Template talk:Resistance in Yugoslavia during Second World War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Template:Resistance in Yugoslavia during Second World War is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.


Putting Partisans and Chetniks side by side, with no elaboration, is biased.

  • 17 February 2012 DIREKTOR: Removed MISQUOTED references copy-pasted from another template, and deleted controversial entries. [1]
  • 10 March 2012 Jean-Jacques Georges: Undid controversial edit [2]

I see we have a bit of haggling over the meaning of the word "controversial"... I'm at least going to split it into two navbox subgroups, because they weren't a common resistance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No. They don't need to be within the common resistance to be included in this template, although they did struggle together against Axis initially. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Antidiscriminator. The same situation is found in the collaboration template where all groups are mentioned without necessarily having anything to do with one another. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You've reverted again, disregarding my cleanly subgrouped version that I mentioned above without explaining why they shouldn't be subgrouped. Your overall position is still unsupported by anything other than editorial discretion. Since you've been topic-banned from this area in the past, I hardly think you're the person to be engaging in a slow-moving revert war on the matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No Joy. Everything you wrote is incorrect:
  • It is you who ignored opinion of other editors.
  • It is not true that FkpCascais did not explain his position.
  • You violated wp:npa when you wrote comment about FkpCascais.
  • You even entered wrong assertions into this infobox (only 1941 for Chetniks).
This is not the first time I see that your edits are not appropriate for somebody with administrator privileges. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I left the subgrouped version prefered by Joy (ok?) and removed the years, since they were a clear attempt to ignore all resistance activities made (and sourced) by Chetniks until 1945. FkpCascais (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The lead section of Yugoslav Front says literally: However, after 1941, the Chetniks adopted a "policy of collaboration." and it's not tagged as a problem. So describing the Chetniks as a resistance movement after 1941 is dubious at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I checked the Chetniks article and the lead section there says During World War II, the Chetniks were an anti-Axis movement in their long-range goals and engaged in marginal resistance activities for limited periods, but also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation. and that's also not tagged as a problem. So I think it's very much fair to require the description of Chetniks as a resistance movement to have these limited periods enumerated in order to avoid WP:UNDUE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I most certainly have not ignored anyone's opinion. If you look closely, I didn't even remove the Chetniks from the template! His explanation boils down to editorial discretion - comparison to other navboxes, and navboxes are usually based on that. If by any chance these other navboxes were defined somehow through some more elaborate process, such as an Arbitration Committee decision or something, this needs to be explained. I did not attack FkpCascais - I've commented on the specific contributor's actions, not anything about their person. Their recent topic ban in WP:ARBMAC is perfectly relevant in this discussion, because this is a fairly typical contentious topic in that topic area. As I explained in the edit summary of the edit where I added the years - the years match sources at Yugoslav Front. If they're wrong, please explicate the problem (and preferably also help fix it). I don't see how my administrator privileges come into this picture at all - this is a content dispute and in my latest edit I used a user tool to revert, not an admin tool. You've engaged in these tendentious accusations about my behaviour in the past, and I'll repeat what I've told you previously - do bring forth a formal complaint if you think you have a case, otherwise stop digging yourself into a hole of repetitive disruptive behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is one source saying that regarding their collaboration activities, however, if you check Chetniks article you can see sourced resistance activities all the way till 1945. FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make such claims, you should start over there, not here - it doesn't make any sense for a navbox to conflict with sourced article summaries. And that's just a procedural point of view - on a content point of view, my reading of the article is that there's no meaningful way to categorize the group as resistance on par with the rest after they got all tied up with the Italians. Note also the dating in the listing of Italy in {{World War II}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The sources classify Chetniks as resistance. "Wikipedia article does not say so" is not valid argument in this discussion. Do you want me to present sources?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why we shouldn't dispense with the year/s in the template and just leave the (marginal resistance) there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if Ad or FC will in turn complain about that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Ad did, but it was at Talk:Chetniks... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Navigational boxes link Wikipedia articles, they don't exist in a vacuum separate from the articles they link to. Read WP:NAVBOX. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)