Talk:Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia

Estimate of total number of Serb victims from USHMM

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

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

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

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

Appropriateness of the image gallery used in this article

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

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

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

Inflated claim regarding numbers of Serbs killed by Kosovar Albanians

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

Genocide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Arnon testimony

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

NPOV/Reliability of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska subsections

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

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

Alignment of images in article

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 Atrocities
3.2 Expulsions
3.3 Forced conversions

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

US Holocaust Museum Figures

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

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

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

Proposed restructuring of "Victims" section

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian Genocide redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Per consistency with other articles reason the Serbian genocide should redirect to genocide of Serbs. The colloquial usage of the term for massacre of Muslims in Bosnia might be seen as defamatory for the victims. Most of Muslims in Bosnia did not declare Serb ethnicity since 1990's at least.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Antidiskriminator:, having the Serbian Genocide page redirected to massacres in Srebrenica is contradictory and would be the same as renaming the Armenian Genocide page the "Turkish Genocide". Given that only the Serbian Genocide page is under this contradictory redirect, I am glad to see it has been rectified. Unless the same policy is applied to the Armenian Genocide page then the revert will be considered biased, the idea that Serbs can not be victims of genocide is an insult to victims and considered pro-facist/pro-Daesh/UCK.(TryDeletingMe (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Revisionism in modern-day Croatia

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

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

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

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

Albanian involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing source/Context?

@Peacemaker67: I'll take you advice and state my critiques here.

"Many Croats, including politicians, have attempted to minimise the magnitude of the genocide perpetrated against Serbs in the World War II puppet state of Germany, the Independent State of Croatia.[96]"

Source : [96] Drago Hedl (10 November 2005)."Croatia's Willingness To Tolerate Fascist Legacy Worries Many". BCR Issue 73. IWPR. Retrieved 30 November 2010.

Who are these "many"? Source for this claim doesn't exist. Leads to nowhere 404. How is that "properly sourced". Also I fail to see how revisionism of the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust makes sense in a Serbian Genocide article. As I said, it should be in the Holocaust article.

There is also a failure to mention that the preceeding governemnt acknowledges the crimes and apologized when Tudjamn and his regime refused to. This was stated in the "Sugar Packets" article. So for NPOV, that should be mentioned as well.

Lastly, why are we using "large number" for number of Serbs killed? Large number could be 10,000. We know that hundreds of thousands were massacred. Why not say it? It comes across as if the intro downplays it.

Thank you for your time.108.30.128.7 (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hold on. Let's get the facts straight. You deleted the entire "Revisionism in modern-day Croatia" section, complete with sources like the NYT and USHMM and an image of Tuđman who is at the centre of the revisionism that went on in Croatia while he was in power. That is borderline POV vandalism. The issue of "large numbers" is a minor one. I have no objection to using the actual estimates, just don't do a mass deletion and combine it with a minor wording change if you don't want it reverted. If you find a dead link, fix it with Wayback Machine, don't delete it and the material it supports. On this occasion, all you had to do was hit search and it would have brought up the article at its new link. I've fixed it for you. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Let's get the facts straight". Shall we then? I did not delete the "entire" "Revisionism in modern-day Croatia" section at all. More than half was still there. (Anyone can see this from edit history).

I firstly deleted the sentence with a source to nowhere. Then the sentences about Tudjman about his revisionism of the number of Jews killed and number killed at Jasenovac. Which in my edit, I commented that it belongs in the Holocaust article or perhaps Holocaust denial article, not here. So I don't see how that is POV pushing or vandalism.

I did not claim NYT or USHMM were invalid but that the info they source belong in a different article, I clearly posted the BCR article in question. Which, thank you for fixing the link, fails to state the "Many" stated in the article. In fact, if anything, "many" would be considered POV pushing. Had the Tudjman section spoke about the downplaying of Ustasa atrocities against Serbians (which skimming through his book now, he did), then that that would have been relevant to this Wiki article.

I didn't mass delete combined with a minor word change. You can clearly see they are separate edits. Perhaps before assuming the worst of my intentions, get the facts straight. 108.30.128.7 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have changed "Many Croats" to "Some Croats", which is consistent with the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The sentence about his downplaying of the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is directly relevant to the fact that he downplayed the number killed at Jasenovac. They are of a piece. It is an indication of how far off the planet he was regarding WWII fatalities. If you don't like its inclusion, you can always go to RfC to get a community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Does the template justify including Franjo Tuđman under the Serbian Genocide denial section? While he did advocate smaller numbers than official estimates, can we claim that he denied that genocide was perpretrated? He did not deny that mass murders happened. He also claimed that smaller numbers of Bosniaks were killed in the Bosnian War than the 250,000 figure presented during the 1990s, but would that also mean that he denied the Bosnian Genocide? Sources are needed for this claim or it should be deleted.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

AS I said, if you want to change it, start a RfC and we'll get a community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman explicitly wrote in his book Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti: rasprava o povijesti i filozofiji zlosilja (english translation has the heading Horrors of War: Historical Reality and Philosophy), on page 465, that the Ustaše committed genocide:

"It is a historical fact that the Ustasha regime of NDH, in its implementation of the plan to reduce the hostile Serb Orthodox people in Croatian lands, committed a large genocidal crime over the Serbs, and proportionately even higher over the Roma and Jews, in the implementation of Nazi racial politics." ("Povijesna je činjenica da je ustaški režim NDH, u provedbi svojih planova o smanjenju >>neprijateljskog srpsko·pravoslavnog pučanstva u hrvatskim zemljama<< izvršio velik genocidni zločin nad Srbima, a srazmjerno još veći nad Romima i Židovima, u provedbi nacističke rasne politike.")

The supposed figure of 900.000 that Tuđman allegedly gave ("Tuđman also estimated that a total of 900,000 Jews had perished in the Holocaust") is false. What Tuđman wrote was this:

"Regarding the total number of Jewish victims in the Second World War, in world literature there is still not even an approximate scientifically determined fact. On the one hand, estimates range from about four million (G. Reitlinger, 1953) to up to six million (J. Lestchinsky and the American Jewish Congress, 1946, and N. Levin, 1968 and 1973). Raul Hilberg, whose book (1961 and 1973) in terms of comprehensiveness and quality exceeds that of Nora Levin, judges that the total losses exceed about five million or about one third of the pre-war Jewish population, but in his statistical overview alleges that of 5,100,000 deaths there are records for the deaths of 900,000, and casts doubt (putting question-marks) on some other numbers in the framework of the total figure. Those are, presumably, the reasons why there is a need to mention that, on the other hand, some consider the figure of six million deaths to be highly ‘exaggerated’." (page 155-156)

Nowhere did he wrote that 900,000 Jews died during the Holocaust. His estimates of the number of victims in the Jasenovac camp were at 30-40,000, not under 30,000. Considering that the official number of victims during the existence of Yugoslavia stood for decades at 700,000, his estimate is not that far off from todays Jasenovac Memorial Area number (which increased in the last 10-15 years). If that is revisionist, then the 1964 survey was also revisionist (it showed a figure of 59,188). Tzowu (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Tzowu, this quote settles the dispute.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Breadth

@Rms125a@hotmail.com:, @Ktrimi991: A lot of the recent content disagreement between you two can be solved by narrowing the scope of the article, renaming it Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, and creating separate articles for the other areas of persecution. The article is currently a WP:COATRACK. 23 editor (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I undid one addition of Rms125a@hotmail.com as they were editing in the same time with me, and I thought it was an addition made by an IP that rewrote parts of the lede and infobox. The contested content was a detail, and I am not going to argue about it. On the article in general, I think we should let it as it is now. The reasons, period and outcome of the crimes are very similar to the same, hence no need to split the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The genocide committed by the Ustaše was unrelated to the non-genocidal atrocities committed by Albanian collaborationists. Both merit their own separate articles, IMO. 23 editor (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 23, it is quite a coatrack, which means it also lacks focus because it tries to cover everything bad done to Serbs throughout the war, when some of it just wasn't persecution, it was straight reprisal under brutal German counter-insurgency doctrine. Kragujevac and Kraljevo are examples of this, they were standard German responses to insurgency and were not motivated by a desire to persecute Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Germans actually clearly persecuted Serbs. Hitler had a special hateriot towards Serbs rooted in his frustration Serbs had been the cause of destruction of the Austro-Hungarian empire he was born in. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. There is a difference between what was done by Croats to Serbs in the NDH for racial/religious reasons, and what was done by the Germans to Serbs at places like Kragujevac. They are not the same thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been reading recently quite a bit about it and I can garantee you are wrong in describing German actions against Serbian civilians as "standard German responses to insurgency". It has deep roots from the previous World War and it is not at all as simple as you describe it. I will forward some material about it when I found time for it. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Shepherd talks about the experiences of commanders on the WWI Eastern Front being a factor in brutalising some German commanders who served in Yugoslavia in WWII, but there were a lot of other factors at play. The uncompromising German counter-insurgency doctrine developed in that war and beforehand was far more important. Exactly who else were the Germans going to kill at Kragujevac to meet their ratios after their men had been killed and wounded? They killed all the Jews and communists on hand first, and there were people of many other (non-Serb) backgrounds killed in that massacre. Frankly, the Germans wanted to fill their quota, and rounded up everyone (not just Serbs), so didn't care how they got them. Ascribing something like Kragujevac to anti-Serb sentiment is just blind insistence on painting Serbs as eternal victims, which is why this article is such a coatrack in the first place. Serbs were horribly persecuted in WWII, it's just that not everything in this article is about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:, i see where your coming from. There is this article Axis occupation of Serbia which is quite under utilised and parts from this article relating to German counter-insurgency doctrine and events could be transferred there and would free up space here for content to be more focused, expanded etc. Fellow editors, thoughts ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I see that and similar articles as ahistorical POV forks. IMO, these things should be organised along the lines of the occupation territories that actually existed during the war, like Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories and Independent State of Croatia, rather than Vojvodina/Croatia/B&H in WWII. We have an article for the German-occupied territory of Serbia, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia where all this should be covered. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Being going through those articles, sounds like a good way of organising this kind of sensitive content. I'm for it, how about other editors, if we transfer that content to those articles. On board with that approach ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, but on the other hand, you support the existence of the catch-all Persecution of Ottoman Muslims? How about we do to that article what you are supporting to do to this article? Would that work or is it one standard here and another over there? Khirurg (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't watchlist that article, as it isn't of interest to me. The discussion here is about this one. If you have concerns about ahistorical POV forks for that article, best make them known on that talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Off course. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, one its not my suggestion and two i am going with the suggestion of an administrator. But if you want to go down memory lane about actual selectiveness, one recalls that it was you wanting to delete the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction [6] while placing a vote [7] at the same time for a keep of the Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Try better next time Khirurg, for one of those aha moments. Things can get a bit stale sometimes.Resnjari (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. In any case I strenuously oppose what I see as a proposed back-door attempted deletion of this article. The topic is notable and deserves its own article. Khirurg (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses there Khirurg, no one is talking about deleting this article. This thread is about some of the content and i deferred to an experienced administrator who made a suggestion of which i agreed with.Resnjari (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. What we are looking at is trimming some of the non-persecutory content, no-one is suggesting deleting the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Label

The lede says "The atrocities committed by the Ustashe have been labeled as genocide". Is "labeled" usable here? Probably "considered", "regarded" or "described"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content

we have 8 sources for this addition. Its relevant, its true, and it should be in the article. If someone disputes that, should find 8+ better sources that said opposite. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Your disability to understand what the sources say (it is not the first case, either you are trolling or you do not understand English well) is boring. There is a discussion some sections above, there everything is explained by several editors. Only crimes by the Ustashe were genocide, this article is not only about crimes by the Ustashe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So what? This event is know per that name also, no matter who committed it. Also, that section is not a consensus not to include that name at all in article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone should respect the current consensus that was established some time ago. Any change should be discussed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg in response to your edit summary, no one here (afaik) is disputing that the Ustasha committed genocide (if they were, that would be seriously problematic). The contention seems to lie in the inclusion of Hungarian, Albanian, and Bulgarian action in this. Additionally, the term "Serbian Genocide" does not seem to be supported by all the sources placed on it. For example the term does not appear in the Yad Vashem source at all despite that it was cited there. ---- Calthinus (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Only crimes of the Ustashe were genocide. All the other crimes were bad but not genocide. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the new wording takes care of that. And obviously sources that don't back this should be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mahveotm (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

---

World War II persecution of Serbs → Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia – I have watched this article be consumed by a slow-burning edit war for quite some time now. I feel that the best way to solve this issue for good is to shift the main focus of the article to the Ustasha genocide of Serbs, and create separate articles for the Persecution of Kosovo Serbs during World War II, Persecution of Vojvodina Serbs during World War II and (perhaps) Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories. The article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK that amalgamates several semi-related campaigns of persecution into one, when there is no evidence of Ustasha, Wehrmacht, Albanian, Honvédség and Bulgarian coordination. 23 editor (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support I initially was lukewarm to this proposal but watching the page for a bit has brought me to the same conclusion as 23 editor. -- Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support long overdue, thanks for starting this 23. IMO the only one of these that really justifies a stand-alone article is one on the NDH, the other actions were related to the occupation of those territories and were not genocidal. The other actions against Serbs elsewhere should be covered in the respective occupation territory articles. I think the Vojvodina suggestion is ahistorical as Vojvodina was split during WWII, so these matters would be best covered in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories articles. The latter already has quite a bit of information about actions taken against Serbs and others in that territory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - i'll only give support to this if @Peacemaker67:'s comments are taken into account on going forward.Resnjari (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that I've now reviewed what coverage there is of WWII crimes against Serbs in the FA Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories and it is a pretty good summary, covering the Novi Sad raid in particular, as well as other events. The latter article is also in fine shape, just needs a fine tune before a run at GAN in my opinion. What that means is that we don't need to move much of anything from here to either of those two articles to ensure that subject material is properly covered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: In your opinion, where should the content on Kosovo moved to? Moving the Kosovo stuff to an actual article would be better than creating a new article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It would depend on what part of Kosovo was involved. Part was German-occupied territory, and part was initially Italian-occupied territory until September 1943 when the Germans took it over. So I suspect that some will go in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article, and some in the Albanian Kingdom articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Good proposal. I support it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree and good proposal by @Peacemaker67. Before i swing around to any form of support for the current pagemove, @23 editor: would you agree with @Peacemaker67's proposal by withdrawing the part about creating additional articles and be ok with placing content on other WW2 related pages where that information is relevant like on Kosovo etc?Resnjari (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that 23 and I have discussed the need for the Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories article, which I continue to support, though have no idea when I'll get around to creating it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I can support that provided all your recommendations are taken into account when it comes to Kosovo and Vojdovina related content not being articles of their own, but content from here being shifted to other relevant articles covering those subjects. I want to hear from @23 editor on your recommendations first before i support this process. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection. 23 editor (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Support move to Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia - sounds reasonable (even if there were no COATRACK/SYNTH concerns, this would make sense given the article size and organization alone). As for the other possible merge or split targets, I don't have a firm opinion, although Peacemaker67's plan given above and the reasoning behind it seem fine to me. GregorB (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia and also the creation of a separate Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories article. As @23editor is fine with @Peacemaker67's proposals on moving content (where needed) on Kosovo and Vojvodina to respective articles on those places dealing with WW2 and not creating additional articles on Kosovo and Vojvodina as was first proposed, the pagemove and other fixups are long overdue. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalisation of Serbian genocide

I have decapped Genocide in the lead as an alternative name. The only source in English I can find which uses it in that way is Lees (in the title), who is published by the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America, so could be assumed to have a particular point of view on the matter. We've gone for the current title because it is neutral and descriptive. I'm actually not sure if "Serbian genocide" is really an alternative common name for the subject of the article, but AGF about the content of the citations provided by the IP at this stage. As far as the infobox goes, I consider only the article title should be used there. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

We should reflect what genocide scholars or at least experts on the events term the event, not broader works or let alone the Serbian Orthodox Diocese. I also object to the use of sources with phrasing like "a Serb genocide" (as Yad Vashem did) -- native speakers of languages that lack definiteness, including many Slavic languages, might not understand this but using the indefinite article ("a") in English does not imply what you are saying is the name (unique identifier) of the referent and usually means the opposite -- you would almost certainly use "the" in that case ("the Serbian Genocide" -- okay although I've never seen that, "a Serb(ian) genocide" -- no, can't use that). --Calthinus (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The examples of the use of the phrase "the Serbian genocide" that can be found in books [8] [9] [10] [11] are about the Bosnian genocide in the 90s committed by Serbs, not the WWII one committed by Croats. It is therefore too imprecise to use it in the context of this subject. Other than Lees using it as the title of his book (with disambiguation of the years), it doesn't appear to be a common alternative in English for the descriptive title we are now using. The Serbo-Croat sources cited in the lead seem to be referring to a "genocide of the Serbs" or "genocide against Serbs", but they are not in English. I therefore think it should be removed as an alternative title. It was a genocide against Serbs, per Lemkin and others, but just isn't called "the Serbian genocide" in enough sources, and sources that do use that phrase are referring to a different event. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I agree, in fact this (events like that in Srebrenica) is the only usage of "Serbian genocide" I have seen outside Wikipedia. Serbian genocide currently redirects to this page-- this should probably be fixed.--Calthinus (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it and redirected it to the Bosnian genocide article, per the above Google Books results. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RM and creating separate articles for persecution of Serbs in other parts of occupied Yugoslavia during WWII

The outcome of RM discussion is misinterpreted. There was no consensus in the above RM discussion that persecution of Serbs in other parts of occupied Yugoslavia during WWII do not deserve their own articles. The discussion was also initiated because the persecution of Serbs in other parts of occupied Yugoslavia during WWII deserve their own articles too. There is scinetific consensus that Serbs were persecuted in other parts of occupied Yugoslavia during WWII. Editors who performed actions based on such misinterpretation should revert themselves.User:Antidiskriminator/signing template -1/2 comments, one section--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. By editing this article, one does not prevent the creation of splinter articles. Could you provide diffs of the edits you find problematic? GregorB (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

one does not prevent the creation of splinter articles? Not if you read above discussion where small group of editors reached consensus that splinter articles should not be created because The other actions against Serbs elsewhere should be covered in the respective occupation territory articles. The above RM discussion was not discussion about the name. It was discussion about the scope. Very small group of editors who usually share the same pov in their edits on wikipedia "reached consensus" to change the topic of this article and presented this discussion as RM discussion. The topic itself (World War II persecution of Serbs) is major topic which is enough notable to deserve its own article per Wikipedia:Summary style. If somebody was concerned about the size of one section they could have initiated discussion to split section about Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia into separate article. The above two-days RM discussion should have been closed without conclusion because it was not RM discussion. New discussion about the topic of this article should be initiated by editors who insist that article on major topic (WWII persecution of Serbs) should not exist. This will be my last comment in this discussion. All the best. User:Antidiskriminator/signing template 2/2 comments--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The outcome has not been misinterpreted. It was clear from the outset that the decision would be about scope as well as title, as the two go together in this case. To suggest there should have been a separate discussion of the scope would have been needlessly bureaucratic. Even if Antid had participated in the discussion, there would still have been a consensus for the move and scope change. The other persecution of Serbs during WWII can be covered in their full context in the various occupation territory articles, rather in a WP:COATRACK like this had become. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Aftermath" and "Controversy"

It seems to me that these sections are largely off-topic. "Revisionism in modern-day Croatia" looks like a WP:COATRACK, although it may well work e.g. in Far-right politics in Croatia. GregorB (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think developments in this area since Croatian independence need to be included. There have been some revisionist tendencies, mostly on the right of Croatian politics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thompson's songs and Mesić's speech, for example, are just barely connected with the topic. The issue of post-1990 revisionism and far right in general is a valid one, but it is a much broader subject and I don't think it's easily bolted onto this article, especially since I don't see the real-world impact. (At least not in the article's text as it currently stands - I'm not saying it doesn't exist.) I'd support working the relevant stuff (not much at the moment IMO) into the Legacy section.

On an unrelated note: currently, the article seems to ignore confiscation and destruction of property. (OK, churches were destroyed, but what about personal property?) This might legitimately fall under the topic of persecution. GregorB (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the presence of the modern day debate in this article. In other articles like Armenian Genocide we have a place for "debates" (denialism). It has precedent. --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not discussing revisionism at all (The Holocaust) has precedent too. GregorB (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The lede was recently tagged for being too short in relation with the overall length of the article. I think that the lede should be improved only after work on all other parts has ended. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The article is tagged as having multiple issues, including "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling". The lead sentence is a good example of the style problem. In this version Serbs, the Independent State of Croatia, and genocide are mentioned twice in one sentence. There is no need for that. There is a need, on the other hand, to "keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence" (MOS:LEADSENTENCE). Defining the persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia as the extermination, expulsion and forced conversion of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia is poor style and in direct contravention to a very sensible Wikipedia guideline. It is disappointing that this needs to be spelled out. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus that the article is primarily about the genocide, and that this term is appropriate to use per reliable sources. Moved accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia → Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia – Given that there is scholarly consensus on the fact that this constituted genocide ("the intent to destroy a people in whole or in part"), it would be more appropriate to title the article as such to reflect the intent and actions more accurately. It was beyond mere persecution. The high number of killings, as well as the forced expulsions and conversions were all clear manifestations of the Ustashe's genocidal policy. Nolanfranyeri (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Definition by historians, scholarss, memorial centers, institutes, head of states of Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia, even by Raphael Lemkin who is known for coining the word genocide and initiating the Genocide Convention. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This reminds me of the Srebrenica massacre vs. Srebrenica genocide debate that occasionally pops up on that article. Proponents of renaming that article Srebrenica genocide usually argue that calling it Srebrenica massacre lessens its severity or constitutes genocide denial. It doesn't; a massacre can be a genocide. The same applies here. Most historians agree that the Ustashe committed a genocide against the Serbs living in the NDH. Describing a period of state-sanctioned extermination, expulsion and religious conversion as persecution doesn't lessen its genocidal qualities. If most historians started calling the genocide "the Serbian Genocide" tomorrow and published multiple scholarly works to that effect, I would 100% support renaming the article Serbian Genocide. At the moment, neither Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia nor Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia are WP:COMMONNAMES. Until that time, Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia is the more grammatically sound of the two, and that is what I'd prefer to go with. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the wiki definition of persecution states it as: "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group.." and goes on to list "suffering, harassment, internment, fear or pain" as factors. The dictionary website defines it as "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs" and adds a secondary as "persistent annoyance or harassment". This is all broad but also vague and to me, distinct from a brutal state policy of mass extermination and forced expulsion of an ethnic group, i.e. genocide. So I would indeed argue that having the title as it is lessens the nature of the crimes committed in this case. I agree about the Serbian Genocide part, which is why I am not suggesting it be titled as such. As far as your last point, since there is a consensus of genocide, most works on the subject will describe it as genocide if not directly in the title, then within the relevant text in the book or article as referenced in the slew of works cited in the lead sentence of the page in question. Genocide is used and appears much more commonly than persecution, a more general term, which would go against your argument to keep it as is. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support A great number of academic works use the term genocide. I would even argue that this is a textbook example of genocide (which is somewhat questionable and debated for Srebrenica massacre). The fact that it is currently not that commonly used should not be an obstacle. Persecution simply does not explain the number of horrors which victims (camps for children included) went through. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per Sadko. There is no doubt, because a great number of academic works use the term genocide.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support I don't have anything else to say. All Wikipedians have explained why we talk about genocide. Just to say that, officially, in Independent State of Croatia, has been killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people, not just Serbs but Jews, Romani and many more, while many sources say that number is even bigger...--Vukan C (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support I agree, big number of academic works use the term genocide. --MareBG (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Note I do not want to make assumptions, and I respect everyone's opinion. However, I think it should be highlighted that MareBg had made the latest edit two months ago; while Vukan C before the day they voted here, had made an edit only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Alternative -- propose splitoff The genocide committed by the Ustasha state (if you can call it that) is a notable topic. However, genocide was not the only Ustasha policy toward the Serbian minority, as forced assimilation -- ethnocide or culturecide if you will -- was also on the table, as were expulsions and violent but not (yet) intentionally murderous ethnic cleansing. I think, taking Racial policy of Nazi Germany as an example, there should be a broad page about this, with a section linking to a splitoff page specifically about the genocide -- you can make the broader page about Serbs, or include Jews or Roma if you would like. I don't mind a unified page like we have for Nazi Germany as linked with spinoffs for the genocide of Serbs and a separate spinoff that already exists for The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia and hopefully in the future Porajmos in the Independent State of Croatia, but I -- admittedly as a Jew who is incapable of impartiality on this matter -- would really urge sensitivity in not equating Roma, Jews, and Serbs. Not only because it plays into later nationalist depictions, but also because as far as I've read on the matter, Jews and Roma were if anything "better" off in the sense that murdering them was considered desirable by the Ustasha but not prioritized to the same degree that destroying the Serbian minority was. --Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the point made by @Amanuensis Balkanicus: I think this is a good one, but I'd like to point out that those scholars are often discussing more than just the genocide but also attempts at Croatization etc; furthermore, "Ustasha genocide" does have some use in the literature, see here on Google Scholar [12] --Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, if an article dedicated to the genocide was created, what would the most appropriate name be? "Genocide of Serbs" or "Ustasha genocide"? I am not sure but I think that the latter is more frequently used in scholarship than the former is. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Agnostic at the moment. Whatever the literature supports. I have not done any sort of literature review.--Calthinus (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've said below, genocide, as defined by Lemkin, means more than killings. It covers a multitude of sins against one group by another group, including Croatization in this case. Lemkin, who coined the term, states that genocide means the destruction of a nation or ethnic group. He goes on to say that it does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of all members of a nation, it is a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of the essential foundations of national groups. He lists the destruction of political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity and even the lives of individual members of the group(s). It occurs in two phases, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed groups, then the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor (in this case, Croatization). I could go on, but you get the drift, I'm sure. Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia is entirely inclusive of all of the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support the original proposal. It has all the hallmarks of a genocide, killings, expulsions, religious conversion and cultural destruction etc, and is described as such by many scholars, including by Lemkin. Regarding alternatives, I think Serbian Genocide is too prone to confusion with a genocide perpetrated by Serbs rather than one perpetrated against Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree re "(S/s)erbian genocide". Some data on alternatives. I think it looks like Ustasha genocide is the term new publications in English prefer. For Ustasha genocide it's 2106 hits [13] on Google, and 108 hits [14] on Google Schoalr 22 for Ustashe [15]. For "NDH genocide", 249 on Google, [16], 13 hits on G Scholar [17]. This is more than things like "NDH persecution of Serbs"[18][19], or if you replace NDH with Ustasha [20]; for some reason while "Ustasha" is preferred in English when we talk about the string "Ustasha genocide", Ustashe is preferred for persecution strings, i.e. "Ustashe persecution of Serbs" has 118 results, much more than for Ustasha [21]-- but this is still less than the 2106 for "Ustasha genocide". I tried various rephrasings of that but none of them add up to something similar to "Ustasha genocide". "Jasenovac genocide" does have 1250 results [22], but I'm not sure how many of these refer to what happened at the specific site or the phenomenon as a whole.--Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ustasha genocide of/against Serbs" could be an alternative to consider, since this article deals specifically with Serbs. Using "Ustasha genocide" in terms of a broader article on the issue might be problematic since names of places or the targeted group are usually listed in the title when labeling a genocide, i.e. Armenian genocide, Cambodian genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc. It almost implies that a genocide was committed against the Ustasha. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If scholarship can be shown to use this formula -- sure. But to be fair, we should mention note counterexamples to the "name after victim rule" -- the Holocaust being a notable one; the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides likewise actually are more like the formula in "Ustasha genocide" of naming after the perpetrator, since the states in question were culpable (i.e. it is "Rwandan genocide" and not "Rwandan genocide against Tutsi"). --Calthinus (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Serbian Genocide isn't precise enough given both the Serbian genocide of Muslims in WWII and the Srebrenica genocide. The proposed title is more precise, there can be no mistaking what it is about. Rwandan genocide is nationally-named, as it happened in Rwanda. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support The persecution was of a genocidal nature. I am not sure whether any reliable scholar has rejected this. I agree with @Peacemaker67: regarding confusion that might happen with "Serbian Genocide". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Persecution is broader than genocide and thus a more appropriate topic. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Persecution is a broad term, and a much less severe one that does not sufficiently cover the grave nature of these horrific crimes. This is rightly a genocide and the article should be titled as such. The current title makes it sound like some kind of political rights issues rather than systematic killings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1120:F6:A9:63E3:1AEE:4B40 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Since creation of this article 13 years ago its scope was WWII persecution of Serbs and remained as such during next 11 years. A couple of years ago, in first RM discussion a very small group of editors (whose edits frequently follow the same pov regarding WWII issues) first renamed the article to refer only to Croatia (I think without valid reason) and removed text about persecution of Serbs in other parts of Axis occupied Yugoslavia during WWII. Was that good for wikipedia and its informative value? I think not. This RM discussion is actually another scope discussion (mis)presented as RM discussion. The consequence will be that first the article will be renamed to Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia and then all the text about persecution of Serbs in Croatia that is not explicitly referred to as genocide will be removed. I don't think that it is good for wikipedia and its informative value. Having in mind what one editor wrote here Persecution is broader than genocide and thus a more appropriate topic. I don't see a valid reason for further reduction of the scope. On the contrary, I propose to restore the original scope and title Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia → World War II persecution of Serbs. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that any text would be removed if the article was renamed to Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia since the article covers killings, forced expulsion and conversion, which were the three ways the Ustasha sought to create an ethnically pure Croatia as outlined by their ministers here. All three being components of the genocide, removing any of them from the article wouldn't make any sense, rendering that concern invalid. As for your other point, I think that the scope of the article was rightly changed in the past (though a new article should have probably been made instead). The reason being that, a general article about the WW2 Persecution of Serbs doesn't give enough weight (although it would be a good initiation) to the most egregious and significant crimes against Serbs, that is those committed by the Ustasha. There is a distinct difference in the sheer volume of deaths and intent behind the crimes done, not to mention the methods used by the Ustashe, as compared to other Axis forces, like the Germans for instance, who did massacre Serbs but didn't target them in the same way. It's why an article specifically on the Ustasha genocide against Serbs is necessary and valuable encyclopedic info. As alluded to by Calthinus, there could be a broader page, either about the Ustasha policy or Axis forces' persecution of Serbs, except I think the ones that already exist covering these topics are good enough. Also, I was looking through the article's history and noticed that early on it was titled World War II persecution and genocide of Serbs before a now-banned user unilaterally moved it [23] to "World War II persecution of Serbs" without discussion, citing "historical sources are not accepting theory of WWII genocide of Serbs" which of course is false. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Genocide, as defined by Lemkin, includes such aspects as cultural genocide related to closing of churches, trying to impose a new Croatian Orthodox Church, banning of Cyrillic etc. They will all remain within the scope of the article if it is renamed as proposed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose on the same grounds as Amanuensis Balkanicus per his discussion.-- 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - and what is the point if have struggle between greater number of editors based on their ethnic provenience, where we can end up with the decision made of Serbian vs. Croatian votes.-- 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion - I am not sure why the dilemma on "Genocide definition"? The UN definition is clear and unequivocal, and has been used by both the ICTY, in regard to Bosnia and Rwanda, and the ICJ, in Bosnia v. Serbia trials. That genocide perpetrated against the Serb population, wherever they could be found at the time, has been unequivocally proven. Now, Antidiskriminator has given us the best argument so far, and combined with the argument made by Amanuensis Balkanicus, helped me make up my mind about the "move". It seems clear to me that the "nominator" and these four "strong supporters" are really short-sighted about the "move" consequences - these four "strong supporters" are blinded by the desire to see "genocide" and "Serbs" in the same title, where Serbs are victims for once, no matter what, hence the lack of any meaningful discussion on their part. What they obviously did not realize was that this is more of a way to lessen the extent, scope and context of the crime - genocide is not only perpetrated by the Ustashas, and not only in Croatia, it was "intent to destroy Serbs in whole or in part" everywhere! The Serbs were ought to be destroyed in the NDH, as well as in other parts of the territory wherever they could be found - by the Ustasha in Jasenovac, in the camps run by German Nazis in Germany, Austria, Poland, in the camps run by Hungarians, in the Serb camps run by the Serbs themselves, they were victims of Axis politics in the World War II (full stop).-- 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Addendum - Hell, why not - I also propose that we rethink the scope, and restore old title Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia → World War II persecution of Serbs.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Who added this comment? If I am not mistaken, the voting period was over on the 4th of November. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect/disgusting assumptions, the new title would be per facts and a number of sources. Do not even try to relativise the genocide done by the NDH on Jew, Serbs and Romas... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep your inputs orderly, without interrupting other editors posts.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted above in my response to Antidiskriminator, there is a difference between what the Ustasha did and what other Axis forces did. To suggest some kind of equivalency between all of them is to whitewash the Ustasha atrocities. Speaking for myself, I am not being short-sighted in this move but endeavoring to be historically and factually accurate. The case of the Ustasha is the only instance where genocide has been proven by a wide consensus of historians and scholars to take place specifically against Serbs during WW2. So, the argument of "Serbs were also persecuted and killed by other Axis forces elsewhere so let's lump all of it together because it's all genocide" just doesn't fly. Diverting this conversation from the page title's WP:ACCURACY to one about the scope of the article is straying from the topic and missing the point of it altogether. The scope is currently about the Ustasha. The Ustasha committed Genocide against Serbs. This is not disputed. You say that none of the "strong support" voters have engaged in any meaningful conversations but the two opposing voters you cite for helping you make up your mind have not provided any responses to the rebuttals that I and Peacemaker67 have given. Changing the title to Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia cannot result in the removal of content because everything covered in the article deals with genocide. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Really, so by following this logic we are whitewashing Holocaust by refusing to place blame solely on SS ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see your comparison and how it applies. If you equate a regime's (Croatian) policy of extermination of Serbs to another one's (Germans) policy of subjugation of Serbs where massacres also happened, it's blatant mischaracterization. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nolan. I'd add that the nature of the crimes committed is colored by the motive in play. Nazis and the Ustasha regime were not the same in that regard, nor were any of the regimes involved.--Calthinus (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I find this exchange quite bizarre - here is a good starting point if you want to get informed about the Genocide, or as you describe it, "nature" and "motives" of "crime(s)".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes -- obviously, Nazis and Ustasha did not have shared motives if we are talking about Serbs. Can someone close this already?--Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Predictable

Now, since this is an article that deals with a very specific aspect of genocide against Serbs, about genocide committed on part of the territory formulated in the title very explicitly as "NDH", we need to remove or avoid inclusion of all other parts of the text and information that are set outside these default parameters. In other words, there were no genocide in Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, the Nazis, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, did not followed "intent to destroy" and did not contribute to the extermination, part of the genocide pertaining to culture, language and religion, carried out by all of the aforementioned wherever they had control over the territory in occupied Yugoslavia, now there is simply no place for these aspects in this article - Italians in Dalmatia and Montenegro, Hungarians in Slavonia and Vojvodina, Bulgarians in Macedonia and Eastern Serbia, not to mention death camps in Germany, Austria, Poland.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you'd need reliable sources that describe what happened outside the NDH as genocide against Serbs. I'm not aware of any, but have an open mind. Secondly, this article was always a coattrack of bad things that happened to Serbs throughout Yugoslavia during the war, regardless of whether they were part of a policy of the occupying power. Let's not go back to that. There is plenty of scope for persecution of Serbs that happened outside the NDH to be covered in the relevant articles. Thus you will find that this persecution is well-covered in the Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories article, which is Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I"m down to remove these things, as per the scope. --Calthinus (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

An impossible death toll of 300-500,000

Based on the research of Bogoljub Kočović, Vladimir Žerjavić, and Dragan Cvetković of the Belgrade Museum of Genocide Victims, the number of 300-500,000 murdered by the NDH regime is clearly exaggerated. While Kočović did not calculate the civilian casualties separately, he estimated that 370,000 Serbs died in the territory of the NDH, and with a possible error of 10%, it "could not have been higher than 410,000". He then added:

"U tom broju od 370 do 410.000 ubrojani su sve žrtve Srba koji su poginuli u međusobnim borbama četnika i partizana, u borbama tih ustanika protiv ustaša i domobranaca, u borbama protiv Nemaca, prilikom ubijanja civilnog stanovništva na terenu i ubijanja u raznim koncentracionim logorima, u prvom redu u Jasenovcu."

105,000 (Žerjavić) or 107-114,000 (Cvetković) died as combatants, so the total number of civilian deaths by Kočović's figures would be around 256-265 to 296-305

Žerjavić calculated a total of 322,000 Serb deaths in the NDH, of which 217,000 died as "victims of fascist terror". Of that number, 50,000 were killed in Jasenovac, 28,000 in prisons, pits and other camps, 45,000 by the Germans, 34,000 in battles between the Ustaše, the Chetniks, and the Partisans, 15,000 by the Italians, 25,000 died of typhoid, and 20,000 in the Sajmište camp.

According to Cvetković, 332-352,000 Serb civilians died in the NDH territory of all causes of death. The Belgrade Museum of Genocide Victims estimates that 101,400–106,700 Serbs died in concentration camps in the NDH.

I am not aware of any other detailed research, and from neither of these could have been reached a death toll of 300-500,000 Serbs murdered by the Ustaše. ~500,000 is Žerjavić's (530,000) and Kočović's (487,000) total number of Serb casualties in entire Yugoslavia during and after the war. Out of the three studies, the highest number of civilian deaths was provided by Cvetković and it is 352,000, but it includes other causes of death and not just those killed by the Ustaše.

I also looked at the cited sources for the 300-500,000 number, and only Yeomans mentions a range of 500,000 deaths. Pavlowitch quotes Kočović's 370-410,000 (which is both civilian and combatant deaths), while Ramet, Baker and Bellamy mention 300,000. However, there are also lower numbers provided in literature, such as "at least 100,000" by Roger Cohen and "around 100,000" by Elinor Despalatović, both of whom partly refer to Žerjavić. Tzowu (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. These are interesting sources. I will try to add them in the infobox section. I guess several estimates should be mentioned.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding some recent edits, Goldstein didn't say that the Ustaše killed 217,000 Serbs. He cited Žerjavić's numbers on the total Serb casualties in the NDH. How Žerjavić categorized the civilian casualties can be seen in "Yugoslavia: Manipulations with the Number of Second World War Victims" from my first comment.

It is also dubious whether "most authors agree on a range of around 300,000 to 350,000", since a lot of authors simply cite Žerjavić or Kočović, and the research of the two doesn't support the range of 300-350,000. 300,000 is in fact the high estimate that can be drawn from the studies of Žerjavić, Kočović, and the Museum of Genocide Victims in Belgrade, and the low estimate is closer to 100,000. Tzowu (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Goldstein says that "217,000 died as victims of Nazi terror". Žerjavić's breakdown of the Serb losses here [24] is somewhat vague. Is the figure of 125,000 referring to soldiers, and the figure of 197,000 referring to civilians? The lower estimates of 100,000 fatalities needs yet to be established: I could not access the snippet view of the books on the link you provided.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A sizeable portion of the deaths at Jasenovac were due to typhus, sometimes spread deliberately so as to inflict suffering on the inmates (see Vjekoslav Luburić#Ustaše Surveillance Service, Bureau III). Given the context, it would be farcical to remove them from the overall death toll. Furthermore, as in other genocides (such as Srebrenica), not all the victims were civilians. Some, like the 150 Bosnian and Montenegrin Chetnik commanders/fighters that were brutally liquidated in Jasenovac in April 1945, were captured military personnel.

Moreover, the various military operations conducted in the NDH, such as at Kozara, saw an intimate level of cooperation between the NDH armed forces and the German military. It is well documented that in many instances the Ustashe would point out which villages and locales ought to be targeted under the pretext that they were harboring Partisans or Chetniks, and the inhabitants would promptly be killed by the Germans. Yet, the implication I'm seeing here is that we should deduct the casualty figures that resulted from such raids from the overall death toll. This would be akin to deducting victim numbers from the overall figure of Holocaust deaths because a certain percentage of victims were killed by collaborators rather than by the Germans themselves. In addition, the civilian deaths at Kozara were some of the highest of the conflict in the NDH, with thousands killed and nearly 70,000 displaced. Dismissing this as "deaths incurred during fighting between the Ustashe, Partisans and Chetniks", when there were clearly genocidal massacres taking place during the fighting, is highly misguided.

Also, it's important to remember that Waffen-SS formations such as the 13th and 23rd were manned largely by Bosnian Muslims and Croats of the Ustashe persuasion, although they were officially under German control. Thus, the thousands of Serb civilians deaths caused by these units would have been ascribed to the Germans by the aforementioned statisticians, again minimizing the number of deaths that could (in the strictest sense) be ascribed to the "Ustashe". As for the Sajmište camp, I would like to point that not only was it located in the NDH, it was also operated solely by the Ustashe in the last months of the war.

The figure of c. 200,000 fatalities is a bare minimum. A more likely figure is probably 250–300,000, but I could agree to listing it as 217,000–300,000 for the sake of compromise. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The above comment echoes my sentiments. Deducting death tolls by looking at deaths from typhoid/diseases, raids/battles, camps not fully under Ustashe control, etc. is silly since none of those deaths would have occurred if not for the Ustashe's policies. Genocides also rarely take into account solely civilian deaths. The 100,000 min. figure seems ridiculously low when considering all the camps and list of massacres. Not supported by any major historian on the Balkans that I know. An early 1942 Gestapo report mentions that about 300,000 Serbs were massacred and sadistically tortured to death. This naturally should be taken with a grain of salt, since casualties during war are often overblown and they aren't official, but it's something to consider, especially since it came three years before the end of the war. 200,000-–500,000410,000 seems reasonable, with a generally accepted range of 300,000–350,000, given the references. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You cannot claim that disease or warfare deaths are part of genocide.For example the Bosnian Genocide includes only those executed. A figure of 220,000 - 350,000 makes most sense. 500,000 doesn't mathematicaly add up.74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You realize that a lot of the deaths in the Ustaša camps were due to typhus/disease, sometimes deliberately spread by the guards/commanders for easier extermination. Some prisoners in German Nazi camps also died as a result of the disease. Anne Frank and her sister for instance, died from typhoid. According to you, they were not victims of the Nazi Holocaust. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am more or less in agreement with Tzowu that 500,000 is an impossibly high figure for deaths in the NDH, given that 500,000-odd Serbs were killed in all of Yugoslavia during the war. But I also agree with you that 100,000 is absurdly low, hence my proposal to normalize at >300,000. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What Goldstein says is a reference to Žerjavić, who said that 217,000 died as "victims of fascist terror", 82,000 were "National Liberation Army soldiers", and 23,000 were "collaborators and quislings". I could not find information on whether POWs that were killed are included in the first figure, though I assume they are included since he uses the term "victims of fascist terror" and not "civilians", and because he counted those that died in the Sajmište camp in that number, among whom were Partisans too.

While I understand your points, the topic was narrowed from a general "persecutions of Serbs in the NDH", which included the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Italian forces as well, to the genocidal policies of the NDH regime alone. The crimes of SS Prinz Eugen are included in what Žerjavić described as deaths caused by German forces, and the crimes of Roatta's Italian 2nd Army as deaths caused by Italian forces, but were they a part of the Ustaše genocide? The same goes for the units comprised of Bosnian Muslims and Croats that were under the SS and the Wehrmacht. They did not take orders from the NDH authorities, and those units operated from 1943 or 1944, while the majority of Serb casualties occurred before that.

In my opinion, the low estimate of 200,000 or 217,000 requires the inclusion of Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy as "perpetrators". Tzowu (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No proper arguments were given for such a bold change. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious that Žerjavić/Goldstein said that 217,000 is the death toll for "fascist/nazi terror", which includes the crimes of German and Italian forces on the territory of the NDH, and by that they should be included in the infobox as perpetrators and mentioned in the lead. Tzowu (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If the article's title and scope continued to be Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, I would probably agree with you in listing the Germans and Italians as perpetrators, even though many of the "German" soldiers who committed the atrocities were actually Croats and Bosniaks (but I'm not a big fan of listing entire ethnic groups as perpetrators). In any case, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that the atrocities that Germany and Italy committed against the NDH's Serb population constituted acts of genocide.

As for Žerjavić and the overall death toll, we are not going to make highly controversial alterations based on the claims of a single author, whose work upon closer inspection seems somewhat problematic. For one, in this 1998 entry , Žerjavić plainly admits that his findings were a priori intended to convince Serbs that fewer of their compatriots had been killed in the NDH as a means of reducing ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia as it teetered on the brink of disintegration. This means that Žerjavić had an agenda, starting with a conclusion and working his way back to produce data that matched that conclusion. This isn't good scholarship.

On the same webpage, Žerjavić goes on to denounce the "lies" of Milan Bulajić, the founder of the Museum of Genocide Victims in Belgrade and a man who served as an expert witness at the trial of the war criminal Dinko Šakić the very same year. Moreoever, much of his site is dedicated to the "Serb agression against Croatia" during the Yugoslav Wars and defending Croatia from "Serb lies on the internet", as opposed to World War II casualties (his supposed area of expertise), further showing his obvious political bias. On a side note, Žerjavić also claims on the same website that Slobodan Milošević said "we will unite all Serbs into one state, either with institutional or non-institutional measures, even with weapons if necessary" during his Gazimestan Speech, which is blatantly false. You can read the full transcript here and Milošević says no such thing. I'm not sure what Gazimestan had to do with WW2, but a scholar who can't be bothered to read a simple transcript to ensure accuracy isn't much of a scholar. Also, during the Bosnian War, Žerjavić claimed to have "calculated" that 220,000 people had been killed in Bosnia, when the true figure was later established as c. 100,000 by the Bosnian Book of the Dead and the ICTY. I didn't have much of an opinion on Žerjavić before, but upon stumbling on some of his "proto-blogs" I'm beginning to question his reliability and motives.

Despite all his flaws, I am not suggesting we disregard Žerjavić completely. But to reduce the overall fatality rate by 30-60% based solely on one man's writings when most historians agree on a figure of 300,000 Serbs killed by the NDH is misguided at best and disingenous at worst. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

At the Nuremberg trials, the court concluded regarding the NDH: "Whatever the form or the name given, the Croatian government during the German war­time occupation was a satellite under the control of the occupying power." ... "We are of the view that Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country and that all acts performed by it were those for which the occupying power was responsible." While the position of Italy is different, there are certainly grounds for the inclusion of Nazi Germany as a perpetrator.

Regarding Žerjavić, he had many polemics with Bulajić, and the paper you linked was written about 10 years after his initial research and his first book on the casualties of WWII in Yugoslavia. Bulajić criticized Žerjavić since the publication of that book, and defended the notion of several hundred thousand killed in the Jasenovac camp (500,000 according to this source [25]). Goldstein said that Bulajić's books were characteristic for "obsessive exaggeration and manipulation of Jasenovac victims" [26] As Tia Sindbaek wrote, the disputes between Žerjavić and Bulajić (and others) were "mostly held in distinctly cold and hostile tones". [27] Žerjavić generally strongly argued with people who criticized him, for example with Kazimir Katalinić, a Croatian historian who claimed that his death toll for Croats and Bosniaks was too low. [28]

About his perceived motives, Žerjavić said that his goal was to prove that the official figure of deaths was "scientifically unfounded", and the addition of an "aim of preventing the armed conflict", and everything else in that paper should be seen in the context of a series of polemics with Bulajić. That doesn't discredit his earlier work. Kočović also wrote some questionable points regarding the ethnicity of Montenegrins and the borders of Croatia in the event of Yugoslavia's dissolution (Gubici 1985, p 99, 132). But that's not related to their studies on war loss which are cited by many, and are regarded as the most detailed on the topic of Yugoslav WWII casualties. Writing about non-WWII related issues and an incorrect quote (I read various misquotes countless of times in books dealing with the Yugoslav wars) is also not something that discredits his research. Regarding the number of casualties of the Bosnian War, 200,000 was the accepted figure for a long time, until a study published in 2007 showed a much lower number of deaths.[29]

I'm not sure whether most historians place the number of deaths of Serbs at 300,000. There are four sources on the talk page (Žerjavić, Goldstein, Cohen and Despalatović) that provide a lower number, and there are many sources that place the number much higher, at 500,000 or more. Unfortunately, unlike in Slovenia where the number of those who died during and after the war and the circumstance of their deaths is almost completely determined, this is not the case for other countries. The Museum of Genocide Victims is doing a good job on the victims list, but they did not give some "final" estimates. Given all that was written, I think that a range of 200-300,000 is well-founded in earlier and more recent studies, until a more accurate figure appears. Tzowu (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Misleading lead

The lead is misleading. A person who has no knowledge of the subject would think that these terrible events happened because of oppression (which culminated with the creation of Banovina Hrvatska, the biggest legal Croatian entity in modern Croatian history?). That is misleading and only Half-truth. Ethnic hatred was the main reason and fuil for the events, followed with other reasons. There are no sources in the articles which are saying otherwise.

These two sentences should be joined:

The 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies towards Croats by the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920's and 1930's following World War I fueled the rise of nationalist and far-right movements. Ethnic hatred of Serbs and resentment of Serbian centralized power led to the formation of the Ustaša, an ultranationalist and fascist Croatian movement that was founded by Ante Pavelić. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

How is it misleading when the source backs it up? Jozo Tomasevich a half Croat half Serb historian, in his book states that anti Croatian policies would lead to the Ustase. Einstein would even write a letter in distane for the persecution of Croatian intellectuals through violence by Yugoslav police. It's not a half truth or misleading sentence. And would be misleading to downplay or change it. What do you think fueled ethnic hatred? Surely readers would be curious as to what partly motivated their sadistic hatred? Having a larger Croatia that wasn't run by Croatians but answered to the Yugoslav government doesn't seem like such such a gift as you imply. But again pov is meaningless. Facts are what matter.

Tomasevich states:

"The anti-Croatian policies of the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920’s and 1930’s. especially the assassination of Croatian Peasant Party leaders in Parliament in June 1928 by a deputy of the main Serbian political party, were largely responsible for the creation, growth, and nature of Croatian nationalist forces. These culminated in the Ustasha movement and ultimately its anti-Serbian policies in the Second World War."

I am sure that Peacemaker67 can attest to the solidity to Tomasevich's works. These works make up most of the Yugoslav WWII articles.

The intro isn't justifying the genocide but giving insight as to what contributed to it being carried out. What fueled the ethnic hatred of Serbs? No matter how grossly disproportionate the Ustase response was, somethings contributed to their hatred. As is described by Tomasevich. And leaving that out would be misleading, half truth and trying to make it appear as if the group spawned out of thin air.

74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. That is what Tomasevich says (2001, not 1975). He also says that the wartime Ustasha policies were completely out of proportion with the anti-Croat policies of the interwar governments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Half true, yet again. It contributed but the main reason for the frustration was the fact that Croats did not have an independent state of their own and that was blamed on Serbian government or Serb people, who gave more than half a million of lives for their victory and new state. I for one think that the blame should fall on their elites and not the other party. If you are coming to live in a joint house and have a poor dowry, what can you expect? Plus, this is all given from the 21st century POV as a number of states in the 20s and 30s was heavily centralised, and we are talking about Europe, mind you. Adding the assassination fact in the same sentence just after the part which states that anti-Croatian policies contributed to it, can give one the illusion that it was a plot by a larger group of people and Serb-dominated administration, and not a killing by a former veteran with a short fuse over one ugly remark given by Radic. That is also misleading. The main motivation of the group was not some righteous fight against opressors but the fight for an independent state with constant use of terror and later on - genocide. This is also a part of the whole story, as the cause root of Serbo-Croatian conflict is the fact that Serbs as a minority had special rights in the AU, as soldiers and the main force behind the Military Frontier, compared to Croats who were mostlypeasants and second-class citizens in a Hungarian/Austrian dominated state. Once again, I think that the intro should be reworked and rebalanced. Less is more. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant here. We go with what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To Peacemaker67, exactly. He seems to me the most neutral and precise historian. And explicitly states how the sadistic actions of the Ustase were very much disproportionate. To Sadkσ , What? Boiling it down to Croat jealousy of Serbs over being given certain special status during the Austrian rule? Despite Croats and Serbs living in peace during and after that era? That would be deemed misleading and a half-truth. Let alone conflict between the two groups span back to before the Austrian Empire as discussed in the article. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not about my opinion, but a comment on a broader issue which is one of my several interests. Plus, we have a source, a single source. My main comment is that the lead gives more credit to state Centralisation politics as a contributing factor to later genocide compared to ethnic hatred. That seems - strange. It is not "boiling it down" but I'm giving you additional information, because the conflict did not appear only in the 20th century. It has deeper roots (Orthodox and Catholics and what not). I found this and other info. in excellent works by academic sr:Čedomir Popov and Vasilije Krestić. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I said that pointing to just temporary better perks allotted to Serbs in the Austrian Empire as the main reason is boiling it down considering back and forth tensions occured since the schisms of Christianity. Multiple sources support this not just a single one. Also ethnic hatred is not an isolated thing. Events can contribute to ethnic hatred. They aren not seperate . Nor is it justifying ethnic hatred but giving insight as to how these things came to be. I don’t think anyone would think Ustase didn’t have an extreme hatred for Serbs. How else would they commit such atrocities?74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Krestić? You can't be serious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not all of his works should be easily excluded because of his outbursts in the 90s and later on. A number of people failed that big test. His works from the 80s and earlier period are notable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I partly agree with both sides here. On the one hand, Tomasevich gives important and necessary background information on the issue. But it's also important not to dismiss ethnic hatred of Serbs as a primary factor in the Ustaša and Croatian extremist movements. I think a balance can be found between the two for the lede, without making it appear as though it's excusing Ustaša actions. That's what I've tried to do. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your revision. Its seems most fair and straightforward.74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that support your contention that hatred of Serbs was a primary factor for the Ustashas, not the endorsement of IP editors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of that. It was more of a comment regarding the dispute in this thread. One source in the article (Ramet) already lists ethnic hatred of Serbs as a driving factor. Let's not pretend like Ustaša hatred of Serbs is debatable though. It's akin to questioning whether the Nazis were motivated by a hatred of Jews. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

He said primary factor. He didn’t say it wasn’t a factor. Discussion in this thread was about what drove the hatred. You wouldn’t say the Islamic extremists appeared out of nowhere in the Middle-East and weren’t in part formed due to Western and Soviet invasions. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as Krestić is concerned, all of his works must be examined in light of his involvement in the Memorandum and support of Milošević. It is unlikely that his Serb-chauvinistic views in the 90s represented a sudden change in his outlook. This goes double for anything he wrote about Croats vis a vis Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Thе introduction looks like a shameful attempt to relativize and justify genocide. The introduction may lead to the conclusion that the extermination of the ethnic group arose in response to some of King's moves, not as a consequence of ultranationalism and Nazi racial ideology. Such things are unacceptable in the case of fascist totalitarian regimes. All the changes I have made are mentioned below with references. Is there a scientific consensus that 6 January Dictatorship is a key event that caused mass crimes and genocide? I don't think so. This looks like WP:GEVAL. Is there any other reliable source besides Tomasevic, 45 years old? There should be no place on Wikipedia to relativize and negate Nazi ideologies. A really sad moment...--WEBDuB (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution for all would be to leave a stable version without the background of Ustasha ideology, as in the The Holocaust article. Fascism is always fascism. No further explanation is needed, especially no relativization.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Claiming GEVAL is grossly misleading. Nowhere in the intro is genocide “justified”. Revisionism of historical accounts that lead to the genocide would however be shameful. There is no such thing as a just genocide. Nor is looking into various accounts that lead to it. Nowhere does it say that it was a proper response to events pre WWII. Events that lead to rise of Nazism is discussed in Wikipedia articles. Another example is the Chetnik article in which part of the reason for Chetnik genocidal campaigns against Muslims and Croats was to an extent motivated by the Ustashe genocide of Serbs. Are you saying that means that what is being claimed is a justification of Chetnik actions? @Peacemaker67: , as you were in this thread already, what is your take? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but that was mentioned in the Background paragraph. Is there any other reliable source besides Tomasevich, 45 years old!? One single source can't lead to the conclusion that will be stated in the lead. There is no a scientific consensus. Furthermore, I didn't write that in the Chetniks article, nor am I against removing that part. I have written many times in critical style even about Serbian nationalist politicians. Especially, I have no intention of writing affirmatively about the Nazis collaborators. It is important to be consistent and objective in criticizing all nationalisms and crimes. Best regards. --WEBDuB (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Genocides can not be justified. If you think otherwise, it is a sad thing. Do not claim the lede tries to justify crimes because one might start to think that you have a battleground mentality. The lede says also that the Ustashe wanted to create a Greater Croatia and killed non-Serbs too. The Ustashe tried to link themselves with notable figures, ideas and events of past centuries but that does not serve as evidence that the Ustashe's origin goes back to those past centuries. Tomashevic' claim is also supported by Cohen [30] and Sindbaek [31]. If you have some source that is relevant, post it here and we can discuss. Otherwise, anything else is just a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's unusual for a genocide page to mention the victim group's prior wrongdoings to the perpetrators in its lede. There's no such thing as justifying genocide but that's what it almost seems like when reading the opener. Anyone that assigns a bad faith motive to editors who have this concern is being unfair. For comparison, the Srebrenica massacre article makes no mention of the crimes against Serbs years prior in the villages surrounding Srebrenica by Muslim forces in its lede. Yet, this was a prime reason why the men of Srebrenica were so despised and later targeted by the Bosnian Serbs. It is talked about in the body instead. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the term anti-Croat policies in the lede but I think that the section could use some tweaking. Also, it would be helpful to expand on what exactly those anti-Croat policies were in the background section. We have the assassination of a Croatian politician and Serb political domination. This is vastly different in nature from the Anti-Serb policies of the Ustashe, yet Anti-Croat and Anti-Serb is used respectively in the sentence, unintentionally appearing to create an equivalency between the two. The wording and structuring could be better. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: , I think I see what you mean by being descriptive of what Ustashe were, though the Partisan example I think is different. Partisan can mean many different groups in various parts of history. Partisan isn’t synonymous with communists. In fact many Partisan fighters didn’t identify as communists. So I understand the need for differentiation specifying they were “communist led”. However Ustashe are fascist by nature. Kinda like saying fascist fascist Croats. Had seemed redundant. But I digress. Although the Holocaust article makes no mention of fascism as a descriptor of the Nazis, strangely. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Nazis weren't fascist, they were Nazis. There is a difference. A descriptive adjective isn't needed for Nazis as it is inherent in the word and it is widely known what Nazi means. The Ustashe on the other hand are not as widely known, so a descriptor is necessary to establish what their politics were. I have also seen them described as "ultra-nationalist", but fascist sort of encompasses that as well, so it is a better one to use IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, I understand now. And agree that the fascist descriptor should remain as you mentioned, except for two things. One, by your logic, it is inherent in the word Ustashe the term fascist as well. As they aren’t anything else. Ustashe like Nazis are specific terms on to themselves. In fact clicking on the hyperlink of it in the intro tkes one to the article describing them as such. Though I agree they are lesser known, but not everyone knows much about the Nazis hence why such articles exist on wikipedia. It’s also why “Nazis” are hyperlinked in any article mentioning them. Incase one might not now as much about them. Also Nazis adhered to Nazism which is a form of fascism. Also the party and ruling regeme are described as fascist. As was Nazi Germany. So I’m not sure what you mean by saying Nazis weren’t fascists. First time I heard that.... Again I am in full agreement with keeping the fascist adjective in the article. Just really confused by your points. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment from a passer-by: I absolutely agree that the Ustashe were a fascist organisation, but is it really necessary to add the adjective fascist to the mention of the Ustashe in the first sentence when it is already mentioned twice in the lede. Stating this three times seems to be a bit overkill when the article is not even specifically about the Ustashe, but about the genocide. --T*U (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that the Ustase are already described as fascists already a couples times in the lead, hence my point originally. At first I didn’t see how any reader would go through the intro not knowing they were fascist without the extra third mention. But I guess @Peacemaker67: point is that it being the first few lines in the article it should be stated there. Which makes sense. Correct me if I got your explanation wrong, Peacemaker. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between establishing notability of the topic in the first sentence and the lead then explaining what went on, including the ideology of the Ustase. I've tweaked it a little, but frankly this article is pretty ordinary and it is the body that really needs some solid work put in. The lead will then need to be rewritten based on what the body ends up looking like. Fiddling around with wording of the lead (or infobox) of an article that needs a lot of work is, in my experience, a complete waste of time, unless there are factual errors. This is not one of those. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems once again the same part of the intro that was sourced is being deleted while info lacking accurate sourcing is added.74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Unsourced POV addition added today.

Usually the burden of proof is on the editor adding content not others. The sentence “ This genocidal campaign was an integral part of Greater Croatia ideology.” is not sourced and is very much POV. Saying that genocide is an integral part of Greater Croatia ideology is ridiculous and I’m amazed a talk section is needed to remove it. Genocide was an integral part of the Ustashe agenda. Not to mention the extermination of Serbs in camps is essentially mentioned twice and saying “Croatian fascist Ustashe” is quite redundant. Also the Ustashe being created by Croats And a Croatian extremis group is already mentioned in the lead. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding of unsourced material and changing wording of sourced material

A reminder that this is a highly contested article. Don't add unsourced material and do not change the wording of sourced material unless you have read the source that is being cited. I have semi-protected it because of the constant unsourced changes in the recent past, particularly by IPs. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we have the article permanently semi-proteced. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

I'm happy if anyone wants to make a case at WP:RFPP, but I was going to wait to see if it calms down after this period of semi expires. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, you had taken part in adding back unsourced material. Peacemaker67, As I stated above I was the one taking issue with sourced material being manipulated or material added that was unsourced. MAINLY by registered editors (Specifically WEBDuB, please take a look) and some IPs. Making the page semi-protected will not change anything as registered users were adding unsourced content. None of my edits added unsourced or manipulated sourced material. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've not added any unsourced material.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You originally kept adding that genocide was integral to Greater Croatia ideology before finally correcting it to match the source. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

@OyMosby: Sorry, I stopped making changes to the World War II section. Now, I really think the Background section is too long (it is always controversial with such sensitive topics), almost longer than the part about genocide itself. We have nothing similar in the case of the Holocaust and other genocides, possibly a little about the origins of anti-Semitism, etc. It is a bit like trying to relativize and justify anti-Serb policies. I don’t think the Background should be longer than what is in the introduction. Perhaps a separate article should be made about the Serb-Croat conflict (unfortunately), something similar to the Arab-Jewish one. Most of these events are not directly related to genocide, perhaps with the development of ethnic tensions and the formation of Ustasha. Furthermore, I really don't think it's ok and fair to organize an orchestrated campaign by inviting other users.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't orchestrate anything. Those two users came on their own to this page before so I mention them being that they just recently edited here. As for the background I agree the background is a bit much. Though I think the pre war part is okay in giving insite of tensions from both “sides”. The “intra war” section is quite long. Also post WWI as per Tomasovich’s writings, the Yugoslav dictatorship and “anti-Croat” policies played a role in spawning right-wing movements. I know you were not a fan of that passage but it is what happened. Doesn’t change or justify the desire for genocide and other disproportionate and disgusting practices that came about with the Ustashe themselves. Removing such info would be wrong. OyMosby (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but why do you insist so much on that sentence? That's just one source and it is also misplaced in context. The reader might understand that the dictatorship is ethnically motivated, but in fact it is pro-Yugoslav. More importantly, the source does not directly relate those events to the genocide. That is crucial. More with the development of Ustasha, so that sentence should first be in an article about them. It is especially superfluous in the introduction. The sentence is not wrong, but it is not in the right place. Definitley not for the lead. Please, give me an example of something similar in other articles about genocide. I doubt it, because something like that is generally indecent in the academic world. It is always important to mention the broader context, but here it has gone too far, and looks like the relativization and justification of genocide. Again, the Background section is definitley too long. For instance, the entire five sentences explain Načertanije, an unpublished fantasy-based document that has nothing to do with genocide. No source links them. We need to leave a few sentences about the origin of anti-Serb sentiments, the origins of Ustasha and NDH, the Nazi racial policies and Greater Croatia ideology. --WEBDuB (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I along with a number of editors who think it is worth keeping. I see there was even a discussion about it on the talk page. Tomasovich is RS and heavily used for Balkan articles. He plainly outlines how the dictatorship and anti-Croat policies would lead to movements like the Ustashe being formed and the anti-Serb policies they enact. The intro like the book notes that it was a disproportionate reaction. And since you wish to use other articles as example, the Chetnik page which you brought into the article before, mentions how Chetnik crimes were in part a reaction Ustashe crimes. Does that mean it is justifying killing civilians? Why hide it? It is relevant. And is context. I agree that “Nacertanije” like a number of items mentioned in the background section seems like a coat rack of back and forth tensions between Croats and Serbs. However it was published. And if examples of anti-Serb sentiment is mentioned, examples of anti-Croat sentiment should be too. Saying it wasn’t published is incorrect. And if you will remove it, then you might as well remove the beginning part about the Austrian government settlements and “resentment by Croats” as the book didn’t connect that to genocide carried put by Ustashe either. It’s not balanced or neutral to give only one side. OyMosby (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not worth keeping, it's undue. A number of editors do not understand Kingdom of Yugoslav and its policies. I have seen a number of desperate attempts to make everything to look like some sort of Serb imperial politics. It's BS. Alexander I and most Serbs, were pro-Yugoslav (durning the royal and communist rule both, and even during the Yugoslav wars). 6 January Dictatorship indeed had a goal to make a unified Yugoslav nation per "one nation, one country, one king". Btw, Alexander's short dictatorial rule was vanilla milkshake compared to Communist purges and their actions shortly after the WW2, or compared to other monarchs of his time. I must agree with WEBDuB here, information on Serb-Croat conflict should be kept out. A separate article would be great, or we can copy it somewhere else. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In an article of this complexity and importance, an in-depth background covering the history of Serb-Croat conflict (given the lack of quality articles on the history of the Serb-Croat conflict) is necessary. Serb hegemony and attendant policies during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is voluminously documented in academic sources regardless of your personal opinions, Sadko. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn’t even that much discussion in the article about the 6 January Dictatorship or the “anti-Croat” policies with it so not sure where all the focus or “BS” is. It’s per source. It played a roll in the Ustashe formation and their anti-Serb policies in WWII. How is it not relevant? Seems you two were against it last time it was discussed here but 4 other editors agreed with it. I being a fifth one now. @Peacemaker67: @Nolanfranyeri:, @Ktrimi991: and an IP, what say you as you were the rest of the participants in part of the discussion of this topic last time and deemed it suitable? I don’t see why it must be removed yet motives for crimes have been mentioned in numerous articles. As I said even the Chetniks. Seems to me over the past few days, there has been a move to skew the article making it less neutral and objective and more from a certain PoV. From removing information on what gave rise to the Ustashe other than simplifying “they were mad that Austrians gave free land” to hiding tensions increasing from the Serbian population as apposed to just the Croatian population in the 19th century to paint the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a simple happy Kingdom with no ethnic problems. OyMosby (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can agree that It played a role, but that role is overstated. Where is the information about Croats (and Ustashe) wanting an independent state? The idea was the present with or without "anti-Croatian politics"? Yeah, sure, linking "anti-Croatian politics" to, no more no less, than Kingdom of Yugoslavia is a real WP:NPOV. Furthermore, those moves and various actions where not against Croats in particular, but any citizens who were anti-Yugoslav. FYI, Yugoslav military/police/secret service killed a bunch of Serb communists or jailed them for good. The context is being manipulated here, and I am and will be against it, as it is doing injustice to Wiki readers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: You missed the point. The fact that five members are in favor of something does not change the fact that it is WP:NPOV and anti-Serb prejudice. The source does not directly relate those events to the genocide!!!. That is violation the basic rules. The sentence is correct, but it is misplaced in context. I have never changed anything in the article about the Chetniks, or, for example, about the Bosnian Genocide. It would really be a shame for me to act that way. Elemental humanity. Again, give me an example of something similar in other articles about genocide. I'm waiting. Futhermore, no source links the Načertanije to the Ustasha, and especially to the genocide. Try to imagine that the Bosnian genocide article says five sentences about the Islamic Declaration. It is time to start working reasonably and following the rules.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

“ The context is being manipulated here, and I am and will be against it, as it is doing injustice to Wiki readers.“ Opposite. You are cheating the readers with actually manipulating the article info and giving a skewed article for the readers to interpret. So much wrong here. Firstly labeling us as “anti-Serb” is insulting and ridiculous argument. You seem fine with Tomasovich stating “Chetnik crimes to at least an extent were a response to Ustashe crimes” but you are against when he says “The 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies fueled right wing movements like the Ustahse and their anti Serb policies in WWII”. Also, the pre ware background section is listing examples of ethnic tensions in general not just what directly relates to genocide as you suddenly made a criteria. Also you claim to want to streamline the section yet keep inserting repeating sentences about Croatian nationalism, anti Serb tendencies and so on even though the section already has paragraphs talking about that. Not to mention you never include how Starcevic reveres his anti-Serb views later on. Also the intro sentence you keep forcing, do you have a source that in the 19th century Croatian politicians and intelligences were advocating for genocide against the Serbs? Or are you trying to make Croatian nationalism and desire for independence genocidal in nature or in the dna of the idea? Because that is how you make it seem writing that. You are absolutely not being NPOV in your edits. Instead of labeling us as anti-Serb, take a look at yourself and analyze your own actions. Also stop edit warring when discussion is occurring on the talk page.OyMosby (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Many sources in the article directly link Šarčević's ideology to genocide. It may have been misinterpreted and misused, but it is a factual situation. Please, stop with reverting sourced information. If comment about "unclean race" is not the inspiration for genocide, then I don't know what is. Perhaps the pro-Yugoslav dictatorship, which was directed against all ethnic groups? It is ridiculous that the article first mentions the dictatorship and Načertanije, instead Croatian nationalism and anti-Serb sentiment that existed before. We have to write chronologically. Again, no single source links the Načertanije to genocide, and that is half of the subsection, which is crucial for genocide. That disputed sentence is fine, but more for the Ustasha article. Certainly not for the lead section here. Also, no single source links the dictatorships with genocide. At best, it ok to stay in the background section. It is not a matter of personal opinion, the fact is that it is not relevant to this topic. Again and again, give me an example of something similar (examples of ethnic tensions, especially this long) in other articles about gnocide. I'm still waiting. We all know it wouldn't be decent. If one author writes about genocide and saome event in the same source, that may remain in the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should reach out to some users who have written in the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide articles. I believe they would have been more objective and unbiased. There is already plenty of information in the article, they just need to be better summed up and put in the correct context, in line with other genocide articles. To sum up, there were disputed parts:

1. The sentence in the lead about Anti-Serb sentiment or/and Croatian nationalism, possibly about Ante Starčević

2. The sentence in the lead about the 6 January Dictatorship (an explanation that it was pro-Yugoslav?) and anti-Croat policies

3. The chronological order of the previous two

4. The whole Načertanije part, possibly the Nikola Stojanović's quote

5. The World War II section about civil wars in Yugoslavia

6. Should we shorten the whole Background section and arrange it differently chronologically?

--WEBDuB (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is the expansive focus on Croatian nationalism while ignoring Serbian nationalism and tensions in the 19th century. The implication of the sentence taken out of context: “ Many scholars interpreted Croatian national identity as the product of an aggressive nationalism informed by the political interests of social elites.” which gives a faulty image to the readers that the Croat identity was invented in the 19th century even though the source talks about other views of scholars that the Croatian identity goes back to ancient times. The Croatian Dutch in the 7th century onwards and the Kingdom of Croatia and so on. And funny on the Chetnik page a quote from McDonald is given where he denies genocide occurred at the hands of both Ustashe and Chetniks yet don’t see that mentioned on this page or the Ustashe page. Yes clearly NPOV and doing service to the readers is very important I’m sure. The lead where it is being added about anti-Serb sentiment in the 19th century, there were issues arising on both sides during that time so it doesn’t seem neutral. And the sentence about the 6 January Dictatorship and anti Croat policies was in relation to what contributed to the rise of Ustashe and their brutal policies. This is from a cited source so adding extra information manipulates the source as @Peacemaker67: already mentioned. Also removing the sentence all together is not balanced at all. It is very much connected. Another user was right to remove the civil war section as it was going too deep into WWII which already as articles. Also you were selective in your Partisan section as it made it seem there wasn’t as much Croatian participation when in fact in 1943, there was as many Croats as Serbs in the Yugoslav partisans per capita population sizes. All these things just come across as unbalanced points of view pushed onto the readers. Another thing is the photos. Stepinac trial photo. He wasn’t a main figure in the conversions. He was more complicated than that. He was against it but failed to have the spine to stand up to the Ustashe. So putting him as a main photo is misleading. So is the memorial photo showing 700,000 victims when that was found not to be a remotely accurate statistic. A lot of sensitive information needs to be dealt with care in articles and subject like these. I think having neutral editors from other genocide pages is a good idea though not each page has similar history or circumstances. At this point this feels like going in circles. Major changes were made to the intro despite a lengthy talk sections having dealt with it months ago. Trying to make person ties between information an author states and connecting it to the genocide without the authro saying so themselves is not accurate or moral. Misrepresentation of the facts or spinning half truths or alternate info is a normal thing on Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias. It can stay there. On English Wikipedia there is no room for such behavior. OyMosby (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nations were "made" in the 19th century (in Europe). RS got is right. The article has been improved a lot. I suggest that you make a short summary/list of edits which you consider to be beneficial for the page, and we can discuss everything here. Do not ignore consensus, as you previously did, please. About Stepinac: he was put on trial for his actions, and considering his high position during the genocide - it is very notable on several levels. I shall not further comment on this despicable twisted logic which is presenting Serb nationalism and hegemony to be the root cause of Croat nationalism which, among other things, led to this terrible genocide which has/had numerous serious consequences on the region. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

list of requested changes are from the other User. Those changes were the issue. It seems a number of editors don’t see it as good changes such as removing sources content cited from Tomasovich. What consensus? You two? First, new content added, or “bold edits” as you usually put it, no consensus was asked or looked for by you or WEBDuB. Also, More editors want to keep the Tomasovich sentence than remove it. How about you search for consensus first before behaving as you own the page. Again, you have no consensus for your edits. Stepanic is not the simple individual you paint him as. There were far more complicit religious figures that could be named. You know that. Nowhere did I say that Serbian nationalism or anything else is the soul “root cause”. Stop deleting part of my responses and intentionally misrepresenting what I say. It is said that hegemony and anti-Croat policies contributed to the Ustashe. Funny you said Croatian nationalism instead of Ustashe. Almost conflating the two. As the article almost does. The despicable twisted logic isn’t coming from my end. That is plain to see to any neutral party. I won’t go further either as it seems to you Tomasovich is twisted in his logic as it was his own words not mine about what contributed to the Ustahse movement. But you are a better historian than him I guess. Seems you played yourself there bud. Whatever, the moment I or other editors objections to you two walks away, you will change the page to your own desire. At least we tried to keep it NPoV. I can sleep at night for that. OyMosby (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, then Croatian nation in form of Kingdoms predates the 19th century. This isn’t nationalism speaking but any average historian can tell you that. They weren’t independent for a while but before entering the Kingdom of Hungary Union it existed. And as a state throughout. The sentence should stay about what made contributions to Ustashe synthesis. Why ignore it? Nowhere does it say it was the only motive. Nowhere is genocide justified or anything but horrible. It is one of the number of tragedies of varying degrees that permanently damages the region. As were the atrocities by the Chetniks which you claim was souly a reaction to the Ustashe despite historians saying otherwise. Many of which called genocide. Ignoring it and the lasting impact it too left is disrespectful to the victims. I’m sure it would enrage you if so person denied the genocide Ustahse carried out. And greatly added fuel to the fire of WWII and effected the future of the Balkans. But that doesn’t mean the full story of everything that went it to happenings shouldn’t be told. Trying to magnify parts of the article and minimize other parts is bad faith and POV. Let the ready form their own. History should be learned so it does repeat. Tudjman and Milosovic took the opposite approach, whitewashed history only to repeat it. Let’s not let the same mistake happen on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a continued virtual version of the Yugoslav propaganda wars.74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)