Talk:Yugoslav Partisans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GibbonGiboo (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 24 December 2011 (→‎Protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again?

Imbris, again? Unsurprisingly, the Serbo-Croatian language (called "Serbo-Croato-Slovene", but virtually identical) was the official language of the unitarianist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. So much so that when the Partisans were formed (mid-1941, a few weeks after the surrender of the Royal Army) there was no other recognized Štokavian language. None. The Partisans promised to reinstate them as official, but that's a whole different story.
Now, I apologize for my alleged "interrogativeness", but please explain your edit. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you wrote is pure WP:OR. First of all there were no official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the sittuation was — in statu nascendi — moving toward a unified Yugoslavian nationality and language. The Yugoslavian monarchy dropped the triune-tribe theory and moved toward Yugoslavianism. In any case there should be written [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croato-Slovene]]
Second – recognized by whom, the new-Yugoslavian policy installed in 1937 was a positive Stalinist Marxist view on supporting of nations, like Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians in their right to self-determination (including the right to secession), right of their own language, culture, political representation as equals, etc.
Imbris (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand: there are no fifty languages here, Serbo-Croatian language = Serbo-Croato-Slovene = (hypothetical) "Yugoslav language". It is the same damn thing. There is no seperate Croato-Serbian, or "Yugoslav" languages. The "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" was the language used as official in pre-war Yugoslavia.
I am fascinated by your logic, though: if there was no Croatian language, no Bosnian language, no Serbian language, no Slovene language, no Serbo-Croatian language, no Serbo-Croato-Slovene, and no "Yugoslav language", what language did exist in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? No wait, let me guess: Croatian somehow managed to exist without being official while Serbo-Croatian did not, in a unitarianist state no less? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop patronising. Serbo-Croato-Slovene was a name for the common language of triune-named-nation of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It apparently also included the spoken language of Macedonians (even they did not officialy exist by the decree of the king and his clique). Stop with historical revisionism, you are deliberately excluding the Slovene language to get away with your POV. This is pure WP:SYN what you are doing.
All this time the ordinary folk kept reffering to their Maternal language under its "tribal" name, Tribes being nations — fully aware of their heritage — Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, Serbs (joined by unitarist Montenegrins). The language was at official levels reffered to as Maternal, People's language, and in high-circles as Yugoslav, Yugoslavian, Serbo-Croato-Slovene, but without official decree of any kind.
Croatian language is the undead, nothing has managed to distroy it, which is best visible today, when the majority speaks Croatian (even if that is not good Croatian) in Croatia and wherever Croatians live.
Imbris (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's so romantic, all of it. Unfortunately nothing you write here now can change the fact that unitarianist pre-war Yugoslavia supported the unified language most commonly known as "Serbo-Croatian". That's fact. Claiming that the Serbo-Croatin language somehow did not exist after the country was renamed into Yugoslavia (and started pursuing total unitarianism) is down right ridiculous.
You're making no sense, whatsoever. Let me get this straight: you claim that in the most unitarianist Yugoslav state in history Croatian and Serbian existed while the unified Serbo-Croatian somehow ceased to exist when the country became unitarianist (renamed to Yugoslavia)? I'm sorry, but that's kindergarten-level absurdity. Its a wild stretch concocted by your rabid nationalist POV trying to "de-Serbianize" articles with absurd, petty, and provocative edits. I'm going to bed, tomorrow I'm posting an RfC on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to settle your nonsense once and for all. You obviously need five people telling you you're ridiculously wrong before you consider the possibility. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Led" or "dominated"?

In 1941 the Communist Party of Yugoslavia formed the Yugoslav Partisans along with a number of other anti-fascist parties and organizations in Yugoslavia. They were not forced into this, and were never "subjugated" by the CPY in any way. The CPY organized the military forces of this "coalition" and never faced any opposition from other members of the "coalition".
In any case, I wish you would read sources before editing, the terms used were not picked at random. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, probably the best source on the net for encyclopedic NPOV wording, uses the term "led". [1] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croats underrepresented

In 1944 the croats accounted for only 60% of the partizan troops in croatia, and this was the time when croat support was at its peak. 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. With the imminent defeat of the ustasha, more croats joined. As we see, in late 1944, only 60% of croatia's partizans were actually croats... http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/statistics/partisans/ ...shows clear under-representation as the croats were some 80% of croatia's population after the slaughtering of hapless hundreds of thousands of serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Again?

You'll have to do better than that, LAz. Selective representation of sources will get you nowhere, not to mention your incredibly biased "personal touches". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not biased personal touches. I have sourced all my material. Any material out there that deals with ethnic composition in the early parto f the war suggests that the Serbs were most of partizans. This is in the early part of the war. It certainly makes sense, as the partizans were not active in places with many croats. There were VERY few croats back then and in this day in Western Serbia an Northern Montenegro. So what is your issue here? Quite frankly, Tim Judah, wrote an awarding winning book on this. He is by no means biased, and I have sourced him. He also notes other stuff... croat partizan enslitment happened for a few reasons... the movement of the partizans westward, after being pushed out of their initial locations. 2), Partizan enrollment was not so strictly serbian, they appealed to all nationalities while the chetniks did not, 3) chetniks did many crimes on innocent civilian croats, and bosniaks, and 3) mussolini's italization of dalmacia got many croats to join the partizans. Judah is a very respected author by all sides. Well maybe not since he wrote some pro-Albanian stuff later on, but he is very well respected nonetheless. I shall put him back. Him and those other sources. Thanks for your cooperation in keeping wikipedia a top notch non-biased place. Change your anti-serb behavior. Furthermore, there is no reference to the sisak brigade, so that will be taken off until you get a source. (LAz17 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm very busy right now, so I'll have to "fade away". I'll be back, though. cya soon --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you edit that stuff again? It is all sourced. Look into the sources. Do you have anything CONTRARY to that to offer? YOu do not, or at least have not so far. (LAz17 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Partizani (locality)

In 2008 I came across a village in Bulgaria called Partizani. Since this article Partizani is redirected to Partisans I suggest a explanation site for Partizani. Sorry for the external link, with some more time I'll register at Wikimedia Commons and u/l the picture there. -- 84.180.168.161 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Front of Slovenian People

Liberation Front of the Slovenian People should be added to Formation section and a link could also be provided to TIGR, as many TIGR members joined partisans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raid at St. Lorenzen -> Raid at Ožbalt

This section is incorrect and contains wrong information.

Firstly it given impression as if there was some some outside command of the raid by some "Allied escape organization". Instead it was organizsed solely by POWs Ralph Churches and Les Laws with one outside Slovene informant (first breakout) and them in connection with Slovene Partizans (second raid).

Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria and even though near the border, this is not Slovenia. There was no resistance to Nazi government in Austria. The raid happened in Slovenia in place called Ožbalt near Lovrenc na Pohorju in Slovenia. Seven freed POWs spent the first night in Lovrenc na Pohorju, and the Šercer's Brigade operating in Slovene Styria and Pohorje just liberated Lovrenc na Pohorju from German presence in days around first breakout. Also in Sankt Lorenzen (1) in Austria there is no railway, which was maintained by POWs; while the railway goes directly through Ožbalt next to Drava river (2) (larger map with both shown (3)). Both places, Sankt Lorenzen and Lovrenc na Pohorju, are quite close, maybe that's the reason for the mixup.

I modified the original article, but it should be still moved to name Raid at Ožbalt (for some reason I can't do that). It should be checked by someone with better english skills and section in this article should be modified accordingly. I've also added some more outside documentation to the original article. Žarišče (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised: Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name in English. In English sources, the raid is called "Raid at St. Lorenzen". All else is irrelevant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria. Railway doesn't go through Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald. Unless you are saying that POWs were reparing an imaginary invisible railway, this section is incorrect. Žarišče (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, all I know is that sources call the whole thing "Raid at St. Lorenzen". I have no idea where it is... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent POV

The Partisans were a movement that represented virtually every party and movement in Yugoslavia that opposed the Serbian-dominated monarchical dictatorship of the pre-war period. Many representatives in the AVNOJ were not socialists at all. The communist party led the coalition, but did not "dominate" it. Your wording, whatever its source, is unencyclopedic and quite incorrect, as it implies forceful control over other parties, movements and individuals of the AVNOJ. The communist party had neither the desire, the need, nor indeed the means to force people to enter into the People's Front coalition and support them in the middle of fighting Germany in one of the largest guerrilla wars in history.

There are many professional works on WWII Yugoslavia, and I've studied a lot (most?) of them. Before trying to bring your "communist exposition crusade" to these and similar articles, I would recommend, in the most friendly manner imaginable, that you read detailed works on the subject such as those of prof. Tomasevich [2] (without a doubt the most detailed and objective professional work on the subject, based mostly on OKW reports).

P.S. There is absolutely no reason to push the flag of the communist party into the article, simply because you think we need a little "red for communism". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in Slovenia, partisan movement spread from activities of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People. Liberation front was founded on 27th of April 1941, which means that resistance in Slovenia has nothing to do with Axis invasion of Soviet Union, as the text suggests. Resistance day, celebrated on 27th of April, is still a holiday in Slovenia. And as you can read on the page about Liberation Front, it was a coalition of following groups: Communist Party of Slovenia, Christian Socialists, people from Sokol movement and individuals, with other groups joining later (such as pre WW2 resistance group TIGR). To say that partisan ideology was communist is simply a facutal blunder and POV. Žarišče (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about actually adding some citations to the article which support these positions? Per WP:BURDEN the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Right now all I'm seeing is the replacement of sourced content with unsourced material and the wild allegation of POV pushing on the part of those editors who are actually using sources to what they are adding and are also kind enough to add edit summaries to the changes they have made. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not noticed the link? Communism is obviously included into the "left-wing coalition" entry, and the article clearly states the movement was led by the communist party. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source which is being used for Communism (Fisher) states that While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito. It would seem to be not NPOV to simply disregard that and leave other things in the ideology section which are not even currently sourced. If there are any other sources relating to ideology then please provide. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, if you continue to replace sourced content with unsourced material - the administrators will blocke you. Lt.Specht is absolutely right. BoDu (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they will follow your advice.
What is there to source? That the Partisans were the military wing of the People's Liberation Front? I presented Tomasevich's work here on the talkpage (which was ignored), where the Stanford scholar clearly describes the PLF as being the umbrella coalition of which the Partisans were essentially a military arm. The communist party was the leading member of the PLF, but the PLF obviously included other non-communist parties. Ideology of the PLF = ideology of the Partisans. How would you describe the ideology of the PLF? Communist?
In these sort of disputes the best thing to do is simply present the whole matter. I propose "Left-wing coalition, led by the communist party, republicanism, federalism" (the fact that the AVNOJ's goal was the formation of a federal republic is stated clearly in their declaration following the Second Session of the AVNOJ). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tomasevich's book was not ignored by myself. Although, I have only had the chance to briefly skim through it, which is why I requested if you know exactly what pages relate to politics/ideology it would be helpful. I'm in no way opposed to all aspects of the Partisans ideology being listed, as long as they are all properly sourced and cited (with reliable secondary sources, not proclamations/primary sources). In addition, according to Fisher, the Partisans main ideology was Communism, and it cannot be ignored. Having "led by the communist party" totally distorts what the source says. Lt.Specht (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, what you are doing is the WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original research. BoDu (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BoDu, you're not really doing or writing anything constructive here, though your POV-pushing nonsense contribution to the edit war is appreciated. The nonsense you've pushed will be easily removed with a quick skim through any real source. Hope you're having fun, Chetniks were traitors. :)
@Specht, let me get a few things straight:
  • The Partisans were the military arm of the Unitary People's Liberation Front (JNOF). Is this disputed?
  • The ideology of the JNOF is the ideology of the Partisans. Is this disputed?
  • There were many other distinctly non-communist political parties and factions that were included in the JNOF (in fact they actually far outnumbered the communists in every sense). Is this disputed?
If none of the above is disputed, I cannot see how we can be allowed t generalize in such a way as to present the JNOF as "communist". The source you've cited merely refers to the communist party's leading role in the coalition, a fact that should and has been pointed out. It is not a source that labels the whole movement as exclusively communist. (Tbh, I'm trying to avoid having to dig through five books just to prove a very obvious point that follows logically from the most basic facts. If the Partisans were of the JNOF, then they cannot be labeled as simply "communist", simple as that.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know enough about JNOF things to comment (and it's article is completely unsourced...). I would say however, whatever the ideology of the JNOF might of been, and if it was the "political arm", it does not necessarily mean that all of the Partisans believed the same things. As one could say the NSDAP was the "political arm" of the German army during WWII, but not all German soldiers adhered to its ideology. What you honestly seem to be proposing is some kind of original research, if the JNOF was the political leadership of the Partisans, then automatically all of the Partisans would hold the same. Also, Fisher does not merely refer to the Communist Party's leadership, the source says "While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito." I also agree that labeling the Partisans in their entirety as Communist would be wrong, and more ideological stances should be added (properly sourced of course with attribution of the ideology to the Partisans). Lt.Specht (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is somewhat flawed. The NSDAP was the "political arm" of the SS, not the Wehrmacht (i.e. the SS was the military arms of the NSDAP). Since all SS troops were NSDAP members (apart from the non-aryan divisions), it is safe to say that the SS were Nazis. It is not safe to say the Partisans were communists, not by a long shot, since they were not the military arm of the communist party, but of the political coalition which the communist party founded, and which included utterly non-communist parties such as (a large faction of) the Croatian Peasants' Party.
I take your point that the Partisans might not've all necessarily shared the ideology of the JNOF in exact proportion to the parties included therein. In fact I'm willing to grant that most of them were likely communists by the end of the war, however: we do not know that. Reading your source I start to wonder whether it is possible to WP:VERIFY his claim. If there are no primary sources, the sentence is reduced to blind speculation on the part of an author. The whole thing then boils down to "Fisher considers that the Partisans were mostly communists". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if WP requires secondary sources to contain inline citations of primary sources being used. I believe it is the other way around and primary sources require secondary sources for interpretation. I can't be certain if Fisher does or doesn't make reference to a primary source with that phrase as the notes and bibliography sections of the book is unavailable on Google Books. However, in the Acknowledgments section she states that "During my PhD and book research, I interviewed more than one hundred Slovaks and Croats from political parties, government ministries, NGOs, the media, academia, and cultural organizations in an effort to better frame my approach to the complicated issues that are discussed in this book. While many of those interviews are feferenced directly in the text, other interviews provided me with insightful background information..." Her book has also cited somewhat in other works [3], and is published by an academic publisher. There are also literally dozens, if not more, of other reliable secondary sources which make note of the Partisans communist ideology or it being part of their ideology, and others labeling them as communists [4]. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an author's assertion is not backed by primary sources (interviewing 60 Croats is not a primary source), but is thus his own professional opinion, requesting that such an assertion be attributed to the author in the text is pretty standard - particularly if the statement is contested. In other words, the encyclopedia should state this is the author's own opinion.
Secondly, there is no question that communism was one of the ideologies of the Partisans, and I do not see the point of your confirming an unchallenged fact. Its just that they stood for a wide range of political views besides. Whether communism was the ideology of the majority of the movement just isn't known, and there is no way we can know whether it was. On that subject the only kind of information can possibly be author speculation (unless an assertion of that kind can be found that is backed-up by primary sources). To use your own words, we are dealing with highly controversial political labeling here, and cannot be too careful in pursuit of NPOV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, saying that the communist party had a leading and founding role in the JNOF coalition is perfectly correct, it is even correct to state that their influence over the coalition increased significantly after the numerous military successes brought on by commanders who belonged to the communist party (particularly Josip Broz Tito). What I'm having trouble with is the assertion that the Partisans were "mostly communist(s)". This is unknown and highly speculative. The JNOF and Tito were actively backed by Winston Churchill, a staunch opponent of communism (a move that was later vindicated when Yugoslavia broke with the communist bloc). The Partisans are not a "standard-issue communist movement" the likes of which you can find in the Cold War, they are very much more complex and rather unique in their political diversity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lt.Specht, this issue is not resolved. Should you not respond I will edit the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have that much more to add for my opinion. Right now the article does not state that the Partisans were only or mostly communist. Other ideologies are welcome to be added if properly sourced. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not invited to express opinions, but to work towards WP:CONSENSUS on a text acceptable to both. You are under the wrong impression. If I do not edit the article to facilitate discussion, that does not mean we have agreed upon a version, nor that you've managed to force your opinions through. You may find this is very unlikely to work.
Quite simply, "Communist-led" is the most widely agreed-upon term describing Partisan ideology. This is what the infobox will say under "Ideology:". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be totally incorrect, dozens of reliable academically published sources do not state the Partisans ideology was only "Communist-led", they state that it was Communism or in part Communism. Oxford and MIT press would not be publishing this stuff if it was wrong. I would challenge you to find a source which states the ideology was "Communist-led". Lt.Specht (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If other sources exist which describe other ideologies it could be added as such "Communism, federalism, republicanism...etc." Lt.Specht (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herr Leutnant, please have a look at this link [5]. You really seem bent on making me waste time proving the obvious. "Communist-led" is also how the movement is described on Britannica, and by Wikipedia consensus on the World War II article itself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Koven, please do not edit-war, lets keep the article stable while the discussions are on. Feel free to join-in however. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koven's edit used encyclopedia britannica and a google search as references, neither comply with WP:RELIABLE, so I have reverted it. (Hohum @) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the fact that the Partisans were led by communists (they also had communist political commissars). Having "Communist-led" for the Partisans ideology is a completely different thing, however. After looking through some of the books in the search result its important to note that many of them discuss further what the ideology/goals of the Partisans were rather than just only the fact that they were led by communists. For example, in Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed (Columbia University Press, 1995) by Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine the authors write on page 136:
"...Finally, it became a struggle for a revolutionary social transformation, since the Communist Party of Tito and his Partisans espoused an ideology that advocated an end to the old order. These three conflicts were interwoven and at times indistinguishable. They resulted in violence and devastation of unprecedented proportions, but they also led to a radical recasting of Yugoslav society along lines dictated by Tito and his triumphant Partisans. Bosnia, in the geographic center of Yugoslavia, was at the heart of these epic struggles. Its rough, mountainous terrain and the immediately adjacent areas of Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia became the primary theater of conflict between the Communist-led Partisans and the German and Italian invaders who relentlessly pursued them."
Another source that I found seems to sum everything up, that the Partisans were indeed led by communists, and that some of the Partisans espoused the same ideology.
"The Partisans, under Tito, were Communist-led and gathered all the others in the resistance for all-out war against the Germans. In the end, the Chetniks fought arm in arm, according to Radomir, with the Germans against their brother Yugoslavs, opposing the Partisans as Communists, though in fact, the Partisans were only a partially Communist group." The monks of Mount Athos: a western monk's extraordinary spiritual journey on eastern holy ground (SkyLight Paths Publishing, 2003) by M. Basil Pennington.
To conclude, its quite easy to see that the Partisans were at least partially communist, and espoused the ideology of communism. Having simply "Communist-led" under ideology completely distorts what dozens of sources say, and is certainly not NPOV. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And because various groups joined Partisans (such as Christian Socalists in Slovenia, and other groups in other republics of ex-Yu) it is also quite easy to see that the Partisans were also at least partially under influence of other ideologies, such as Christian Socialism. Editors of the article should name the ideologies of all participants of the partisan movement, not just communism, or extract commonalities of those ideologies (and that's how I understood Director's "Left-wing coalition, republicanism, federalism"). Žarišče (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Lt. Specht, you are really funny guy. Žarišče (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I personally find rather hilarious is that some editors are now removing material which is cited by Prof. Tomasevich's book which is "without a doubt the most detailed and objective professional work on the subject". By the way, from page 96:
"The Communist-led resistance in Slovenia was part of the general Communist-led resistance throughout Yugoslavia, whose objective was to establish a Communist-ruled Yugoslav state."
If there's any sources which describe "Christian Socialism" or "Left-wing coalition, republicanism, federalism" then please show them. Otherwise this is starting to be tedious and obvious POV pushing with no sources to back up any claims. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to be a nationalist, if enemy occupies the country and starts to execute a plan for destruction of an ethnic group. Anyway I don't have Tomasevich's book so I don't know what he wrote. Is he dealing with situation in Slovenia at all? Slovene partisans were never under command of Yugoslav resistance and it's political head. Resistance in Slovenia didn't start in 1941 but in 1920's with Slovenes living in then fascist Italy. Slovene partisans were a heterogeneous group, made of many different grupation, and their units were politically joined in common Yugoslav command structure only in May 1945. This is so, and no matter what sort of nonsense Wikipedia has, it will still be so. Žarišče (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historian Janko Prunk's articles, among other "Way of Christian socialists in the Slovene Liberation Front". Žarišče (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox War Faction

In the Infobox War Faction under

  • ideology; there is (beside Communism) Slovene nationalism which leads to Slovenes?
  • headquarters; there is mobile, maybe to list couple of them?
  • area of operations; there is Axis-occupied Yugoslavia, but Rijeka, Istria and Trieste were part of Italy before the war. Maybe a note would be sufficient here?
  • strength; there is up to 800,000 men, maybe max. 800,000 men at the end of the war (if Partisans had 800,000 men at the begining of the war, things would be different?)
  • opponents; there is no Chetniks.

Can this be corrected, deleted or improved? Kebeta (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonian nationalism too?
The 800,000 figure is misleading... for most of the war there is much less. Still it says "up to 800,000" on there... so that is somewhat of a problem, as far as I'm concerned. (LAz17 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Agreed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Partisans

LAz, you are highly POV in this issue, plus you are not terribly well informed (you were dead wrong on the issue of Croatian Partisans, you were dead wrong on the issue of Chetnik collaboration). There is absolutely no way you will introduce this POV which is, I stress, your own personal view and idea that "Croats joined the Partisans when it was all over". This has already been thoroughly disproved by sources. Quoting Cohen's objective figures based on actual research:

"By the end of 1943 Croatia proper, with 24% of the Yugoslav population, provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Macedonia combined which collectively accounted for 59% of the Yugoslav population."

I am sorry, but you are dead wrong and you have seriously flawed preconceptions about WWII Yugoslavia ("it was all Serbs", etc). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) You will not remove this sourced statement: "As the movement penetrated the mainstream and reached critical mass, by 1943 the majority of Croatian Partisans were Croats.".
  • 2) You will not introduce the unverifiable claim that "Only in 1944 did Croats join the Partisans in significant numbers, not because they preferred a multiethnic Yugoslavia, but because they preferred a Yugoslavia that was not cleansed of Croats".
    No source could possibly verify this subjective nonsense claim with any kind of primary source whatsoever, thus immediately placing it below the verifiability requirements of WP:V (how in the world does can this person fathom the thoughts and motivations of Croatian partisans?). Not only that, it is actually directly contradicted by serious objective data.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I put up is sourced. I put a direct source there ,and you ignore it.
I do not say it was all serbs. You on the other hand are the one who is pov. But your nationalism is yugoslav commie nationalism.
Lastly, it is wrong to talk to partizans in croatia as "croatian partisans", because croats did not compose 100% of the partizans there. It's like what they did way back when, when they created the croatian orthodox church, in an attempt to say that serbs did not exist. (LAz17 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Do not lie with your sources. You have mis-sourced things before, until you got put in line with the draza mihajlovic mediation. The source for the lie that you claim, [6] on page 94 says nothing about total composition in 1943. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
I am wrong on one thing... it's page 95, not 94 in the link. Sorry. But, regardless, Bosnia and Herzegovina contributed far more in terms of partizan divisions back then. Therefore there is no reason to have subsection croatia and not one for bosnia. It is well known what fueled partizan ranks early on - croat savagery on the serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
The 1943 thing can not be sourced. As can be seen, the source is wrong, because there is source number 61. Therefore, what can we say about that huh? The book is not the source, the book simply states a source which we do not have. (LAz17 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
If you had read my post you would have read this. The claim is unverifiable by standards of WP:V. There are no primary sources quoted. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the claim is utterly unsourced. Furthermore, no primary source could possibly back-up the claim presented.
The subject of that section are not Serbs in Croatia, but Croats.
The statement is on page 95. I am not concerned with your criticism of a published scholar. Unlike your source, this statement is verifiable as it has multiple primary sources. It was published by a peer-review university press. Its the strongest possible source ("Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science" WP:V)
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is no better than the one I put. Source 61 on page 95 is not available. So it could be a neonazi website for all we know. See how you are one sided?? (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
The Kaufman source is the best one to use. It is from an accredited journal, which you for some reason claim is not. University sources - I spit on what you call university sources - a university press does not mean anything. University presses simply publish things to make money. Journal articles from accredited journals is what matters. That is my source, check it out [7] in the International Security journal via harvard and MIT - pretty top of the line source. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
AGAIN: WP:V. The source is better than the one you put as it is verifiable, while your is not verifiable. The source does not have to be available on the internet to be used (translation: nobody cares you cannot read it). A "neo-nazi website" is not a primary source at all, so I seriously doubt it would be listed in a scholarly university.
The book itself is quality, the statement is NOT. Why? Beacuse it is unverifiable by Wikipedia policy - the statement has no primary sources do you get it? Its like it isn't even there as far as Wiki is concerned. What are we even talking about?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look lets cut to the chase: does your secondary source have a primary source to back up the (ridiculous) claim (as is required)? Yes or no? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cohen source is not a scholarly university source. Take university out, but you may say from a university press. But that is the point - university press things are made for popular reading. They are not academic. What makes something academic is if it is in the journals. Until there is a source where cohen's claim came from, stop putting it in. (LAz17 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
You do not know what a university press is:

"A university press is an academic, nonprofit publishing house that is typically affiliated with a large research university, and publishes work that has been reviewed by scholars in the field."

Texas A&M University Press is a university press, i.e. "the most reliable sources where available". You might also read what peer review is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to understand that my source is from a big journal. Peer accredited, the top of the line from Harvard. You just can't top that with your uncertain thing. Sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
For the sixth time in this thread: I understand completely that your source is from a big journal. Ok? Are we past that? You won't repeat that again will you? The issue is NOT that your source is unreliable.
Now read this carefully because, seventh time: The issue is that the statement you are sourcing with it does not have primary sources. Ok? Primary sources. No primary sources to back up that statement from your author. Primary sources behind that silly claim: none. What does that mean? That means that the statement is unverifiable as fact. Do I need to repeat this for the eighth time? No primary source - no good. Primary source - good.
Next, it is absolutely and totally irrelevant that you cannot see that primary source for free on Google Books. Ok? So, the fact that you yourself, some random guy on Wikipedia, cannot see page 262 of some non-free book for free right here and now - does not invalidate the fact that there is a primary source.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my source is not unreliable then why are you so keen to remove it?!
Cohen's source can not be confirmed. Whereas what I am saying is common knowledge - While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs. [8] (LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources.
Cohen's CAN be confirmed. Easily. You just need the book. It is absolutely and totally irrelevant that you cannot see that primary source for free on Google Books. Ok? So, the fact that you yourself, some random guy on Wikipedia, cannot see page 262 of some non-free book for free right here and now - does not invalidate the fact that there is a primary source.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not have to be primary sources, then we clearly have my article which is fine by that logic. At any rate, if cohen is not the original source then he should not be used as the source. You seem quite bothered by the thought of having that checked. That's a shame, really. (LAz17 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Information needs to be:

  • 1) published in a secondary source, primary sources alone cannot be listed as they constitute WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
  • 2) supported by primary sources listed in the secondary source. Otherwise its just author opinion, and particularly if its directly contradicted by university publications.

Cohen meets both criteria. Kauffman (who was NOT published by Harvard that was an obvious lie on your part) does not support his statement with any primary sources. I know. I read the article. The sentence is dribble.

Again, please by all means do check whatever you like. Just don't tell me that Wikipedia should reject a top quality source because you cannot read one of its pages. We will not be disregarding sources based on their availability on Google Books. Your demand to see the book yourself is your own problem, not mine. I do not have to buy you a book to "make you believe me". Wikipedia demands that the source be published and supported with primary sources. That it is. The fact that its not completely free shall not be grounds for its rejection. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have opened a discussion on kaufmann bellow so I addressed that there. He is the primary source and he has been republished.
As for your cohen source - you clearly do not know how to cite material. It is a fact that one does not cite cohen, but that one cites "so and so, in cohen." You clearly failed or did not take the basic english composition sequence required of all bachelor degrees in the US. The second semester of the composition sequence really grills you down on the sources. And then in your field, if you even are an academic, you gotta publish or at least write papers to get the degree - in writing those papers you gotta cite stuff, and you would clearly lose points by citing the way that you do. But, you are from Croatia... in the former Yugoslavia the pre-university school system is superior to that of the US. So, people there are ready to jump into medical school right away - that is what you are in. In the US however people have to go through college and then go to medical school. That's an extra four years, or three - but for those extra years they have to have the english sequence and in it they learn not to cite improperly, which is what you clearly do. (LAz17 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
What nonsense. No. You do not know how someone cites material. You have obviously never even read Wikipedia policy, and have no knowledge of scientific referencing methods. Material is considered valid only when it is published in peer review. Enough of this charade. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bought the book. Cited from p. 95 (relevant notes are on p. 197):

"The majority of Partisans in Croatia were Croats.61 By the end of 1943, Croatia proper - which contained about 24 percent of the total Yugoslav population - had provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Macedonia, which, combined, made up 59 percent of Yugoslavia's population.62 Overall, the Partisans from Croatia were 61 percent Croat and 28 percent Serb, the rest comprising Slovenes, Muslims, Montenegrins, Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Jews and Volksdeutsche.63"

  • Note 61: From 1941 through 1945, there were a total of 228,474 Partisans in Croatia, of which 140,124 were ethnic Croats and 63,710 were ethnic Serbs. See Yugoslav state records, Jelic (1978), p. 304.
  • Note 62: Irvine (1993), p. 171.
  • Note 63: Đuro Zatezalo, Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945 (Karlovac, 1985), pp. 53-55, cited in Irvine (1993), pp. 171-72. Most of the Serbian defectors returned in response to an offer of amnesty. Of more than one dozen prominent defectors brought to trial in mid-July, 1944, five were executed and the rest received long prison sentences.

While I know you will now try to discredit J. A. Irvine, simply because of the apologetic nature of your attitude, it should be quite fascinating to see you try. Should you actually continue to dispute the verifiability of the data I shall copy-paste this whole quote on WP:ANI and ask people whether they too think the way you do (LoL). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) IF, and a big IF, those are the real sources, then you should learn from that example - to learn how to source materials. Cohen is not the source!! The way to do it is "so and so IN this and that".
2) The note on comparing yugoslav population is complete bullshit. The reason why is because for example... vojvodina had quite a few people. But partizan activity there was zero for most of the war. Hence it is stupid to compare total populations of other republics. If we did we would clearly see that most of the partisans came from bosnia and herzegovina, not from croatia. So why elevate the croat ones any more than others? That very discussion is POV, directed towards favoring the croats.
3) note 63 clearly states that this was the situation in 1945. In other words at the end of the war. We should note that year if we are going to include those figures in the article. Further, we all know that by then many ustasha had joined partisan ranks. It's interesting to see that even at the end of the war, the serbs were over-represented in Croatia. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
1) It is extremely annoying to be lectured on sources from someone who has no idea whatsoever how to source anything at all. Cohen is the secondary source, those are his primary sources. It is absolutely incredible that you demand primary sources here, and yet you have none yourself in your Kauffman source.
2) I do not care what you think about the note.
3) No, that is not the 1945 situation. It is the name of the book which stored the data "Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945".
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuđman source

Tudjman is not acceptable whatsoever as a source. He is an active holocaust denier. At any rate, I do not recall him speaking out against the ustashe or nazis, as he glorified them and even claimed that genocide is a natural phenomenon. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Please remember this with care: you do not get to "proclaim" sources as "invalid". Tuđman, while unpopular certainly unpopular among Serbs (and some Croats like me :), is not considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia. Do not remove sources and engage in section blanking - that will not go well for you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me declaring that the source is not valid. Mein Kamph can not be an acceptable source. Joan Peter's from time and memorial, a fraud book about the jewish-palestinian conflict is a BAD source. Tudjamn is a BAD source, weather I like him or not. The guy openly said that "genocide is a natural phenomenon" - does that make it acceptable to be put into an encyclopedia, just because some fanatic bigot said something?
My actions with removal of his stuff is clearly in good faith. (LAz17 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Yes. You are "declaring" Tuđman to be an unreliable source. And no, you cannot declare any book an unreliable source - not even Mein Kampf. In short its not your rules we will be following, but Wikipedia policy. In other words: nobody cares what your personal opinion on the author might be. Your opinions, just like mine, are completely irrelevant. Go on the net and find someone (from outside Serbia or Croatia) who is his professional peer and thinks what you do if you want to discredit him. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave examples of how tudjman discredited himself. It's all the same with you guys - if it is from the University of Belgrade's Geography department(republished on rastko) then it's supposedly biased. But coming from the propaganda machine of croatia - then it's not biased. Tudjman is not reliable, that's simply something that everyone should accept. The guy said that only half a million jews died in world war II. So how on earth is he reliable? His claims are factually wrong. Hence the reason to discredit his nationalist propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
I do not give a damn about anything you have to say. Find a historian that agrees with you or stop trying to discredit a historian. You are not his equal in the field of history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tudjman discredited himself by being a holocaust denier and by claiming that genocide is a natural phenomenon in his book wastelands of history. He is a POV biggot. There is no other way to describe his factually incorrect nationalist hatred that he has gone about spreading for quite some time. (LAz17 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Again: you are not called upon to say who has or has not "discredited himself". How would you know, are you a historian? You seem unable to understand that you, some random internet person, are not someone who can discredit published scholars based on the fact that you think they "discredited" themselves. Why should I care that you say he discredited himself? Find someone with a history degree that agrees with you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANY holocaust denier has automatically discredited themselves by simply denying the holocaust. It is not just me ripping on him, countless people have ripped on him. The guy was a nationalist bigot. Or... perhaps you too believe that 6-7 million jews did not die in world war two, that only half a million died? Perhaps genocide really is a natural phenomenon as tudjman suggests? If you do believe that factually racist bull-crap, then you have no place here. But that's not the point - you obviously do not believe the nationalist racist propaganda that this guy has sewn. The fact is that you are simply using him to extract as many sources that you can in order to built your own croat POV case to elevate the standing of the croats on this page and to reduce the standing of the serbs. Your insistence that Tito should not be called slovenian is proof of that. Your earlier insistence several months ago that the serbs were not the bulk of the partisans is another such example of how your ethnically motivated POV is very problematic. (LAz17 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Please stop repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again. I do not care what you think about Tuđman - nobody does. Please show that SOMEONE ELSE thinks the way you do. Someone wi9th a degree.
But for the love of all that is good: stop saying what you think of Tuđman. I do not care. This is not a political forum. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of university published books on this subject. I don't think it's necessary to argue over the inclusion of an author and work as controversial as this. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, I am no fan of Tuđman, but before he is excluded I want to see someone evidence that his work is indeed controversial and discredited. In short, I do not believe LAz's own word on this. He likely has his critics, can it be so hard to find a negative review of his books? Or evidence that they are indeed controversial? Understand: in Croatia all we hear is praise for the old crook... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the book was first published in 1989 it's difficult to find online reviews of his book but he certainly was criticized for his revisionism and antisemitism. [9] [10] [11] [12]
Tuđman may be a historian but he also had a political agenda and there is no denying that. We must either take the book as a whole and, because of its nature, compromise the integrity of the article or ignore it all together and rely on the scholarly works that are readily available. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was impossible for LAz to find the above. Thank you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just feel that it is totally stupid to go about finding sources that show such trivial information. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Kaufmann source

Please provide publication details about this source. It seems it was never actually published in scientific literature. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lolzors dude. Lolzers. Lolzers ^x3!!!
Whew. What a blast. This only proves that you do not even read what I write. I think that discussing with you is just about done. Do look at the link that I already provided [13], you can clearly see at the bottom of page six, harvard's "international security, vol. 20, no.4, spring 1996, 136-175". Just in general, even though you do not like to even bother considering stuff that you do not like, do take the time to do that. Really, do.
I found this article many years ago when I took a class in international relations. We used that charming book "conflict after the cold war, arguements on cuases of war and peace by betts". It's a classic. Kaufmann was republished in part six of the book. [14] They could have done more though. They really did not give him enough there, it should be the centerpiece article of the entire book... but at least he got some credit. (LAz17 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
On second thought, perhaps you might wonder if kaufmann even exists? You know, first the article does not exist, then the guy himself does not exist, who knows what other things might be used? Here, [15] , you even have his contact info so you could go and harass him about that publication or another of his very many publications. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Please answer the question, do not avoid the main issue. Does Chaim Kauffman quote anyone or anything in support of his statement that:

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

Is there any primary source there? Anything at all? If not, the sentence can only be attributed to Kauffman personally. Is there any primary source there? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1)Spell the guys name properly dude.
2)Kaufmann is the original source. Just like Irvine is for your other stuff up above. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Lol... "the original source"? Um, there is no such thing. Once again you've shown that you have no idea how sources work in either Wikipedia nor scientific literature.
Kaufmann is a secondary source. Kaufman has no primary source. The sentence in there is Kauffman's own opinion. It is dribble. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Partisans

As it happens, numerous sources say that the partisans were for the most part serbs. In the beginning and in the end. So, it's fair to say that if there is a Croatian section, there should also be a Serbian section. Whereever you put your nose you can see that the sources indicate that the Serbs were pretty much the partisans. I confirmed this earlier, but Direktor just had to make a new section called Croatian Partisans. A reminder, While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs. [16] - we could find this stuff anywhere, from basic history books to articles and etc...
This section that I opened in the talk page is not about discussing weather or not this is SO, it is so and it is on the current page of the article. But there is no reason to elevate the croats in a section when they were a minor part. For crying out loud, the higher command was almost ALL serbian. (LAz17 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Ok, present scholarly secondary sources citing primary sources. Nothing more, nothing less. That means published works of scholars that call on actual research. Yugoslavia kept very good records of this, you know. No Googled newspapers or TV shows, please. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows, google, wtf? What kind of idiot do you take me for?
This however is the least of the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Just make sure your secondary sources are scholarly and that the relevant claims are supported by primary sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Your recent edits constitute WP:VANDALISM, and are in clear violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Quoting WP:BRD:

  1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
  2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
  3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person.

LAz, you've ruined whole sections of the article and altered quoted text while inserting unsourced POV of the most nonsensical order. You will be reported for this outburst. Please revert these edits so that we may continue our discussion in a calm manner. Should you not do so, I will bring your behavior to the attentions of the administrators.
Be sure of one thing though: your edits will not stay in the article by means of WP:EDIT WAR. The ONLY way to permanently playce your edits there is here, on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edits are vandalism, for you claim that [17] international security is not a good source. You spit on my accredited source, and tell me that I should look for things from peer reviewed journal. International security is one such source, and even better it is a top of the line source, from the top university in the world, Harvard.
So when you accuse "unsourced POV", first look at what it is. Your criteria is "I do not like this, therefore it is unsourced POV". Sorry buddy, it does not work like that. (LAz17 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
My edits are not vandalism. Yours are. Perhaps you do not believe me?
My criteria is exclusively that of Wikipedia i.e my criteria is WP:V: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". You have no idea how sources work, read Wikipedia policy. Why am I even discussing this? A statement with no primary sources is unverifiable. I'm asking you again: please revert to the version before the conflict started. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version was no better than this version. There was no source for it - well if you call 61 a source - but 61 is not available to be viewed. It is 61 that should be the source, not cohen. And what is 61? We don't know. Therefore it's nothing, until we do know. I think that the action for going forward here is via taking this to mediation. (LAz17 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Understand: nobody cares that you cannot read 61. Wikipedia does not require the source to be available on the internet. How can I explain this more directly? Stop saying you cannot read the source because that does not matter in the slightest. Not to me, not to Wikipedia. Nobody in their right mind would demand that sources be free on Google Books for them to be accepted.
LAzo, what you're doing is the most typical POV vandalism imaginable. Please listen to me: revert yourself and lets try to do this without bothering the admins. I assure you, you have violated policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LAz please, lets not escalate this nonsense. Revert to the version before today so we can discuss calmly. The version will not stay on by edit-warring - it never does.
I am not reverting because I do not want to edit-war with you, but I will revert you and report you should you not please put the sources and the article back to yesterday's version (tonight). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting has nothing to do with escalation. The only possible solution here is mediation. That is the only way that your biased opinions stopped ruining the draza mihajlovic article. That worked. Therefore I hope that this would work here, right? (LAz17 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
"Reverting has nothing to do with escalation." Actually - yes it does. If you read any WP:Dispute Resolution guide whatsoever you would know that it does. Before a mediation starts, the article will be reverted to the state from before the conflict began, and then we will be spending the next two months waiting for a mediator, and then the next four discussing the basics of scientific literature and verifiability whilst writing whole books on the mediation pages. Be my guest. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me the resources to go about dispute resolution and I'll go about that. The fact is that it is pointless to argue with you if something is not as you want it to be. That is how under extreme pressure the draza mihajlogic article is being made exactly how you do not want it to go. Therefore we have to go through that same procedure here, to get third, fourth, perhaps fifth people to come here and help build a new article that does not have your communist propaganda all over the place. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


Not looking at the oustanding sources that Binksternet brought up and direktor ignored... here is a brief list.
[18] ...born on 7 May 1892 to a slovenian mother and a croatian father,
[19] 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
[20] to a Croat father and Slovene mother in the village of Kumrovec,
[21] of a Croatian father and a Slovenian mother, in a
[22] Josip Broz Tito was born in 1892 in Kumrovec, just over the Štajerska border in Croatia, to a Slovenian mother and
[23] to a Croat father and a Slovenian mother in
[24] in the village of Kumrovec near the Slovenian border, to a Slovene mother and Croat father. His birthday was celebrated on May 25
[25] Josip Broz was the son of a Croat father and Slovenian mother
[26] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Croat father and Slovene mother.
[27] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Slovene mother and a Croat father
[28] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892 to a Croat father and Slovene mother
[29] 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.
[30] Tito was born in 1892 to a Croatian father and Slovene mother.
[31] 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
[32] Inside the house where the great leader was born, to a Croatian father and Slovenian mother
[33] Since 1971 , Tito, son of a Croat father and a Slovenian mother, has handled
[34] Son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother, Tito (1892-1980) was born in
[35] 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.
[36] and a Slovene mother, he was a citizen of that state from his birth until the death of the empire in 1918.
[37] 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
[38] 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
[39] Tito (who had a Croat father and a Slovene mother) divided Yugoslavia into six
[40] 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
[41] Supreme Commander of the YPA Josip Broz Tito, the son of a Croatian father and Slovenian mother
[42] The son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother, Tito represented Yugoslavia's potential for diversity
[43] 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.
[44] Josip Broz was born in Kumrovec in 1892, to a Slovene mother and a Croat father
[45] 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
[46] 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
[47] But this son of a Croat father and a Slovene mother
[48] He was born Josip Broz Tito to a Croatian father and a Slovene mother
[49] However, Tito himself was the son of a Slovene mother and Croat father, and though he maintained his
[50] 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
[51] Known simply as Josip Broz, he was the seventh son of a peasant couple, his father a Croat, his mother a Slovene
[52] 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)).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

producer??

Explain your extensive deletions, including the entire section of ethnic makeup here [53] (LAz17 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)). Especially troubling is the removal of this gem, [54] , that states the ethnic makeup in 1944 - Serbs and Montenegrins: 64%, Croats: 26%, Slovenes: 6%, Bosniaks: 2.5%, Others/Unknown: 1.5%... (LAz17 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Its repetitive. There's already a section regarding the composition of partisans and it should be under that section. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)).[reply]

Touch it and you will find yourself immediately reported for POV content blanking. That is all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)).[reply]

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 [55] and later manipulated by an IP [56]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
His statement is just stating the well known obvious fact. (LAz17 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interestingly, German Wikipedia places the raid in Ožbalt where it really happened. Žarišče (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'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)[reply]

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [57]-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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, [58] , 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)).[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [59] [60] 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. [61][62] 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. [63] 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)[reply]
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. [64] 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, [65] , 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)).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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" [66]. 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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)).[reply]

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, [67] I hope that this will help the situation. (LAz17 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Absolute joke. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can participate yourself :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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 [68]. I.e. its his edit that represents tendentious editing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [69]
  • Mulaj p.71 [70]
    • 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 [71]
  • Lindsay p.235 [72]
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Look, I'll dispute them if PRODUCER doesn't provide the inline citations... Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans&oldid=467524063"