Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 23, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 18, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
October 9, 2012 WikiProject A-class review Approved
December 6, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Infobox edit-warring[edit]

There have been a couple of recent edits to the infobox where the piping of Gebirgsjager to Mountain infantry has been removed, and the italics on Waffen have been removed. No edit summary has been provided. Italia2006 please explain the basis for these changes here on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Consistency with other German divisional articles, both Heer and Waffen-SS. There is no need to italicize "Waffen", and this italicization is not used on the main Waffen-SS page, either. As for the removal of the piping to "Mountain infantry", consistency is also the order of the day, namely, with the Wehrmacht's other mountain infantry divisions, which have the type as Gebirgsjäger, not "Mountain infantry." The same is true for the divisional articles of the Luftwaffe's parachute divisions, whose infoboxes have "Fallschirmjäger" as the type, not parachute or airborne. If there is an existing article to both types as they were specialized in the German military, and the German term or phrase is well known, piping is unnecessary. Italia2006 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, this isn't an edit war. Italia2006 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is there no need to italicise Waffen? The rule of thumb for italicisation of foreign terms is MOS:FOREIGN ie whether the term is current in English, or appears in an English dictionary of note. Waffen-SS does not appear in any dictionary of note that I am aware of. The piping of Mountain Infantry instead of using Gebirgsjäger is because, again, few will know what that means. Finally, how many of those divisional articles, Heer or Waffen-SS, have gone through FAC, or even GAN? This has, and this article is consistent with WP policies on foreign terms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not any of those articles has FAC or GAN status is a moot point, and indeed irrelevant to a discussion of the infobox. This article is not a featured article because of its infobox, it is a featured article because of its excellent content. Additionally, the word "Waffen" is so well known to English speakers that I would argue it does not apply with regards to the "MOS:FOREIGN" guidelines. Finally, I could understand the desire to have "mountain infantry" instead of "gebirgsjäger" were it not for the fact that both have their own articles. Any reader could easily click on the hyperlink Gebirgsjäger and read right there in the introduction that they are specialized mountain infantry in the German and Austrian armies. In conclusion, I see nothing wrong with any of the edits I've made, and they help to keep German divisional articles consistent with each other. Italia2006 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole article is reviewed when an article goes through FAC or GAN, including the infobox, so it is not irrelevant. The text of the article itself was consistent with the infobox, but you have now made the infobox inconsistent. The lead refers to mountain infantry and Waffen-SS. Essentially, you appear to think that "making an infobox consistent with the infoboxes of a bunch of mediocre articles is better than maintaining consistency within the article". Please revert your changes, they are opposed on the basis I've outlined. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah I see, I've run into the Wikipedia élite. Excuse me. I think my favorite part of that diatribe was how quick you were to completely bash other articles, even ones you may not have even looked at. Not to mention the abject failure to address any of the points I made. Italia2006 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There you go, all fixed. I don't have time to argue with an entrenched Wikipedia noble. Italia2006 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I am familiar with most of those articles, they are on my watchlist, and all of them need a lot of work, although a couple of editors have recently been taking out most of the fanboi dross. Thanks for reverting. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationality of members[edit]

They were not Bosniaks as there were no Bosniak nation at the time. They expressed Croatian nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


"In an effort to secure the loyalty of the Bosnian Muslims, Pavelić ordered that a property in Zagreb be converted into a mosque that he named the "Poglavnik's Mosque".[5] Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule. A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Fierce fighting broke out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans in NDH territory. Some Ustaše militia units became convinced that the Muslims were communist sympathizers, and burned their villages and murdered many civilians.[6] The Chetniks accused the Muslims of taking part in the Ustaše violence against Serbs and perpetrated similar atrocities against the Muslim population. The Muslims received little protection from the Croatian Home Guard, the regular army of the NDH, whom the Germans described as "of minimal combat value"." Who wrote this? Some Serbian apologist? Muslims were members of Croatian home guard same as catholics were. Why every sentence about ustashe and Ante Pavelić has to start with killings of Serbs? Ustashe were created as resistance to Great Serbian hegemony. Chetnics did not kill Catholics and muslims as a revenge but as a plan to create ethnically clean Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. If you have reliable sources for your contentions, bring them here for discussion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Peacemaker67. Nothing can be done with the article unless you bring reliable sources to support your case, or you bring evidence that the article doesn't properly report the sources it contains already. Zerotalk 09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)