this is the one thing I thought you wouldn't be critising me on: leaving left-wing bias in the article." illustrates perfectly the difference between you and me, your inability to grasp core principles of this project, and my motives.
• About consensus: I could live with that kind of wording, but don't mislead yourself into thinking you're in position of allowing or dissalowing me anything. I find it funny, though, how you're trying to twist the meaning of the statement of the conference about Rožman including phrases such as "kot je pokazalo ravnanje katoličanov in njihov z nekatoličani združen odpor...", "nepopisno gorje in strašno sovraštvo sta rodila tudi ovajanje..." and "ostro obsodbo zasluži ... v imenu obrambe vere morili...". To be honest, even some of the signatories themselves try to pretend ignorance now that the genie is out of the bottle, and (again, how conveniently) put forward claims what Vovk would "never have written". It's also funny that the letter's conclusion is practically the same as mine, which you threw out of the intro as "belonging in Mladina". So now you suddenly agree that he is being abused for political means? How pathetic.

Now, a couple of additional facts about Rožman:

• He first declared loyalty to Italians on May 3, 1941 (later "beautified" by them or not). The OF was only just being formed at that time in secret, so this action couldn't have been provoked by communist violence. Furthermore, the Italians were quite permissive at that time, but it was only in the Province of Ljubljana, which encompassed about one fifth of Slovenes (p. 129). Elsewhere, such as in the Primorska region, the Italian attitude towards ethnic Slovenes was well known to everybody, which is why his spineless actions have been criticized by priests from Primorska from the start (p. 399). So, there's only two options - either he was completely blind or very, very sneaky. Which one is it?
• Claims about his selfless interventions in favour of prisoners regardless of their convictions are similarly dubious. A person in an influential position who would at the same time call for fight against ideological opponents and try to save some of them from imprisonment? How's that for propaganda that's certainly ignoring something more sinister? And you trust Lenič here where it suits you, eh? How pathetic.
• About formation of the SD: maybe Lenič's statement is inacurrate, but Rožman was still one of the most important Slovenes petitioning the Germans to do it, so you can't say he was uninvolved, being held in such high regard by them (and Italians before them). He was also, like I said before, very active in encouraging people to kill the "godless communists".
• On "moral authority behind fascist government": yes, the source supports my claim directly on page 42, but do amuse me with the fantasy you conjured as to why it doesn't. The rest of your attempt to sweep away my arguments as "propaganda bullshit" has therefore failed miserably, so you'll have to do better than that. For the mean time, I returned the sourced statement to the intro, just slightly altered from before. BTW, I won't waste my time by trying to change your opinion about my alleged "exclusive anti-RKC attitude", you're not worth it. You can go check my religion-related contributions at slwiki if you really want to know.

To conclude, my original three points may be somewhat imprecise. I won't argue with you on the topic of priests because I don't remember what exactly I read that made me write it (will do afterwards if I find it again), but other two points remain. The first point I explained at the beginning of this reply, and the Home Guards were still joined by many (if not all) village guards members under direct influence of Rožman and the rest of the clergy, with Rožman also being non-trivial in the forming of those units. None of that would happen in such an extent if the Church didn't put their own ideological fight in front of the people's needs. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• On selective quotations:

“ only by this courageous fighting and industrious work for God, for the people and the Fatherland will we, under the leadership of Germany, assure our existence and better future in the fight against the Jewish conspiracy ”

Is this not a "pro-occupation" quote? That makes four. And they are not "downplayed": the first quote is actually presented in original which is stated as such, so I can't see how it is downplayed? It would be if we presented the falsificate, but that's not the case. On second one: it is non attributable. The fact that the authorship is not known is a product of research by historians here, and since it has not been objected by the other side, we can call that "the truth" (or your abstract conception of it...)

• On Zaveza and Demokracija: Well actually on Mladina. You have correctly evaluated those 3 articles as objective, but what you have overlooked is that Mladina (or any of it's journalists) are not the authors. The authorship is correctly listed in mladina (at the end of the articles) as STA ([15], [16], [17]). I wasn't completely sure at first (since I only see first 2 sentences of the STA article), but I became convinced after I saw the exact same articles appear in other media to ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). I think it's actually quite common for most of web news portals to simply copy the articles of STA, as they do not have enough of their own journalists to cover all the news. The only constant I notice is Mladina is the constant criticism (I'd call it slander) against SDS (they especially love Janša), NSi and anything church-related. Right side to summ it up. It was critical of Janša before (long before) he was in power, as he was in power and now, that he isn't in power. Everything else changes somehow according to general opinion (of the left side) to maintain readership. There are researches that show, that even those who would define themselves as leftist are anti-government [24]. So my conclusion is, that they are a leftist (their allegiance to a party is, unlike on the right side, dynamic) "propaganda pamphlet" (as you would say), so they are not to be trusted. I hope you would agree with me, that right side has been criticized by Mladina far more than the left side, despite being in power for only 4 years.... Despite what you claim, history articles in Demokracija have nothing to do with SDS and are written either by historians (Ivo Žajdela) or by people, who can be called "amateur historians", or at least, people who have a passion for history (Bogdan Sajovic). They sometimes decide to re-publish articles by notable historians (like Boris Mlakar) too. Their SDS-history articles (like connections of Turk and UDBA) are usually in other sections ("Slovenija", "Politika"), much more in front than history articles. In Mladina we have, well, Borut Mekina, who writes political articles and sometimes includes history in them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far I have not seen a single article by Mekina, which could be considered as objective on any basis. All he wrote about was currently controversial topic of a historical subject, always promoting what leftist have to say. I wouldn't call that history articles at all...

That's all for now, the rest is coming tomorrow. Tadej5553 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• On Rožman's role in formation of the village guards:

“ Izrazil je razočaranje nad uvajanjem fašistične raznarodovalne politike in obsodil represalije, ki jih izvajajo Italijani nad civilnim prebivalstvom, vendar pa pri nastajanju protikomunističnih enot ni sodeloval ”

France M. Dolinar, Med sodbo sodišča in sodbo vesti, p.29.

“ Škof pri ustanovitvi domobrancev ni sodeloval, kot protikomunističnim borcem pa jim je bil blizu in jim je kljub nasprotovanju dela domobranskih oficirjev in predvsem Nemcev zagotovil vojaške kurate ”

France M. Dolinar, Med sodbo sodišča in sodbo vesti, p.30.

Unless you provide me with a quote from a reliable source that says directly otherwise (because I couldn't care less about your interpretations) you are WRONG. Your "well but he was an influential figure" or "if he would do x than y wouldn't happen" are worth "less than the server space it is written on". Tadej5553 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• On moral authority: on page 42 it says: "S tem se je dodatno izpostavil pomen vedenja vodstva ljubljanske škofije in posebej škofa dr. Gregorija Rozmana kot cerkvene in moralne avtoritete ." (note the dot), "Takoj po okupaciji je tudi škof sledil vzorcu vedenja slovenskih politikov z zahvalnimi izjavami Italiji in njenim oblastnikom.", "Preveč prijazen odnos slovenskih politikov in Cerkve do italijanskih okupacijskih oblasti je povzročil tudi proteste slovenske duhovščine na Primorskem" (here I suppose that "Preveč dober odnos" is what priests in Primorska said), "Ko so italijanske oblasti kasneje pri zatiranju odporniške dejavnosti prekoračile običajne pravne in moralne okvire, med duhovščino in oblastmi "katoliške" Italije ni bilo več prejšnjega soglasja.". How you managed to turn this into "moral authority justifying cooperation with occupying forces" is beyond my imagination. But more importanty: it is your own interpretaion, made only to fit the title of an article in Mladina! Sorry, but for this I'll need a quote that is at least a bit similar to what you are saying... BTW: don't you feel at least a little bit disgraced? I mean: you first make a statement, look for some source with supposedly some info on Rožman, decide it probably supports your oppinon since there are majorly left historians listed as authors, not even bothering to search on what page the text about Rožman is! Than you finally read it (after me reading all 50 pages for which you assumed that "the text about Rožman has to be somewhere here" and providing you with the page number) and have the balls to make a cocky statement: "Yes, this is exactly what I was saying, are you stupid?". Sorry but this is a bit too much for me, please come back when you grow up (and find a source that actually supports your statement).
• On your anti-RKC attitude. First you say "BTW, I won't waste my time by trying to change your opinion about my alleged "exclusive anti-RKC attitude", you're not worth it" but then "You can go check my religion-related contributions at slwiki if you really want to know". Am I worth it or not? Can't you decide? Are you a split personality? My opinion about your anti-RKC opinion comes directly from your writing, not only the debate between us. Sorry but it's going to take a bit more than your "religion-related contributions" (as far as I know, you claim to make all your edits based on rules, so it is obvious that your anti-RKC attitude won't show here) to convince me otherwise. But then again, I'm not worth it. Or am I? :D Tadej5553 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My last addition to the article should speak of itself against the above ignorance, just some last details.

• On selective quotation: "only by this courageous..." It is a "pro-occupation" quote, but it was the only one not downplayed, and I missed it at first among all others.
• On Mladina: you still don't understand that Mladina is primarily critical about everybody in power (including Janez Janša; BTW, it is quite naive to claim that he has no power even if he's not formally in the government). Of course they criticize the right-wing opinions more if they represent the left political view.
• On my anti-RKC attitude: don't play dumb. If you went and checked my religion-related contributions, then it would be those convincing you, not me directly (and I still wouldn't be wasting any time). So if my edits don't show my convictions and your opinion doesn't only come from the debate between us, where else can it come from? Are you spying on me outside Wikipedia?

— Yerpo ^Eh? 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some quick answers:

• "including Janez Janša; BTW, it is quite naive to claim that he has no power even if he's not formally in the government" is the same kind of non-supported political speculation as is that Kučan controls the entire left wing and majority of the economy via Forum 21.
• I didn't say that it doesn't come from this debate, but that it doesn't come only from this debate. I spent a lot of time reading various discussions on Slovene wikipedia and so I slowly made my opinion on you. And no I can't specifically tell you for any one of them.

Tadej5553 (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Speculation? Again, don't be naive. His party is the first in all public opinion polls and they won the last three referendums. As for me, which discussions? This one? You sound like that guy who said "I made my opinion, don't confuse me now with facts". — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and I am pretty sure they are always critical of the party with biggest public support. Even if the predominant opinion is that the government "fucked everything up" and that premature election need to be held, they'll always go against the flow... Oh wait, that's just in case of SDS... I am sure they did the same thing in 2008, by being very very critical of Pahor... Oh wait, they didn't. Too bad. They are critical of it whether it's last or first on opinion ranks.

No Yerpo, not that conversation... Opinion about a person is not something that can be determined by "facts", it's subjective. This isn't my opinion on validity of Einstein's theories... Tadej5553 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified that your opinion about me (and Mladina as well) is based on fixed preconceptions rather than real experience. I propose we end this pointless discussion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's about you latest addition:

• However, according to some historians, Rožman's messages to Italian authorities (such as the September 1942 memos) suggest that the goal of some of those interventions was above all to acquire experienced officers for the Village Guard units.[12]:85 Those units were in fact commanded by the officers from the former Yugoslav army.[3]:12. This is no true. What (I think) you are saying is that Rožman succeeded in releasing those officers for the needs of the village guards? Not true. The majoritiy of those interned officers (752 of those were interned thanks to the liberation efforts of OF! - far before "white guard" appeared) were released after Italian capitulation, those in village guards were mostly never interned (or not released because of Rožman's actions). To simplify. You are saying that because of X Y occurred, but your source only supports the fact that Y occurred and gives no explanation why. Oh, and can you please quote something else than "introduction" section of that book? Not that it's forbidden, but, well you know (or at least I hope you do).

Tadej5553 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source that confirms X and Y is still in. I only used the one you removed as an additional clarification. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Never mind. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The newly mangled introduction is now just silly. First, it mentions his aspirations to stop the revolution by all means necessary (proved by many of his statements, including the one that you removed), and immediately after, states that his only goal was for Slovene nation to survive the war. This makes no sense, so please return the previous wording. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the opinion of the "right side", even if you think it is "wrong". Tadej5553 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Then at least return his statement for the readers to be able to evaluate this opinion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's only your interpretation. You can put them somewhere else (for example in part about his role in forming anti-communist (self defense) units...). I think that if the SD and VG would not have been created, mid-war casualties would be higher (it is needless to say that if OF wasn't created, the casualties would be about 6x lower - statistics prove it), but nobody could predict what would happen after the war.. Tadej5553 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to wait a bit for that citation :D Tadej5553 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Škof in cerkveno vodstvo sta si očitno prizadevala pomagati prebivalstvu, da bo brez škode prestalo okupacijo. Rožman je bil prepričan, da je oborožen odpor za tak majhen narod, kot je slovenski, nesmiselen in brezizhoden. Velike žrtve bi bile zaman, vsekakor pa v nikakršnem sorazmeju s tu in tam možnim delnim uspehom" Razdvojeni narod, p. 182. Then Pečar goes on to prove this. Tadej5553 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This quote obviously ignores Rožman's other war and would have to be put in a wider context. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying I am misrepresenting the opinion of the right side? Look, you are constantly switching two things: fight against communism (and communist army) and fight against communists. He never supported killing (or anything of that sort) of civilians, regardless of their political beliefs. He wasn't against partisans simply because they were communists (this is rude over-generalization), but because they were very cruel, causing unnecessary victims and they had a clear goal of communist takeover in Yugoslavia. And judging by the terror they performed mid-war he could see what "proletarian heaven" would be like. He never condemned chetniks, although they were resistance to (and liberal - he was against liberlas almost as much as he was against communists). Tadej5553 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am, I even had to correct the translation of the quote you put in the intro (now the context is more clear). As for the rest of your opinion, his absolute anti-communist stance is documented long before any OF even started to appear (proven in the relevant chapter), so please spare me those fairy-tales about him nothing but responding to partisan violence. I also couldn't care less about your abuse of statistics above, so keep it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't quote it, I paraphrased the quote, because we already have more or less direct translation in other chapter... Second: alright Yerpo, a simple question: how come that the percentage of casualties wasn't the highest in the part of Slovenia with the harshest occupation regime (Štajerska, Prekmurje) but in the region with the most partisans? All data by INZ... I suppose Spomenka Hribar wrote the part on his anti-communist stance you recently added? That would explain a lot... Tadej5553 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of all, you paraphrased it wrong. Second, you suppose wrong. Third, I don't intend to engage you in a speculation contest, you have a far better imagination about these things (and I prefer to employ mine in a constructive way). — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, you're super fair, constructive, honest, bla bla bla... Yerpo, me being so imaginative and all, I even though of an answer you would like (to my question): it's because there weren't any clerofascists there! They were the real occupator and enemy of the Slovene people! I mean, surely the Slovene nation has to show it "cared" (by mostly killing each other instead of the occupator and later imposing 45 years long dictatorship upon itself), what would allies otherwise think of us? Poor nations in western Europe, who were actually prepared to collaborate in order to perserve themselves and didn't have any notable resistance, they must be really ashamed of themselves now, not even showing that they cared!? They don't even deserve to exist, those opportunistic bastards. Tadej5553 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*yawn* — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About speculation: if it's not Hribar, than it must be Pleterski. If that's not the case, I give up. Tadej5553 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't "paraphrase it wrong", because when you paraphrase something you paraphrase the meaning, and I think it is obvious that the despite the "wrong" words that were used the meaning hasn't changed a bit... Tadej5553 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The assassin(s) of the Slovenes in happy embrace

The zealots of the Catholic Church that claim that Rožman scurried away instantly after Hitler's birthday mass may have trouble trying to explain away the photographic evidence of him happily embracing Rosener, after the mass at the Central Stadium in Bežigrad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.48.219 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a reliable source of this image that actually confirms it was taken after the event. The way you put it, is not any better than Rožman apologists and will certainly not improve anything. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Added POV tag

I have added a POV ident to this article following its assumption by POV specialists. It is a classic example of Wikipedia's profound, rock-bottom unreliability in Balkan or semi-Balkan areas. Christ, God help anyone who took seriously your

Although in some books and in internet obe can read that bishop Rožman was funneling money to South America from a Swiss bank account set up "to aid refugees of the Catholic religion", there is absolutely no evidence to that and in his correspondence there is no evidence of any contacts to such croatian circles. To get an American visa bishop Rožman did not visit the consulate of Berne, he communicated with the United states Consulate General at Zürich on May 25 for the purpose of obtainig a visitorŽs visa to come to the United states. On May 28 he appeared at the Consulate general where he was informed about the United States regulations regarding the issue of a non-quota immigration visa as a minister of religion. Rožman and Šarić were not together in Switzerland. Rožman was residing at the Institut Menzingen, near Zug and Šarić was residing at Haute Rive near Friborg. Šarić was not interested in coming to US and he remained in Europe.'

This is a paragraph written purely to deny the sourced literature.

Your website is mostly edited by teenagers with absolutely fuck all knowledge of history. And, many, many of whom cannot write in English. The result is as you would expect.

I'm not going to answer on Zeatle's behalf, but what website are you talking about!? And I'm removing the POV-tag: almost everything in the article is sourced by reliable sources (accept the part that wasn't rewritten yet, Yerpo even did his best to add some leftist sources so some anonymus troll like you has no competence to talk about "assumption by POV specialists", which of course (just like you) remain unnamed... Tadej5553 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gregorij Rožman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sloveniatimes.com/en/inside.cp2?uid=FC70D49D-E92C-BD42-9706-A2F248A84026&linkid=news&cid=1BB540C4-EA25-0226-785F-74436DBF408E

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gregorij Rožman. 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/20111002120148/http://shrani.si/f/A/js/2yMrcRzk/avvisoss1.jpg to http://shrani.si/f/A/js/2yMrcRzk/avvisoss1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217053335/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006220358/http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/cia/cia0001.html to http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/cia/cia0001.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gregorij Rožman. 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/20120327203002/http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/83-skof-gregorij-rozman-vojna-revolucija to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/83-skof-gregorij-rozman-vojna-revolucija
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202939/http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/80-skof-gregorij-rozman to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/80-skof-gregorij-rozman

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)