Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since it's been two months, I thought I'd lift the protection. However, any attempt to blindly revert back to, I guess, this version are going to lead to another protection request (or if not, I'll do it myself). What is required is asked above and is not in my opinion particularly difficult. If you have lyrics with a

So, how come that the same reference (Gorin, Julia (2007-06-23). "Nazis Rock on in Croatia". The Centre for Peace in the Balkans. http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php? index=article&articleid=14396.) is reliable in the introductory part of this article and not reliable later as source of the lyrics translation?

As to Index - a Croatian news Internet tabloid, which exists more than 8 years - and which recorded the lyrics - its competitor Novi list, Rijeka Croatia says (at http://www.index.hr/index/default.aspx?id=4)

"Revolucionarni news servis, jedinstven u Hrvatskoj i ovom dijelu svijeta" - Novi list, travanj 2003

Translation - Revolutionary news service, unique in Croatia and in this part of the World Novi list April 2003

Where and when this news tabloid was marked as unreliable source and who did it? Reading the history of the article changes, I found

1. (cur) (prev) 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 00:23, 17 September 2008 Don Luca Brazzi (talk | contribs) (2,883 bytes) (Why to remove lirics?) (undo)

So, the person (Ricky81682) who claims to be a law student shall be warned that hate crime cannot be copyrighted? After that she invented another 'problem'

1. (cur) (prev) 03:13, 11 November 2008 I am Mario (talk | contribs) (4,268 bytes) (Undid revision 249814639 The source of original is given, has nothing to do with biography of a living person - Thompson's concerts were cancelled in Netherlands and Germany - which is tru) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 09:26, 5 November 2008 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) (2,755 bytes) (look I don't care enough; rm unsourced lyrics and unsourced translation for a very controversial song where there is a serious possibility of a WP:BLP violation) (undo)

At the end - called upon un-relaibility of something that is already referenced in the same article?!

Well, I dared to challenge this notable and her Wikipedia status and put back the lyrics - in this article.--69.72.62.167 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure an internet news tabloid is reliable enough. Second, The Centre for Peace seems to have a clear bias. Third, this seems to violate the Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry policies against full lyrics. The fact that someone has posted it on the internet doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've created account. :) Now, Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry has 'To avoid' paragraph - which is met by the existing text. The next requirement from Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry is to not include overly-long lyrics. So, please, avoid inventing further obstacles calling upon when removing the lylics from this article.--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn to

assume good faith. Do not call mere disagreements obstacles. You can see above in the third opinion that this exactly same concern was addressed by someone else. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith that a random IP address managed to find this article, reverted it back to a version that has been edit warred heavily leading to a number of protections and blocks, and now claims consensus after everyone else has been run off. Consensus means actual discussion and review, not a statement by yourself for others to "dare to challenge" you. The style guidelines says to keep it within the fair use provisions, and I'm really not sure that just listening the lyrics to a song with a disputed copyright is the way we should be going. However, I'm going to move on if there doesn't seem to be any point in furthering discussion. Compromise seems impossible at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, I avdise you to learn a very basic fact about copyright - which was already explained to you by other person: writing a hate crime lyrics, distributing it, or performing it by singining, reciting, etc. - cannot be protected by law i.e. a copyright can't be established upon such activities in any civilized country in the World. If you have a proof of opposite for this case - please, provide it here. In that case I'll mark it as a nonsense and void by the international law and the U.S. law.--Bedford, PA (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Under every circumstance these lyrics are under copyright. If there is an exception, please provide proof of such an provision. Just as an example, Mein Kampf is still under copyright. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Is it possible to stop the 'experts' like the one above? This person does not understand the very basic idea of law. By the way - Mein Kampf is not copyrighted at all! If you Garion96 know that this lyrics is copyrighted - name the copryight holder!--Bedford, PA (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Really? This article (from "Time") claims "...Mein Kampf's copyright, held by the state of Bavaria, will expire in 2015". Cheers,
  propaganda_deeds 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had this argument before numerous times. See above. I'm moving for a request for comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• To this 'Cheers' - you shall learn more about Mein Kampf and the rights transferred to the Bavaria state. State Bavaria never excerised these rights and any publisher worldwide - under some academic and scholastic limitations - is free to publish Mein Kampf.--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• So when you said "Mein Kampf is not copyrighted at all!" you really meant "Mein Kampf is copyrighted but you all should learn more about copyright so you can second-guess what I'm trying to say"? Sorry, but after your unambiguous claim that Mein Kampf isn't copyrighted you've lost all credibility in my mind. Cheers,
  propaganda_deeds 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Universal Copyright Convention, with Appendix Declaration relating to Articles XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1952 [1]

From the above I've copied just the first article which helps us to discriminate crime and art Article I

Each Contracting State undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective, protection of the rights of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cinematographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculpture.

So protection of the rights (not protection of crime) is ... of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cinematographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculpture. The misery of Wikipedia is just here - the Jasenovac i ... is literary or artistic work or a crime - may I ask these administrators and third opinion providers??? Shame on you all!--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is stricter than actual copyright law. That's the main reason why most people are simply ignoring your argument. It's irrelevant, to be blunt. We care about policy here but general copyright law. Second, you can continue to argue that your reading of the copyright laws should supersede everyone else's but policy has been discussed here and you are start another discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions I guess if you want. There's probably even a few other places that could be applicable if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are simply trying to deduct from these statements your own opinion. Please state specifically where it says that hate crime is not protected by copyright. As mentioned above, which you denied first but then acknowledged, Mein Kampf is under copyright. I would consider that one to fall under hate crime..... Garion96 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, see User:Brzica milos etc and User:I am Mario above for that argument. We went through this in November. Both of whom by the way have been blocked indefinitely for their games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Those who are in favour of (non-existent) copyright shall provide a minimum - who is author or proprietor of this 'lyrics' and in which country this copyright is in force.

About Hitler's Mein Kampf - here the copyright hold by Bavaria state - has different and very specific meaning:

a) Every academic institution or publisher is free to publish Mein Kampf - for only scholastic and educational purposes

b) For all other (primarily commercial purposes) - it is forbidden explicitly or implicitly in all countries. More light can be gotten from Hitler's Mein Kampf in Czech: [2]

This information seems to have been incorrect. The German authorities have pointed out that the state of Bavaria apparently holds the copyright for Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf for all countries of the world except the United Kingdom and the United States and it has recently used these rights to prevent publication of the work in several countries. Bavaria has managed to prevent the publication of Mein Kampf in Sweden, in Croatia and in Turkey. In some cases, according to information from the Bavarian Finance Ministry, the Bavarian authorities have forced the publisher to pulp the printed book.

To Bedford, PA - Wikipedia is not a place for an academic dialog. Wikipedia puts at the same level a university professor and a fifth-grader. --138.88.15.10 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is assumed. You need to verify that it's gone. That's policy, not people's various theories of copyright law. If you want to be insulting as well, that's fine but it's not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• A banned user's comment was removed, please refer to 138.88.212.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Q: Is it appropriate to include the complete lyrics (and translation) as sourced?

At best, we are talking about a song from WWII era, which would still be under US copyright law. I'm not sure about the other theories about copyright, but I think the presumption should be that it is copyrighted. At the same time, our sources consist of an internet tabloid for the Croatian version and The Centre for Peace, which has a clear bias, for the English version. Since there are allegations that a living person, namely the band Thompson (band), may have sang a version of said song, I do not find it appropriate to include the full lyrics (of I'm guessing the same version as suggested) when a textual description that the song "expressed nostalgia for those two infamous Croatian concentration camps in which at least 90,000 innocent Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and anti-fascist Croatians were murdered by the Ustashe with nary a Nazi in sight" is there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from

This flag once was red

I have several points:

• On free/fair use:
  • Apparently "hate crimes can not be copyrighted". Which countries does this apply to? How is a text determined to be a hate crime? When and how was this particular song found to be a hate crime? (To my mind it's obvious that this song is deeply unpleasant, but my opinion holds little importance in a court, and doesn't serve to make something a hate crime).
  • The reference for the English translation states that it contains copyright material included "for fair use only". On the English Wikipedia "Fair use" is generally deprecated in favour of "free" since fair use is a concept that doesn't exist in some jurisdictions (many non-English Wikipedias, for example, don't permit fair use at all). Is it possible to clarify which parts of the referenced article are used under "fair use"? I would assume that the referenced article's author(s) hold the copyright to the main of the article, and that the copyright/fair use warning refers to the quoted lyrics, but I could be missing something.
• On the article in general:
  • What reason is there to include the full set of lyrics? What benefit does the article gain by having two full sets of lyrics (Croatian and English) beneath a stub-length commentary? This seems to me to be unbalanced - the commentary needs to be expanded significantly to balance it.
  • Why can't the lyrics be posted to WikiSource and linked from the article?
  • Why this set of lyrics, and not others? What is this set of lyrics - is it the original, or the Thompson version, or some as yet unknown version? The English lyrics are apparently the Thompson version - are the Croatian lyrics also the Thompson version? Why should the Thompson version be chosen instead of the original (or excerpts from both)?

There would seem to be so many better ways of treating this song instead of simply copying two full sets of lyrics into the article. When I provided a

Well, to be accurate, the link provided for the English translation claims that was the one supposedly sung by Thompson. That doesn't mean those are the general lyrics (since most sources describe it as "modified" version of the song). My concern is that the Centre for Peace in the Balkans is not a neutral source and without better verification, I wouldn't include it. I'm just glad we've moved past the YouTube links for the source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted, and corrected above. Thanks!

propaganda_deeds 10:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what the point of this RfC is, as the issue is clear- the lyrics are copyrighted, and so should be removed. If you're convinced that they are public domain, provide some evidence. If you don't have any evidence, don't expect us to listen. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See below. I just want to established that a discussion has been made because once most of the editors here leave, a new series of people should be back arguing the same thing. Either we go permanent protection or we hash it out and leave it be. Else, we go with the "it's been discussed, don't rehash it or it's basically vandalism" strategy until they give up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• [posting by banned user removed, see 138.88.212.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As noted above, the issue is Wikipedia policy, not what "your American lawyer friend" thinks is correct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the lyrics to prove that they are public domain. Until you can do that, they will stay out. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My answers

• To Garion96: So, I have to give a proof that the law (copyright) does not protect a (hate) crime???. Mein Kampf is under copyright??? It is a proof that a hate crime text is copyrighted??? No, it is under a legal custody (of evil) of the Bavarian state.
• To Milburn: You already legalized this hate crime act and asking me to confirm its legal status???
• To Ricky: You claimed somewhere to be a law school student? Wikipedia rules are overriding the law???
• To all: Why not to stage singing this 'beautiful song' in front of a sinagoge in your country? After, some people might help you to understand what is a hate crime.--Bedford, PA (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't have an actual point other than ignoring what everyone is saying and being insulting, we are just going to move on without you. And then the next person who will follow in a few days with the same arguments are going to get the same result. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO,it would be good to write that the lyrics include,but are not limited,to some of the most known verses ( the most known version of the song is probably the one that aired in Latinica),as there is no "right version" of the song,and the lyrics vary at different performances of the song,and some have been made in WW2,while the others were made in more recent times.If the lyrics aren't needed for the article,they can be included at Wikisource.I should also note that comparing this with Mein Kampf is silly,because we know who is the author of Mein Kampf,but the author(s) of this song is anonymous,and there are also articles about other Croatian songs that don't have a known author,but have also been sung by modern singers,such as the traditional patriotic songMarjane,Marjane,which has got several versions,from different political POVs,or Evo zore,evo dana,a nationalist war song that celebrates the Ustaše commanders Jure Francetić and Rafael Boban,and has got different versions too,but it doesnt change so much like Jasenovac.The Great Duck (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How the world honours this non-existent copyright is visible here [3] So, the performer is banned from entering Switzerland for a period of three years!

Croatian singer banned from Switzerland

A Croatian singer has been forbidden from entering Switzerland, based on information from Switzerland’s intelligence service.

Marko Perkovic, who’s described as a nationalist singer, was due to appear at a concert in Kriens in the canton of Lucerne this coming Saturday. The concert has now been cancelled.

The Federal Office of Police says that its decision not to allow Mr Perkovic in the country was based on recent information from the Directorate for Analysis and Prevention, which looks after internal security.

Two of his concerts were cancelled in the cantons of Zurich and Argau last year.

and here, too [4]

Croatia sends diplomatic note to Switzerland over singer Thompson

Croatian Times

The Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration has protested the Swiss Confederation Federal Office of Police’s decision to ban a Croatian rock singer.

The ministry sent a diplomatic note to Swiss Ambassador to Croatia Erich Hermann protesting the three-year ban on Marko Perkovic Thompson’s entry into Switzerland.

The note expresses the conviction that the arguments put forth by the Croatian side will be enough to convince relevant Swiss authorities to reassess and rescind the decision to ban Thompson from entering Switzerland.

Ministry spokesman Mario Dragun said: "The note expresses concern over the decision due to the unfounded reasons the relevant Swiss bodies stated for reaching it – terrorist threats, violent extremism, forbidden secret services and organized crime, as well as acts or intents that seriously endanger Switzerland’s relations with other countries or are directed at disrupting the state system."

The note also provides reasons for lifting the ban, including that not one other country has charged Thompson with or penalised him for any acts mentioned by the Swiss bodies.

Thompson used to get criticised by the media and some politicians for sending alleged right-wing messages. He constantly dismissed such allegations by saying he just loved his homeland.

He learned about the Swiss ban before his scheduled concert at Froschkönig night club in Lucerne this week.

--138.88.255.130 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what does either article have to do with you reinserting the lyrics? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have gotten an example what a civilized country does if facing with the 'copyright' owner and his 'rights'. Moreover, you and your friends got correct explanation about the 'lyrics': civilized countries do not protect a crime by their laws (evidence given: Switzerland, Netherlands); if claiming existence of a copyright, the evidence must be given; even if 'lyrics' were copyrighted in some country (say, Croatia, North Korea, Iran) the US Code - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 allows quoting this 'lyrics' in full; Wikipedia is a US Law subject. You shall contact the Wikipedia's Law Department that might help you to make clear distinction between the rights and the crime.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry user:138.88.255.130, you are incorrect. Croatia is a member of a number of international copyright treaties such as

Brussels Convention and the Geneva Phonograms Convention

. In short this means that anything that is copyrighted in Croatia is legally copyrighted by default in almost every other country in the world. I'm not sure about any other contry in the world, but works created illegally are still afforded protection under US copyright law. Since these servers are hosted in the United States, it's the United States' laws that matter here.

Aside from the issue of copyright protection, Wikipedia just doesn't usualy host song lyrics. See

WRE) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll start working on the Russian, French, Spanish, and Italian language versions where this censorship is ineffective.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So enforcing standards is censorship? Great. Copyright violations are not acceptable on any language version of wikipedia. -----

WRE) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"I am not the author of these songs, but I have been singing them, which is well known to all of us, during a certain period everywhere in Croatian squares and in halls without hiding, therefore this makes their sensational discovery ridiculous to say the least." [1]

Partizanpack (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Your source is in Croatian (I think), so I can not verify the content you would like to add, but, in general, alternating statements which contradict one another are not encyclopedic. Rather than trying to prove one side or the other is correct, a good editor will present, in a neutral fashion, that a disagreement exists. The current article seems to do that.

It has more information about the holocaust than about the song itself. Then,brave admins locked this article, so that no one actually informed about this song or Marko Perkovic could edit it. And I congratulate user Celestra. Not only that you obviously never visited Croatia, you also don't know a word of Croatian, so you automatically gave yourself right to throw away any source given by Partizanpack. You cannot add the sources because, obviously they contradict everything you heard from your friends And you have more right to edit this article than any informed person who actually knows something about Marko Perkovic? Thank you for reminding me, why wikipedia is never recognized as reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.248.188 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)