Talk:Drvar uprising/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This article is written with a strong one-sided POV. It needs to be balanced with contrary views of the uprising, including the involvement of the communist-led Partisans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very good point. I did not know that OZNA was established in Drvar. Establishing OZNA in Drvar included the involvement of the comunist-led Partisans. Having the scale of mass atrocities committed by OZNA it is very important information which was missing in the article. Issue resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, ty Antidiskriminator. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

I agree, article seems POV in its wording. Doesn’t use Wiki Voice but colorful writing. As well as self drawn conclusions or rationalizations. OyMosby (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that OZNA was formed in Drvar is irrelevant as to whether this article is written with a strong POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: In three years of editing of wikipedia OyMosby (who learned the basics of wikipedia by lurking) and about 500 of their edits, more than 50% of the edits are on the same pages as Peacemaker67, about half with less than 24 hours difference.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock-puppetry, Antidiskriminator? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this what the interrogation was about on my talk page, Antidiskriminator? I’ve had people stalk my edit history before but this is really something else...OyMosby (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

He is 100% free to question anything, after all, this is the free encyclopedia. I would kindly suggest that all parties involved talk about this question on someplace else, per WP:Wikipedia is not a forum. Also, I would like to see which POV issues do we have now? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

And am I not free to do the same? I was initially called out personally. Interesting stance. If you actually believe this is a free encyclopedia you would have no issue with me questioning him. However it is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the article. Despite it being a free encyclopedia, there are rules here as I am sure you are aware of. OyMosby (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My original point about POV has not been addressed at all. Almost all the sources used have a pro-Chetnik POV, there are virtually no Western sources at all, and few if any have a pro-Partisan POV. It is completely unbalanced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a vast generalisation. "The west is the best" narrative about sources had no basis in Wiki rules or guidlines. RS is RS, and I can see plenty used on this page. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources from the former Yugoslav countries are often biased (perhaps unconsciously in some cases) towards the interests of the author's ethnic group. This is as true of Croats and Slovenes as Serbs. Even the members of the Serbian Academy published highly Serb-chauvinist polemics prior to and during Yugoslav wars in particular, including the notorious Memorandum in 1986. This is less likely amongst Western authors, as they have less of an axe to grind. The lack of Western authors shows a perspective bias in selection of sources for the writing of the article. If you cannot see the obvious pro-Chetnik and anti-Partisan bias in this article as it stands, that says more about your perception than anything else. It desperately needs to be balanced with alternative views on the uprising. I will get around to it eventually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The only notorious thing is labelling Serbian or any other Balkan sources as second-class. People from this region are also often treated as second-class citizens, by various former colonial empires and their citizens. I can see a pattern there. Each source should be judged on its own merits. Stop bashing all members of SANU and the whole organisation, based on your feelings about the Memorandum; it was signed by ~5% of the academics and it was never the official document. Judging by Cohen's scribbles and several other sources - I seriously doubt that. My perspective is quite clear - adding the POV tag without a more detailed explanation is not good. Adding it only several hours after the other user created the article (which has been repeated on and on) seems to be a case of WP:HOUND. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not hound Antid, if anything, it is he who has hounded me, at one point to the extent that he was TBANed. His edits often demonstrate a partisan and POV perspective and he sometimes disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. I often feel the need to fix the POV (as I did with June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina which I rescued from a POV article to get it to FA) or tag it. That is not hounding, that is trying to ensure Wikipedia remains true to the NPOV policy. Good luck with trying to get me sanctioned for hounding him... People should not be reading this article without understanding how unbalanced it is. That is why it was tagged. The edits that have been made since it was created have done nothing to undermine the tag, which is entirely justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 you again refute yourself. You complain about the sources from the former Yugoslav countries used in this article. At the same time you brag about the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina you supposedly rescued from a POV article to get it to FA which you almost all based on sources written by Croatian author. This will be my last comment in this discussion. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is that in this article they are almost all Serb sources, and the article is written with a pro-Chetnik viewpoint. So, no balancing with other sources, even from other areas of Yugoslavia, or Partisan ones, let alone any Western sources. The uprising article I referred to uses a range of academic sources and is balanced. But, you're off again? Going so soon? Can I take it you won't be answering my question about your accusation of sockpuppetry above? What a surprise... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source

Milka Milovanović's book seems to be a memoir of people who were part of Đujić's coterie. I am not sure why Wikipedia would be relying on this essentially primary source as a source for this article. Can someone explain why this is being used? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is also very suspicious that it was rendered only in Cyrillic and not translated. If I was not assuming good faith, I might wonder if that was done to avoid attracting attention to the nature of the source... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is used for assertion which is not ideologically loaded. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to its reliability or whether it should be used. It is clearly a collection of primary sources and they should only be used very carefully. Why did you only render title in Cyrillic when this is the English Wikipedia? I am long past AGF with you, given your long history of POV editing. I don't think that in a controversial article such usage is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

POV

This article is written with a strong one-sided POV. It needs to be balanced with contrary views of the uprising, including the involvement of the communist-led Partisans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very good point. I did not know that OZNA was established in Drvar. Establishing OZNA in Drvar included the involvement of the comunist-led Partisans. Having the scale of mass atrocities committed by OZNA it is very important information which was missing in the article. Issue resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, ty Antidiskriminator. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

I agree, article seems POV in its wording. Doesn’t use Wiki Voice but colorful writing. As well as self drawn conclusions or rationalizations. OyMosby (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that OZNA was formed in Drvar is irrelevant as to whether this article is written with a strong POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: In three years of editing of wikipedia OyMosby (who learned the basics of wikipedia by lurking) and about 500 of their edits, more than 50% of the edits are on the same pages as Peacemaker67, about half with less than 24 hours difference.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock-puppetry, Antidiskriminator? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this what the interrogation was about on my talk page, Antidiskriminator? I’ve had people stalk my edit history before but this is really something else...OyMosby (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

He is 100% free to question anything, after all, this is the free encyclopedia. I would kindly suggest that all parties involved talk about this question on someplace else, per WP:Wikipedia is not a forum. Also, I would like to see which POV issues do we have now? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

And am I not free to do the same? I was initially called out personally. Interesting stance. If you actually believe this is a free encyclopedia you would have no issue with me questioning him. However it is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the article. Despite it being a free encyclopedia, there are rules here as I am sure you are aware of. OyMosby (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My original point about POV has not been addressed at all. Almost all the sources used have a pro-Chetnik POV, there are virtually no Western sources at all, and few if any have a pro-Partisan POV. It is completely unbalanced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a vast generalisation. "The west is the best" narrative about sources had no basis in Wiki rules or guidlines. RS is RS, and I can see plenty used on this page. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources from the former Yugoslav countries are often biased (perhaps unconsciously in some cases) towards the interests of the author's ethnic group. This is as true of Croats and Slovenes as Serbs. Even the members of the Serbian Academy published highly Serb-chauvinist polemics prior to and during Yugoslav wars in particular, including the notorious Memorandum in 1986. This is less likely amongst Western authors, as they have less of an axe to grind. The lack of Western authors shows a perspective bias in selection of sources for the writing of the article. If you cannot see the obvious pro-Chetnik and anti-Partisan bias in this article as it stands, that says more about your perception than anything else. It desperately needs to be balanced with alternative views on the uprising. I will get around to it eventually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The only notorious thing is labelling Serbian or any other Balkan sources as second-class. People from this region are also often treated as second-class citizens, by various former colonial empires and their citizens. I can see a pattern there. Each source should be judged on its own merits. Stop bashing all members of SANU and the whole organisation, based on your feelings about the Memorandum; it was signed by ~5% of the academics and it was never the official document. Judging by Cohen's scribbles and several other sources - I seriously doubt that. My perspective is quite clear - adding the POV tag without a more detailed explanation is not good. Adding it only several hours after the other user created the article (which has been repeated on and on) seems to be a case of WP:HOUND. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not hound Antid, if anything, it is he who has hounded me, at one point to the extent that he was TBANed. His edits often demonstrate a partisan and POV perspective and he sometimes disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. I often feel the need to fix the POV (as I did with June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina which I rescued from a POV article to get it to FA) or tag it. That is not hounding, that is trying to ensure Wikipedia remains true to the NPOV policy. Good luck with trying to get me sanctioned for hounding him... People should not be reading this article without understanding how unbalanced it is. That is why it was tagged. The edits that have been made since it was created have done nothing to undermine the tag, which is entirely justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 you again refute yourself. You complain about the sources from the former Yugoslav countries used in this article. At the same time you brag about the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina you supposedly rescued from a POV article to get it to FA which you almost all based on sources written by Croatian author. This will be my last comment in this discussion. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is that in this article they are almost all Serb sources, and the article is written with a pro-Chetnik viewpoint. So, no balancing with other sources, even from other areas of Yugoslavia, or Partisan ones, let alone any Western sources. The uprising article I referred to uses a range of academic sources and is balanced. But, you're off again? Going so soon? Can I take it you won't be answering my question about your accusation of sockpuppetry above? What a surprise... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source

Milka Milovanović's book seems to be a memoir of people who were part of Đujić's coterie. I am not sure why Wikipedia would be relying on this essentially primary source as a source for this article. Can someone explain why this is being used? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is also very suspicious that it was rendered only in Cyrillic and not translated. If I was not assuming good faith, I might wonder if that was done to avoid attracting attention to the nature of the source... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is used for assertion which is not ideologically loaded. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to its reliability or whether it should be used. It is clearly a collection of primary sources and they should only be used very carefully. Why did you only render title in Cyrillic when this is the English Wikipedia? I am long past AGF with you, given your long history of POV editing. I don't think that in a controversial article such usage is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Differentiation between Bokan's 1972 works

Resolved

There are two different 1972 books by Bokan. I have changed the years to 1972a and 1972b to allow the cites to be identified. If Antidiskriminator could fix the cites so they point to the right source, that would be great. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox comanders

Let see who was really commanders

1. HQ of Guerilla Detachments for Bosanski Petrovac (as of 17 July 1941): commander Ljubo Babić, deputy commander Milutin Morača, political commissar Vaso Trikić, his deputy Milan Bursać Lukač 1967, p. 86
2. HQ of Guerilla Detachments for Drvar (as of 18 July 1941): commander Zdravko Čelar, deputy commander Vaso Kelečević and political commissar Ilija Došen Lukač 1967, p. 86
3. HQ of Gurilla Detachemnts for Glamoč (early August 1941): Dušan Jović, political commissar Miloš Polić

On 20th August, rebels were reorganized in Sloboda battalion with Milutin Morača as commander, Nikola Kotla as commissar and Slavko Rodić as operativni oficir. The battalion had 5 companies: Lukač 1967, p. 147

1. company - commander Mile Kecman, political commissar Ilija MaterićLukač 1967, p. 147
2. company - commander Vlado Morača, political commissar Rade Zorić Lukač 1967, p. 147
3. company - commander Dušan Rokvić, political commissar Ilija Došen Lukač 1967, p. 148
4. company - commander Mane Rokvić (yes, the Mane Rokvić), political commissar Simo Tadić and then Pero Morača (Milutin's brother) Lukač 1967, p. 148
5. company - commander Zdravko Čelar, political commissar Radivoj Rodić

So it is clear that Vlado Morača and Mane Rokvić acknowledged Milutin Morača as their superior commander. So, what is a good reason for including Mane Rokvić and Vlado Morača in infobox, and not including Milutin Morača, Zdravko Čelar and Slavko Rodić? -- Bojan  Talk  13:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And we have Italians as side that supported rebels?!!! Italians took Grahovo (9 September), Italians took Drvar (29 September), and they supposedly were on same side? Bulshit. -- Bojan  Talk  14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I advise you to read Wikipedia:Competence is required. The Communist political commisairs and Partisan companies were established only after the initial outbreak of the uprising.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, they were established before the uprising:

odred formiran je 22. jula u selu Kamenici (oko 50 pušaka i 1 puškomitraljez), od boraca iz sela: Kamenica, Vrtoče, Prnjavor, Trn jak i iz Drvara; komandant odreda — Jole Marić, a politički komesar — Nikola Kotle. Sledečih dana formirani su ostali odredi. Odred u Javorju (oko 60 pušaka i 1 puškomitraljez) sastavljen je od ljudi iz: Javorja, Lipovljana, Trninića Brega i Drvar-Sela; komandant odreda — Mile Kecman, zamenik — Slavko Rodić, a politički komesar — Obrad Banja c. Odred u Crvljivici (oko 80 pušaka i jedan puškomitraljez) formiran je od gerilskih grupa iz: Crvljivice, Zaglavice, Gruborskog Naslona, Podbrine, Podova, Zaselka, Pasjaka i Bastasa; komandant — Vlado Morača, a politički komesar — Miloš Bauk...

— Lukač 1967, p. 87

If coptence is required, then you are out of this. -- Bojan  Talk  19:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The earlier establishment of the units does not prove your point. The well cited text of the article explains this: " the communists also planned to organize an uprising, but their plan was to start an uprising in Bosnian Krajina on 1 August 1941. That is why Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia invited people to rebel only after the uprising has already been at an advanced stage, which was the fact which could not be concealed, but had to be reinterpreted to change the character of the uprising". The post war period official yugoslav historiography and authors who parrot it over emphasize the participation of communists in the uprisings, but there is a consensus of more recent historiography that it was not what really happened.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a consensus, but I'd like to see that demonstrated, especially with non pro-Chetnik/nationalist authors. This is just another POV aspect of the article as it stands, and further justification for the tag. Hoare has a different version of the uprising, which I will shortly begin to insert into the article, along with the information about its Partisan commanders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Milorad Ekmedžić perfectly summarize the issue in his work: Ekmečić, Milorad (2007). Dugo kretanje između klanja i oranja: Istorija Srba u Novom Veku 1492-1992. Zavod za udžbenike. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) page 438 and 439:"The burden was put on the historiography to the vulgar level with dilema who was first to spark the 1941 rebellion, communists or Serb nationalists. The truth is that none of them raised armed resistance, the armed resistance raised them." That is why this article does not give advantage to Partisans or to Chetniks and undelines in the first sentence of the forces section: "Initially, the uprising of Serbs had no ideological background because it was a struggle for physical survival, ..." There is an ocean of sources about communist and partisan leadership of the resistance (both in Yugoslav historiography and Western pro-Titioistic works that parroted it because Tito led the country which was essentially part of NATO structure) and also a lot of (some of them even worse than communist) pro-Chetnik sources. Using any of them to advance communist or monarchist POV would not be benefitial for this article. Any attempt to advance communist supreme command and leadership in the raising and initial phases of this uprising will be against NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We'll use what the reliable sources say, thanks, not your idea of what is and isn't POV (which clearly is highly skewed given your editing history). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer to Antidiskriminator: you don't know what are you talking:

• non-communist rebels led by Nikola Kecman killed Home Guard (domobran) mayor Konrad on July 26 near village PasjakLukač 1967, p. 93
• this unforeseen event forced rebels to raise uprising five days earlier
  • Crvljivica detachment (commander Vlado Morača, deputy commander Milan Bosnić (a communist), political commissar Miloš Bauk, his deputy Rade Zorić) attacked in same day ustashe and home guard units brought in order to retaliate against people in villages Crvljivica and Pasjak.Lukač 1967, p. 93 Crvljivica detachment was formed by communist, included many communists (party members and sympathizers), was subordinated to HQ for Grahovo, but for its commander was chosen Sargent of former Yugoslav Royal Army Vlado Morača as the best trained soldier. Same Vlado Morača would eventually abandon his former comrades and defect to Italians.
  • on meeting between HG for Grahovo and regional committee of CPY (Sreski komitet KPJ) between July 26 and July 27 it was decided that uprising has to begin immediately and messenger were dispatched to guerila detachments Lukač 1967, p. 93
  • July 27: guerilla detachments from Kamenica (commander Jole Marić, political commissar Nikola Kotla), Javorje (commander Mile Kecman (eventually would defect to Italians and became chetnik), his deputy Slavko Rodić (active Royal Army officer and party member), commissar Obrad Banjac) and Crvljivica (part) attacked ustashe and domobran garrison in Drvar on July 27 Lukač 1967, p. 94
  • July 27: Trubar detachment (commander Nikola Rodić, commissar Pero Boltić) liquidated gendarme precinct in Trubar and Martin BrodLukač 1967, p. 94
  • July 27: Resanovci detachment (commander Simo Bajić) disarmed gendarme precinct in Resanovci and took part in attack on GrahovoLukač 1967, p. 94

It is clear that CPY not only took part in the uprising, but it led it from day 1, despite revisionists want us to believe. I can talk on reviosionist, but it is off-topic -- Bojan  Talk  02:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Uroš Drenović acted in Baraći (Mrkonjić Grad/Šipovo) area, some 80 km away. I also doubt that Branko Bogunović had something big in events in Drvar, Grahovo and Bosanski Petrovac (he operated in Lika-Krajina frontier). Lazar Tešanović acted in Javorani area, that is even further. Only Mane Rokvić could stay in infobox. Otherwise, why don't we just add Mladen Stojanović, Marko Orešković, Rade Končar or Josip Broz Tito himself? -- Bojan  Talk  04:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's just stick to what the reliable sources say the commanders were in the Drvar uprising, Hoare and Redžić have some information on that, and I'll add them when I get around to it. Tito was nowhere near here at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. It was sarcasm. Tito was in Belgrade at that time. -- Bojan  Talk  05:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of two editions of Dedijer's Dnevnik

The article uses two editions of Dnevnik. This is unsatisfactory, as Dedijer made improvements, additions and deletions across the many editions of the book. I suggest we adopt one edition, preferably the most recent one in order to eliminate things that were corrected in later editions. The 1990 English edition seems preferable given this is English WP and he died that year, even though the one I have immediate access to is the 1981 Serbo-Croatian one published by GRO. I plan on getting access to the English one and using it for all citations to Dnevnik. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bojan Milanović source

Bojan Milanović is another Serbian historian known for promoting academic historical revisionism including trying to rehabilitate Serbian WWII collaborators like Milan Nedić, and wrote a laudatory biography of convicted genocidal war criminal Ratko Mladić. I consider this source needs to be used very carefully, especially for anything controversial, and he should be attributed in-line at all times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Another primary source

Further to my earlier post about a questionable primary source, the following source: Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1989). Proterivanje Srba sa ognjišta 1941-1944: svedočanstva [The Expulsion of Serbs from the Hearth 1941–1944: Testimonies] (in Serbo-Croatian). Belgrade, Yugoslavia: Prosveta. OCLC 555834246. appears to be a collection of personal testimonies edited by the two named persons, and therefore predominantly a primary source, except for any analysis by the editors. I am concerned about this source as well, especially if the material that is being cited to it is in fact just a participant's recollection rather than the analysis of the editors based on the primary material. Please advise exactly the context of the material being cited to this source. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Kadenić and Petković also seems to be a collection of memories of participants, and I have the same concerns about its use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dnevnik [Knjiga 1], [Od 6. aprila 1941 do 27. novembra 1942] is Dedijer's personal diary (funny that the actual title of the book, Devnik (Diary) was left off the citation...), and is therefore also a primary source and not independent of the subject. It was also first published in 1942, and is therefore a very old source. Since 1942, many things have been learned about what happened during the uprising, and I am sure that whatever could be gleaned from his diary has been examined by academics since. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Morača's Drvar 1941-1945: Sjećanja učesnika [Drvar 1941-1945: Memories of Participants] is another primary collection of participant's memories, and is published by the Skupština opštine of Drvar (this means that it was published by the town council of Drvar). Not only is it primary, but it is also published by the local council, and I don't think we can assume that appropriate editorial oversight was provided by such an organisation, not being a proper publishing house. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bokan's Podgrmeč u NOB.: Sbornik sjećanja [Podgrmeč in the National Liberation War: A Collection of Memories] also seems to be a collection of recollections of participants, and therefore primary and probably not independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are setting criteria for the sources that are contradictory and impossible to meet. I will present a couple of examples:

• In the related article about Operation Rösselsprung (1944) you disputed reliability of the author (diff) just because he was nowhere near Drvar, so this makes it hard to accept on face value. Now you are against inclusion of the sources authored by people who were near Drvar.
• In this talkpage you complained about the lack of Partisan sources, So, no balancing with other sources, even from other areas of Yugoslavia, or Partisan ones, let alone any Western sources and now you complain against Partisan sources because they are authored by Partisans.

The inconsistency of criteria shows that this article will be another article owned by you. No doubt your actions here and unnecessarily harsh comments about me (including this unjustified and false accusation it is he who has hounded me, at one point to the extent that he was TBANed) are aimed to make editing unpleasant for me and to discourage me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist, like all other pages you chased me away from. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So, no answers to my specific points about primary sources, and the use of a highly biased Serb-chauvinist source, just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BTW, you were hounding me at Pavle Đurišić, I just chose not to personalise it in my report, and concentrated on the editing behaviour on the talk page. So, here once again you have been caught out writing a anti-Partisan/pro-Chetnik POV article, concealing the titles of books by presenting them only in Serbo-Croatian and even Cyrillic instead of English translations (this is English Wikipedia after all), which has quickly been exposed for what it is with translation and a detailed examination of the sources. Not only that, but you have cherry-picked sources like Redžić, choosing only the material that suits your anti-Partisan/pro-Chetnik POV. I am long past AGF with you given your past history of cherry-picking sources, so I can only assume that you have cherry-picked the other sources to suit your POV. I will delete all the primary sources and try to make this article NPOV using far better secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, unlike all the primary memories/testimonial material you have tried to use here to push your POV. I don't chase you away from articles, you just choose to not answer questions or be unaccountable for your editing behaviour and when you are asked specific questions couched in Wikipedia policy like WP:PRIMARY you just run away. You even refuse to edit articles to add information I have said I have no problem with being added (example [1]) then place "unresolved" templates on the page when the person who needs to take action is actually you, as you claim to have the sources and must be accountable for your own edits. How can I be expected to add material to an article and know that it has been verified if I do not have access to the source? Especially when I wouldn't trust you to adhere to NPOV as far as I could throw you. That is yet another example of you not being accountable for your editing behaviour, just as you have demonstrated here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Plećaš, Neđeljko B. (1983). Ratne godine, 1941–1945 appears from its Worldcat entry to be a biography of Nikola Plećaš, the Chetnik leader, as it is listed as "Personal narratives" and "Biography". The same name indicates that Neđeljko is probably the son of Nikola. For that reason it is a questionable source as it is not sufficiently independent of the subject as required by WP:RS. I am tagging it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact, upon further investigation, it appears that the author is in fact himself a former Chetnik who was parachuted into Ravna Gora with an SOE mission. So, not independent of the subject, primary and no doubt highly biased towards the Chetnik view of the uprising. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Vignjević, Milorad (1978). Kozara u narodnooslobodilačkom ratu: Zapisi i sjećanja. Sjećanja prikupio Milorad Vignjević [Kozara in the Liberation War: Records and Memories. Memories collected by Milorad Vignjević] is obviously also primary and not independent of the subject. I will tag it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet another one, Vučković, Zvonimir (2001). Ravnogorska istorijska čitanka: povest nacionalnog pokreta otpora u II svetskom ratu kroz dela učesnika i svedoka : jubilarno izdanje povodom šezdesetgodišnjice, 1941-2001 [The Ravna Gora Historical Reader: The Story of the National Resistance Movement in World War II through the Works of Participants and Witnesses: Jubilee Edition on the Occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary, 1941-2001]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification needed for Razvitak 1971

This appears to be a journal, but no volume or issue number is provided. This makes verification impossible. Unless further information is forthcoming about it I will be deleting it and the material cited to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification needed for Socijalizam 1985

This appears to be a journal, but no volume or issue number is provided. This makes verification impossible. Unless further information is forthcoming about it I will be deleting it and the material cited to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification needed for Vojnoistorijski glasnik 1951 and 1983

This is a reliable journal, but no volume or issue number is provided in either case. This makes verification impossible. Unless further information is forthcoming about it I will be deleting it and the material cited to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Highly biased source

Đuretić was expelled from the Yugoslav Communist Party for national intolerance and chauvinism, was one of the strong Serbian nationalists within SANU, was close to Vojislav Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party and was involved with trying to whitewash the war crimes of Radovan Karadžić. At best, he must be attributed inline as a highly biased Serb-chauvinist source. The name of the book alone gives the game away. Another one that wasn't translated... I wonder why? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Another selfrefuttal. If some authors was expelled from Communist Party and elected to be member of academy, it is not indication that their work are unreliable. On the contrary. Nevertheless, I don't object attribution.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously he is highly biased, although you refuse to acknowledge that, in fact you seem to think that is an advantage rather than something to be wary of. This just demonstrates your clear POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The following source explains many of the problems with using Đuretić as a source, including his revisionism:

Радановић, Милан (2011). "Историјска политика у Србији након 2000. Примери манифестовања спреге између академског историјског ревизионизма и државне ревизије прошлости". In Веселиновић, Ана; Атанацковић, Петар; Кларић, Жељко (eds.). Изгубљено у транзицији: критичка анализа друштвене трансформације (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14. 07. 2014. Retrieved 11. 06. 2014. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |archive-date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) [Radanović, Milan (2011). "Historical Policy in Serbia after 2000. Examples of Manifestation of the Link between Academic Historical Revisionism and State Revision of the Past." In Veselinovic, Ana; Atanackovic, Petar; Klaric, Zeljko (eds.). Lost in Transition: A Critical Analysis of Social Transformation] Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

He was also a member of the 1996 convocation of the Senate of Republika Srpska, appointed by another convicted war criminal, Biljana Plavšić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Also this (copied from below to keep it in the same thread) further explains his extreme views and bias, and questionable status as a historian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Role of Italians

Does it look odd for Italians to aid unknown Serbs (Yugoslavs) against their supposed allies NDH (that had protection of mighty Germany), and then few weeks later some of them would shoot on them? -- Bojan  Talk  03:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Italians were up to all sorts of skullduggery, so it wouldn't surprise me, but I'll be looking for corroboration in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject as I rewrite the article. It can stay there for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes no seance that gave arms. It would be well known sooner and latter and Mussolini would have problem with Hitler. Also rebels might use same arms against dealers (Italians) especially if communist are present (and they were, indeed) -- Bojan  Talk  03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible. From the beginning, the Italians did not like the NDH and sought to undermine it is numerous ways, including by supporting Chetnik groups. The question is whether this was occurring during this uprising or whether it was later. We'll see what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I know for that. But one thing is clandestine undermining of NDH, totally different thing to (openly -> ustashe might find number of Italian rifles next to dead rebels and they will certainly ask how rebels got it) arm potentially own enemies against allies (officially) and infuriate Hitler who was winning the war against USSR (at that time). -- Bojan  Talk  03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Italians captured tens of thousands of Yugoslav rifles in the April War, and usually used these and captured ammunition to arm Chetniks, as many were former Royal Yugoslav Army troops and already familiar with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

First, they gave captured Yugoslav rifles to NDH. I doubt they foreseen that their once favorite Pavelić won't collaborate and appearance of Partisans and Chetniks. So how many would they have to arm rebels (even Chetniks might not be trustful, if you know that their king is siting in London) -- Bojan  Talk  03:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

And Italians were arm Ctehniks to fight partisans, not NDH. -- Bojan  Talk  03:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This just comes down to what the reliable sources say, not our opinions or assumptions. You'd be better off spending your time looking for sources that talk about the uprising and the Italians involvement than discussing it here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't me who wrote that Italians gave political and material support. So I ask for sources and logic. I would accept even pro-chetnik source backed by strong primary source that Italy materially supported (where, how much) (pro-Italian) rebels to from July till September 1941 to fight against NDH) All facts I wrote on this talkpage I backed with secondary source (who is both professional historian and witness, if not and participants of these event) Otherwise, i will delete every instance of Italian support. -- Bojan  Talk  04:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is sourced to a primary source, Bokan, so I have deleted the reference to the Italians providing arms for now. If I find a reliable secondary source that refers to it, I will re-add it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it should be noted that Italy undoubtedly tried and succeed in exploiting the uprising for their cause: deploying their units in zone II (or III, i had to check sources). -- Bojan  Talk  04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm reconstructing guerrillas hierarchy prior and during the uprising. Mane Rokvić might toke part on attack onDrvar, but I sources give credit (even before I begun editing this article) to Slavko Rodić as man who made plan for attack on Drvar. It appears that Tešanović also did take part in the uprising (it is without much significance that he read command using battery lamp, but it is important that he did that in front of detachment organized by Slavko (Rodić?), but I couldn't find in which detachment he was and his role. Lukač list three detachments (Crvljivica, Kamenica, Javorani) attacked Drvar on 27 July, but Tešanović wasn't high in hierarchy of these 50-100 men strong detachments or wasn't even member of them. Bogunović was part of the uprising, but his rank was somehow equal to Simo Bajić's rank in Grahovo area (Lukač: Ove snage, pod rukovodstvom Sime Bajića, Pere Boltića i Brane Bogunovića, napale su na neprijateljsko uporište Strmicu, koju je branila jaka grupa ustaša i domobrana, i oslobodile ovo mesto. - Bajić and Boltić were communists; Boltić survived the war, described attack on Strmica and he didn't give any credit to Bogunović). Role of priest Ilija Rodić is totally unclear, I haven't find his name in any source I've checked. -- Bojan  Talk  03:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosta Nikolić source

Kosta Nikolić is a Serbian historian known for his anti-communism, and for promoting academic historical revisionism including trying to rehabilitate Serbian WWII collaborators like Milan Nedić. I consider this source needs to be used very carefully, especially for anything controversial, and he should be attributed in-line at all times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for these claims includes [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification needed for Bosnia i Hercegovina (1970)

The citations to this source have no pages listed, and link only to a bare bones Google Books entry. A search of Worldcat shows no book of this name, and there is therefore no oclc, publisher or even any idea of what sort of book it is. Currently it lacks enough information to verify it is consistent with the material that is cited to it. I am tagging it briefly, but if no further information is received about the book, I will be deleting it and all information cited to it shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Source and material deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Summary of sourcing problems

Having now translated the titles of all the sources used and investigated their authors, my initial rough assessment that there are serious sourcing problems with this article have been borne out. See the above sequence of threads for my observations about all of the questionable sources. There are at least seven sources which are WP:PRIMARY which are not reliable because they are not third-party sources. There are another four sources that are not verifiable as there is insufficient information about the source to be able to establish if the material that is being sourced to them is correct. And there are three sources that are blatantly biased, written by Serbian historical revisionists and/or those with an axe to grind regarding the Partisans and the Yugoslav communists. The combination of these fourteen questionable sources makes much of the material in this article highly dubious, especially when they represent nearly half of all sources currently used, and 42 of 79 citations. There is a strong anti-Partisan POV throughout, bolstered by this dubious sourcing. This is overwhelming evidence to justify the POV tag I placed on the article when I initially read it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And there are three sources that are blatantly biased, written by Serbian historical revisionists and/or those with an axe to grind regarding the Partisans and the Yugoslav communists. I am interested to know which are those and where is your evidence for the claim? I've seen none so far. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the relevant threads above. If you can't see it, you are clearly biased yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from a fair explanation about Đuretić, you have given nothing but generalisations, such as "Westerners are more neutral", "he's a revisionist" (where are the reference for such claims, not all people are interested in WW2, you know). Not to mention the accusations, which is an ongoing ping pong match between you two.

Calling me "clearly biased" is bordering with personal attack, which is uncalled for, to say the least. You do not know my thoughts on the war and parties involved, as I have not expressed them fully so far! Another thing, do we need 7 separate sections on the TP, for every concern raised? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that you think the author of a hagiographical book on the convicted genocidal war criminal Mladić (Milanović) is unbiased is a demonstration of your bias. It is not a "personal attack" if an assertion is backed up by clearly demonstrated behaviour. To the latter question, yes we do need separate threads, they are different subjects, with different issues being identified in each one. In my experience, lumping different issues into one thread on a controversial article means nothing is ever resolved and the discussion wanders all over the place. I will provide sources for my claims about bias in the relevant threads above in the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Writing on Mladić should not be relevant. Đuretić is simply a bad historian and a liar. Here is partial list of his lies -- Bojan  Talk  02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant, because Mladić is a convicted genocidal war criminal, and trying to whitewash his actions is reprehensible. But thanks for the Politika source, that adds to the reasons why Đuretić should not be used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant. Example (Godwin Law): we have to ardent Nazis: one Joseph Goebbels and one Erich von Manstein. Let say that both say something that is undeniably true, like Earth orbits around Sun (or something related to WW2). Our instant reaction is to dismiss whatever comes from Goebbels's mouth, while we might believe if it comes from von Manstein, although he was a Nazi, too. Đuretić here is Goebbels, his reputation was ruined due to his lies, not because he supports Mladić. Usually, something written from chetnik apologetic is worse than anything written in socialist Yugoslavia. Why? Because Chetniks and Chetnik apologetics have more thing to hide: die beste example is Kosta Nikolić. He was editor of history textbook in Đinđić's era. In first edition there wasn't a single word on chetnik collaboration and war crimes, while Partisans ones who collaborate with Axis (March Talks episode) and blood-thirsty war criminals. After public outcry, in new edition of textbook is inserted a chapter dealing with Chetnik collaboration, but only with Italians, while not one word with collaboration with Germany and Independent State of Croatia. Collaboration was even defended smart move, cause that would mean salvation of Serbian people from Ustashe regime, but again nothing on Chetnick war crimes. Partisans remained blood-thirsty war criminals and collaborators. So, Nikolić's reputation is ruined because of his lies, not because he was admirer of Milan Nedić (personally I think he was more admired Mihailović than Nedić) Source: Dubravka Stojanović (Ph D Historian https://pescanik.net/skolska-istorija/ -- Bojan  Talk  04:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We are at cross-purposes. This is why I try to keep discussion in seperate threads. We are discussing both Đuretić and Milanović. They can be both unreliable (your argument on Đuretić, based on his work) and biased (my argument on Milanović, based on his demonstrated bias towards Mladić). In addition, Đuretić is also biased based on his demonstrated bias towards Nedić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I never read or heard for Milanović until this article. She might be honest historian, although she is for Mladić. But Đuretić and Nikolić's reputation is questionable after many lies they repeat, so they are unreliable, not because they might like Mladić, too. -- Bojan  Talk  02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)