Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. To facilitate matters, I've discounted all comments (in roughly equal parts from either side) whose mangled English, excessive use of exclamation points and/or generally rambling style indicates that they are motivated more by their writers' ethnic background than by Wikipedia policies.

I've also discounted several blanket assertions that the subject is unsourced. These are perplexing assertions because even the nominated version features a direct quote from what appears to be an academic work by American scholars (The Library of Congress World War II Companion by Kennedy et al.) describing the knife and its use; in view of this, the sourcing issue would have needed to be addressed in more detail by such "delete" opinions.

The opinions that remain indicate a rough consensus that, based on the sources cited in the article, a type of knife called "Srbosjek" is adequately documented as having existed in reliable sources (as the nominator has to his credit acknowledged). Insofar as doubt remains as to the extent it was used by whom on whom, where, when and why, these are issues that can be addressed through editing.  Sandstein  23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek (knife)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Srbosjek
• Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (2)
• Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination)

Srbosjek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Right to the point: ever since this article was created by not-so-unbiased User:Joka, all sources presented by him in this article have been proven false, while the only evidence for the existence of this "special German Serb-killing knife" currently comes from two sources violating both WP:NPOV and WP:V. The first is the Serbian historian Bulajić, most notable for his genocide denial rhetoric concerning the Srebrenica massacre of the recent Yugoslav Wars. His statement does not in any way provide references to actual historical evidence concerning the alleged existence of this knife. Neither does the second "source" we have been provided with, namely the "Jasenovac committee of the Holly Assembly of the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church". The very name of which speaks of the level of its professionalism and objectivity in historical/archaeological research pertaining to the killing of Serbs. Apart from that, it also does not meet the requirements of WP:V. As for the image of a glove knife allegedly depicting a "Srbosjek", one may entirely ignore it in these considerations as this claim is entirely unsupported. In short, this entire article is a gussied-up attempt at depicting a post-war myth as actual historic fact, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm listing my vote per above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not what you'd call a sore loser ;). In light of all the sources brought forth here to support the existence of the knife, I withdraw my vote (and the nomination). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment As to the deletion proposal I advise the administrator handling this case to
  • Reject - pointless disqualification of the person (User:Joka) who initially wrote this article - which (disqualification) is an act of incivility and attack on this person
  • Reject The first is the Serbian historian Bulajić, most notable for his genocide denial rhetoric concerning the Srebrenica massacre of the recent Yugoslav Wars. - this has nothing to do with this article, Bulajic is not referenced here
  • Reject - attacks on other editors frivolously accused of being someone's puppets
  • Accept the most powerful testimony of the knife existence coming from Nikola Nikolić, a Jasenovac concentration camp survivor and a Croat and a physician who described the knife in his book.
  • Taborišče smrti--Jasenovac by Nikola Nikolić (author), Jože Zupančić (translator) Published 1969 Založba "Borec":
  • The knife is described on Page 72: 'Na koncu noža, tik bakrene ploščice, je bilo z vdolbnimi črkami napisano "Grafrath gebr. Solingen", na usnju pa reliefno vtisnjena nemška tvrtka "Graeviso"'
  • Picture of the knife with description is on Page 73: 'Posebej izdelan nož, ki so ga ustaši uporabljali pri množičnih klanjih. Pravili so mu "kotač" - kolo - in ga je izdelovala nemška tvrtka "Graviso"'--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Reject", "Accept", what does that mean? I did not attack anyone, and you are obviously getting frustrated by the course of this discussion. The pic is not proof (its caption is irrelevant), and neither is a random book. Please read WP:V, we need proof based on actual professional historic research. References, facts, dates, not allegations of existence, "light reading", or some guy somewhere that says he "saw it". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • This person misinteprets intentionally the Wikipedia verifiability rule or does not understand it at all. The professional historian work is done already and we have just to compile it. So Dedijer's The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican:The book library search shows [1] that 308 academic libraries across the World has this book - among them: Yale, Princeton, Duke, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge. Google scholar test [2] shows that the same book is referenced 108 times.
        Taborišče smrti--Jasenovac by Nikola Nikolić (author), Jože Zupančić (translator) Published 1969 Založba "Borec" Ljubljana [3] 5 times Jasenovački logor smrti by Nikola Nikolic (Serbo-Croatian version) [4] [5] 7 times
        Libraries: [6] - 10 libraries, among them Columbia, Princeton, University of Toronto.
        Google scholar test [7] [8] two times
        Libraries [9] 10 libraries among them - Stanford, Harward, Yale, University of Illinois-Urbana, Bayerische Staatbibliotek
        References, facts, dates are given and verifiable and the verifiability stops at this point. The picture of this knife is in the dr Nikolic's book - page 73 (Slovene translation Needless to say that Dedijer was a university professor who was visiting scholar and professor on the world-renown universities like Sorbonne, Oxford, Yale, Harward.
        These are just two most powerful references - the other five are visible in the article.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article fails WP:V due to total lack of reliable sources. Article has already been deleted once [10] after its first AfD, only to be reincarnated for, as far as I can tell, purely political reasons. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think what you said reflects reality of the situation. Books by respected members of academic comunity (like Colic, Dedijer) that mention the knife hardly amount to "total lack" of reliable sources. Moreover, the fact that article was deleted once bears no weight on current discussion, since the issue has been fixed since, and previous deletion proposal has failed. It seems to me, rather, that the article was proposed for deletion for purely political reasons, i.e. to serve the POV of those who deny the atrocious use of this knife in the Jasenovac death camp despite the references provided (that were at some point even removed from the article before deletion proposal). Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasons. Ironholds 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not ready to vote one way or another yet, but I find the above discussion about sources fairly confusing. The current version of the article lists three sources and none of them, as far as I can tell, appear to correspond the two sources mentioned in the nom. The first source in the current version is a mention in the "The Library of Congress World War II Companion" by David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn. I looked it up on googlebooks and a preview of the page in question is available there:[11]. The second source listed is some book called "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican". There is no preview available on googlebooks, so someone would have to actually find the book and try to verify if the reference is correct, but at least the book itself appears to be legit; here is a googlebooks listing:[12] and here is one from Amazon:[13]. The third source listed is: "Takozvana NDH, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973". Seems to be some book from pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I did find another mention via googlebooks:[14] in a book by Christopher S. Stewart called "Hunting the Tiger: The Fast Life and Violent Death of the Balkans' Most Dangerous Man". The relevant quote from there is:"One of the more sadistic guards, according to local legend, invented a knife called the Srbosjek, or Serb-cutter, which was basically a small, curved blade attached to a leather, open-fingered glove, meant for rapid slaughter". I'm a bit concerned by the "local legend" part, but the source itself is legit. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is theoretically possible such a thing existed, and there is no question as to the existence of the legend (or myth, as I stated above), but to write up an article about an alleged knife is not encyclopedia material. One should keep in mind that this is a touchy subject, and that the motivation behind the rather clever ploy is most likely political and/or ethnic provocation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because article is writen against wikipedia reliable sources rules and because of recreation of deleted article. One of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is Recreation of deleted material and because article has been deleted in January 2007 [15] situation is clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjecina (talk • contribs)

The article does not fall under "recreation of a deleted article" policy, because, per wikipedia rules, the article that has a problem fixed does not fall under this, moreover, second deletion proposal failed. As for reliability of the sources, much has been said about this and some of the removed refereces have been put back in. To say the least, the very wikipedia rules are against deletion of material that has scholarly sources such as those that are now provided, so what you said has been refuted and even the person who proposed deletion has honourably admitted that and retracted his vote. Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:Article is having 2 english language sources. Only second is speaking about "knife", but this source is POV and has failed wikipedia verification rules. English language publisher of this book is Prometheus Books which is publishing dissenting books[16] and German language publisher Ariman publishing house which is publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense [17] and which members has recieved hero welcome in wartime Belgrade after publishing book--Rjecina (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A quick comment re Prometheus Books. If you read their mission statement at the link provided by Rjecina a little further, you'll see that what they mean by "dissenting books" is basically books written from a skeptical and scientific prospective and with some sort of anti-reliogious/pro-atheist bend. I don't think religious/atheist issue is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand and, I don't believe that it invalidates the source in question. Regarding English/non-English sources, sources are not required to be in English to pass WP:RS (in fact WP uses lots of non-English language sources). There may be some other issues that make a source unreliable but the language in which the sources is written is not one of them. Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rjecina, I agree with your position, but please use logical arguments. Yes, the publisher isn't squeaky-clean, but it isn't the same person given a "hero welcome" is it? G4, is for material the same as or identical to the deleted material; not being able to see the previous page you can't tell that it is/is not the same, so posting G4 as a deletion reason is a moot point. Ironholds 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Plus, the most recent AfD was closed as no consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If must important state controled newspaper (Politika) is calling members of sect which is controling publisher of this book "rare friends of Serbia in Germany" during Belgrade visit in which way we will call that ?
      • About G4 we are having agreement. Lets us call closing administrator to look deleted article and then if they are similar we will delete this. You agree with that ??--Rjecina (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, yes, although if you look at how contentious the deletion was in the previous two nominations i'd still recommend leaving it to AfD. And again, can you provide a source for the "rare friends of serbia" quote? Ironholds 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • "The Belgrade "Ekspres Politika" daily particularly lauded two members of this sect during their stay in Belgrade last spring as "rare friends of Serbia in Germany"-Belgrade November 16 1992 [18] --Rjecina (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
          • As I noted above, the most recent AfD was closed as no consensus, so a G4 speedy deletion now would not be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
            • We need to get the discussion back into focus, can we get a 100% reliable verification that this thing even exists, or can't we? Remember, we are talking about confirming or denying the actual existence of this thing, not discussing some aspect of usage. If this really was, as is claimed, a Wehrmacht standardized weapon, there would most certainly be records and surviving models. There are none. The previous AfD lacked focus on verifiability, and I fail to see its relevance here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not sure why, but the links to the two previous AfDs have disappeared from the top portion of this page. These AfDs are:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (2). The result of the first was delete and the result of the second was no consensus. Much of the discussion there is also about sources and there is a substantial amount of relevant info there, both pro and con deletion. It'd be good if the links to these two previous AfDs be added to the top of this page and in any event people should look them up before voting. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete looks to be highly suspect and unless reliable sources from a trusted editor can be presented there is only one acceptable outcome for this page. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There are no real evidences. It's all based on legend. Possible production of post-WWII-Yugo-fear factory. Zenanarh (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep There is more than enough scholar references supporting existence of srbosjek. Some of those who voted for deletion actually removed valid references and citations. The book library search shows [19] that 308 academic libraries has this book - among them: Yale, Princeton, Duke, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge Google scholar test [20] shows that Dedijer's book is referenced 108 times. The Library of Congress World War II Companion By Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn. Copy of the page relevant to this article is here [21]. The book library search shows [22] five libraries in the USA keeping this book. The book is referenced here [23]

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • If they removed them from the article they are not "lost forever", are they? I doubt the removal took place and was accepted for no reason. Can you show these references here? Provided they are unbiased/verifiable, that is. As things stand this thing has no proof, and has gone on long enough without adhering to Wiki standards. Also, could you please satisfy my curiosity: why does your only interest on Wikipedia appear to be this particular article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• J. A. Comment is currently part of a sockpuppetry case by Rjecina linking him to a previously banned editor (and string of other socks) with a distinct POV-bias on such subjects. While I don't agree with Rjecina's logic or methods, the evidence that JAC is a sock is very compelling. Ironholds 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thought so. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep The article sources are deleted from the article, and are far from being disputed. I will reenter the references. Will come with more comments later on. Terse (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I keep telling you guys, get us irrefutable proof and this matter is concluded as far as I'm concerned. The sources are still in the History of the article aren't they? Just give us a an unbiased professional source referring to actual historical evidence (WP:V) (Preferably a non-Serbian source, nothing personal, but their authors on Jasenovac and the like are usually more than a little biased. The same could be said about Croatian authors.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of the previous deletion discussion. The sources (that misteriously are missing in the present version) were given prety convincingly there, together with text from google books. I dont have much time now, but I will certainly return later today - my suspicion is that there is something fishy with nomination here - where are books by Nikola Nikolic, Vladimir Dedijer, ICTY proceedings etc. Terse (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the person who nominated the article first time (it was deleted despite the majority KEEP votes) agreed to the references given second time, and didnt dispute the article subject existence. So according to wikipedia policies, that it was deleted once bears no weight here, as the concern was fixed; the article exists on wikipedia for something like 5 years now. Terse (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a part from the second nomination discussion that contains links to google book quotations, proving that books mention the knife, so I suspect that (since references were since removed) either nominator was unaware of them, or that part claiming that sources are false is simply not true.

"The new article has scholarly references provided, and external links are added to ICTY trial in which this specific knife, used by Pavelic government in NDH, was called Srbosjek, as well as the dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research foundation in Belgrade and one of the most quoted authorities on Jasenovac genocide referring to this curved blade, used at Jasenovac, as "srbosjek".

As seen in the previous vote (majority votes was keep), local people are quite aware of the existence of the srbosjek knife, which was one of the most memorable exibits in Jasenovac museum most school people visited on excursions in the 80s. The scholarly references include book by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. The knife is widely known as srbosjek (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).

For your convenience, I here list the books:

• Jasenovački logor smrti - dr Nikola Nikolić, 1948
• TAKOZVANA NEZAVISNA DRŽAVA HRVATSKA, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973,
• Vatikan i Jasenovac, Vladimir Dedijer, Dokumenti (Beograd: “Rad”, 1987)

the last book is also translated to English

Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [[24]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [[25]]

Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.

Finally, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)

http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp

the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).

You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [[26]], and produces various knives.

Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:

http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html

Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [[27]]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terse (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The website presented by User:Terse is using data from the profoundly biased "Jasenovac research institute" [28], a Serbian organization who's goal is, quote: "To mobilize the Serbian people, and all progressive political forces worldwide, in a political struggle to end the war currently being waged against the Serbs" [29], hardly NPOV.

2) The second source is a state archive of a Serbian political entity held guilty of genocide by the UN, namely the Republic of Srpska, and is not based on any particular professional research. The state's position on WW2 Axis crimes is generally inconsistent with the historical consensus, and is always in the extremes when it comes to Serb victims. For example, the state's position is that there were 700,000 victims in Jasenovac [30], which would account for well over half of the total death toll in WW2 Yugoslavia (about 1,200,000). If we take into account the fact that there was an extremely bloody guerrilla war taking place, we can understand the audacity of that claim. On the other hand the USHMM and the Jewish Virtual Library came up with a figure of circa 100,000 [31], while the highest international number of Jasenovac victims is claimed by the Yad Vashem center (600,000) [32]. This lengthy explanation was necessary for the clarification of the reliability and verifiability of this state's official stance.

3) As for Bulajić, outrageous claims like this are hardly new for him. As was mentioned earlier, he is the author of a genocide denial "theory" concerning the Serbian massacre of Srebrenica [33].--Rjecina (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is a major difference between not wanting an article to exist because of the allegations of how the item was used, and because the item didn't exist. This item existed. The allegations of when and where it was used are portions of a very sad and disturbing part of the history of a region. Some of the allegations are more "proven" than others. I believe the article needs to stay, but in a more NPOV format. The entire article reads like an accusation. There are ways of phrasing this that meet NPOV. I am truly sorry that atrocities happened between ethnic groups, but hiding them does not help anyone heal. BMW(drive) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment.Despite the lengthy post above by Terse, sketches are not reliable sources. Discussions at Serbian wiki are not reliable sources. Where are the reliable sources that meet Wikipedia policies on verifiability that say there was a knife called a srbosjek? I have checked the links you have provided and I just can't find any. If you can find these sources, everybody will be happy and this discussion will be over. Please provide them. And please bear in mind everyone that this discussion is not a vote. The article is going to be either kept or deleted on the basis of whether well established standards for articles are or are not met. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make a few things clear: My post QUOTED part of discussion from previous (unsucessful) deletion nomination, where the name srbosjek as well as references were discussed at length, and it was hence not mine original post.

Secondly, references there are NOT serbian wikipedia discussion, but a couple of books, one of which (by Dedijer) is still in the article (the serbian original clearly avaiable from google books quote speaks of this item), the english book. Other BOOKS (by Nikola Nikolic most notably, a Croatian doctor who spent time in Jasenovac I think), were removed from source list. This nomination is hence dubious, and to say the least there is a misrepresentation of references, which conclusively are proved (by google book quotation that can be clicked) to talk about this knife. Terse (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a scholarly source proving the existence of this thing, if it is not that much of a problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The sources given are fully sufficient for the notable use of this term. The inclusion of material in another WP is not definitive. Our standards for inclusion of various topics are our own--some WPs are for some subjects more lenient about sourcing and/or notability, some less. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep. I have attempted to wade through the present AfD and the two previous ones. I am rather put off by the debate (POV pushing from delete proponents, socking from the keep proponents and a heavy dose of WP:BATTLE stuff). At the end of the day, my impression is that there are sufficient sources for the fairly wide use of the term Srbosjek. The English langiage sources mentioned in my comments above are OK and the pre-1990s yugoslavian sources mentioned by Terse appear to be OK (at least I am not willing to discount these sources without a lot more evidence of their unsuitability). Some of the content problems mentioned by the delete proponents can be rectified within the article itself (e.g. one can mention that some of the claims in the article are disputed). Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is not reason for deletion. This article exists in six languages and anybody can add references from other language's version.--Dojarca (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --The subject is an unpleasant one, and no doubt offensive to modern Croat sensibilities, but it appears to be supported by adequate academic sources. Since this is a subject concerning a non-English speaking country, it is not surprising that English-language sources are few. I note that some one (above) cited further non-English sources. It would be useful if these were added to the article, perhaps merely as a bulletted list at the head of the refrneces section. If there are issues over WP:POV (and I am not sure that there are), the appropriate course is to tag the article, not to nominate it for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Noone is trying to defend the Ustaše maniacs, and proving the non-existence of this knife would hardly diminish the "exploits" of one of the most murderous European regimes, but this is a matter of evidence. This knife certainly is a frequently mentioned legend, but so far little or no real historic data has been presented to show that this is not an attempt at turning this legend into scientific reality. I believe WP:V applies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating that there are no reliable sources. That is conclusively proved to be wrong, as books by Dedijer etc contain info about the knife, evident from given google book quotations. That you dislike Dedijer and other does not mean they are unreliable, as there are objective wikipedia rules of what constitutes a respectable source; Mladenko Colic is a university level expert in Ustasha military, another source that meets wikipedia criteria, and so are other outhors. You may claim that they are biased, though sources are varied, but you have no right to claim that they do not give a verifiable and reliable source info on the knife per wikipedia rules. You might as well deny holocaust based on claim that Jewish sources are unreliable, and you would probably be laughed off. University professors certainly meet the scholarly level requirement not met by many other articles that still merit a place here, and this important topic has scholarly, eyewitness, various nationalities etc. sources that prove the knife existence and use in Jasenovac. Joka (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • CommentThere is few question about this.1) Date when knife is designed 2)Start and end of production of this knife ? 3) Today name of Gebrüder Gräfrath . Today situation of article is that we do not know when of by who knife is produced ?
      • In May 2008 I have asked for NPOV internet link about this but nothing has happened but during first discussion which has ended with deleting 2 users has claimed that picture of this knife is in USHMM. This has been false claim or USHMM has been victim of fraud (because latter USHMM has destroyed picture)?? If somebody can find this picture on USHMM site I will change my vote --Rjecina (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think I have to remind everyone here that "voting is not a substitute for discussion", or in this case, sources. So far, all sources presented to supposedly proove the existance of this knife have either been referring to an alleged knife, or are totally unverifiable, or are completely biased and unverifiable. The fact of the matter is that this is a perfectly possible post-war myth (or "legend") that noone has confirmed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your qualifications are, to say the least, wrong. Sources are from respected historians, university professors, books used in academia even in Zagreb [34], and are "verifiable" as any book can be. It is not task of wikipedia editors to determine weather they are right or not, as you seem to think, this is OR, but only to check what sources contain (and they clearly speak of such a knife, proved here by google book quotations among other things), and that they meet certain objective standard - being widely accepted in academia (like Colic book), by respected members of academia, should suffice, even if you think authors are somehow biased, the topic merits an article, and POV issues are to be adressed there. You cannot just delete article since you personally dislike or distrust a source, that is otherwise a professor who held chairs say in UK and USA, as Dedijer, or a foremost expert in Ustasha military whose books are used at Zagreb University [35], as Colic. Joka (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Articles, based entirely on unreliable sources and blatantly false and abusing do not have a place in Wiki. --Lantonov (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you base your claim that sources given are "unreliable sources and blatantly false and abusing"? Are history university professors in USA and UK unreliable? Check Vladimir Dedijer, one of the sources whose book contains description of the knife use in Jasenovac, as proved by google book link given by other users; Note that Mladenko Colic is also University professor, expert on Ustasha military whose book is still used at Zagreb University as suggested literature for postgraduate research - i.e. Croatian academia clearly thinks him a scholarly source - see Deletion 2 discussion for much more details proving you wrong. Joka (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to remind everyone that the sources listed in the article are not verifiable, i.e. we do not know whether they really prove the existence of this object or not. As was mentioned earlier, this would not be the first time false sources were listed in this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are deliberately repeating your false claims, despite all the evidence given, for rethorical effect. How are the sources "unverifiable" when they are from books available in many libraries, with even parts of them on google books proving conclusively they speak on the topic and mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac? How are they "false", or unreliable, when their authors are well respected members of the academic community? If you keep repeating these accusations I will begin to think that what you are doing is in bad faith, as you are ignoring the overhelming evidenca that 1. books contain information about the knife and its use in jasenovac 2. books are sources accepted in scholarly discourse (Colic's book used in Zagreb as suggested literature [36], see deletion proposal 2 for more details and links). Joka (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep The users that push for article deletion are in fact misrepresenting the case of "unverifiable" sources, while it has been pointed out, by various users, that books in question do contain information about the knife and its use in Jasenovac. This has been proved by google books links that anyone can check. Moreover, references of scholarly work (by Colic, Dedijer and various english speaking authors), books by eyewitnesses (Nikola Nikolic book from 1948, a Croatian doctor held in Jasenovac - one of the many sources removed by Croatians who try to push POV of denying atrocities in Jasenovac) are said to be "unverifiable" - a gross misrepresentation. The authors are not even Serbian in some cases, and to deny credibility of old (Yugoslav era) witnesses acount is tantamount to denying holocaust by denying credibility of Jewish victims, saying "they are Jews, so they must be lying" - thats exactly what goes on here. Note that references predate the 90s war era by far. The existence of object in question (unfortunately, it is far from a legend, but even a significant legend merits an article), on which many BOOKS by authors scholarly or eyewitness speak, as well as second hand accounts by English speaking authors, certainly prove that this is not an invented topic. Even if one takes POV of denying the existence of the knife, by wikipedia rules, the article ought to exist as reliable sources (university professor books, like that of Mladenko Colic or highly respected (in western circles) Vladimir Dedijer - are per wikipedia rules reliable sources) speak of it. Wikipedia is not aimed at determining the truth - it is OR, and has some objective standards what is reliable source, and books by Dedijer (held university professor chairs in Yugoslavia, UK and USA!!!) etc certainly meet those. Joka (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To all those who claim that sources from such authors as Mladenko Colic or Vladimir Dedijer, both university professors, are unreliable, i suggest they read WP:RS. Moreover, Mladenko Colic's book (JSTOR review [37], the book is used even in Zagreb [38], today, at Croatia's biggest university so the book is clearly widely accepted (clearly, even by Croatian scholars) in academic discourse, which indeed is not surprising, as Colic was a leading expert in Ustasha military). Vladimir Dedijer was a figure of highest format, history professor in UK and USA (and Yugoslavia), member of Russell Tribunal, certainly a relevant source. The Jasenovac museum from SFRY era, that had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits, clearly is also a relevant source, and so per wikipedia rules, the sources given are neither fringe nor unreliable, as some users are trying to agressively assert in their POV. One cannot deny the ugly truth of henious Ustasha atrocities just by erasing articles that are supported by accounts that meet the standards wikipedia set forth. Joka (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - at least two Western authors mention the srbosjek - Wagner et al. and Christopher S. Stewart, not to mention a variety of sources from the former Yugoslavia. Even the US Holocaust museum acknowledges its existence. So it's clearly verifiable, and notable in that it was an important tool of the Serbian genocide in WWII. And even if it didn't exist, the legend would still be notable: just as the Nazis didn't actually make lampshades out of human skin but we still mention it in anthropodermic bibliopegy, so too should we give place to this story (which happens to be true, increasing its encyclopedic value). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have writen earlier give me link to USHMM on page which is speaking about knife (or to picture) and I will change my vote. Please do not write false statements--Rjecina (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment and request. This discussion is a strong example of Wikipedia's main weaknesses. Lots of SPA comments/"votes" from people who have not edited the encyclopedia since the last time this article was up for deletion. Yet here they come, voices raised, that it should be kept. Check them out for yourselves. And all of the references they claim in support of their case are entirely unverifiable. I challenge them all to photocopy a single page of the books they claim as references, and upload the photocopy to Commons. Then post the link here within 48 hours. Go on then. Do it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who recreated the article and added the references last year, and I was appaled to find out it was up for deletion again. I think arguments are what matter here, and I find dismissal of editors like that a bit offensive. As for your request, fortunately, google books has sometimes parts of books scanned and so you can for example instantly check that book by Vladimir Dedijer contains info on the knife [39]. Also, it is evident that Jasenovac museum had as an exibit photo and sketch of the knife (see link from the main page to photos; the site is part of UNESCO archive) - as many of the people from ex-Yugoslavia who visited Jasenovac on school excursions in the 80s vividly remember. I urge you to rethink your vote in light of the evidence, as DIREKTOR already did. Joka (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar my earlier comment please do not write false statements. Jasenovac museum is in Croatia and not in Republika Srpska which is not known for NPOV policy about Serbs and other nations. If knife is real why has USHMM deleted picture and all comments about knife (if this has ever been on USHMM site)

If Dedijer is good source why his book is published outside Jugoslavija by publishers which are publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense and person which buy this book are buying books:

To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by Michael Parenti, Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions by Diana Johnstone and Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia by Barry M. Lituchy. Because of all this reason book can't be accepted on wiki.

It is funny that user come back to wikipedia only to enter deleting discussion. Your only edits are things about Serbs and war so it is not surprise that your last edit has been defeated by RFC--Rjecina (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks by Rjecina (who seems to be chasing quite a few editors who he is engaged in edit wars with) aside, just a few points about this. Jasenovac museum has been devastated by Croatian forces in 1991-95, and most exibition items have been moved to Republika Srpska before the 1995 Bljesak operation in Western Slavonia. Some of the material from Jasenovac museum, exibits available in SFRY there (srbosjek photo has been one of the more memorable items, a couple of editors pointed out this fact that they remember it from the exibition in the 80s, see previous AfD discussions) is posted on the RS archive page for that reason. From RS, some materials have been given to Holocaust museum in Washington, and has controversialy been returned to Croatia recently [40], causing controversy in RS [41]- the museum in Jasenovac itself has been closed in the 90s and was reopened recently. The new exibition is understating extent of the atrocities and has been much criticised for the fact that, among other things, killing items (srbosjek, malj - mullet etc) are not part of it

[42]. The photo in question is indeed part of the original Jasenovac exibition (from the time of SFRY). Croatian policies in regard to Jasenovac included such scandalous proposals as that of Franjo Tudjman to burry ustashe next to their victims [43] (quote "hteo je da miri antifašiste sa fašistima tako što bi im kosti pomešao u mikseru i sahranio u Jasenovcu"), and hence this is hardly a surprise, but the photo is part of the original Jasenovac exibition. As for Dedijer's book, original (in Serbian) is published by Deltapress from Belgrade, and what Rjecina is talking about is the publisher of one of the TRANSLATIONS (the book has been translated to several languages), and bears no weight on the original book merits, or indeed to credibility of Vladimir Dedijer. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've read a little discussion among the weapon collectors about this knife. The knifes attached to the gloves were also found after WWI, sporadically, elsewhere in Europe, used in the trench combats by the individuals, always handmade. If I've understood well there was a "srbosjek" photo as one of the exhibits in Jasenovac museum!? There was no knife, there was a photo!!! Of a knife attached to a glove. If it was produced in Germany for killings in Jasenovac, wouldn't it be logically to expect some number of it found there. In Auschwitz, the Jews were killed by a gas, Cyclone G, blue crystal lumps which produced a poison gas in contact with oxygen. In 1945 a lot of these crystals were found there and now you can see it among other exhibits in the Auschwitz museum.

Many people who are voting here doesn't know or doesn't want to know what was post WWII atmosphere in communist Yugoslavia, which is very important for this discussion.

Although the antifascist partisan movement was started in Croatia and then rapidly spread to all region, there was also NDH - Nazi puppet Croatian state. The largest part of the Croats in the NDH territory didn't perceive it as Nazi in the beginning, since NDH gave them opportunity to live out of Yugoslavia, people were afraid of possible communist totalitarism, so called "the dictatorship of proletariat", which meant losing of their properties and ruling of the class of the workers and peasants. For the same reason the Serbs were massively mobilized to Chetnik forces, a royal Serb army, which collaborated with Nazis until 1943/44. They were largely indoctrinated by "Greater Serbia" ideas and there was a lot of the war crime committed by them in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by killing and torturing the non-Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks. In the same time the Croats mobilized in the NDH Ustashe committed a lot of war crime in Croatia by killing and torturing people from the "lower races", the Romes and the Jews (Nazi indoctrination) and the Serbs (revenge for Bosnia - people usually forget that there was a huge portion of the Bosniaks-Muslims mobilized in Ustashe, not only the Croats!). In 1943, after German loss in Russia, the Chetniks were massively changing their uniforms for the partisan ones, so in 1945 it appeared that almost all Serbs were the antifascists and not pro-Nazi Chetniks. In the same time Croatia was heavily bipolarized between the anti-fascist supporters and the anti-communist supporters. However probably the most part of the civil population in Croatia, not directly involved in the war, was more neutral and rather against the both ideologies. The Croats were massively escaping to the west in time period 1945-48 because of the massive communist persecutions of the Croats. In this period the partisan forces transformed into Yugoslav army massively persecuted the Croats and committed a lot of the "war" crime (war already ended). For example, in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, there are a lot of the mass graves with the Croatian civils (the mostly civils, per some evaluations a few tens of the thousands) killed by the Serbian partisan battalions (ex-Chetniks) - they victoriously entered in Zagreb in 1945 and obviously revenged for the Ustashe crimes. So, although the anti-fascist movement was started in Croatia in 1941, in 1945 the half of the Croats were treated as the losers in the war. All Ustashe crimes were proccesed in the post-war Yugoslavia, while none of the partisan and the Chetnik ones. What's more, there was widely spread anti-Croat atmosphere pumped up in Serbia and by the Serbs, also the communist authorities created a huge political machinery and secret police agencies (OZNA) to secure their ruling position, the communist success was glorified to the stars, while Ustashe were the main monsters in the whole story, it all reached mythical heights. On every corner there was "Tito, partija, demokracija" (partija referring to the Yugoslav communist party), but no real democracy at all. The Croats were once again massively persecuted in 1971, since Croatian politicians and students supported democratic political system instead of one-party communist totalitarian system.

Serbian nationalists were taking advantage of their position in Yu society and exaggerated many numbers like the victims in Jasenovac. They claimed (and still claim!) that there was 1.000.000 of murdered Serbs, while in the official lists there were max 40-50.000 of the Serbs, Jews, Romes and Croats. "Srbosjek" is just a part of this propaganda story. It's possible that such knife was really found in Jasenovac, but there are no real evidences that it was called "srbosjek", that it was serially produced etc... It's all in the air, nothing really materially. If it really existed it was more likely a handmade tool used by some monster, maybe even nicknamed "srbosjek", who knows, lately utilized by OZNA agents for creating propagandistic platform. An atmosphere of fear is always easier to maintain if there is some materialization of it and a knife that killed thousands of people is perfect materialization for such purpose.

All discussions like this one should be placed into the proper period of time and relating occasions and this one case smells too much like propaganda. I mean there is not even one piece of it, just a photo and a story, the same in the sources as in this article? And 1.000.000 Serbs was killed in Jasenovac by that knife? Or by a photo? How many people can one monster kill using a knife in one day? How many such monsters must do it every day? How many knives is needed for doing it? How many knives was found? Just a photo? So 1.000.000 Serbs were killed by a photo? Are we all crazy here? Zenanarh (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming from Croatia, your POV is somewhat understandable, but bear in mind that while you might personaly have an opinion about this knife and its use or even existence, wikipedia editors are not supposed to be the judges what is the truth (that would be OR and obviously could create many problems and many edit wars on controversial issues), but to REPORT in NPOV way on what has been said by relevant sources. Therefore, as scholarly sources that mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac have been established beyond reasonable doubt, so much that even the person who proposed deletion here admited that and retracted his vote, there is little choice but to follow wikipedia rules, that do not allow deletion of sourced material about items that clearly are documented just because some editors do not like it. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming from the planet Earth. I believe my comment was pretty NPOV. There are no the good and the bad guys in my comment. Just political and social environment of that moment. Problem is that you're talking about the "reliable" and the "scholar" sources, but possibly written by highly indoctrinated authors for particular purpose. Zenanarh (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, scholarly authors in history are not free from bias, and wikipedia editors have their own POV, influenced by many things, origin not being the least in these matters. Indoctrination goes many ways indeed. However, what matters here are wikipedia criteria, and the POV issues are dealt with according to standard policies, and deletion is not the way to go. As for what you say, please look at the sources and note that they are varied ideologically, and nationally. Nikola Nikolic was a Croatian doctor and eyewitness who was persecuted by comunists. Vladimir Dedijer was a disident (he fell with Djilas), Mladenko Colic a Titoist. So certainly there is no SINGLE pov from which these testemonies are coming from. No one would be taken seriously here in trying to deny facts about Auschwitz based on claim that Jewish sources were biased and Jewish professors indoctrinated, though thats what many holocaust deniers were doing in disputing their claims. Wikipedia is not supposed to side with anyone on do its own research but to report based on sources, which indeed confirm existence of such a knife. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny :) Nationalistic SPA account is speaking about bias ond POV--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and Rjecina's arguments. Classical exemplar of Serbian Ustashi mythomania that WP should not fuel. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian mythomania? Nikola Nikolic was a Croat, medical doctor who was in Jasenovac, and his book (a source cited) gives one of the strongest testemonies about the knife. Other non-Serbian sources are also provided, and Jasenovac museum in the times of SFRY was governed from Zagreb, Croatia, and had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits in weapons used in Jasenovac section. Mladenko Colic's book is used as a recomended book in Zagreb University in Croatia even today. Your claims are unfounded. Joka (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wagner et al. promote "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Christopher S. Stewart promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? The US Holocaust Museum promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Let's keep the rhetoric under control. Let's not deny the horror of Jasenovac. Imagine the (rightful) outcry if someone declared the gas chambers to be "Jewish Nazi mythomania"! I see no difference in this sort of Serbian genocide denialism. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I never stated that any of them "promote it", as you deviously impute it to my behalf, nor was denying the horror of Jasenovac itself, but was referring to the article itself, namely the legend of srbosjek which has absolutely zero (0) firm supportive evidence, and a plenty of highly disputed and dubious ones. Your holy Stewart quote has in itself "..according to local legend.." which you can translate plainly as: "according to the myths promoted by Ustashi-obsessed Serbian historiographers". It wouldn't be the first nor the last Westerner that has fallen for 200-years perfected Serbian mythomania. Moreover, being a "Western source" makes him even less credible (with respect to this particular matter, not generally) since he's just translating some second-hand source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

0 evidence? Other than documented eyewitness reports (by Nikola Nikolic, Croatian doctor etc), scholarly work (Dedijer, Colic), exibits from Jasenovac museum; maybe you would like to propose to erase article Jesus Christ claiming that there is 0 firm evidence that he ever existed, and disregard the works of historians and scholars who had published works claiming that Christ was a historic figure, disqualifying their research as Christian mythomania, disregarding the fact that they are not even all Christians. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comments have been show me USHMM Srbosjek internet link and I will change my vote. Now I will say show me link towards any respected Holocaust international institution which is speaking about Srbosjek and I will change my vote. If not 1 Holocaust international institution is not having Srbosjek and if Britannica is not having Srbosjek there are only 2 solutions: Srbosjek is myth or everybody is POV about Serbian victims.--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.