Pogovor:Moša Pijade

To je stran za pogovor o izboljšanju članka Moša Pijade. Stran ni namenjena splošnim pogovorom o temi članka.
Svoje komentarje in odgovore podpišite s štirimi vijugami (~~~~). Novo besedilo postavite pod staro. Za začetek nove teme kliknite sem. Novinec v Wikipediji? Dobrodošli!	bodimo vljudni predpostavimo dobronamernost brez osebnih napadov bodimo gostoljubni	Pravila za članke brez izvirnega raziskovanja nepristranskost preverljivost

Domnevni govor v Bihaću

Regarding the allegation that the quotation provided is untrue. The original poster provided a reliable source for the quotation, located in an archive. The person disputing it claimed only that the quotation may not be present in a publication of Pijade's quotations prepared and edited by the communist regime, a source which is not reliable. If proposing to remove the quotation, please explain why you are questioning the authenticity of the provided archive source. Anti.udbas (pogovor) 20:19, 30. maj 2013 (CEST)

Ker uporaba neobjavljenih arhivskih dokumentov ni dovoljena. --IP 213 (pogovor) 20:21, 30. maj 2013 (CEST)

OK, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are not disputing the accuracy of the source or the quotation, you are only saying that the source cannot be relied upon because its general publication has been forbidden by the government? I think this could easily be resolved by adding an explanatory note to that effect to the quotation. Anti.udbas (pogovor) 23:30, 30. maj 2013 (CEST)

S tem, ali je citat točen ali avtentičen, se nisem niti začel ukvarjati, ker pravila WP prepovedujejo uporabo neobjavljenih primarnih virov. To namreč velja za izvirno raziskovanje Tega ne moremo obiti z nobenim pojasnilom. --IP 213 (pogovor) 09:38, 31. maj 2013 (CEST)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." So, it is permissible to use primary sources provided they have been reliably published and they are used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

It seems clear that a document which is available in an open archive is a published document, and that a mere quotation of the document counts as a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" and not an interpretation. Furthermore, any educated person with access to this source can verify the quotation without any further specialized knowledge. In my opinion, it is clear that the mere reproduction of the quotation from this document is permissible under Wikipedia policy.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 13:46, 1. junij 2013 (CEST)

Furthermore, the quotation has been reliably published here:

http://www.casnik.si/index.php/2013/03/14/sedemdeset-let-prikrita-resnica/

The article also confirms that the archive is open to the public.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 13:52, 1. junij 2013 (CEST)

And here, published in 2009:

http://www.nspm.rs/istina-i-pomirenje-na-ex-yu-prostorima/komunisticka-strategija-osvajanja-vlasti.html?alphabet=l

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 14:11, 1. junij 2013 (CEST)

Če je dokument dostopen v arhivu, ne pomeni, da je bil publiciran. Publikacije, ki jih navajaš, pa v zgodovinopisju nimajo veljave, saj gre za splošne spletne medije in ne strokovno časopisje. Dnevno časopisje - kar tudi določajo pravila WP - v poštev pride pri pokrivanju tem, ki jih ne pokriva strokovna publicistika, sicer ne.

Na kratko: če je omenjeni dokument avtentičen, ga bo zgodovinopisje nedvomno v kratkem vključilo v svoje obravnave. takrat ga boš lahko vključil v geslo, prej pač ne. --IP 213 (pogovor) 21:25, 1. junij 2013 (CEST)

I have very carefully reviewed Wikipedia policy on these issues, specifically the pages Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

While it is the case that peer reviewed academic publications are seen as more reliable sources than reputable news sources, your claim that reputable newspapers cannot be cited as reliable sources for subject matter which may be covered by academic publications, but where there are, in fact, no academic publications actually covering the subject matter in question, is not stated anywhere in that policy. Indeed, the section "What counts as a reliable source" of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability expressly states that reliable sources include "mainstream newspapers" and that "newspaper and magazine blogs" "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", which condition is satisfied by both the newspaper sources I have provided. Furthermore, the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources states "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" as well as "... multimedia materials that have been recorded then ... archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.". The recorded and archived copy of the document cited by the two independent sources constitutes a third reliable source of material supporting the included quotation. It appears evident that the quotation provided is supported by multiple reliable sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards for what constitutes a reliable source and that the quotation therefore warrants inclusion in Wikipedia.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 13:45, 2. junij 2013 (CEST)

Stvar ni tako preprosta. Problem je, ker se citat razen v par zelo obskurnih publikacijah, ki bi jih težko označil za "reputable source", ne pojavlja popolnoma nikjer. Še casnik.si piše, da se jim zdi čudno, da bi Pijade kaj takega javno priznal. In zdaj se priročno najde nek "zalutali dokument", čisto slučajno v času, ko je popularno pljuvati po NOB. Se ti ne zdi zadeva malo sumljiva? Jaz se v takih primerih ravnam po načelu "izjemne trditve zahtevajo izjemne dokaze" - teh pa tukaj ni, čeprav je trditev res izjemna. Mogoče je pa dokument falsifikat ali so si ga enostavno izmislili? Dokler se ga kak strokovnjak ne loti, tega ne moremo vedeti.

Tudi če bi bil resničen, je objava na tak način kot je bila v članku, totalno neprimerna v smislu enciklopedične obravnave. To ni "statement of fact", ampak iz konteksta iztrgan tekst, ki bo naletel na dva tipa bralcev. Eni bodo verjeli, da je resničen, ker si želijo verjeti, drugi ne bodo verjeli, ker si ne želijo verjeti. Teme članka noben od teh ne bo nič bolje razumel. Predlagam, da počakamo, kaj bodo poznavalci rekli o zadevi, in potem naredimo smiselno rešitev. — Yerpo ^Ha? 22:30, 2. junij 2013 (CEST)

A Google search on the quote produces a very large number (many thousands) of hits. I have not cited them all, but in addition to the two mentioned earlier, Reporter (Slovenia), Dnevno (Croatia), Danas (Serbia), Novi Standard (Serbia), Novinar (Germany) and numerous other media published in several countries including Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia have also all independently reported this quotation, e.g.:

Dnevno (Croatia)

http://www.dnevno.hr/info/78724-mosa-pijade-arhitekt-poreza-na-nekretnine.html

Novi Standard (Serbia)

http://www.standard.rs/milan-jovanovic-palikuce.html

Danas (Serbia)

http://www.danas.rs/danasrs/dijalog/neadekvatna_poredjenja_i_nivo_svesti.46.html?news_id=251016

Novinar (Germany)

http://www.novinar.de/2012/01/19/saradnja-brozovih-partizana-i-pavelicevih-ustasa.html

http://croative.net/index.php/magazin/item/906-mo%C5%A1a-pijade-arhitekt-poreza-na-nekretnine

http://www.intermagazin.rs/mosa-pijade-mi-moramo-da-palimo-nama-trebaju-beskucnici/

The Danas article was written by professor dr. Petar Grujić and the Novinar article by associate professor Vladislav Sotirović. The latter article in particular appears to be a very carefully researched academic paper with a very substantial and carefully prepared bibliography. In my view all these publications cannot be dismissed as "a couple of obscure publications", as being disreputable and/or obscure. I am not persuaded that all of these newspapers (some very significant publications) in all of these different countries have published this quotation without doing any research and verifying that it was true, and in particular I would be very uncomfortable dismissing the rather impressive work of professor Sotirović out of hand quite so easily as something other than a reliable secondary source.

Personally, I do not find this quote to be particularly extraordinary. It appears to me to be in line with what we know went on in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 and immediately after WWII, and indeed in some sense all the way until 1991. I appreciate others may feel differently, however I believe our focus must be on what we can establish from published sources which meet Wikipedia guidelines, not what the feelings, preconceptions and/or prejudices of any of us are on the issue, or how extraordinary (or not) any of us feels this quote is, or is not. Do you agree with me?

I am not the original poster of this quotation, but as the quotation has been made and then challenged, I have investigated the question and a number of the above sources on their own in my view cleary do meet Wikipedia guidelines and authenticate the quotation, while all these sources as a totality, again in my opinion, represent quite compelling, if not overwhelming, evidence which meets Wikipedia guidelines. On the other hand, my investigation has failed to come up with any sources disputing its authenticity, let alone credible ones.

I would go as far as venturing to say that only a very small fraction of Wikipedia articles are supported by quite as many reliable published sources as the above quotation appears to be. Some articles certainly are, but most most certainly are not. That is certainly true of the contributions and articles I have seen.

In light of all the above, it does not appear to me correct to state that this quotation appears only in a couple of obscure sources and "practically nowhere else".

I note your position that this quote is disputed. I would have no problem with including the quotation, citing all of its sources, and stating also that the quotation is disputed (provided that there exist reputable sources claiming that it is disputed — I cannot find any, but perhaps you will be aware of them, and will be able to provide them). I don't think it is unusual in Wikipedia to report credible competing theories, provided reliable sources are cited for the different competing theories nd the article as a whole is presented from a neutral point of view.

I believe that proceeding in this way — i.e. to include the quotation, to state that it is disputed, and to provide the credible sources meeting Wikipedia guidelines for both positions — would be a reasonable and acceptable compromise for going forward.

I don't think complete suppression and censorship of the quotation, given all the weight of reputable and credible published sources reporting it, would be a reasonable, or neutral way to proceed. Indeed, in my view it would take a considerable amount of bias to proceed in that way.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 01:25, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

Priznam, da nisem preveč zavzeto iskal in sem jih našel samo par (zato tudi moj komentar), ampak tudi večina tvojih primerov je precej ubogih. Izrazito desno profilirani spletni pamfleti tipa Reporter definitivno niso kredibilen vir, prav tako ne pisma bralcev (primer Danas.rs) in kolumne (primer Novi standard). Tudi močno dvomim, da so vsi ti viri neodvisno preverili citat, precej bolj verjetno so ga copy-pastali eden od drugega. Članek iz Novinar izgleda še najbolj resno, ampak označiti ga kot "academic article" je zavajanje. Dajmo torej vseeno predpostavit, da je možno iz tega plevela izbrskati kaj relevantnega in podpreti izjavo (nisem zgodovinar in bom presojo prepustil komu drugemu). Tudi če ima citat zadaj deset sklicev, ostaja dejstvo, da to ni "reporting credible competing theories", ampak "dumping factoids". Če ga torej odvržemo v članek, bo nastal slab članek, pa čeprav bo mogoče več resnice v njem. — Yerpo ^Ha? 09:00, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

Ker ne drži, da ni akademskih publikacij, ki bi pokrivale to tematiko - nasprotno, ogromno jih je, še vedno velja, da dnevno časopisje ipd. ni ustrezen zanesljiv vir. Posebno še, ker ne drži, da bi tudi v dnevnem časopisju trditev bila sprejeta brez ugovorov. V Danas so recimo objavili tak ugovor. Ta med drugim opozarja na to, da naj bi bil dokument četniški ponaredek. Ne trdim, da je, vendar avtentičnost ni nesporna. Kot zgodovinarja me recimo moti, da je bil dokument najden v arhivu, kjer ga ne bi pričakovali. Ampak moje mnenje seveda ni bistveno, ključno je, da dokument še ni bil obravnavan v resnem zgodovinopisju (Sotirović sicer je zgodovinar, ampak publikacija, kjer je objavil svoj članek, nikakor ni akademska publikacija, ton njegovega prispevka pa je izrazito polemičen in neakademski). Zato je treba počakati!

Pa še ena stvar drži: tudi če se bo potrdila avtentičnost tega govora, kar je seveda mogoče, mu je v geslu treba odmeriti ustrezno mesto in ga postaviti v kontekst. Vključitev dolgega citata na konec gesla pa ni smiselna.

Zadnje: da v mnogih geslih nimamo virov, ki bi bil povsem ustrezni drži, ampak to je argument za popravljanje tistih gesel, ne pa za slabšanje tega. --IP 213 (pogovor) 10:41, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

I am very pleased to hear that you are aware of a large number of academic papers published in peer-reviewed journals covering the question of the authenticity (or lack thereof) of this document and of Moša Pijade's quotation. I would much appreciate you providing these references, as I think it would add very usefully to this discussion and I, personally, am very interested in reading such sources.

On reflection, when the original poster of the quotation failed to provide a reliable source for the quotation, I believe you were right to remove it and to challenge it on the basis of the lack of sources. The question aroused my interest and I researched the matter initially, searching the web and the usual sources to check if it was a hoax. My initial reserch showed that the overwhelming consensus was that the quotation was authentic and I could find no one challenging its authenticity, let alone credibly so. Nevertheless, I can accept that it was also not unreasonable of you to require the provision of more than the two sources I originally provided to back it up.

However, as a result of this, I conducted a much more in depth search of the sources, looking for sources supporting either hypothesis: that the quotation is authentic, and that it is not. What I found is that the weight of evidence, as reported by reliable sources, is overwhelmingly in favour of authenticity, and I have found a large number of sources backing this position up, including some sources which I believe to be of extremely high standard, such as professor Sotirović's article. I have posted those sources I believed to be the best among those above.

In my opinion, the sources I have already provided meet and exceed the normal standards of Wikipedia for what constitutes a reliable secondary source. Nevertheless, here is another source I have found, a book:

Vladislav B. Sotirović, Na odru Titografije, Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences Press, T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania, 2012, ISBN 978-609-408-241-2

The quotation in question appears on page 120 of this book. The book was authored by Professor Vladislav Sotirović, a reputable academic historian, and published by the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences Press.

In my view, this source is conclusive.

I have not been able to find any reliable sources at all challenging the authenticity of this quote (the letter published in Danas you refer to was rebutted in a later Danas article).

You dismiss the paper of the history professor Sotirović as "not serious historical writing" (Yerpo even dismisses it as "weeds" and "dumping factoids" even though he admits that he is not a historian) and you dismiss Reporter as a "right-leaning" "definitively not credible pamphlet".

I don't think such comments and such language are helpful.

I am sure we are all trying to follow Wikipedia policies, particularly the policy of neutrality, but the use of such language undermines the credibility of neutrality of your other comments. I can appreciate that the publication of this quotation is inconvenient, embarrassing even, to certain points of view, nevertheless this should not be a reason to abandon our neutrality or to suppress without proper cause the publication of a quotation which appears to be backed up by reliable sources and to be very important for the balanced reporting of Pijade's biography.

Professor Sotirović appears to me to be a serious historian who has worked at several different universities in several different countries, and his academic publications, including the book in question, appear to me to be serious works, and certainly the kinds of works which would certainly qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.

Regarting your description of Reporter as a source. It is true that Reporter has a right wing slant. But no more so than, say, Delo, Dnevnik, and essentially every mainstream newspaper in Slovenia except Demokracija and Reporter have a left wing slant. Nor is Reporter's slant to the right in any way greater than is the slant to the left of these other newspapers. While I personally neither like nor read the Reporter, I do not think we can seriously deny that it is a significant online and print publication with a print circulation of tens of thousands and that it is read by a significant percentage of the Slovene population. I also do not think that in a country where media are still quite tightly controlled by the left wing establishment, we can expect a left wing newspaper to publish a quotation of this kind, being as it is highly inconvenient to their political masters. The revelation of such a quotation can therefore, as a matter of political reality, among print publications in Slovenia of any degree of credibility, only be expected in either Reporter or Demokracija.

Moreover, Reporter is far from the only source of this quotation and we cannot impute any similar right wing slant to every other source reporting the quotation. Equally, the international reporting of the quotation would seem to obviate the possibility that it is inspired by a particular political agenda which would be local to one particular nation. Nor does a right wing slant mean that a publication is not a credible source of a factual quotation. Every newspaper reporting on current affairs — which description includes nearly every mainstream newspaper — will have a political slant, even the most eminent and credible publications. This will typically reflect the political slant of the publication's editor in chief, and there is no human being who has no political slant at all. Fox News and the Daily Mail are known to have a right wing slant, New York Times and the Guardian are known to have a left wing slant, etc. A political slant does not imply that the publication will fabricate factual quotations, or that such a newspapers' reproduction of a factual quotation can be dismissed out of hand as not authentic. I would agree with you that we cannot rely on their interpretation of documents, but I don't think the same can be said of a mere factual reproductions of quotations, original documents, original photographs, etc.

Regarding your assertion that even if this quotation is confirmed as authentic (to your satisfaction), the quotation should not be included unless provided the appropriate context and that the inclusion of a long quotation at the end of the article is inappropriate, I would say only that this is not a bar to the inclusion of the quotation in the article, since the quotation is clearly significant to the provision of a whole and accurate biography of Moša Pijade. If other editors wish to provide a context at a later date, they are free to do so.

Regarding your response to my point that you appear to be insisting on a level of evidence by reputable sources for this article which far exceeds the standard normally required for Wikipedia inclusion, namely, that in your view, the standard for Wikipedia inclusion should be raised for all other Wikipedia articles, not lowered for this particular article. I think this is a very valiant position, nevertheless it is not the position Wikipedia adopts. I am sure that if we adopted this position, Wikipedia would be of a higher standard still, but it would probably also not contain very many articles.

At any rate, in the view of professor Sotirović's book, I don't think there can be any serious objections to this quotation being included as a credible position of a part of the academic community. Since I have not seen any other academic publications on the question, it appears to be the only credible position of the academic community. However, I would welcome you providing alternative citations.

In any event, I think we need to include the quotation, but of course if credible sources exist disputing its authenticity, then we can also provide a statement to the effect that its authenticity is disputed.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 17:48, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

Ne glede na tvoje mnenje je Reporter še vedno izrazito desničarski pamflet (daleč bolj kot sta levičarska Dnevnik in Delo) in je velika večina ostalega kar si navedel tudi izpod vsakega standarda referenciranja v Wikipediji (pisma bralcev, kolumne ipd.). Zato moj komentar o plevelu, ki je definitivno na mestu. In zato je tudi neokusno, da ponosno razlagaš, kako višaš standarde, ker jih ne. Celo Sotirovićev članek, za katerega sem rekel, da je še najboljši od vseh kar si jih navedel, resnemu zgodovinarju ne more biti v čast, ker je že po užaljenem tonu očitno, da njegov motiv ni objektivno predstavljanje dejstev, ampak kontriranje "uradnim" zgodovinarjem.

Kar se nepotrebnosti konteksta tiče, se ne strinjam, kar sem že razložil v svojem prvem komentarju. Kontekst je nujen, sicer citat nima nobene vrednosti in ne bo niti malo prispeval h uravnoteženosti članka. Pa prosim prihrani nam svoje ugibanje o tem kaj je komu "neprijetna resnica", ker samo zapravljaš čas. — Yerpo ^Ha? 21:19, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

I don't think your statements that you stand by your statement calling the sources I have provided "weeds" or your calling my arguments "in bad taste", "below any kind of standard of Wikipedia", your accusing me of "wasting time" are appropriate, nor are the deliberate insults and the hostile tone of your reply. In my opinion, you have provided no evidence at all for your position, no arguments, and the kind of language present in your latest contribution does not merit a reply. You have entirely evaded commenting on Sotirović's academic book, published by Lithuanian University, which in my view is an entirely unrebuttable source, which leads me to believe you are aware that you are unable to rebut it. I will therefore reinstate the quotation, relying on Sotirović's book as its reliable source. Naturally, if you are able to provide any reliable sources of your own backing your position, and change your tone of debate to a more appropriate one, I would be more than happy to submit to superior intellectual arguments and solid evidence. Thank you.

Anti.udbas (pogovor) 21:35, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

Mi je zelo žal, ampak ti si tisti, ki je začel z neokusnim pokroviteljskim tonom, kar nadaljuješ tudi s tem komentarjem. Dejstvo: velika večina tega kar si navedel, je "opinion piece". Lahko pogledaš v smernicah o preverljivosti, kdaj so taki viri primerni (namig: ne prevečkrat). Sotirovićeve knjige ne bom komentiral, ker je nimam možnosti pregledati, in bom počakal, da jo kdo drug. Še vedno pa ostaja moj argument o kontekstu, ki si ga ignoriral ti. — Yerpo ^Ha? 21:48, 3. junij 2013 (CEST)

Zdaj je pač nastopil trenutek, kjer se moramo držati pravil. Zato naj ostane citat v geslu, sem pa dodal manjši dodatek. Na pogovorni strani pa dodajam še tole: knjigo V. Sotirovića (dostopna na http://anti-titologija.webs.com/) je sicer izdala akademska založba, tako da formalno ustreza vsem kriterijem, seveda pa je povsem jasno, da gre v resnici za polemični pamflet. To me ne preseneča, ker sem Sotirovića že kdaj prej bral in mi je jasno, da v resnici ni zgodovinar, ampak le v zgodovinarja zakamufliran srbski nacionalist. Zato ne bom niti malo presenečen, če se bo izkazalo, da je ta citat ponaredek. --IP 213 (pogovor) 10:53, 4. junij 2013 (CEST)

Še to: da o Sotiroviću ne govorim na pamet, se lahko vsakdo prepriča z ogledom spletne strani njegovega "antropološkega" projekta: http://bogihrvati.webs.com/. To seveda ni niti antropologija, niti zgodovina, ampak navadna nacionalistična propaganda najslabše vrste. Ljudem, ki skupaj spravijo kaj takega, seveda ne moremo zaupati, tudi če imajo profesorski naslov in učijo na univerzi. Ampak držimo se pravil in počakajmo, da se tega problema loti kak resen zgodovinar! --IP 213 (pogovor) 11:04, 4. junij 2013 (CEST)

Pri nas se nekaj v Posavskem obzorniku bralci v pismih na veliko "prepričujejo" glede Pijadejevega citata. Eden je ošvrknil Wikipedijo, saj naj bi ohranila neresničen citat pod pretvezo, da gre za v virih preverljiv govor. Sicer pa da niti ni logičen za osebo, kakršna je bil Pijade. Glede na IP-jeve besede v zadnjih dveh odstavkih bi bilo res možno, da je citat lažen (vsega zgoraj žal nisem bral)? --Janezdrilc (pogovor) 18:33, 30. januar 2014 (CET)

Gotovo je možno, da je lažen, osebno menim, da je to celo zelo verjetno - enako kot pri primeru Borisa Kidriča in še kakšnem "slučajno odkritem" arhivskem dokumentu v zadnjih letih. Ampak boljše ideje od IP-jeve rešitve nimam. — Yerpo ^Ha? 19:49, 30. januar 2014 (CET)

Na (COBISS) piše, da je avtor knjigo izdal v samozaložbi, ne v akademski založbi. Meni se zdi vse skupaj preveč sumljivo. Jaz bi konkretni navedek raje izbrisal. --Janezdrilc (pogovor) 21:19, 30. januar 2014 (CET)

Imaš prav: sem pogledal še enkrat, ne vem, kako tega nisem opazil že prej, Sotirovićeva knjiga je samizdat, ki ga je le natisnila (ne pa založila, izdala) tiskarna omenjene litvanske univerzitetne založbe. Torej velja, da dokument ni bil ustrezno objavljen in ga moramo črtati. vemo pa tudi, da nas je anti.udbaš vlekel za nos! --IP 213 (pogovor) 21:32, 30. januar 2014 (CET)