Talk:Jezdimir Dangić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Jezdimir Dangić is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Serbia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Jezdimir Dangić is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Croatia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Jezdimir Dangić is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Collaboration[edit]

The infobox and lede emphasize Dangićs collaboration with Germans in period December 1941 — April 1942. That contradicts the text of the article which says that "Dangić's Chetniks collaborated with German forces in eastern Bosnia over a period of several weeks..." after Kuntze vetoed the conclusion of the agreement on 12 February 1942. This assertion is based on Tomasevic who says (p 208) " ... the parties seems to have gone ahead with some collaboration for a few weeks...". Even communist prosecutor (who explained that Dangic was among recipients of the Karađorđe star received from prime minister of the Royal Yugoslav government-in-exile in London? on p. 92) accused Dangic for collaboration with Germans since the beginning of 1942 (Jezdimiru Dangiću, Mihailovićevom komandantu Istočne Bosne koji je od početka 1942 godine sarađivao sa nemačkim okupatorima i Nedićem protiv partizana.) Somehow few weeks after 12 February 1942 became several months with edit made by PRODUCER (diff). Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, be WP:BOLD. Obviously you've taken the time to find sources (these and those mentioned above) and place them on the talk page. What's stopping you from adding these things to the article itself? I appreciate your input, by the way. 23 editor (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I already explained why I do not edit article myself. Dangić and related topics are not subject of my interest, so I am reluctant to perform changes of the text without opinion of group of editors who are main contributors to this article (including Peacemaker67 and PRODUCER) and much more acquainted in the Chetniks subject. Therefore I would really appreciate if PRODUCER can reply to my question and explain his above edit.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Both 23 and I have given you an opinion, so go right ahead. No doubt someone will revert you if they think you've overstated the case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason not to give PRODUCER a chance to explain his position? If not, I would appreciate if he can reply to my question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, PRODUCER hasn't been around much recently though. I would have thought that three out of four is sufficient consensus for inclusion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
He had more than dozen edits in this article alone in past 24 hours. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Then I'll leave it with him. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I added that due to the fact that "Between December 1941 and April 1942, Dangić engaged in direct negotiations with the Germans. During the latter half of December he met with Abwehr representatives numerous times in an effort to reach an agreement with them." I think conspiring to commit treason is within itself collaboration. Your mention of the Karađorđe star speaks more about the exile government than Dangic and the other collaborating Chetnik commanders that received the same medal. Personally I don't plan on getting bogged down in 10 simultaneous discussions. I'm already having déjà vu from the Pavle Đurišić discussions. --PRODUCER (TALK) 15:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peacemaker67, this is not the first time you collapse discussion over objection of another editor (me). Will you please be so kind not to continue ith such practice.
  • @PRODUCER, Negotiation ≠ collaboration. Dangic negotiated with Germans since August 1941. That does not mean he collaborated with them. On the contrary. Between August and December he captured most of eastern Bosnia which belonged to German puppet state NDH. It is wrong and non-neutral to insist on precisely following the sources in case of monthly time span connected with Dangic's anti-German activities in Poland but not in case of his collaboration with Germans. Will you please be so kind to follow the sources and revert yourself? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
According to who? Dedijer and Miletić on page 86 state "Dangic came to east Bosnia on 16 August under the authorization of Draza Mihailovic to organize Chetnik units in the battle against the Partisans. In all negotiations with Partisan leadership in that area until the end of 1941 he declared that he was for cooperating and made agreements to cooperate, but at the same time he reached an agreement with the Ustase-Domobrani units of the NDH and German occupiers of a joint struggle against the Partisans. Direct negotiations with the German occupiers of armed cooperation began in December 1941 and lasted until April 1942." Original in Serbo-Croatian: "U istočnu Bosnu došao 16. avgusta sa ovlaštenjem Draže Mihailovića da organizuje četničke jedinice radi borbe protiv NOP-a. U svim pregovorima sa rukovodstvom NOP-a na tom području do kraja 1941. deklarativno bio za saradnju i sklapao sporazume o borbenoj saradnji, a istovremeno se dogovarao sa ustaško-domobranskim jedinicama NDH i nemačkim okupatorom o zajedničkoj borbi protiv NOP-a. Direktne pregovore sa nemačkim okupatorom o oružanoj saradnji protiv NOP-a poveo decembra 1941. i vodio do aprila 1942. godine." --PRODUCER (TALK) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Miletic explains that direct negotiations between Dangic and German occupiers began in December. Dangic began to negotiate (not directly but trough written correspondence) with Germans since August 1941. Here is a (link) to one of the sources which confirms that right after his arrival to Bosnia in mid August Dangic wrote a letter to German command in Zvornik proposing to Germans and Italians to take control over Bosnia in exchange for Chetniks' surrender. Although he negotiated with Germans and their allies since August Dangic captured most of eastern Bosnia which belonged to them. That is why Tomasevic says that "some collaboration sems to have gone ahead for a few weeks" after Kuntze vetoed the conclusion of the agreement on 12 February 1942.
  • Is this enough to explain that negotiation ≠ collaboration and you should revert yourself because the text of the article should present information which is directly supported by reliable source (Tomasevich)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Miletic says "he reached an agreement" for a "joint struggle against the Partisans" with the Germans during 1941 and according to Miletic and Redzic the earliest direct negotiation is December 1941 so no I see no reason to revert myself. --PRODUCER (TALK) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Reaching an agreement with Ustase domobrani before beginning direct negotiation with Germans in December does not mean Dangic actually collaborated with them. On the contrary. He fought against them and captured most of east Bosnia from them in that period. Do you see reason to revert yourself now?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
south of the demarcation line, the Italians kicked the Home Guard out then invited the Chetniks in. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That is why I wrote "most" of east Bosnia, not all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
And the Partisans captured several towns north of the demarcation line. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Many, if not all, together with Chetniks. None of your comments refute my point so I expect PRODUCER to reply to my question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
What I see is that "as early as that August, Mihailović had urged the Chetniks to "avoid clashes with the Germans for as long as possible." Dangić likewise sought to avoid conflict with the Germans", that his "operations were directed primarily against the Ustaše and the Bosnian Muslim population of the area", and that "[Dangić] has had good relations with the Germans". First you said negotiating isn't collaboration and now you're saying reaching an agreement for a "joint struggle against the Partisans" isn't collaboration either. What nonsense. In any event we have Jareb, a Fulbright scholar, writing in a book which is edited by Sabrina P. Ramet, an academic juggernaut on Yugoslav history frequently cited on Wikipedia, and published by Palgrave Macmillan, a publisher specializing in academic research, that solves this outright.--PRODUCER (TALK) 18:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Avoiding war with Germans does not mean you are German collaborator. Especially if you are fighting against German puppet state NDH and capture its eastern part. Otherwise USA would be defined as German collaborating state at the beginning of WWII. Negotiating or agreeing on collaborating is not collaboration. Collaboration is actual collaborating as explained by Tomasevich. Work of Jareb is not reliable in this case per link presented below. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually if anything the date should be set earlier. Dangić was in the gendarmerie of the Serbian quisling state/government whose sole existence was due to the Germans and whose loyalty laid with the Germans. --PRODUCER (TALK) 13:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Peacemaker67. Are you sure that works of Jareb are reliable sources taking in consideration the explanation provided at the following link (link)? Is there any particular reason to present Chetniks and Dangic more Nazi collaborative than Tomasevich says?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course! As soon as a scholarly source is used that undermines your argument, you attack the author. I don't use sources like a nephew of Nedic published by a Serb emigre newspaper. I use a Fulbright scholar asked by Sabrina Ramet to write chapters in two books she has edited and published by Pan Macmillan and Routledge. You have got to be joking. Talk about clutching at straws. A wise man once said, "Tell him he's dreaming!" Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I used two arguments to support my position:
    • I explained the issue of using Jareb's work with valid source which explains in detail that work written by Jareb is "nationalist-revisionist". For the topic of this article it is important that it is emphasized that his work "demonize Serbian Chetniks".
    • I also pointed to Tomasevich who explains in detail that in-spite all negotiations and agreements reached on collaboration between Dangic and Germans they "seem to have gone ahead with some collaboration for a few weeks" after 12 Februry 1942. That is why I asked if there is any particular reason to present Chetniks and Dangic more Nazi collaborative than Tomasevich says.
@Peacemaker67: I don't think that your (again) unnecessarily harsh comment address this issue or replies to my question. Unless better source can be found for monthly time span for Dangic's collaboration with Germans the text of the article should reflect what Tomasevich stated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You once again completely misunderstand WP policy, which is really inexcusable after all the time you have been here. IF, and I say IF, there is a difference between reliable sources, we attribute them intext and contrast them, we don't adopt one because that suits our POV. Note what I did with the slightly differing version of events about the Gorazde massacre. Please get a clue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

"In mid-1942, Đoka Đorđević, senior Serbian Interior Ministry official, asked Đukanović during a visit to Nedić: "Do you really still have Turks in Bosnia? They must all be expelled and cleansed, so that we can enter Bosnia and establish our government."[53]"

What does this have to do with Dangić? 23 editor (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Đukanović was in Dangić's Chetnik Provisional Administration that was set up in east Bosnia which I'll expand on when I'm done fleshing out other bits of the article. He accompanied him in the Belgrade meetings and it's particularly relevant given the aspirations of Dangić and Nedić. --PRODUCER (TALK) 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This SFRY source says that Provisional government of Eastern Bosnia was disestablished by Dangić in February 1942 - Branko Latas; Milovan Dželebdžić (1979). Četnički pokret Draže Mihailovića 1941-1945. Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod. p. 132. Retrieved 1 October 2013. "По повратку у источну Босну Дангић је 6. феб- руара 1942. распустио Привремену управу и реор- ганиэовао" .[After he returned to Bosnia, Dangic disestablished Provisional government on 6 February and reorganized....]
  • This quote is not the only quote which is added to the article to overemphasize collaborationism and bloodthirstiness of Dangic and Chetniks, or simply to ridicule them. The result is complete mess:
    1. "Do you really still have Turks in Bosnia?" This quote is not connected to Dangic.
    2. Dangić is said to have held a "fierce hatred" of Muslims,
    3. allegedly saying that he wished to "kill them all,"
    4. and that he had an "absolute willingness" to collaborate with the Germans.
    5. Mihailović had urged the Chetniks to "avoid clashes with the Germans for as long as possible."
    6. Dangić likewise sought to avoid conflict with the Germans and began to pursue a policy of "self-defence against the Ustaše and revenge against the Croats and Muslims."
    7. Hoare describes this behaviour as being "not yet genocidal."
    8. It also reported that "[Dangić] has had good relations with the Germans and does everything in order to avoid collision between his troops and the Germans."
    9. to "prevent the Chetniks from taking their revenge against the Croats."
    10. "to slit the throats of the Turks, except for any pretty Turkish ladies"
    11. and "screw down the Croats so hard that they wouldn't dare for a thousand years to look at a Serb askance."
    12. "to turn our People's Liberation Struggle into a war of Serbs against Muslims"
    13. "that the peaceful toiling Muslim people is not to blame for the crimes that the Ustaše have commited, and that the People's Liberation Army must protect them from persecution and killing."
    14. Dangić wished for "Serbs to gather for a war of revenge"
    15. Dangić ordered his own troops to permit the Germans to pass through Bosnia, saying "they are advancing peacefully and minding their own business without disturbing our unfortunate and long-suffering people."
    16. Dangić's staff declared that the Partisans "are led by the Kike Moša Pijade, the Turk Safet Mujić, the Magyar Franjo Vajnert, and that so-and-so Petar Ilić whose real name nobody knows [emphasis in the original]" ...
    17. the shared goal of the Partisans and Ustaše was "to break up and destroy Serbdom. That, and that alone! [emphasis in the original]"
    18. They started to re-form Chetnik units in eastern Bosnia and began agitating against the Partisans on a "conservative, Serb-nationalist and anti-Muslim basis."
    19. "Major Dangić is a Serb and will remain one. He has only made the offer in order to use East Bosnia as his troop training ground, to overcome the winter months, and to make preparations to gain East Bosnia for Serbia."
    20. "Dangić on this occasion declared that he and his men would, even in the conditions of a general uprising in the Balkans and the arrival of the English, fight loyally and without wavering on the German side. He declared on this occasion his belief that only German victory could guarantee Serbia the position due to it in the Balkans, while the victory of Bolshevism would mean the destruction of every nation, thus also including the Serb nation."
    21. "Nedić's Chetniks are distributing weapons and ammunition from the quota they receive from the Germans for the struggle against the Communists. They are constantly sent from Serbia into Bosnia and are claiming that they will conquer the latter."
There is an essay Wikipedia:Quotations which says : "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This claim that the quotes are there simply to "overemphasize collaborationism and bloodthirstiness of Dangic and Chetniks, or simply to ridicule them" is absolute rubbish. Every single one of those quotes is reliably sourced and relevant to the topic at hand. The personal essay is not a guideline merely another editor's suggestion and a poor attempt at legitimizing your personal dislike of the content. --PRODUCER (TALK) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree, a complete beatup. Essays are just that, they are not policies. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a query: I noticed that most of these quotes that Antidiskriminator is referring to are cited with Hoare. Is this Hoare paraphrasing what people are alleged to have said or are there actual documents/correspondence/journal entries from which these quotes are derived? Not against the quotes, but I must emphasize that this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, not a novel. 23 editor (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider that most, if not all of the quotes are entirely relevant and presented in context. They are drawn from a clearly reliable source, a Doctor of History that specialises in the former Yugoslavia and is published by one of the top university presses in the world. We don't look at a reliable source and deciding what bits are ok, and what bits are not. They are either relevant or they are not. Happy to discuss relevance if that is the query, but I don't believe it is appropriate for us to engage in a debate about the primary (or secondary) sources Hoare (or any other reliable source) has used. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I propose to seek resolution of this dispute at DRN. Does anybody object to my proposal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Because that was so effective last time? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Inspite the objections of other editors and before dispute resolution process has even began, PRODUCER added (diff) another quote (again based on Hoare): the massacres were "above all an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
there is no agreement to go to DRN, so why should anyone wait to edit the article before DRN happens? That would mean delaying for ever if there is no agreement to go to DRN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Straw man. I did not complain about editing the article but about addition of more quotes although two editors complained about it. DRN is not the only dispute resolution process. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Overreach. 23 challenged one quote, and after he queried something about quotes in Hoare I addressed it from a policy standpoint and he has not rejoined the conversation as yet. He is more than capable of indicating where he stands on this issue. I am adding to the article as I work my way through Hoare (and coincidentally am addressing some issues you have raised, using a reliable source, of course) as I go. When I come across something that warrants a quote, I'll add it. Your apparent expectation that anyone will desist from adding quotes where appropriate because you "just don't like it", can take a short walk. You work out what you want to do with "dispute resolution", and let us all know. I personally thought the last foray into DRN was a farce, and I have no intention of carrying on this discussion there as well as here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@PRODUCER: You still haven't "fleshed out" the bit about Đoka Đorđević. As things stand right now, the quote attributed to him looks really quite random. Please sort this out. 23 editor (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Relatively untouched by genocide[edit]

  • "In east Bosnia the largest Chetnik massacres took place despite the area being relatively untouched by the Ustaše genocide until spring of 1942." -

@PRODUCER, I sincerely apologize if I did not understand this sentence properly but, since you added this sentence (diff), will you please be so kind to clarify what does it mean "relatively untouched by genocide" and present the full quotation from the source?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  • "Relatively untouched" is lifted verbatim. The Ustaše genocide occurred primarily in central Croatia and Bosanska Krajina. Hoare notes the massacres of Bosniaks were not revenge, but "an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement". --PRODUCER (TALK) 23:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Please be so kind not to violate wikipedia rules and collapse active discussion on other editor's objections.
I object to the above mentioned sentence because it is not directly supported by the source, incorrect, illogical and could mislead the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Who says it is incorrect? You? What reliable source do you have for that statement? As far as the collapsing boxes are concerned, if you can use them, so can I. Talk about living in glasshouses. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Within reasonable period of time I will present sources which contradict the assertion about east Bosnia being (relatively) untouched by Ustashe genocide before Spring 1942.
  • Go right ahead. Just make sure they are reliable sources with translations in full context, and that you provide explanations of who the author and publishing house are and their bona fides. Especially when the source you are challenging is written by a Doctor of History who specialises in the former Yugoslavia, is widely cited by other historians of the former Yugoslavia, and whose book was published by Oxford University Press. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: I presented more than one (I believe) valid reason for my objection (it is not directly supported by the source, incorrect, illogical and could mislead the readers):
    1. I don't think PRODUCER (yet) presented a quote which directly supports "relatively untouched by genocide" assertion. I did not challenge the source because I did not even see the quote. What I am uncertain about (and I emphasize that I sincerely apologize if I am wrong) is not the source. Its how PRODUCER interpreted the source to write this sentence. That is why I politely requested a quote but he has not (yet) provided it. YesY
    2. This assertion is incorrect (I will present sources to prove it)
    3. PRODUCER did not clarify what does being "relatively untouched by genocide" exactly means
    4. this assertion could mislead readers about the real nature of Ustasha regime--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This information is from a detailed explanation by Hoare of the creation of the "Provisional Administration for East Bosnia" that resulted from discussions Todorovic had with the Italians in November 1941. The Italians handed over Visegrad, Gorazde and Foca and the surrounding areas to Todorovic, after they forced the NDH troops to withdraw. Here is the quote in context:

The establishment of the Chetnik puppet administration proceeded in a manner that paralleled the establishment of the NDH only half a year earlier: the Chetniks carried out systematic massacres and plunder of the Mulsim population of east Bosnia much as the Ustashas to the west had carried out massacres of the Serbs. These Chetnik massacres were not simply an expression of Serb revenge for Ustasha crimes, for whereas the largest Ustasha massacres occurred in Bosanska Krajina, and especially in those areas of Croatia with large numbers of Serbs (Banija, Kordun, Lika, northern Dalmatia), the Chetnik movement in those areas was comparatively weak; the largest Chetnik massacres took place in east Bosnia, which had been relatively untouched by the Ustasha genocide until the spring of 1942.

  • Thank you Peacemaker67 replying to my question. I don't understand why PRODUCER did not reply to it although the source uses the same wording. I had a feeling that Hoare did use the same words, but I just wanted to be sure. Relatively untouched by genocide... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I told you that "relatively untouched" is lifted verbatim. --PRODUCER (TALK) 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I again sincerely apologize if I don't understand English well, but I simply can not understand how something can be "relatively untouched by genocide". Ustase either carried out their genocidal policy in east Bosnia or not. Do you have any other source which supports the assertion that this part of NDH was "relatively" exempt from genocide?
  • I found a text written by Hoare which might bring more light to this unclear assertion: "For one thing, the weight of Ustasha genocide occurred in Croatia proper and in West Bosnia, whereas the largest Chetnik massacres occurred in East Bosnia and the Sanjak region - the latter was not even under Ustasha rule or touched by the Ustasha genocide." - the latter means Sanjak region (link).
There is an ocean of sources which emphasize that Ustase commited terrible atrocities against Serbs in east as soon as they established their rule in east Bosnia which they considered of vital importance for their genocidal Greater Croatia project (because there was mythic Drina border toward Serbs ("међа на Дрини")). I think it is obvious that Hoare's assertion is generalization of his findings about Sanjak which was considered as part of Bosnia until the end of 20th century. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another loaded and almost rhetorical question. And another "ocean of sources"! None of which (of course) has actually been produced, in context, translated with information about author and publishing house. You can "think something is obvious" as much as you like, but it's OR unless Hoare explicitly says he is including the Sanjak. He doesn't, and in fact he mentions the Sanjak several times in the book, so it would be strange indeed if he meant to include it in this context, but didn't. What he does say is that east Bosnia was relatively untouched by the Ustasha genocide until July 1942. Which is what goes in the article. Desperate ploy thwarted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I already explained that "Within reasonable period of time I will present sources which contradict the assertion about east Bosnia being (relatively) untouched by Ustashe genocide before Spring 1942" so there was no reason for another unnecessarily harsh comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Below is sourced text which explains that "east Bosnia being (relatively) untouched by Ustashe genocide before Spring 1942" assertion is not only illogical but also incorrect and misleading:

Eastern Bosnia was of particular importance for NDH and Ustashe because of Drina which they propagated as frontier of their worlds toward another world. They saw Drina as China wall-alike border which separates Croats from Serbia forever. Serbs who lived in region of east Bosnia (near Drina) were subjected to Ustashe terror just like in other parts of NDH. Before uprising in the east Bosnia, mass atrocities (including those in Drinjača, Rašića Gaj, Skelani...) already committed by Ustashe significantly contributed to the success of the uprising in east Bosnia.

  • This is only a short text and short list of sources I managed to prepare until now. I had intention to prepare longer text and list of sources but I made decision to refrain from further editing of this article and its talk page, for now.
  • I am concerned about using works of Hoare so often in this article, taking in consideration that his work contains such illogical and incorrect assertion like this about east Bosnia being being (relatively) untouched by Ustashe genocide before Spring 1942.
  • I wish all the best to all editors of this article. I am glad that I significantly contributed to its quality and hope that its remaining issues will be resolved without my assistance. But if anybody feels that I could help in future just let me know and I will reconsider my decision to withdraw from the editing of this article. Cheers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Is there any particular reason for such harsh comment? I significantly contributed to the quality of this article but almost all comments you write to me are harsh (like always). Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you feel my language is direct, I am sure that is just a cross-cultural thing. No doubt some would find your talk page behaviour frustrating, but I actually find it mildly entertaining. On balance though, I consider your involvement in articles I have edited as a negative, mainly due to the inordinate amount of time wasted explaining the application of WP policies and researching dubious authors and publishing houses, despite the fact you have been on WP longer than I.

This behaviour is exemplified by descending on an article when it is nominated for review, raising huge swathes of text on the talk page, with self-commissioned ticks and collapse boxes that no-one else is permitted to touch until you decide the matter has been addressed to your satisfaction (regardless of any consensus to the contrary), using snippets of phrases from primary sources, self-published sources, dubious or demonstrably biased or non-academic ones, with no context, no discussion of who the author is and what their academic credentials are, the bona fides of the publishing house etc. This information then has to be found by other interested editors, or sometimes you provide it when queried. This repeated and demonstrated behaviour also incorporates a demonstrated lack of editing in article space even on the odd occasion that the point is valid and a reliable, in-context source has been brought for it, and no-one has an objection to it being added. It is often characterised by a focus on incredibly unimportant things, like a song or the name of someone's brother, and claims that these additions (assuming a reliable source can be eventually found for them) are a significant improvement to the article in question. Sometimes this behaviour unearths a useful point, but even they are rarely raised without an observation of how it is "surprising XXXX was overlooked" or words to that effect. Sensitive souls might feel you were being sarcastic or questioning their motivation.

I don't share your view (stated above) on how much of a contribution you make to articles through this behaviour, my impression (based on significant interaction over time) is that this behaviour is probably aimed at trying to get material that doesn't suit your particular point of view removed, and vice versa. The Pavle Djurisic article, and the fact that you are topic banned from it, is a case in point, and this one (another Chetnik leader) is shaping up in a very similar way. I recommend you examine your behaviour and try to make one point at a time, properly, in context, using reliable sources whose bona fides withstand examination, rather than this shotgun approach. PRODUCER has said as much above, and we both have plenty of interaction with you we can point to in order to demonstrate this pattern of behaviour occurs. I might add that these observations are not about you as a person, as I do not know you and I am sure you would be very interesting to have a chat with, they are observations about your behaviour on talk pages on WP. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Drina Martyrs[edit]

I'm surpised to see no mention, until I placed it there, of his alleged role in capturing the Drina Martyrs, which lead to their eventual martyrdom. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)