Talk:Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia

Estimate of total number of Serb victims from USHMM

The USHMM (which, whilst not the only or the most conclusive source on this matter, is highly credible), states that, 'It is presently estimated that the Ustaša regime murdered between 77,000 and 99,000 people in Jasenovac between 1941 and 1945.'[[1]]. This includes non-Serbs murdered there, and it also states, 'Among the victims were: between 45,000 and 52,000 Serb residents of the so-called Independent State of Croatia.' On the same page it also states that, 'The Croat authorities murdered between 320,000 and 340,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustaša rule'.

This article currently misrepresents the USHMM figures in the lede and in the body of the article. I will commence correcting them to reflect what the USHMM actually says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor (User:99.88.140.98) has been changing the latter figures back to match the numbers given in a USHMM press release in 2001 (330,000 to 390,000), and I have already rv them twice. I am noting this here because the discussion thus far has been on my talkpage. I am using the figures on the Jasenovac page rather than a ten year old press release for obvious reasons. I have also emailed the USHMM to confirm that the 320-340K figures are the current ones, and will report back here once I get a response. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So what re the official figures for Serbs killed by Ustase? 173.56.116.63 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the image gallery used in this article

I question the appropriateness of the use of a gallery of images in this article on the basis of WP:IG. All of these images could be placed alongside text as individual images to adequately illustrate aspects of the subject, and several are really repetitions of others either already in the article individually or in the gallery itself. Per WP:IG, the images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I'm of the view that the gallery collectively does not have encyclopedic value, and it has been used as a means to shoehorn more images into the article. Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images (there are several similar ones in this gallery), and it is not clear that any point of contrast or comparison is being made. I propose deleting the repetitious ones and moving ones with encyclopedic value alongside relevant text. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I will take it that I have consensus to implement my proposal. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all pictures that do not specify they are of Serbs, and have re-captioned most as they did not accurately portray what the USHMM captions stated. I will now look to distribute these photographs throughout the article, delete those that are redundant and close the gallery. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Inflated claim regarding numbers of Serbs killed by Kosovar Albanians

The figures in this section [[2]] for numbers of Serbs killed (40,000) and expelled (200,00) are grossly inflated. A number of non-WP:RS have been used to support this claim, and additionally, the Carl Savich blog article has been misrepresented, as it states the number killed was 10,000, not 40,000. The 10,000 figure is supported by Ramet (who says it includes Montenegrins). Ramet (p. 141) states about 30,000 Serb houses were burned down, and her figure for expulsions is 40,000 between November 1943 and February 1944. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Genocide

Can someone tell me why this isn't considered a genocide? I mean, it was a persecution, so the title doesn't lie, but genocide brings a more specific and accurate meaning to what the Croat Nazis planned for the Croatian Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuildWars2 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case, then the Ustase would not have bothered with mass deportations of Serbs to Serbia. They would have killed them all.173.56.116.63 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

if you have a reliable published source that refers to it as such, then please produce it so it can be discussed. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok...this is offtopic but for the link to David MacDonald's book, I read the book and I don't remember anywhere where he proclaims that it was genocide or where he refutes it was genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuildWars2 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see it on Google Books in a preview form. Page 261 on. Here [3]. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The definition of genocide according to the UN convention is the the destruction in whole or part of an ethnical, national,racial or religious group. The policy to kill 'one third' of all Serbs in the country, allong with the deportation and religious conversion of the next two thirds respectively, clearly indicates the genocidal intent of the Ustashe in physically eliminating a substantial part of the Serb people. To put this into perspective, the Srebrenica Massacre of 8000 Bosniaks in the Bosnian War is considered significant enough to be genocide, and this did not even constitute one third of the population. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Arnon testimony

The article quotes the testimony of Alexander Arnon during the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann. This is not a 'reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. It is testimony of an interested party who may or may not have been privy to the number of Serbs killed at Jasenovac. I have deleted it as it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Reliability of sources

I have started this thread to document serious questions about the lack of reliability/NPOV of several sources used in this article. The first I want to raise is Carl Savich, for example, he has been heavily criticised for bias and lack of research by the historian Marko Attila Hoare on his blog at [4]. I believe this criticism, in which Hoare questions the lack of evidence for Savich's claims is sufficient to draw into question his reliability and the use of him as a source on a matter as sensitive and controversial as this one lends undue weight to his work. Any thoughts? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the removal. Carl Savich and the Serbian nationalist blog website "Serbianna" cannot be seen as a reliable source. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 04:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The second one is the wide usage of primary sources, including from the Sakic trial, Neubacher's book, and an online book by a survivor, Danon. First hand accounts can only be a primary source, and without analysis in a reliable published secondary source, whilst compelling, they really have no place on WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the use of blogs like grayfalcon. These are not acceptable, reliable sources per WP:BLOGS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. The primary sources as you pointed out should also be removed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started working through it, and have discovered there are some from the Lord Byron Foundation, another extreme right wing org. And I'm rm them as well. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've rm the unlicensed youtube video and am about to start rm all primary sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska subsections

These two subsections essentially restate what is in the separate articles, and the Jasenovac one in particular is far too detailed and long. It thereby gives undue weight to Jasenovac alongside the other mass killings throughout the NDH and the massacres in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia such as Kragujevac and Kraljevo. Given Jasenovac accounted for approximately 52,000 of the 340,000 Serbs killed in the NDH, the length of this subsection should be reduced to match. At present it dominates the article and gives undue weight to Jasenovac. Most of this detail is already in the Jasenovac article and this subsection should just summarise what is there, and point the reader to that article for further information (per WP:SPINOFF) I will draft a new subsection to replace what is there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just rm a large section of material regarding living conditions at Jasenovac which completely and unnecessarily duplicates material already present in the Jasenovac concentration camp article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alignment of images in article

Several images in this article have been left aligned. As a result the text has been sandwiched between two images or the image has misaligned section headings. I have already corrected this per WP:IMAGES, but it has been reverted with no explanation. Please do not repeat the revert. This article needs a lot of work, and changes that contravene MOS are not helping. If there is some critical reason why an image must be left aligned, perhaps a less important image could be removed to avoid the sandwiching and other effects. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

proposed restructure of Ustaše persecution in the Independent State of Croatia section

To achieve a more encyclopedic treatment of this topic which is consistent with the key WP:RS, I propose to commence restructuring this section into three subsections which reflect the three main aspects of the persecution of Serbs by the Ustaše in WW2:

• atrocities (including massacres and concentration/extermination camps)
• expulsions (including those that fled in fear but were not 'formally' expelled)
• religious conversions

Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the restructuring, for example this could be done:

3.1 Atrocities
3.2 Expulsions
3.3 Forced conversions

Then the entries about the camps could be placed at 3.1.1, 3.1.2, etc. Anonimski (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

US Holocaust Museum Figures

There seems to be a mix-up between the figures that the US Holocaust Museum gives. Here is a link to a page where the numbers they cite are, "330,000-390,000". http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/detail.aspx?id=14969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a mix-up unless you think that the Jasenovac page of the encyclopedia (updated on 11 May 2012) is trumped by a photographic caption. The 320-340k figure is explained at the top section of this talk page. The lead reflects the sources in the body of the article. You have been conducting this slow-burn edit war for months now. Continuation of this disruption will result in a report at WP:ANI. I have reverted it to the figures used on the encyclopedia page of the USHMM. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well I certainly did not make up the numbers. As you see, 330,000-390,000 is listed on the website, hence my persistence. I will trust your judgment, though I suggest you try to get in contact with a member from the Museum to clear this matter up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of "Victims" section

The Victims section isn't structured well, and could need some more subtopic levels, with relevant content placed at the right places.

For example:

 7 Victims
   7.1 Total number
   7.2 Estimates by Holocaust institutions
       7.2.1 Yad Vashem and Simon Wiesenthal Center
       7.2.2 United States Holocaust Memorial
   7.3 Wartime reports
       7.3.1 German reports
       7.3.2 Italian reports
       7.3.3 Ustaše reports
   7.4 Other estimates
   7.5 Lists of named victims

Further, it would be good to investigate the sources closer, especially those which were colored by 1980's and 1990's nationalism. Mis-quotes such as confusion between Jasenovac vs. the total number victims could also be corrected (and maybe mentioned as a common mistake in these contexts)? Anonimski (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this edit of yours and logic you presented here. I don't think that changes you introduced with your edit should be characterized as "wholesale" and reverted based on that. Minor corrections can be done without reverting. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to examine these diffs, but this sounds like a good place to mention a problem I've seen earlier in other articles - elevating "wartime reports" to the same level as something produced by a respectable institution. The encyclopedia primarily needs to report on what WP:reliable sources say, and it must not give WP:undue weight to WP:fringe theories. If secondary sources discuss wartime reports, we should summarize that discussion, but parroting arbitrary claims made by Nazis is of no value if they aren't corroborated by something relevant. We have enough problems reconciling conflicting information from sources that are supposed to be reliable - throwing in whatever some non-historian once said into the mix is not helpful at all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why I wanted to place the Yad Vashem and Simon Wiesenthal sources at the top. Right now, the stuff that I tried to categorize as "Wartime sources" is still there, titled "Historical documentation", which is not an honest description since it's not well-researched data. I wasn't sure whether to keep or remove that, it would feel wrong to do something drastic without discussions about it. Anonimski (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I've just skimmed over that section and saw that we're literally trusting Srboljub Živanović, while at the same time referencing a Vjesnik article which criticizes him as a fraud! This is a travesty. It's like a propagandist took Jasenovac concentration camp#1960s forensic investigations and cherry-picked only the parts that they liked. Incredible! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article has a lot of inconsistency. What does everyone else here think about trying to filter out some of the "fringe" sources (for example, various unknown authors from the 1980's and 90's, when a lot of people where colored by nationalist sentiments) and keep the more trustworthy sources? Does anyone want to continue working on this part? Maybe Srboljub Jovanovic shouldn't be there at all? Anonimski (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the section currently titled "Statistical Estimates" - to me it seems like this part and the debates therein have been given undue weight over the more established sources (Yad Vashem etc.) when it comes to WWII victim data. It feels like it at least belongs into another section, maybe titled "Controversies" or "Debates". - Anonimski (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not what section, what specific sources? BTW, some of the Holocaust institutions are at wide variance with reliable academic sources that have analysed the work of others. Their estimates provide no reasoning, and are essentially drawn from "factsheets". They must be included, because of what they are, but I don't believe the academic consensus is anywhere near what some Holocaust institutions say. Let's discuss each source in turn, look at the academic consensus and then decide how we are going to structure the section of the article in question. So, which sources are you talking about? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I just had general concerns about sources from the Balkans, and argued that sources from the outside generally would have less bias because they have less political connection to the subject. But if there are a lot who disagree, then I retract my initiative on editing the content. However, I do still think that the general structure of the section needs to be reworked, with sources from the 40's under a specific title, institute sources under another, etc (in whichever order people agree on). Right now, the article doesn't give a good overview on the estimations. (Would an infobox perhaps solve this issue?) - Anonimski (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My general approach to infoboxes is they aren't much good when the issue is complex, because the limited space leads to oversimplification. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm still quite new to familiarizing myself with certain Wikipedia features and in which contexts they are used in general. Anyway, what's your opinion on the re-structuring (for example, something like the subtopics I presented in the beginning of this thread) to give a better overview on the available information? Right now, the section could use some categorizing of the statements - for example the 1940's speculations would be in their own subgroup, and the institutes' official statements in another. User:Antidiskriminator seemed to think it was okay, how about you and User:Joy? Essentially, it's something similar to the idea you had about Section 3, in the thread you created in 2012 (if I understood it correctly). - Anonimski (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a review of the entire article is needed, but in order to do any re-structure properly we need to work through what sources you are saying are "various unknown authors from the 1980's and 90's". Who do you mean exactly? Without working through that and then the consensus of reliable sources, we can't work out what the core message is, what the contrasting reliable sources say, and what is fringe, unreliable or worse. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think nobody here is opposed to your proposal to restructure victims section, User:Anonimski so you can continue with it. If some editors has some concerns about sources they will present them here. No need to refrain from improvement of the article because there might be some potential issues in future edits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no, Ad. You will be unsurprised that I don't agree. Restructuring the section to put the huge numbers mentioned by some of the Holocaust institutions ahead of the work of Kočović and Žerjavić, and subsequent academic collaborations between Croat and Serb scholars, which have been accepted by reliable academic sources, would skew the entire section away from the academic consensus of around 100,000 at Jasenovac and 330,000-390,000 in total in the NDH towards the pseudo-scientific gobbledegook of 600,000-700,000 at Jasenovac alone, and the completely bonkers 1.7 million total casualties of the Communist reparations estimate. You can't seriously be advocating that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Me? Why me again? Does every single comment you write to me have to be about me? Implying that it is me who is advocating pseudo-scientific gobbledegook? This is another article that I will never comment in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Touchy as usual. You (no-one else) were the one saying "no-one" was opposed to the restructure, when I clearly had issues with what sources we were talking about that Anonimski has yet to even respond to. Don't dip your bill in unless you are willing to actually say what you think should be done, specify the sources you believe should be used and why and in what order, and stop jumping in to support major changes to an article that needs carefully thought through development. Bon voyage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I first had the impression that the institutions had the more reliable info - but later I reconsidered my stance into a more neutral one, that's it. Also - I am open to making a re-structuring in another order than the one presented in the beginning of the thread. The most important part is that we don't mix later estimations with speculations from the 1940's. Overall, the title "Historical documentation sources" sounds a bit misleading, when a large part of it are guesses that various factions made during the war. Also, there's a part where it's explained that the 1.7 million estimate includes demographic losses, and that the actual number is lower, so I don't think that false information is presented there (calculations like that could for example have their own subtopic too, for clarity). Anonimski (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore my exchange with Ad, he and I always seem to rub each other the wrong way. Anywho, I am happy to discuss an order. My view is that it should be done chronologically, so that readers can see how the figures were exaggerated during the time of the war, modified through all the studies etc, to the pretty firm academic consensus we have currently. Thoughts?

I think that could be a good idea too. However, an inverted one would probably be preferable in this case, with more up-to-date statements presented at the top, and more outdated statements at the bottom. (By the way, it seems that the Yad Vashem source has fixed its mix-up with the numbers. The total is now presented as "More than 500,000 Serbs [...]", while there's no number at the Jasenovac entry.)
http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206358.pdf
http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205930.pdf
Anonimski (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we would not put them in chronological order, as that demonstrates how they developed and how we got to today's academic consensus. Yad Vashem, with the greatest respect to what they do in keeping the Holocaust in the forefront of people's minds, are completely out of step with non-Holocaust Yugoslavia-specific academic sources such as Tomasevich, Ramet, Hoare and others. They are presenting what are almost fringe points of view on the numbers these days (with the notable exception of some Serbian sources that claim even higher numbers), and the Serbian-Jewish political engagement has to be taken into account when considering this. My view is it should be in chronological order, with the current academic consensus as the last subsection (and better reflected in the lead). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that could be good too, as long as the lead reflects the current consensus. Anonimski (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked the article again, apparently I was mistaken about one of the sources. At first, I thought that the quote about 600 000 at Jasenovac was from Yad Vashem, when it's in fact from a separate source. Anyway, wherever it's from, the best thing would be to remove the quote from Shelach and Gutman totally, since it's a mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs#Estimates_by_Holocaust_institutions

What do you think about it? Anonimski (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If the material isn't consistent with the source, I'd remove it. EotH is not available online, I would have to go to the library to check it. Have you seen a copy? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't, but there's something I'm wondering about: What is the Wikipedia policy on statements that obviously contain mistakes, does the policy on "fringe theory" cover this? It seems like they have taken an estimate of total number and applied it to Jasenovac as if it was the only camp. If it is to be kept, maybe we should say something like "The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from 1995 states 600.000 victims, although it only mentions the Jasenovac camp" to avoid undue weight. Right now, the notification on unreliable sources is from May 2012 - maybe this would improve the situation, so it finally could be removed one day? Anonimski (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Genocide redirect

It's recently been objected to put a hatnote on this article stating that Serbian Genocide redirects here and those looking for the events that transpired during the Yugoslav Wars should look to Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars#War crimes. The reasons for doing so have been unhelpful hand-waves based in something that is certainly not reality.

Consider that when putting serbian genocide in DuckDuckGo, serbian genocide of 1941-1945 is the fourth suggestion while serbian genocide bosnia is the top one. Actually carrying out the search without suggestions returns this article as the top result, but clicks beget clicks; is it suggested that this would continue to be so if Serbian Genocide redirected here instead of the 1990s or was a disambiguation page?

Or consider the use of the term in books, as analysed by Google Ngrams. Searching through the results between 1900 and 1990, the sources are indeed about the WWII persecution of Serbs. But even a glance at the results from after 1990 show the Yugoslav Wars taking dominance.

Is it really being suggested that because One is about Serbs being killed, the other is about Serbs killing others, the phrase "serbian genocide" isn't at all ambiguous? If it were so unambiguous, perhaps the same person would be able to present a formal rule universal to English to distinguish the semantics of all adjective-noun pairs. In the face of data, I wish them the best of luck.

Hence, I've restored my edit to the article. →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate action to start a thread on talk and wait for discussion to arrive at a consensus (which you don't have at this point), not start a thread and revert. I've reverted the hatnote until we come to some consensus here. Edit-warring will not be successful in imposing the hatnote against consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I had no plans to make any move beyond that last one. The purpose of that last edit was to draw attention to this very thread, as was indicated in the edit summary.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss to arrive at a consensus instead of talk about discussing arriving at a consensus. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll start by saying I'm not familiar with DuckDuckGo. The only aspect of the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s that is consistently referred to as genocide is the Srebrenica genocide (in which 8K or so Muslims were killed), which of course was committed by Serbs, but is overwhelmingly referred to as that or as the Srebrenica massacre, due to its limited geographical scope. Although it is something referred to as the [Bosnian Genocide]], when killing related to Zepa are included. The Serbian genocide of WWII involved the deaths of 300K+ Serbs killed by the Ustashas, and is widely referred to as a genocide. To me, "Serbian genocide" clearly refers to a genocide against Serbs, just as Rwandan genocide refers to genocide against Rwandans, and Bosnian genocide refers to genocide against Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. It isn't clear to me what aspect of the policy on hatnotes and redirects you are relying on here. Could you elucidate? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo is an alternative search engine that does not tailor search results to a specific user. I selected it for this purpose in order to avoid the differences that Google would introduce.

To me, "Serbian genocide" clearly refers to a genocide against Serbs Well, to quote one of the users who reverted my edit, if you think like that, that is not enough reason to confuse those two things. Do you have any evidence that your feeling is clearly echoed by the real world?

It isn't clear to me what aspect of the policy on hatnotes and redirects you are relying on here I appeal to common sense: I've demonstrated that the term "serbian genocide" does not unambiguously refer to the WWII prosecution of Serbs. A reader who searches for "serbian genocide" may, with a non-trivial probability, be looking for a genocide that involves Serbs and is not the WWII prosecution of Serbs. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that the one in the Yugoslav Wars is the most likely alternative. But if that is the case, then this discussion should be about the content of the hatnote, or turning Serbian Genocide into a disambiguation page. But not whether the hatnote should exist at all.

I've presented to you the data: the term "Serbian genocide" is ambiguous, because the literature uses the same term to refer to two different genocides. It isn't clear to me exactly what aspect of my presentation that you've tried to rebut, so could you elucidate?

@Peacemaker67: Sorry for the late response. I've been busy. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "data" and "literature" consists of your interpretation of a DuckDuckGo search. 87.116.189.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisionism in modern-day Croatia

Part of second sentence "...Franjo Tuđman (whose family had been Partisans during WWII)..." is not entirely true, at least not in this form. He was Partisan himself during WWII, and Communist Party member. Ended the war with rank of Major, and after the war was General of YPA. From his family, only his father was Partisan. In Wikipedia article about him, his role in Partisans is diminishing too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of all deaths from war-related causes in this article

I'm not sure why we would include all deaths of all Yugoslav peoples from war-related causes in this article. Surely the scope of this article is the numbers of Serbs killed, displaced, converted etc in Yugoslavia during WWII, it is not about how many Serbs were killed fighting for the Chetniks or Partisans, or who died of typhus. There are sufficient details of the numbers of Serbs killed by persecution already in the article. I fail to see the purpose of including the overall deaths, or what it tells us about the WWII persecution of Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is very much related. Its not just "some" victims, its overall view of the number of people killed and perished during WWII, and this is article about killed and perished people during WWII. Actually, it would be an error not to mention it, as it gives clear idea of the scale of the events, and make this article better, easier to understand and more informative. Also, info is sourced, and very important, it gives clear picture of the questionable fact that 346,740 killed were Serbs while 83,257 were Croats. I very strongly disagree to remove this info, per multiple reasons. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Albanian involvement

If this article is going to be titled "Genocide of Serbs...", then the inclusion of Albanian-perpetrated atrocities is questionable. I haven't seen a single non-Balkan source which describes killings of Serbs by Albanians during WWII as genocide, in contrast to those committed by the Ustaše, on whose definition virtually all scholars seem to agree. 23 editor (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no room for killings of Serbs by Albanians during WWII here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I said. There's plenty of space for more content. It's just that at this point, with the title the way it is, Albanian atrocities against Serbs are beyond WP:SCOPE. "Persecution of Serbs during World War II" would make for a different story, because Serbs were persecuted by Albanians. 23 editor (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I perfectly understood what you said. I didn't said there's no of space for more content or that some Albanian guys were not employed to persecute some Serbs (as mentioned here [[5]]). I supported your opinion that the article name is not in accordance with inclusion of persecution of Serbs from some Albanians. Name change or material removal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This article has always been a coatrack, and I agree that by making it "Genocide of" instead of "Persecution of" limits the scope to events described by reliable sources as genocide. The only events that I've seen described as genocide are the Ustasha crimes; killings, expulsions, conversions, not other Wehrmacht, SS and internecine killings that occurred, but aren't described as genocide by reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So what do you suggest, name change or material removal? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Change the name back to what it was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's OK for me. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker67's proposal.Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many sources that refer to mass executions of thousands and expulsion of more than 100.000 Serbs by Albanians during WWII as genocide. Here are some of them which I easily googled:

• Radovanović, Milovan (2008). Kosovo i Metohija: antropogeografske, istorijskogeografske, demografske i geopolitičke osnove. Službeni Glasnik. p. 497. Албански геноцид над насељеницима, подржаван од фашистичких окупаторских власти и комунистичког режима у духу коминтерновско-титонстичке идеологије...
• Jовановић, Живадин (2006). Косовско огледало. Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih. p. 25. ...уравнотежи поремећену етничку структуру становништва била су анулирана новим геноцидом над Србима током Другог светског рата.
• Avramov, Smilja (1992). Genocid u Jugoslaviji u svetlosti međunarodnog prava. Politika. p. 232. Проблем одговорности за геноцид на Косову и Метохији изузетно је сложено питање. Несумњиво је да колективну политичку одговорност сноси шиптарска мањина а индивидуалну непосредни извршиоци. То је био став Главног Штаба Народно....
• Gledišta. Belgrad University. 1999. p. 93. U godinama II svetskog rata na prostoru Kosova i Metohije ubijeno je najmanje 12.000 Srba (popis žrtava albanskog terora ... Genocid koji je na Kosovu i Metohiji sproveden nad srpskim stanovništvom imao je svoje pokrovitelje u fašističkoj ...

During my quick overview of this topic, I discovered that many sources emphasize that WWII genocide over Serbs on Kosovo is only one phase of genocide which lasted from Ottoman trough Fascist into Communist and post-Communist time. Some of hastily googled sources include:

• Bilten Fonda za nauc̆na istraz̆ivanja za ... god. Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. 1988. p. 114. ...геноциду на Косову 1875-1987...
• Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke. Izdanje Saveza udruženja pravnika Jugoslavije. 1998. p. 22. Тиме ]е у акци]и етно- цида и геноцида над српским народом Косова и Метохи]е успос- тављен парадоксални континуитет измену

Before making final decision here, it would be good to examine sources more thourougly. All the best.

Signature template

I was topic banned on 20 July 2014 "in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" because a small group of editors involved in disputes with me reached the consensus to ban me. On 16 August 2016 the ban was lifted (diff) without any conditions. In the topic area I was banned from, I plan to adhere to the following restrictions until 16 August 2018:

• 0RR restriction - this means that I can only make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content
• limiting the number of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, If I want to insist on the position I presented, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• If any member of the small group involved editors who banned me and wanted to keep me banned explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to a relevant noticeboard within a reasonable period of time.
• limiting the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the number of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Since this page belongs to the above-mentioned topic area, I want to clarify these restrictions.

• Comments: 1/1 today, 1/2 out of two totally in this thread, including the number of times I responded to other users' comment in this specific thread. Please don't expect me to reply. If I insist on the position I presented although after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• Sections: 0/1 this month, 0/2 this year new sections I made on the talkpage of this article

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Any non-Serbian sources, Antidiskriminator? 23 editor (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator, continuous Genocide from the Ottoman era ? Can you elaborate on this. Also have a read of thee article: Serbian historiography which is based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources who have analysed in depth issues with Serbian historiography, especially relating to genocide and the Ottoman era and it being heavily imbued with nationalism. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari Mass killing and expulsion of Serbs committed by Albanian speaking Muslims on Kosovo during Ottoman era is not subject of this article. My point was that many sources say that Serbs were subjected to genocide on Kosovo not only during WWII, but some say continuously in the period stretching from Ottoman Era trough Fascist into Communist and post-Communist time. I am not expert in genocides so I can not elaborate on this. Maybe all those sources are incorrect. Ignoring presented sources on ethnicity based arguments would be wrong. I just wanted to help. Please dont expect me to reply since this is my last comment in this discussion. All the best.

Signature template

I was topic banned on 20 July 2014 "in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" because a small group of editors involved in disputes with me reached the consensus to ban me. On 16 August 2016 the ban was lifted (diff) without any conditions. In the topic area I was banned from, I plan to adhere to the following restrictions until 16 August 2018:

• 0RR restriction - this means that I can only make positive additions to articles which do not influence other editor's content
• limiting the number of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, If I want to insist on the position I presented, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• If any member of the small group involved editors who banned me and wanted to keep me banned explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to a relevant noticeboard within a reasonable period of time.
• limiting the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
• limiting the number of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year

Since this page belongs to the above-mentioned topic area, I want to clarify these restrictions.

• Comments: 1/1 today, 2/2 out of two totally in this thread, including the number of times I responded to other users' comment in this specific thread. Please don't expect me to reply. If I insist on the position I presented although after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools.
• Sections: ?/1 this month, ?/2 this year new sections I made on the talkpage of this article

23 editorI dont have much time to perform more thorough research. I quickly found many Russian language sources that refer to mass murder of more than 10.000 Serbs and expulsion of more than 100.000 Serbs on Kosovo as genocide. This topic is not subject of my particular interest. I just wanted to help. My advice is that more thorough research should be performed. If there are sources which refute such claims by emphasising that Serbs were not subjected to genocide during WWII on Kosovo, such sources should be also included per WP:NPOV. Its up to you. All the best. This is my last comment in this discussion, please dont expect me to reply.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be off-topic. We're discussing whether to revert the name for scope reasons. I think if we want to include all persecution of Serbs during WWII, we need to go back to the old title. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I find that an article about all persecution of Serbs during WW2 would unavoidably be a coatrack, since the disparate groups that committed atrocities against Serbs during the war, such as the Ustaše, kaçaks, IMRO, etc., were hardly collaborating with one another in doing so. This is an excellent opportunity to redirect the scope of the article to what it should always have been about: the genocide of Serbs in the NDH. 23 editor (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be just as happy with narrowing the scope, but we will need to trim all the coatracky non-NDH stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, considering that you write much about myths and your especially familiar with the failings of Balkan historiographies, as akin to the Albanian one, Serbian historiography is heavily imbued with nationalism (and over a much longer period of time). These Serbian historical works of which you refer too, can you account for those and the historians who composed them as not belonging to the patriotic-nationalist group ? I ask because you did write in your previous reply that "WWII genocide over Serbs on Kosovo is only one phase of genocide which lasted from Ottoman". Are you basing this on the scholarship of Serbian historians who refer to incidents of violence (whether individual or wider) as genocide during the Ottoman era? I personally do not use Albanian scholars from the Balkans (only used very, very few) unless i have vetted them and can defend in Wikipedia if someone challenges their use. I have noticed that in many articles some editors repeatedly use Serb scholars like Batakovic and others (like 19th century ethnographers whose works are biased at best) from the patriotic-nationalist group to compose their articles which can result in POVish results. Regarding your inference about "Mass killing and expulsion of Serbs committed by Albanian speaking Muslims on Kosovo during Ottoman era", non Balkan historiography has a differing view about that with Anscombe's work and others challenging those perceptions and myths. Don't get me wrong, wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship does admit that Albanians committed acts of mass violence against Serbs, but it mainly started and was done by Albanian refugees who were expelled by the Serbian army during the war of 1878 from the Toplica/Morava regions in the name of Serbian expansionism. Those events are acknowledged as kick-starting the modern day Albanian-Serbian conflict. I know this article is not about the Ottoman era, but you brought the issue of genocide up as spanning such a long period of time and you seem to be basing that conclusion on those sources you often use (i can read Serbian). Make sure your content is wp:secondary and wp:reliable in future. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Discussion about some of the above raised matters have moved to my talkpage due to issues that make it difficult for Antidiskriminator to reply in here.Resnjari (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree to change it back to persecution.--Zoupan 10:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari, Zoupan and me opted for change it back to persecution. Peacemaker67, you said it is OK for you too. I think 23 editor would not be against. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It allows for more scope and coverage anyway. Also regarding the word Genocide should be for one the redirect titles to this article, with it specifically referring to either the Ustasha or the Croat NDH state as has referred to as genocide in wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)