Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 5


"Ethnic Composition"

It strikes me that there is a potential problem with the section on ethnic composition of the Partisan forces, especially as it pertains to Bosnia. It is stated that only 2.5% of those involved were deemed to be Bosniaks, but no mention is made of how this figure was arrived at. For one thing, anyone familiar with the region would surely agree that the notion of "identity" was a heavily contested one. It is very likely that many of those that have been identified as Croats and/or Serbs were likely Muslims, that is, Bosniaks. The practice of subscribing to one of the more dominant nationalism of neighboring states was a common practice for much of the population's history.

I think this is further made evident by the fact that the "unknown" category compromises nearly a quarter of the rank and file. I find it highly unlikely, for instance, that there would be that large of a disparity between Croatian anti-fascists and Bosniak ones, especially in the homeland of the former. Most accounts do clearly suggest that the leadership was dominated by Serbs and Croats, but I am wary of the figure presented here.

Perhaps some mention of this fact might be appropriate? - JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.186.147 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since at that time and after the war you could only declare yourself as Serb or Croat. Bosnian, Bosniak, was not an option until 1974 when "Muslim by nationality" was allowed. I personally know people who were in partisans, who declared themselves to be Serb or Croat when in reality they were Bosnian, and declare as such today. Can someone add this to the article, please.66.103.226.61 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Books written in the seventies and the eighties of the last century where the ethnic makeup of the NOVJ in B&H is mentioned do take into account Muslims by nationality. In order to avoid any speculation, I have presented statistics from the books written in honour of the selected brigades- in this case, 7th Krajiska Brigade and 16th Muslim Brigade(which I have in my possesion and was included in the text). There, a detailed statistics of the composition of the Brigades are presented (including the ethnic background) followed by a full list of names (which can also help to identify someone who declered himself as a Serb but was clearly a Bosniak). I'll soon have a detailed account of 14th Udarna Srednjobosanska Brigade, 10th Udarna Herzegovina Brigade and 20th Kozara Brigade, where as I'm told the composition mostly resembles that of the 7th Krajiska Brigade. However, I'll wait to get my hands on the source before I presented it. Cheers...byxl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.3.40 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bosniak population at the time, let’s be honest about it, was the only ethnic group in Yugoslavia without any kind of national program or agenda. Aside from local Militia, which had no real strategic goals, Jajce and ZAVNOBIH was the first political and military structure, which gave Muslims an opportunity, first one since the Ottomans left the Region, to claim political power in this new South Slavic Union. That’s why Muslims joined NOB en masse since 1943 and onwards. Also, in Dalmatia, Croats overwhelmingly joined Partisan movement, not because Dalmatian Croats were generaly communists, but due to the lack of other option, since they were fully occupied by Italy, having Partisan Movement as the only natural choice to join in the struggle, whereas in the rest of Croatia, B&H and parts of Serbia under NDH rule, Croats had no real reason to rebel against Axis powers at first. Their national hopes and dreams seemed fulfilled. On the other hand, Serbs in Croatia and B&H were systematically eradicated from the start. Communist, with their impeccable organization skills, leadership and discipline realize that all to well and use the moment to gather the nucleus for their new army. In Serbia proper, where was natural to have a population loyal to the old regime, after the initial rebellion led by Chetniks and Partisans together, the German retribution (100 Serbs for 1 German soldier killed) followed and Serbs from Serbia proper mostly chose more passive line - the Chetniks over rebellious Partisans. For these reasons (generally speaking) the core of the Partisan troops at the start of the Uprising was mostly composed of Serbs from Croatia and B&H. My point is that the ethnic composition reflects the circumstances of the time, which have nothing to do with one nation being more anti fascist over the other. Cheers, BYXL


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/73163916/Myth-80-of-Anti-Fascist-Yugoslav-Partisans-were-Serbs

I think the whole ethnic part stinks of serb-propaganda, no reliable or verifiable sources exist of Tito commenting ethnicity of partisans, since that goes against the whole spirit of the movement. I think the whole section should be removed unless some sources are provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.37.95 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

sisak uprising

The sisak uprising should not be included in this article. It has nothing to do with the partisans. It was simply an isolated uprising, of which there is little information on. What is quite interesting is that the source used notes on the same page of it that this uprising is not considered to be part of the partisan uprising, that the partisan uprising led by tito started two weeks later, in Serbia. Hence, the resistance from the partisans started in Serbia. We should not include all small unafilliated minor uprisings that have nothing to do with this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)). Only biased croatian nationalists even mention the sisak incident... and indeed cohen sources a biased croatian nationalis. (LAz17 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)). Also, I have read from some serb source somewhere that the folks rising up in Sisak were actually serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Touch it and you will find yourself immediately reported for POV content blanking. That is all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The source itself says that this local group was totally unaffiliated with the partizans. Keep it there and one can accuse you of pov pushing. (LAz17 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).

Kaufmann statement

"In 1944, with German withdrawal imminent, Croats joined the Partisans in significant numbers, not because they preferred a multiethnic Yugoslavia, but because they preferred a Yugoslavia that was not cleansed of Croats."

This sentence is the very definition of nonsense. I do not find it absurd because I'm a Croat, I find it absurd because it is completely detached from the scientific method. Note:

  • It is unsubstantiated and is the author's own personal opinion (no primary source, read it).
  • It is so abstract it could never possibly be substantiated. Unless you are suggesting this author can read millions of minds through time? Or had access to a nation-wide poll on the subject from 1944?
  • It is contradicted by sources which actually do have exact data on the presence of ethnic Croats in the Partisans (no less than 30% in 1944, see the article).

Dribble. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that you are more of an expert than Chaim Kaufmann. He earned his doctorate in 1991 from Columbia, and is expert on the subjects of "international relations theory, international security (issues of war and peace), nationalism and ethnic conflict, political psychology, social science research methods, epistemology." In his 1996 text "Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars", he thanks a number of people who vetted the text, meaning that it was peer reviewed: "Helpful criticism was provided by Henri Barkey, Richard Betts, Michael Desch, Matthew Evangelista, Charles Glaser, Emily Goldman, Robert Hayden, Ted Hopf, Stuart Kaufman, Rajan Menon, Bruce Moon, Roger Peterson, Jack Snyder, Stephen Van Evera, and the members of the PIPES Seminar at the University of Chicago." This kind of text does not slink away quietly when you make loud noises against it. What you will have to do is leave it in the article, and bring other texts into play to contrast it. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Straw man. I am not challenging Kaufmann as an expert, I am saying that the above statement is unsubstantiated and contradicted by actual research on the subject. Feel free to use him as a source in other capacities. That particular statement, however, is his own personal opinion, highly abstract, controversial, and directly contradicted by real research. The fact that you "do not accept" that there are no sources behind it, or that you call pointing that out "making loud noises", does not really help support the abstract nonsense sentence that speculates as to the thoughts and motivations of an entire nation, sixty years ago.
This is exactly why Wikipedia sources are verifiable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Kaufmann's statement is unsubstantiated. I think, he should keep his personal opinion for himself. He gave no proof to substantiate his allegations. It's like saying that Hitler liked Jews. Totally unsubstantiated.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
His statement is just stating the well known obvious fact. (LAz17 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

"It is well known that most partizan support in croatia was initially from the serbs, due to the extreme genocidal terror that was being perpetrated against them by ustasha."

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.103.17 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Raid at St. Lorenzen

I really don't understand why you insist on a description of a raid that is incorrect and has factual errors. See the main page about the raid - there is literature on that page, there is a picture of memorial plaque along the railway near place called Ožbalt, few kms from Lovrenc na Pohorju. The first escape was Ralph Churches' idea - it has nothing to do with any Allied escape organisation. It has nothing to do with St Lorenzen in Austria, where there is no railway anyway. What you are doing is really stupid. Žarišče (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, German Wikipedia places the raid in Ožbalt where it really happened. Žarišče (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
'An der Eisenbahnstation von Ožbalt begann Ende August 1944 eine Aktion jugoslawischer Partisanen, bei der 132 Kriegsgefangene der alliierten Armeen des 2. Weltkrieges aus der Belegschaft eines Arbeitslager des deutschen Reiches befreit wurden. Diese Gefangenen waren zur Reparatur der von den Partisanen beschädigten Eisenbahnlinie eingesetzt und von einem Lager bei Marburg per Bahn antransportiert worden. Diese Aktion wird im englischen Sprachraum als „Raid at St. Lorenzen/Angriff von St. Lorenzen“ bezeichnet. Siehe dazu den Artikel der englischen Wikipedia unter Weblinks.'


Expanding sections "Equipment", "Partisan navy", "Partisan air-force" into separate articles

Anyone interested in these ones? There are lot of misconceptions about them, even among people with some kind of special interest in particular topics. If there is anyone interested and willing to cooperate maybe we could start with writing about it in a shared effort. Topics are surely interesting, for example existence of partisan tank troops much before British and Soviet equipment was delivered and so on... Kolpo-san (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

fixing the article, removing ethnically motivated original research

I have returned. And so I have began fixing the ethnically motivated posts of Direktor, who seems to have all along overstated the role of croatians in the war. What freaks me out is that he made a special section for "croatian partizans". Furthermore, I totally demolished Cohen, one of Direktor's primary sources. Regarding the ethnic composition of Partizans in Croatia, Cohen cites that a figure from late 1944. Direktor interprets that as meaning "during the entire war". Cohen made this mistake too in his book. So what is going on is that Direktor is looking for specific citations that adhere to his POV. Therefore this bias has to end asap. I have found some more information on the composition of partizans in croatia and so with my edit this night I have exposed Direktor's ethnically motivated POV. With this I have further proven that Direktor is not very good at reading his own sources, or checking them. What is most troubling is that when I told him that his stuff was flawed he simply disregarded that in a very mean manner. Just see the talk page here, and it becomes obvious that the user disregards things that he does not like as if it's something irrelevant. Well, my editing today has added detailed figures which nobody can turn down. So my question is what now? The article has been ruined. It needs to be fixed. It would be nice if people would be willing to work with me so that it would be restored to what it was before it got hijacked. (LAz17 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)).

Guerilla and Partisan

I guess the difference between Guerillas and Partisans need to be pointed out. Despite the similarities there are some important difference between the two ways of warfare. --41.151.71.197 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tito's ethnicity

Under the image of Tito, one version of this article said that, "Josip Broz Tito was an ethnic Croat of Croatian-Slovene ancestry". This is a wrong assumption. Tito was ethnic Croat and an ethnic Slovene, both. You cannot have parents of two different ethnicities and choose only one for the children—the children are mixed ethnicity. Tito was equally of Croatian and Slovenian ancestry. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry ≠ ethnicity, a child of a Siamese mother and a German father adopted by Gordon Brown would be an ethnic Englishman. Its not my own idea or choice, sources very often simply call him a Croat because he was born in Croatia. A person with a Slovene father an a Croatian mother who was raised in Slovene culture (born in Slovenia) can very easily be described simply as an ethnic Slovene. Sources very often refer to him as an ethnic Croat (e.g. "Croat with Slovenian roots"). Slovenes might take offense, but again I'm just writing-up what I studied in sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot understand your arguments—they make no sense to me. On page 119 of the book The Kimchi Matters, the authors write, "Intermarriage was common in the big cities, producing a generation of Yugoslavs of mixed ethnicity. Tito of course, embodied this phenomenon. He was half Croat, half Slovene, and his wife was a Serb." That source says "mixed ethnicity" for Tito. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
He's a greater croat communist... he naturally wants to elevate the croats in this article. This is one such way, when almost everywhere where Tito is mentioned his slovenian roots are clearly stated. I think that it's also worthwhile to note that almost every other top commander was serbian or montenegrin, to counterbalance this ethnic nationalism from Direktor. (LAz17 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).
  • "Tito, an ethnic Croat, held the disparate nations together in the Yugoslav federation by allowing cultural autonomy"
    • James Minahan, One Europe many nations,
  • "Although an ethnic Croat, Tito opposed any form of political autonomy and promoted the centralization of the country."
    • James Minahan, Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states
  • "Tito, who was an ethnic Croat, skillfully pleased the West, without ever resigning his Communist ideology."
    • Is it poor memory or Just one more treason?
  • "Tito was little more than an ethnic Croat."
    • David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan holocausts?
etc., etc... (just a quick fleeting search). Do I need to list more? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
How about:
The only reason I can see for sources proclaiming Tito's ethnicity as solely Croat is that they have a point of view to push forward. His mother was Slovenian; does she disappear in his genes to leave only the father? No, she does not. Tito is equally Croat and Slovene. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, your source of Rade Petrović Kent's book Is it poor memory--, or, Just one more treason? is not very scholarly. Kent is just a soldier, and his whole book is pushing a point of view. He is not a historian who examines facts, he is just one person who says what he saw and what he thinks. We do not need to repeat his mistaken belief that Tito is Croat.
Your source of James Minahan is not useful because Minahan is stating Tito's position on the continuum of Croat vs. Serb, and of course Tito has no Serb in him. On that continuum, Tito is fully Croat, but in a complete view, he is half Croat and half Slovene.
Your source of David Bruce MacDonald leaves out an essential element: MacDonald says "For the Serbs, Tito was little more than an ethnic Croat." This is the same issue as with Minahan—the polarity given is Serb vs. Croat, not a full picture. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Lolz, man, a great big pat on the back for you for exposing the biased croat POV from this dude. This proves that he looks for sources that suite his point of view... in other words he uses bad sources. (LAz17 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).
Laz, your own source (Kaufmann) solely says "Tito was a Croat", then proceeds to push the Serb generals angle and erroneously cites A. Pavelić as the author of his source lol. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hehe. LAz, you never cease to amaze. Kauffman should probably be disregarded as unreliable. Since you're not really helping here, I shall ask you to take this elsewhere. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet (my response seems long but that's mostly just quoted sources, regardless, sorry for the lengthy post). Primary facts. As we discuss please keep in mind two basic facts 1) that a person's ancestry ("genes") does not determine his ethnicity. This is one of the most basic facts imaginable. An Italian child adopted by a family of German culture can very easily be an ethnic German - not an ethnic Italian. In short your biology does not determine your culture - those are two entirely separate subjects of discussion. We are talking about this person's culture. 2) It is not necessary to show sources confirming that Tito's mother was Slovene and father Croatian. We all know that and agree completely.

Replies on your sources.

  • "Half-Slovene half-Croat Josip Broz Tito" - we both know and we both agree he was half-Slovene half-Croat. What is your point? My sources refer to his ethnicity.
  • "His father was Croatian and his mother Slovene..." - we both know and we both agree his father was Croatian and his mother Slovene. What is your point? My sources refer to his ethnicity.
  • "Croatian father and a Slovene mother" - again, we are talking about his ethnicity, not ancestry.
  • "mixed Croatian-Slovenian parentage" - again, ancestry is not ethnicity, etc., etc.

Your sources for the most part merely state his mother was Slovene and father Croatian. Lets talk about ethnicity. Does someone call him an (ethnic) Slovene? Or an ethnic Slovene-Croat?
Please understand, all I did was read sources and whenever they talked about Tito's ethnicity, they called him a "Croat", so I wrote that up. I do not care about the differences, if I was President of the World I'd declare everyone around here to be Yugoslavs - end of story.

Sources on Croatian ethnicity We are discussing the prevailing view of this person's ethnicity in published works. I do not accept your criticism of the quoted publications since the quality of the publications is not the issue here, but rather the most common ethnic label attached to Tito by any and all authors. And anyway, the above was just a quick fleeting search.

  • "Tito, an ethnic Croat, held the disparate nations together in the Yugoslav federation by allowing cultural autonomy"
    • James Minahan, One Europe many nations, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000
  • "Although an ethnic Croat, Tito opposed any form of political autonomy and promoted the centralization of the country."
    • James Minahan, Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000
  • "Tito, who was an ethnic Croat, skillfully pleased the West, without ever resigning his Communist ideology."
    • Rade Petrović Kent, Is it poor memory or Just one more treason?, L'AGE D'HOMME, 1998
  • "Tito was little more than an ethnic Croat."
    • David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan holocausts?, Manchester University Press, 2002
  • "Tito (Croat) being the supreme commander offered certain hopes to all constitutive nations."
    • Dejan Jović, Yugoslavia: a state that withered away, Purdue University Press, 2009
  • "...the Partisans led by the Croat Tito."
    • Lenard J. Cohen, Jasna Dragović-Soso, State collapse in South-Eastern Europe, Purdue University Press, 2008
  • "Ribar - Croat; Tito - Croat;..."
    • Michael Barratt Brown, From Tito to Milosevic, Merlin, 2005
  • "Tito, a Croat..."
    • North American Society for Serbian Studies, Serbian studies, Volume 16, North American Society for Serbian Studies, 2002
  • "How did Tito, a Croat, rule Yugoslavia for so long?"
    • Khoon Choy Lee, Diplomacy of a tiny state, World Scientific, 1993
  • "Tito, the Croat, was a traitor to many of his countrymen."
    • Anne Alexander, Nasser, Haus Publishing, 2005
  • "After the war, Yugoslavia fell under the control of Marshal Tito (a Croat), whose Communist government in Belgrade..."
    • Katie Wood, Cheap Sleeps Europe, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003
  • "Yugoslavia's new president was Marshal Josip Tito, a Croat born near Zagreb."
    • Yahia H. Zoubir, François-Serge Lhabitant, Doing business in emerging Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
  • "After the war, Tito, a Croat, made a second attempt to create a viable Yugoslav (South Slav) nation..."
    • Wayne Bert, The reluctant superpower: United States' policy in Bosnia, 1991-95, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997
  • "He may or may not have heard about the hard-faced Croat named Tito,..."
    • Whittaker Chambers, Terry Teachout, Ghosts on the roof, Transaction Publishers, 1996
  • "...indeed, it appeared that Tito (a Croat) intentionally sought to limit the Serbs' clout..."
  • "Tito, the Croat metalworker Josip Broz who joined the Austrian army and later the Bolsheviks in Russia,..."
    • Nicholas V. Gianaris, Geopolitical and economic changes in the Balkan countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996
  • "As is well known, the communists under the Croat Tito dominated the partisan internal resistance..."
    • Paul B. Rich, Reaction and renewal, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996
  • "More importantly, Mihailović was a Serb and Tito a Croat,..."
    • Richard Harris Smith, OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency, Globe Pequot, 2005
  • "However, Josip Broz Tito, a Croat and communist who fought the Germans"
    • Kristen P. Williams, Despite nationalist conflicts: theory and practice of maintaining world peace, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001

...etc. I could literally go on like this almost in perpetuity. We are talking about hundreds of sources - I am not making this stuff up. Can we see some that call him a Slovene? Or a Croatian-Slovene by ethnicity and not just by ancestry? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you appear to be defining ethnicity as a synonym of culture. The word and the concept are more complex than that. My dictionary says it means "large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." This means that ethnicity includes race, origin, background, and language. Tito's origins and background do not change from being multiethnic to being just Croat—he cannot erase his background and origin. Your examples of children born Italian and raised German ignore this, and are thus faulty. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not making these judgments. These are not my theories or ideas. I am just trying to interpret what the sources say. It seems the guy was an ethnic Croat since he grew up in Croatia in what seems to have been a predominantly Croatian family. The fact that his mother was Slovene just does not seem to make as much of an impact. The above sources are just a small example.
But lets not complicate matters, we should concern ourselves with sources. Evidently a very very large number of sources refer to him as an (ethnic) Croat, do we have sources calling the fellow an ethnic Slovene? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is saying he was an ethnic Slovene, so we can toss out that straw man argument. What we are talking about is that Tito was either multiethnic or just Croat, no Slovene. Even if you bring 1000 sources saying just Croat, you cannot erase the sources saying multiethnic. Because of this, there should be no emphasis on Tito being a Croat in this article. Since the majority of Yugoslav Partisans were Serbs, and they accepted Tito as multiethnic, this article does not require some kind of decision about Tito's ethnicity. This article will be just as fulfilling if we leave out any opinion as to his ethnicity. Binksternet (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, your whole argument is textbook WP:OR. I have yet to see a source where it says Tito was "multiethnic" or an "ethnic Slovene-Croat". All you've shown so far is authors saying he had a Slovene mother and a Croat father, which is not disputed, and which does not make him "multiethnic by default".
  • Secondly, even if you did dig up some random source that says Tito was "multiethnic" or whatever, that would be a textbook minority view, and I will not be prevented in presenting extremely well sourced information because I "cannot erase that (silly) source".
In short: WP:No original research. You do not have anything to back you up, and I seriously doubt that you could conceivably outweigh the current weight of sources saying plain as day that the person was a (quote) "Croat". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? I provide links to all my arguments and you don't click on them to see what they say? Click on multiethnic here to see that there is, indeed, a knowledgeable expert who says that Tito was multiethnic. Danielle S. Sremac is the author: she is the Director of the Institute for Balkan Affairs in Washington, D.C., and has spoken on the subject on TV and radio. For our purposes, she is an exceedingly good source. The source is not silly. Keep in mind that most if not all of the sources that say Tito was a Croat are looking at the matter from a Croat vs. Serb perspective, a perspective were the relatively small population of Slovenes does not have a bearing. Yet we as encyclopedia writers must give a world view: we cannot place Tito on a line between Croats and Serbs when he existed within a web of cultures, a more complex area of interactions than a black/white polarity. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read my second point above. The majority view in published literature is "Croat". What are we still discussing here?
  • "Croat vs. Serb perspective"? Please. If a source says the fellow is a Croat, then the source says he's a Croat, not a "Croat from a Croat vs. Serb perspective" which you just invented. Weasel arguments.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If a source says that TO THE SERBS, tito was a croat... , then stop YOUR weasel arguments. most of your sources there are not even scholarly, they're books without any references that just mention tito in passing. Here, I'll compile a list of some others. It's sad that it has come to this, that we have to do a stupid war of trying to accumulate sources... the only reason why I'm going to do that is because it will maybe help show you that there are other opinions out there. But seeing as you ignored the several already listed, several which are better in quality than yours, I fear that this is all in vain. On a side note however, weasels are really adoreable critters. :) (LAz17 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).
"If a source says the fellow is a Croat, then the source says he's a Croat." No, Direktor, this is not how we work here. We examine sources to see how reliable and verifiable they are, then when sources disagree, we examine the context and we judge the meaning behind the source. Scholarly sources are best, expert authors writing for a popular audience are good but not quite as good. Writers who are trying to turn opinion are much less useful than scholars and experts. When we look at a source, we have to get a sense of what the writer was trying to accomplish. If a source says Tito was a Croat compared to Serbs, then that is a fine statement but very much limited to the condition and context of "compared to Serbs"... When compared to the world in general, Tito was a Croatian-Slovenian. This encyclopedia is addressing an audience of the English-speaking world in general. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you did not notice the very many scholarly sources listed in there, among others the Council on Foreign Relations. So lets just stop with the silliness. Very many, high quality sources call this person an "ethnic Croat". Very few, so far one or two sources, call this person "multiethnic"
  • "Croat vs. Serb perspective".
    • Firstly I would appreciate you did not presume to teach me "how we do things here". Thank you.
    • Secondly, the "Croat vs. Serb perspective" is your own weasel argument and invention. The very idea is nonsensical: a source that says "Tito (Croat)" is actually saying "Tito is a 'multiethnic Croatian-Slovene' but compared to Radovan Karadžić he's a Croat, but not really..."? I personally cannot believe you are suggesting we ignore what sources state in a very plain straightforward manner. When a source says he's a Croat, a source says he's a Croat. Cut the nonsense.
    • Finally, very few sources actually do make a comparison between Tito being a Serb and Tito being a Croat. Your claim that this Obi-Wan Kenobi "perspective" of yours is present in "most if not all sources" is just a plain straightforward fallacy.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Not looking at the oustanding sources that Binksternet brought up and direktor ignored... here is a brief list.
[1] ...born on 7 May 1892 to a slovenian mother and a croatian father,
[2] The story goes that the Croatian father met the Slovenian mother while illicitly cutting firewood in the Slovenian section. Kumrovec is close to the dividing line between the Croatian-Slovenian sections of the re... The young Tito is said to have been very close to his mother, who wove all the sheets used by the family
[3] to a Croat father and Slovene mother in the village of Kumrovec,
[4] of a Croatian father and a Slovenian mother, in a
[5] Josip Broz Tito was born in 1892 in Kumrovec, just over the Štajerska border in Croatia, to a Slovenian mother and
[6] to a Croat father and a Slovenian mother in
[7] in the village of Kumrovec near the Slovenian border, to a Slovene mother and Croat father. His birthday was celebrated on May 25
[8] Josip Broz was the son of a Croat father and Slovenian mother
[9] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Croat father and Slovene mother.
[10] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Slovene mother and a Croat father
[11] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892 to a Croat father and Slovene mother
[12] Tito The seventh of 15 children, Josip Broz was born on May 7, 1892, in Kumrovec (then part of Austria-Hungary) to a Slovenian mother and a Croatian blacksmith father.
[13] Tito was born in 1892 to a Croatian father and Slovene mother.
[14] His father Franjo Broz was a Croat; his mother Maria Javornik, a Slovene. Tito grew up bilingually (Slovenian, although closely related to Serbo-Croatian, is a separate language). Tito's mixed parentage. the geographic position of his
[15] Inside the house where the great leader was born, to a Croatian father and Slovenian mother
[16] Since 1971 , Tito, son of a Croat father and a Slovenian mother, has handled
[17] Son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother, Tito (1892-1980) was born in
[18] Major Fielding concurs with the British that Tito was born in the Zagorje, but states his father was a Slovene blacksmith and his mother a Croat peasant, both of whom were illiterate.
[19] and a Slovene mother, he was a citizen of that state from his birth until the death of the empire in 1918.
[20] Tito Josip Broz Tito was the son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother, who joined the Habsburg army in Vienna in 1911 and
[21] Josip Broz Tito Tito, born Josip Broz to a peasant family in Yugoslavia, was the son of a Croatian father and a Slovene mother. A poor peasant who
[22] Tito (who had a Croat father and a Slovene mother) divided Yugoslavia into six
[23] Yet to what degree Tito considered himself a Croat is debatable. He was born Josip Broz in 1893 in Kumrovec, a village on the border between Croatia and Slovenia. to a mixed marriage - his mother was Slovene and his father Croat
[24] Supreme Commander of the YPA Josip Broz Tito, the son of a Croatian father and Slovenian mother
[25] The son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother, Tito represented Yugoslavia's potential for diversity
[26] He enjoyed genuine support amongst the people of Yugoslavia but, as a man with a Croat father and a Slovene mother, he was always sensitive to the issue of nationalism.
[27] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Slovene mother and a Croat father
[28] Tito failed the first grade and flunked out of school at age thirteen. Originally named Broz,he was a classic example of the combination of what made Yugoslavia. His father was a Croatian, and his mother was a Slovenian
[29] Tito was born in 1892, the son of a Croatian father and Slovene mother. He trained as a locksmith and from an early age showed an
[30] But this son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother
[31] He was born Josip Broz Tito to a Croatian father and a Slovene mother
[32] However, Tito himself was the son of a Slovene mother and Croat father, and though he maintained his
[33] Josip Broz was born in 1892 in the village of Kumrovec in Northwestern Croatia, on the Slovenian border, the seventh of thirteen children of a Croatian father and a Slovenian mother. The Broz family were
[34] Known simply as Josip Broz, he was the seventh son of a peasant couple, his father a Croat, his mother a Slovene
[35] Slovenian border, of a Croatian father and a Slovenian mother. He became a metalworker and machinist and was active before
So you want to nickle and dime it!??!!, there you got it! Thanks for helping make wikipedia a miserable place. This is why we need mediation, the process in which you get limited to what you can say. The Draza Mihajlovic mediation is a fine example of what we need here, outsiders who are going to help fix this. People to whom you can not spin your yarns all day long and waste time needlessly with issues such as this. *rolls eyes* (LAz17 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).
LAz, as usual you have no clue about the topic here. We all completely agree with these sources. He most certainly did have a Slovene mother and a Croatian father, as you've both so diligently proven. He was also a Croat, as hundreds of sources state. Including your own source. So in short, according to sources, he was a (quote) "ethnic Croat" with a Slovene mum. These are the sources talking. Not me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

While Tito's mother was Slovene, Tito was brought up and raised into a Croat identity.

Here's an amusing gem: According to Slovene historian Jože Pirjevec, when Tito was 4 years old and visiting his maternal grandparents in Slovenia, he was climbing a tree, and his Slovene grandpa said to him: "Come down here, you little Croat." :) Pirjevec jokes that that "was when Josip learned for the first time what his nationality was." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.187.164 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition

I have removed the manipulated figures (Serbs and Montenegrins: 64%, Croats: 26%, Slovenes: 6%, Bosniaks: 2.5%, Others/Unknown: 1.5%) attributed to Hoare. The original figures (Serbs: 44%, Croats: 30%, Bosniaks 2.5%, Others/Unknown 23.5%) were first added by user Ajdebre on June 23, 2009 [36] and later manipulated by an IP [37]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the point about all ethnic figures is they only mean something if they are compared to the actual proportions that each ethnic group contributed to the makeup of Yugoslavia, or more accurately gven the way they have been described in this article, by region. If this is not to be done, I consider all ethnic composition information is next to useless and should be removed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by PRODUCER

Come on PRODUCER, this edit of yours is more of selective editing, which also includes addition of unsourced claims and you also removed sourced info. FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dig a bit deeper next time. You will see that was a reversion of LAz's editing. He tried this nonsense before and it failed and continues to try it after a discussion on the matter. [38]-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Congratulation PRODUCER. You linked exactly what shows Direktor's true light. You have shown his true self. He had insisted that Croats were most of the partisans throughout the entire war in croatia. He was livid at me for even questioning that. Well since it was not enough to him that I showed him that his own source was not worded well, I dropped the issue. Clearly we can see that the partizan movement in Croatia was a primarily Serbian movement. The sources show that clearly in 1941, 1942, and 1943 the Partisans in Croatia were indeed a overwhelmingly Serbian group. I got top academic sources that say that. Why do you find that troubling? Why?
As for this recent edit, [39] , I have to ask why delete that? Why? Why do you seem to be irritated with factual information? I added the exact scholarly article where Hoare mentions it. I'd upload the picture of it too, I went out of my way to obtain material. I source my stuff, rather than compose biased articles. You totally ruined this article, you removed all that juicy information that I put in. These actions from you are not okay. (LAz17 (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
FKP, can we take this to mediation? I have had enough of people who put in unsourced and misourced material, as well as removal of sourced material. If we have mediation then vandalism will probably cease and intrusive arrogant vandalism would perhaps cease? If the Draza Mihajlovic article could have had mediation, this could too. Then Producer will have a much harder time at removed soured information. (LAz17 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
Well, this article is partially related to the Mihailovic mediation... Most of the same disputes are found here as well, just that here there are more disputes which are specific of the Partisans. You can either fill a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation specifically on this issue, or you can simply start a discussion here. Both are basically the same, both sides present sources and discuss the content. Either way we could try to see the main disagreements here on the talk page first. FkpCascais (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources are needed for the information put in, hence the "citation needed" template. For one I highly doubt you have Hoare's article in your possession. In the past you argued that Hoare's falsified figures were accurate. [40] [41] Had you actually had the source that would not have been the case. If you do have the source quote the relevant section. You generally don't source your "stuff" you manipulate existing information to suit your POV regardless what is actually in the source being cited. [42][43] You delete any information that conflicts with your POV including whole paragraphs and if anything is left it's the part of the source you agree with. [44] If you do actually happen to source information you cherry pick the sources that happen to have your googled keywords and that push your POV regardless of what the source's relevance is to the article or its reliability. BTW mediation is not some miraculous discussion that will set everything in stone. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 09:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You think I care that you do not believe that I have the article? This is probably the only time that I will bother to go this length in regards to your dirty accusation. [45] IS THIS PROOF? Are you going to degrade me some more by saying that I am lying? What is next? Perhaps you want every page sent over? When I am wrong I at least apologize. You however do not. You hurt my feelings.
You accuse me of manipulating stuff. I did not manipulate anything. Look for those articles. Come on man, why don't you? Because the truth is not convenient to your bias or what? The Chetniks at a point had almost 10% of their army as bosniaks. That's why I removed that bit where you said their goal was destruction of non serbs. Their primary goal was protection of Serbs, and if someone wants to look into more stuff they may read the chetniks article. Further, chetnik attacks on non-serbs are noted later in the article. So you need to take this anti-chetnik stuff out. Here is one thing that you accused me of manipulating, [46] , OWH man where is the manipulation? How can you accuse me of these awful things when in fact everything is sourced? Do you not believe the sources? What is the problem? I do not cherry pick, that is what you and direktor are very well known for doing. You are right, mediation will not set stuff in stone, but it at least will most likely limit your ability to remove sources because they do not fit your taste. In my experience it is not very well worth one's time to discuss the stuff, but instead it is better to jump to mediation asap, as you clearly start with the position that I have bad intent. Hence you break a wikipedia rule and proceed with removal of sourced information. (LAz17 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
I, and everyone else on wikipedia, do not care about your original research. Again I ask you to quote the relevant section for Hoare and without this drama please.
The source that is cited clearly says the Chetniks carried out ethnic cleansing on non-Serbs. Your little interpretations or observations are absolutely irrelevant.
Do not continue to avoid addressing the issues I've raised, especially your removal of entire referenced paragraphs. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day all. Can we stop the edit warring and discuss this here? This article has some issues, to be sure, but it will never get sorted out with unsourced edits and reverts. There really is a lack of balance in this article, which looks a lot like POV pushing in parts. For starters, it contradicts itself on several issues. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • N.b. Unless there have been some modifications that I am unaware of, User:LAz17 is under a limited WP:TOPIC BAN (per WP:ARBMAC) with regard to the "historical demographics of ex-Yugoslavia" [47]. He is allowed only to "make noncontentious edits to demographics data". In addition, the user has been warned that "continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block without possibility of appeal". LAzo, you're a good guy, but you're edit-warring here yet again. Again, unless I am misreading the notes on WP:ARBMAC, you have already breached your limited topic ban and I will notify Toddst1 should you continue to revert-war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Rofl. Dream on Direktor, dream on. Just because it is on my talk page does not mean that it did not happen. Topic ban partially lifted on request: allowing LAz17 to make noncontentious edits to demographics data, while continuing to avoid interaction with User:Ceha. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Dream on man, dream on. I know you would love to see me topic banned, but alas your luck just isn't there. (LAz17 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)). So yes, please notify him, I am not worried about threats against removing nationalistic POV. Everything I put is well cited. (LAz17 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
I'm sorry if I misrepresented or misunderstood anything, but I did read the text you are quoting and it seems very clear you actually are under a partial topic ban and are restricted to "noncontentious edits to demographics data". "Noncontentious" means "unlikely to cause disagreement or argument". Yet here you are not only posting edits you know are opposed on the talkpage, you are also WP:EDIT-WARRING (again) with other users over the demographics of the Partisans. Again, if you start revert-warring, I will report that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Fut.Perf removed the ethnic component of the topic ban. There is nothing contentious about a sourced piece of material. If producer does not want to believe the source then too bad. I source my material and hence it is not contentious. (LAz17 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

mediation

I have started mediation. This is however very different from the Draza Mihajlovic mediation as it is unrelated to the chetniks. You can see the page here, [48] I hope that this will help the situation. (LAz17 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

Absolute joke. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You can participate yourself :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Laz, the problem is that you need to fill in the request all the aspects where there are disputes. For instance, I disagree with the simplified description of Chetniks having an ethnic cleansing agenda. Now, there are more issues you are more familiarised (about Partisans), now perhaps you could list them here first to see how to present them there. As note, we really need to focus on content, not on eachother. Instead of directing ourself one-to-another we should refer to past edits.
Direktor and Producer, I actually don´t find this a joke at all, and in fact the article is quite unnencyclopedic and full of tendentious edits. It is undeniable that this article has plenty of issues to be worked out... FkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, Laz was indef blocked, but that doesn´t mean his concerns were unfounded. He oposed to a series of edits done on the article that may seem tendentious, and their inclusion should definitely be discussed here first. FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not happy about this, we used to get along very well on Wiki. I read his tb carefully and warned him, all he had to do was not to make disputed edits in Yugoslav historical demographics (an extremely narrow and limited tb). P.s. I'm pretty sure he's the one who's version was entered without discussion [49]. I.e. its his edit that represents tendentious editing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the edits, you also know that your edits are disputed as well, it is just that users didn´t had time to come to this until now as intense discussions are taking place in another related article, so it makes sense finishing them first. Lets not forget that much content was changed (all to one side) since we last discussed things here. Other users not having time, will or simply not wanting to edit-war you doesn´t make your edits undisputed or long-standing.
With regard to your personal relation with Laz I have nothing to say. It is your personal issue. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I am merely pointing out that LAz's edits represent WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING and not those of PRODUCER. That both versions are opposed is obvious. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that a number of edits in this article seem far too concerned about what proportion of Partisans were Serbs, Croats etc rather than focussing on the narrative the Partisans had, their early mistakes, their achievements and controversial aspects such as the 'left deviation', negotiations with the Germans and similar issues. The only reason I can see for this obsession with the ethnic makeup of the Partisans is that editors have a POV to push. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a contentious issue that needs to be resolved with good sources, just like any other (e.g. Chetnik collaboration and war crimes). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I beleave we all agree on that. However, the problem is when users choose to pick sources on "collaboration" or "war crimes" instead of being objective and showing the hole picture... FkpCascais (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a whole lot of objectivity. In any case, it's not our job to be objective, just to represent reliable published sources and a NPOV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to make it clear: every opinion I have on this war is essentially formed on the basis of my having researched it in detail a few years back (I read Tomasevich, Ramet, Pavlowitch, and a few others in lesser detail). I'm about as objective as Tomasevich is, I'm no nationalist, and I'm not partial towards any Yugoslav nationality. Croatian ethnic nationalism gets on my nerves me no less than Serbian does (indeed perhaps more, since I see it far more often). I never question anything that is sourced without a source of my own, and, while I do argue very strongly and I'm annoyed with all this no end, I personally hold that my position represents the neutral point of view. In all honesty, I cannot say the same for FkpCascais, since I've seen him go head-on against sources dozens of times ("wrong"), and his argument does seem to me to be more based on evasion of sources than sources themselves. (I stress this only my personal opinion.)
I believe in getting things done, solving disputed points one by one and before anything else. If this article is to be expanded properly, I would prefer that the disputed points be solved first, so that article expansion can take place at ease and in peace. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed a beautifull and well structured "I´m neutral and FKP is wrong" speach, however how does it help us regarding the article beside being your 5 minutes propagandistic campaign? Btw, I give you credit for renouncing to edit-war. FkpCascais (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not say you're necessarily "wrong". What I am saying is that it would smooth all these issues quite a bit if you based your position on sources, rather than trying to fit the sources to your position through wordplay and such. For example, if someone were to write "the Chetniks collaborated" along with a source that supports this outright, what you in my experience typically do is claim the sources are "misrepresented" or that this is "undue weight" etc. etc. Now, I am not saying that the sources cannot be misrepresented, or that it is impossible to place undue weight, - but you never back up your position with sources. As for me, I would say I am unnecessarily rude and aggressive in promoting what is an approximately neutral position - as it is based on sources. I do not hate Serbs, I do not even particularly prefer Croats over Serbs in some way, and I think Croats in general committed incomparably worse crimes than Serbs during WWII. I am simply being honest here in an attempt to achieve an understanding, I am not trying to offend you somehow, I am trying to ease future discussion (if possible). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I really didn´t wanted to see a sequel of your earlier comment... Direktor, for 2 years we have been discussing several articles. You had your sources, I had mine, Nuujinn had his, JJG had its own, etc. As far as I remember, the only one having a problem with missintepretation of sources was you. Now, if you have a source claiming "X made etnic cleansing", the fact that I don´t have a source saying "X didn´t made ethnic cleansing" doesn´t necessarily leave me without sources if in fact I can present sources that mention the events in different perspective. That is where the principle of WP:UNDUE applies. And if you really want to know, and, as you insist, many editors would agree that your editing is mostly biased, that your approach is all but objective, and that you edit in order to source your missconceptions, and not in a way to improve the article, much less it could be described as objectively.
Now, I would really advise you to stop this "to be honest, I´m right" speaches and focus strictly on aticle content, because after all, it really doesn´t matter at all what you (or me) think of one another or about Serbs or Croats in general... FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

I beleave the description of the Chetnik movement in the second paragraph of the lede, as described in PRODUCER´s version, has no consensus among scholars for the "ethnic cleansing" part. It can also be described as biased as it deals about the goals of the two groups, and while states that Partisans goal was to create a communist Yugoslavia, to the Chetniks the description is focused on ethnic cleansing (a subject discussed at Chetniks article) and puts in shadow their actual main and official goal, the restauration of the monarchy. FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The two sources presented absolutely fail to make such a simplicist conclusion about "ethnic cleansing". The first Tomasevic p. 96 only sources the Partisans part, and the second BBC fucuses on so many other aspects on Chetniks (positive, thus of course ignored) and by the end mentions only "cleansing". So at the end, you are attributing such a polemical heavy accusation of "ethnic cleansing" without having even a source including it, and you even date to revert someone removing this? FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes here we go.. you claim there is "no consensus among scholars" - yet you fail to provide dissenting sources. You claim something is "simplistic" or "polemical" - without providing a source that makes such a statement. Možemo mi ovako čakulat do nove godine, Fkp. We really could discuss like this forever. It is this sort of evasion and plain "rejection" of sources and sourced information that has stretched this discussion for so long (and thoroughly worn out my patience and nerves with regard to this discussion). The whole 2 years of this nonsense dispute can be characterized as a sequence of various tactics for evading the fact that the sources state the Chetniks engaged in collaboration and ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing is sourced, and Greater Serbia is also sourced as a goal. Nuujinn opposed the mention of ethnic cleansing in the section title on the basis that it was a title. There is no policy-based argument that I know of that could justify ignoring what half-a-dozen sources state. You can either accept this, and modify your position in accordance with the sources, or you can post the next, 1,000th post attempting to disregard those sources which are not in accordance with your pre-conceived position, with various empty unsourced phrases like "undue weight", "misrepresentation", "simplistic", "polemical", etc. etc. etc. The Chetniks conducted ethnic cleansing. Incidentally, in the Balkans, that's pretty much general knowledge. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, please direct to me in English only. The "ethnic cleansing" was not sourced as it was. I analised the sources and I expose them here. Tomasevic doesn´t even deal with Chetniks on that page, and the BBC source only mentions "cleansing". I couldn´t care less about what you consider "general knolledge" and neither is no ones role here is to guess it. So, you made again a huge post where you don´t adress correctly the issue. It´s becoming disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This nitpicking does not apply as we aren't quoting the source verbatim. First, the BBC source says: "To achieve this goal, Chetniks strove to forge an ethnically-pure Greater Serbia by violently 'cleansing' these areas of Croats and Muslims." Now, please familiarize yourself with the definition of ethnic cleansing: "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group" - that is absolutely in line with the point being made in the reference. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You simply can´t just pick a source and make your own conclusions. Ironically, the BBC source even mentions the goal (another one), and doesn´t say Chetnik´s goal was to "ethnically cleanse" as you say. You just play with the words in order to fit what you want to edit. You can´t ever back such a hard polemical accusation with a source that doesn´t even mention it. This is definitelly couvered by WP:REDFLAG. I also question that the "cleansing" issue is lede material, as it receves quite small ammount of attention on overall description of Chetniks in all reliable sources we analised. FkpCascais (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
To rephrase "they want to make this area ethnically clean by cleansing these people" into "they wanted to ethnically cleanse these people from this area" is not WP:OR, FkpCascais. That's called POV nitpicking, or as we say in ex-Yugoslavia, the vaccination of individual hairs :D. Some people are still not satisfied that the sources and evidence support the claim that Earth is round (I'm not kidding). We can post an RfC on the issue? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Is that the best source? You need further backing for this. Anyway, it is not lede material. If scholars fail to write on this, it is certainly not WP editors who are going to give it lede importance and even worste, using combined sources in a, kind of, syllogical manner. "Ethnic cleansing" accusation is definitelly too hard to be atributed this lightly and then provided with lede importance. Either you bring better sources, or otherwise it can only be be adequatelly included in article body. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No Fkp. You see, you don't get to set standards of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. How am I going to take you seriously when all you do is say "oh no, no, no, this accusation is just definitely too hard, you need to bring better sources" and such stuff :D. How is any of the above relevant to us or the source(s)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you don´t have any scholar source, meaning, you don´t have scholar consensus, meaning, WP:REDFLAG deffinitelly applies, meaning, no lede inclusion for that, meaning, it can only go into article body and adequatelly transponded. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A) You also do not get to proclaim something as an "extraordinary claim" simply because you think its one. In my honest view, your position that the Chetniks did not engage in ethnic cleansing is far, faar more of an extraordinary claim. (And you, in contrast, have no sources whatsoever in support of it, as always I might add.)
B) Did I not post a half-dozen sources? Now, as you always do, I'm sure you did attack them in the standard, usual way, just as you periodically attack virtually any source that is being used to support a negative statement on the Chetniks (remember how many dozens of times you demanded that we disregard Tomasevich?), but please understand: it is not necessary for you to agree that a publication or other is a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, for it to be, in fact, a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, since a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE is defined in policy in considerable detail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The way the sentence is sourced is not enough for the conclusion presented. If you have other sources, please bring them here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no inline source for the ethnic cleansing statement in PRODUCER's edit, and although you (DIREKTOR) produced the sources over at the Chetniks article, they haven't been brought here. Perhaps later today when the ban is lifted, the edit is redone, with a reference to Greater Serbia as well, and with inline citations for all of the sources for the ethnic cleansing bit. I'm not sure if you had Velikonja p 166? I found another article by Hoare that supports the use of the term 'genocide', which Tomasevich 2001 also supports. I'll dig it out later and post it herePeacemaker67 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mitja Velikonja is a local author, something we agreed to avoid using, specially for the most polemical subjects. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Correction. Dr. Mitja Velikonja is not a 'local author'. According to the Columbia University website, He is the Istvan Deak Visiting Professor of East Central European Studies at Columbia University and Associate Professor for Cultural Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He was also a Fulbright visiting scholar in Philadelphia in 2004/05 and a visiting professor at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, in 2002 and 2003. He is a serious academic and highly respected (and awarded) scholar in his field. I cannot recall agreeing that we would exclude serious internationally recognised scholars on relevant subjects. You can't pick and choose. I draw the line at former Partisans, Chetniks and Ustashas and popular authors who have not engaged in research and are just 'writing a good story', but you can't seriously be excluding respected academics. What possible bias are you suggesting he has in relation to the Partisans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If I read you well, you want to source a statement about Chetniks, not Partisans. Correct me please. As far as Velikonja, he could even be a Nobel winning author, I can´t see how tht changes his birthplace and nationality. FkpCascais (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are right about the Chetniks reference, but my point about what you are suggesting about his possible bias still stands. We don't exclude highly respected academics who are published and reliable because of where they were born or their nationality. You need to show that he is not reliable (using sources, not your personal opinion), otherwise he can be used by me or any other editor, and if you or any other editor reverts material that is published and reliable, then WP has policies that can result in consequences that can flow from that behaviour. Feel free to bring sources from internationally recognised published and reliable scholars born in Belgrade if you like. Where someone was born doesn't necessarily make them biased (and therefore unreliable), you need to prove they are biased (and unreliable) individually. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We did agreed to avoid using sources from local authors for controversial issues (and this issue is the most controversial of all), however now you are changing your mind as the wind goes. I was really hopping you will bring some non local scholar sources. This only further confirms that we lack scholar consensus about the issue, as non local scholars seem to fail to describe the events as ethnic cleansing, and as such, that will certainly lack importance as to be included in the lede in such heavy description, although it can obviously be included in article body if adequately transponded. Btw, all we are doing for time being is discussing eventual sources which were not even presented yet. FkpCascais (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
No we did NOT agree not to use sources from local authors. We only agreed not to use locally published sources. Your requirement on non-local authors would exclude Pavlowitch, Tomasevich, Banac, etc. and a great many other scholars with impeccable reputations and authority status on this subject. I also notice that you bring this up only when you need to get rid of a source that is currently being used to support negative information on the Chetniks. There is simply no way you can possibly be allowed to set your own standards for reliable sources. And just for the record, since it is relevant for the ANI thread, I will also post the other sources on Chetnik ethnic cleansing in this talkpage as well. You can then explain how they all fail to meet your ever-shifting definition of "reliable source".
Sources on ethnic cleansing as a Chetnik policy
  • Borneman p.150
  • Banac, (Pinson) p.143 (in addition specifically classifying eastern Bosnia actions as such)
  • Hirsch p.76 [50]
  • Mulaj p.71 [51]
    • But if the end was the same (i.e. the creation of the Greater Serbian state), the accomplishment of this objective was envisaged to follow different routes in the Garasanin and Chetnik conceptions. The former advocated assimilation and control through cooperation, while the latter [the Chetniks] embraced the policy of ethnic cleansing."
  • Haskin p.31 [52]
  • Lindsay p.235 [53]
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Banac in a book edited by Pinson, Direktor, but that doesn't detract from the argument. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK DIREKTOR, why it took the 3 days and many unnecesary posts to finally bring the sources now? I am sorry but I will have to leave to work in a moment and I want be able to discuss the sources until the protection is lifted. Seems to me that was intentional in order to avoid previous discussion. I beleave keeping the protection is fundamental so a propper time is provided for a consensus to be reached. And don´t forget, this is only one of the points we were supposed to discuss, and I was here for all this days willing to do that but allways found a wall of unrelated posts in order to win time. FkpCascais (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
that's too cute by half, Fkp. You are well aware of the sources Direktor has been talking about over at the Chetniks, he didn't finally bring them now, he was referring to the same sources he's just pasted from the Chetniks. However, PRODUCER did not provide the inline citations for them, which would be necessary given the challenges to this material that are being mounted and the editwarring. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not obligated to search any other discussions trying to find someone elses sources. I specifically asked them to be brought here, or otherwise he could have specifically pointed out where they are. He didn´t done none of this. Sounds like a new excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Heheh, not only did I refer to the sources (and their location) more than once, but for crying out loud: you were heavily involved in that same thread and were notified in direct conversation more than once. What sort of games are we playing here? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I know you may be tired, but if you do not raise valid objections we can only close this discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutelly impossible to discuss with you without an admin supervision. However, if we get someone to mediate and help me keep the discussion within standards, I will gladly discuss the sources with you. FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
No thank you, two years of my Wikilife was quite enough. It seems that now, after failing to get me blocked, you are (instead of producing sources) attempting to again stall the discussion through 1) leaving it altogether for a goodly period, and 2) starting a long mediation process (again). Please understand this for future reference: I have no problem with other DR methods, but I will never ever consent to entering an RfM with you on any issue whatsoever. And I do whole-heartedly advise everyone (Producer, Peacemaker) to steer well clear of that particular DR method in this context if they value their time and effort. I am sorry.
You are being honest, it seems to me, in at least one respect: I believe you when you say you are finding it impossible to discuss. It is indeed impossible for you to discuss at this time (not with me in particular but with any involved party), since you have no backing for your claims, and expect others to accept only your personal opinion-based objections (again).
In short, FkpCascais, you do not get to "oppose by default". You may avoid discussing if you like, but that merely indicates that Producer's edits are no longer disputed. Should you wish to disputethis or that aspect of the proposed edits, kindly bring forth a coherent objection on the basis of sources or policy. As things stand now I can see none that you've posted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, I'll dispute them if PRODUCER doesn't provide the inline citations... Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, check your copy of Tomasevich 2001, p96 is about the Slovene Partisans, not the Chetniks. Can you fix this asap? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I don't have Tomasevich with me. Better wait for PRODUCER for the other info. I'll just restore the ethnic cleansing text. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
For what are you requesting inline citations, Peacemaker? Please be more specific. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 20:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, PRODUCER. The placement of the citations at the end of the paragraph did not make it clear what the Tomasevich citation was referring to. It is now clear that it refers to the aims of the Partisans, not the ethnic cleansing or aims of the Chetniks. In these articles, I think we need to ensure inline citations clearly relate to the specific sentence or phrase we are referring to, especially where a paragraph has several ideas contained within it and specific sources relate to specific parts of the paragraph. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

FkpCascais (talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to extend page protection. Reviewing the discussion above, I am inclined to decline his request. The ongoing discussion plus the removal of one of the disruptive edit warriors gives me some optimism that while the interested parties here have not reached consensus on the content issues, they have at least remembered the value of talk page discussion. Have I read the situation wrong? Or can others make similar commitments to continuing dispute resolution in lieu of edit warring until consensus is reached? causa sui (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

as I've noted elsewhere, I consider consensus unlikely due to Fkp's lack of proper engagement with the sources, but I'm willing to continue to try for a while longer(with a lingering sense of exhaustion and dread developed on the Chetniks. I will put together a draft regarding the Chetniks aim's, and start a new section to discuss it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hullo. I came to this page my accident. It is my gut feeling that there is too much disagreement and I hope that you people will find a solution as this page is important. I would like to say that this page is about Partisans and not so much about Chetniks. So perhaps it is not productive to expand what appears to be a debate about Croatian or Serbian peoples role in the group to this now. Perhaps it is best to climb stairs one at a time rather than to jump many stairs as I fear is going on here. Alas I am no expert in this field and so I hope you folks can produce a good outcome. Regards, (GibbonGiboo (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)).
Ah but you see its this Chetniks dispute, which for years has been essentially perpetuated through little more than plain refusal to accept relevant sources, that basically sidetracks improvement and sucks-up the energies of involved users on an entire group of articles. Yugoslav Partisans included. Believe it or not, in spite of numerous sources there is still opposition to the fact that the Chetniks collaborated with Axis forces and engaged in ethnic cleansing. Whenever said activities are to be mentioned, there is protest and a standard discussion about how the sources are supposedly biased, or they make only "passing mention", or undue weight is being placed on them, or they are being misinterpreted, etc. etc.. We have even heard the proposition that sources that do not say anything on an issue - are somehow "counter-references" to the listed sources as they do not also say what they do. Its an entire arsenal of sources evasion, and every discussion a new method is picked. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

@Causa sui, I proposed to keep the protection as my concerns were not properly adressed by that time. My main goal is to avoid returning to the previous situation of edit-warring and to archive consensus for the controversial edits. There are several problems that we are facing here.

  • One is that I am alone facing a group of editors. While Peacekeeper67 addmited back then that my concern about the lack of sources for that particular edit was valid, the other users were not doing anything to solve that situation, were not bringing the asked sources and were not focused on article content. Confronted by this attitude and by knowing the block log of some of them, you can verify that my fear of restoring the edit-war by some of them was valid. By that time, the users limited themselfs to announce eventual sources, but did not made an effort to bring them in time to properly discuss them, and the will to insert the disputed edit as soon as the protection is resumed (along with the announced sources) was expressed. The addition of the trolling image only confirmed the attitude of total disregard towards me. Notece that the sources were only brought after my complain at ANI.
  • The other problem is the content. We only got time to start discussing the first point. The users attitude towards the issue is extremely biased, as they don´t use sources to correctly transpond and expand the content, but they choose the content they want to add and then search for sources that fit them. I analised the sources and found the flaws, however they openly act as offended and agressive towards me because of that. You can please verify my (and everyones) conduct troughout the discussion, and it is evident that despite the clear evidence of my concerns being funded (even admited by some users), their attitude towards me is not correct. As you can see by Peacemaker´s first comment on this thread, inmediatelly after your comment, he accused me of "lack of proper engagement with the sources", despite the fact that I was the only one here who analised the sources, pointed to their problems and cited adequate policies. He did that same comment on the ANI report where he even contradicts himself right after by saying that there was a problem with the sourcing. That is done with the intention of discrediting me and removing me as obstacle. As it is clear that this attitude did not changed, you can also see, that the users announce that they will make a draft of their own, that way clearly (again) disregarding and avoiding a discussion here. I feel that I don´t have the means of properly participating in the discussion as I am continuosly ganged-up, so the only way of this discussion to be conducted properly would be with some supervision and help from some admin. Would you please be able to help? FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean analysed? But what you have offered is not analysis of sources, but rejection of the sources that have been provided. It appears the reason for your rejection of those sources is that you don't personally agree with them, and that this has occurred both here and at the Chetniks article, because you have not suggested sources to support the material that is proposed to be changed, and have just pushed your POV that the sources are ('locally born', 'hard', 'wrong', 'misunderstood' 'misinterpreted' '(insert issue here)'. It is incredibly frustrating to deal with. My understanding is that it is not an admin's job to back you up just because you are on your own in the way you are responding to sourced material. What I am proposing to do now is what I understand we are expected to do, produce a sourced draft about the aims of the Chetniks (heavily sourced given the controversial nature of the edit) to discuss here. So I'm going to do that. May I ask what else I am supposed to do to progress this issue (other than agree to the current incomplete picture of the aims of the Chetniks remaining incorporated in the lede)? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a pattern that has occurred time and time again, Peacemaker, and not just in the two places you mentioned. It is time, I think, to seek assistance with this. Its in essence a WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argument repeated so frequently it probably qualifies as WP:DISRUPTION, but whether its actionable or not is secondary. I really want to get specific advice on how to deal with such arguments. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
@Peacemaker - With regard of the sources, you are making assumptions about me when in fact I still didn´t even provided any answer for them. However I will only procede in case of Causa sui accepting to help on the discussion, as otherwise I will not loose time expressing my concerns for them to be ignored and without anyone neutral to decide, but we should rather see some other means of dispute resolution. With regard to the "draft", I know you are extremely enthusiastic about writting extensive texts about the ethnic cleansing, but I am not sure what draft you want to make, as after all we are discussing this issue here only for lede purposes. You need first to show if the subject of ethnic cleansing is even agreed as such among scholars, and then to demonstrate that it is provided with enough couverage and importance by scholar sources as to be part of the lede. In my view, and as per WP:LEDE, it is not even close (eventually under controverses, but again, this is not about Chetniks but about Partisans, so Chetnik contoverses should not be dealt here in Partisans lede, only a minor description with facts that have consensus among scholars), as you had really to digg to find even references for it... Ethnic cleansing is a sort of conclusion which when accepted it has major scholar backing. Ethnic cleansing cases, like Rwanda one, have houndreds of books dealing with the subject. And here, you have only half a douzen of references (your own words), including dispued authors... FkpCascais (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
With respect, I find it offensive that you assume, without any evidence I might add, that I am enthusiastic to write anything in this article. I was drawn in by the ridiculous unsourced editwarring, but decided to have a go at a draft about the aims of the Chetniks in the interests of WP, not you, Direktor or anyone else. All I want it to reflect is what the sources say about the aims of the Chetniks. I don't agree with what PRODUCER edited, for two reasons, 1. it wasn't edited to include inline citations, and 2. because I don't believe it properly covers the Greater Serbia aims of the Chetniks. As far as I can observe from the sources, terror tactics and cleansing actions/ethnic cleansing are the primary means used to achieve Greater Serbia. The insipid reference to the Chetniks merely wanting to restore the dynasty is too thin, way too thin, as far as the Chetniks are concerned. The aims of the Chetniks in this article should be short and sharp (ie brief), but need to properly cover the various aims of the Chetniks as per the sources. They are not properly covered now, and I am proposing to draft a sentence or two to cover them all. That's it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
FkpCascais, I am not particularly interested in how "serious" User:FkpCascais thinks the term ethnic cleansing is, or how many sources User:FkpCascais thinks are necessary to source this or that. I am sure that we would indeed require several hundred sources before User:FkpCascais might acknowledge negative info on the Chetniks has been sourced, regardless of what it might be. I remember the exact same argument being voiced several times about collaboration, along the lines of "collaboration is a 'serious accusation' and needs however many sources I like of the exact type and quality as I find personally satisfying". However Wikipedia policy is thankfully much less defensive of the Chetniks.
You are simply trying to raise the bar however you please, and it is incomprehensible to me that you could possibly expect someone is going to acknowledge you as the person who determines "just how sourced" something needs to be, based on your own feelings and perceptions. The sourced information is in the article, should you remove it again be prepared to justify your actions on the appropriate noticeboard. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I couldn´t care less for the threats coming from someone like you. I will not be your edit-war partner, so sing out loud for having your 5 minutes of disputed edits inserted in the article by edit-war method. FkpCascais (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for not edit-warring. As for "threats", I would have no problem justifying the edit, and do not find that prospect "threatening" in the least. It is interesting that you do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
People why so much discussion over just one sentence? The whole dispute seems to have shifted from one bigger thing onto one sentence? I am wondering if this is a joke, especially because the sentence is not even about the Partisans. Maybe it is easier to solve the dispute between user Producer and user LAz17 first? As for you FkpCascais thanks for not edit waring for if I am not mistaken only one side gets punished when such things happen and that side would probably be you considering that Producer did not get punished when both he and his edit war partner should have gotten punished. (GibbonGiboo (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)).
A player leaves the game and a brand new one enters very shortly after. This just got more interesting. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi LAzo :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Producer, could you provide the page numbers for your sources? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

mediation attempt 2

I will be filing mediation for this article on January 10th. By then hopefully the holidays would have been over for everyone celebrating any of them. This article has been problematic for years and it's high time that the problems get resolved. As the talk page has not been of much use I look forward to everyone's participation in the mediation. (LAz17 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Forget it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Why? The article is problematic and there is continually no consensus. The problems have been going on for years, so I feel that this is the best way to resolve the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).
Maybe because for them seems easier to WP:OWN and edit-war the article? Direktor, either as mediation or any other form, a neutral supervision and decition over the disagreements is needed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I read then saw the result of mediation on the Chetniks article, and must say I was less than impressed with the outcome. In my view, mediation would only result in a mediocre article, waste time, and in any case, it does not mean the article stays that way once it's mediated. The problem I see is that some editors will not accept properly sourced material being placed in the article because they personally disagree with it. Mediation will not change that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "some editors will not accept properly sourced material" is quite ironic. It doesn´t mean that RfM is the best solution, but some other sort of dispute resolution will happend, as only good will is the one preventing edit-warring, which was started by your side without proper discussion being concluded. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mitja Velikonja as a source

I see that there is some dispute about using Dr. Velikonja as a source. He is a distinguished academic associated with prominent universities. His book, Religious separation and political intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina, appears to be a top-quality source. On page 166 he writes that until November 1941, "some Chetnik units fought together with partisan forces against the Germans. From that time on, however, they decided in favor of hidden or open collaboration" with the Nazis. He says the Chetniks were involved in ethnic cleansing operations.

Every word of Velikonja should be acceptable as a source. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. He easily meets the criteria for a reliable and published source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans/Archive_4&oldid=1079335402"