Talk:Gideon Greif

Addition from PRESS NOW EUROPE

PRESS NOW EUROPE - the content you are adding to the lead is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article - you should insert it somewhere else, and then perhaps mention it briefly in the lead.

Also, you are using a Wikipedia page as a citation - that is not allowed, see WP:RS and WP:UGC.

Finally, please familiarise yourself with the WP:BRD cycle - you are required to discuss changes after being reverted, not simply reinstate your change. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the 'controversies' section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per Aquillion, a RfC isn't needed here. I'm going to restore the section, if anyone has objections to it then raise them in a new section and we can go from there. Pahunkat (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the "Controversies" section be removed from the article (see history)? Opening per WP:BRD, whilst it is sourced an IP editor has pointed out it was added by a sockpuppet so I won't revert further. Pahunkat (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC on this without observing WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The party that added the info is blocked for socking, the IP that removed it is also blocked for making personal attacks (all the revdel'd edit summaries are examples). An ANI thread was opened, and they seem pretty happy just to let a RfC play out. Pahunkat (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule against restoring things added by a ban-evading editor; in fact, it is specifically permitted, though of course you assume responsibility for it when you do so. See WP:BLOCKEVADE - a block-evading editor's edits can be removed by anyone without giving any further reason, but they can also be restored by anyone who thinks they were an improvement, and after that they're treated as normal edits by the editor who restored them. You have to be somewhat cautious to make sure you're not acting as a meatpuppet of the blocked editor (eg. one person restoring every single controversial edit they made across multiple topic areas would raise eyebrows), but restoring one edit that you think is good is fine and doesn't require an RFC (though the fact that people object to the section mean it would probably end up there eventually either way.) Beyond that, it's hard to run an RFC with no prior discussion because editors have no context for why it would be restored or left out - running an RFC first allows people to put their arguments together and perhaps agree on possible compromises or rewrites that the RFC can present. I suggest ending this RFC for now, discussing a bit to determine what the objections are to the section and if they can be addressed, then running an RFC if you can't reach a consensus based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know - I'll close this then. Pahunkat (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did not see this section, sorry. I removed and made tweaks per WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:NPOV. Most of the material was written (with biased wording) by a banned sock [1]. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• I reverted on the page twice as calling someone a "holocaust denier" is inflammatory and fails NPOV and BLP without proper inline citations. Not sure what is going on, but that is all I have to say. Steve M (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 2021

Moved from User talk:Ahmetlii

 – I don't have much to add here, other than I think a discussion is worth having given the content in question was added by a sock, as well as the obvious BLP concerns. Sro23 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned of your wanton abuse of authority to mislabel the information I provided to a wikipedia page. You are everything that is wrong with this site and the reason why I will not be making any future financial contributions. You are encouraging revisionsm and neo-facism. Don't pretend that you are an expert when you are ironically dismissing an internationally renowned expert who has dedicated their entire life to such a topic. Mkat29 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC) mkat29 (Mkat29 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC))mkat29

Mkat29, I guess that you wanted to talk about me due to the edits on Gideon Greif. Let me explain my reasons and notes completely:

First of all, I'm not a neo-fascist nor a revisionist. Again, I'm not an expert nor an user who has special rights neither a representative of WMF, so I don't care whether you donated or not. I'm a editor, and try to not making personal attacks with saying "you're neo-Nazi" without any evidence. Please see WP:NPA.

Second, the reason for reverting your edits was removing the contents and references, and then you didn't provide any discussion or source for it. Please see WP:V.

I also guessed that you probably complained because I said WP:FRINGE. However, I accept the fact about Holocaust and condemn Nazis. That's not the problem. The problem was that you said that the person said "the casualties was more than 700 or 800 thousand" and you didn't cite any sources for it. And therefore, I couldn't verify the claim (due to the fact that I'm not an expert), and I thought that this is against WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. (and notice that the rules on BLPs are so strict)

I tried to explain my reasons as much as I could tell. If you have any questions, you're welcome to ask, however, try not to make personal attacks. Thank you so much. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I know you are not an expert. I am upset because I am aware that there are plenty of neo-Ustase people out there who deliberately spread misinformation on wikipedia. They are actively trying to discredit Dr. Greif's work because they are ultranationalists. This is why I am in firm support of locking Gideon Greif's page once we get this matter sorted out. I actually did cite a source and I will cite it here again at the end. The new death toll was discovered by Holocaust expert Gideon Greif. It was erroneously cited on wikipedia as "outdated" when in fact the finding is based on very recent findings from 2019. There is also misinformation on wikipedia saying that Dr. Greif is not well informed on the topic when in fact he is the foremost expert on the topic. No one is more qualified to speak on the matter. Dr. Greif points out that the death toll includes 800 000 Serbs and 40 000 Jews. Unfortunately he doesn't provide a new death toll for the Romas. The old death toll was 40 000 for this group. When anti-fascists are factored into the count it easily reached 1, 000 000. Greif acknowledges that there was still many mass graves that have yet to be exhumed. Additionally, the death toll does not factor in those who were burned in Picilli's furnace, turned into soap etc. Dr. Greif has spent 30 years on Yad Veshem, the world's leading authority for Holocaust information. He spent four years of his life studying the Serbian genocide and came to the conclusion that the death toll is much higher than perviously thought this is due in part to many reason's including but not limited to Tito's denial of the genocide in favour or "brotherhood" and "unity." Here is the source which discusses Greif's book "Jasenovac: Aushwitz of the Balkans" which I am in possession of. Lastly there was incorrect information on Greif's page saying that the UN was distancing himself from his work when it in fact was the opposite. The UN hosted his exhibition "Jasenovac- the Right to Remembrance" was held at the UN headquarters in NY on January 26, 2018. You need to understand the impact and gravity of spreading misinformation about genocides whether deliberately or through negligence.

Death toll of the Serbian Genocide of WWII which will need to be added to that webpage.

Gideon Greif: More than 800 000 (Gideon Greif, Jasenovac: Aushwitz of the Balkans, 2019 p.355.)

Historian Menachem Shelah: at least 500 000 (Menachem, Shelah (ed.), History of the Holocaust- Yugoslavia, [Hebrew], Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 1990.

Hermann Neubacher (special envoy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich to Yugoslavia): more than 750 000 (Sonderaftrag Sudost 1940-1945, 1957, p31.)

Vladimir Dedijer: 600 000-700 000 (Vladimir Dedijer, Vatikan i Jasenovac, 1987, p.644.)

Thank you.

Mkat29 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)https://www.b92.net/eng/news/region.php?yyyy=2019&mm=02&dd=01&nav_id=106124

Mkat29, you might wish to move this discussion to the talk page, and make edits. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mkat29 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)mkat29

• Hey Mkat29, thanks for the input. Which changes are you proposing? If you need any help, you can write to me at my TP. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose several changes. Here are the changes I propose for Gideon Greif's page.

Adding this segment to his introduction/summary. "Dr. Greif has spent four years of his life examining every single known archive on the topic of the Serbian Genocide making him one of the world's leading experts on it. In 2018, he published "Jasenovac: Aushwitz of the Balkans." Source: https://www.b92.net/eng/news/region.php?yyyy=2019&mm=02&dd=01&nav_id=106124

I propose removing the following from Dr. Greif's page:

From "Special Projects:" "while the UN distanced itself from the Project." This is a contradictory and frankly idiotic statement as the UN hosted Dr. Greif's exhibition in January 2018. The agenda of this statement is to add an unfounded claim to discredit Greif.

Adding "Jasenovac: Aushwitz of the Balkans" in his notable works section.

Removing "which is a controversial outdated estimation." This is factually incorrect. Dr. Greif's findings were in fact very recent from 2018- the opposite of what "outdated" means. Furthermore this figure is only controversial for ultranationalist Croats who continually deny or revise death toll numbers with outdated or controversial sources. Dr. Greif is a world renowned Holocaust expert who has spent 30 years with Yad Vashem. He is an authority on the topic.

Lastly, I propose the following changes for the page: "Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia"

Renaming the page to the much simpler "Serbian Genocide" or "Balkan Holocaust." I do not recommend renaming it "Jasenovac" even though it is used by Dr. Greif. I find it to be far too limiting. While Jasenovac was a mega camp where hundreds of thousands were brutally murdered; there were over 30 concentration camps throughout the ISC (Independent State of Croatia.) In addition to frequent massacres throughout the ISC. All of which did not happen in the Jasenovac complex.

Adding in Dr. Greif's death toll in the main area in the blue box which should state: "More than 800 000" or "800 000 to over 1 million" I have already provided the source for this above in the earlier section.

I strongly recommend locking Dr. Gideon Greif's page to the highest possible lock as he has been harassed by ultranationalist Croats who aim to discredit him and his work (such as Ina Vukic for example.) I don't want to have to constantly have this discussion for all eternity by arguing my points when they can easily access it and change his information for their own neo-Ustase/ultranationalist agenda.

Thank you

(@Sadko:)

Mkat29 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)mkat29

It all makes sense. Why don't you do it yourself? If you are new to Wikipedia, you can read more about guidelines and rules here. Even if you make mistakes, get reverted or anything like that, it's no big deal, we all learn as we go, so to say. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a historian not a coder. I have provided you the info. You can do with it what you wish. You can flush it down the toilet if you want. I will no longer be making any more donations to this site. No one cares about the truth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkat29 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate editing

Well-sourced edits related to controversies surrounding this individual are being removed and at best replaced with non-sourced content in order to misrepresent the controversies surrounding Greif's denial of the Srebrenica genocide and the inflation of victims at Jasenovac. This is problematic as it results in an inaccurate and one-sided Wikipedia entry. Roansteam (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, Juditwh345 seems as a new one-purpose and promotion account.--93.137.188.158 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, but having said that, a fair amount of this article was written in a very un-neutral fashion. We document controversy, not take sides in it or judge which side was 'right'. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User 46.239.6.162 has been editing the article in a very biased manner - sources are misrepresented, quotes edited so that it is different than the source material. Very problematic as readers may not check sources to see whether it is correctly quoted - especially when it comes to direct quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roansteam (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)