Talk:June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Footnoting system used

Which footnoting system is being used in this article, currently some footnotes are ref tags, and some are sfn. I consider sfn simpler and cleaner, but have taken articles to FA with both, so am relaxed about the approach to take here. Articles should use consistent footnoting, per WP:CITESTYLE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll just choose one then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

sfn it is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Commencement of the uprising

Using 3 June as the start date for this uprising is a bit problematic as it stands. My very rough translation of Marijan's article indicates that the actual uprising was preceded by a series of "security incidents" (or similar), which we know relate to Ustase attacks/massacres and Serb/Montenegrin retaliation etc. The section covering these events Sigurnosne prilike do Lipanjskog ustanka starts on page 550 and talks about events starting in May. However, the section of the journal article on the uprising itself Lipanjski ustanak (which starts on page 554) commences by talking about the 22 June attack on the USSR and the outbreak of the uprising from that point. It seems to me that Marijan's view is that the uprising started after 22 June, and the preceding events were a prelude, so to speak. Hoare (2006) p. 28 states "Ustasha retaliation coupled with the news of the outbreak of the German-Soviet war resulted in a full-scale uprising in eastern Herzegovina by 24 June. At spontaneous mass rallies sparked by the news of the Axis attack on the USSR, the Serb peasants of several villages of the Nevesinje and Gacko districts voted on 23-24 June for an all-out struggle against the Ustashas, which then broek out across eastern Herzegovina as rebel bands attacked gendarme, Home Guard and Ustasha stations." He cites Djordje Piljevich, in Ustanak u Hercegovini juna 1941. godine in the Jan-April 1990 edition of Vojno-istoriski glasnik for this paragraph. I think it is pretty clear from both Marijan and Hoare (Piljevich) that the uprising itself began 23–24 June, not 3 June. I have re-structured the sections accordingly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

claim to fame

This article is currently self-contradictory as it appears to claim both the Đurdevdan uprising and this uprising were the first uprisings in occupied Europe, yet it's also patently misguided, because neither claim seems to have any credibility - we've had the same discussions over at Talk:Sisak People's Liberation Partisan Detachment where people have already pointed to ample prior examples of Polish resistance. All such peacock terms need to be tempered or pruned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The text of the article says that Đurđevdan uprising was the first armed rebellion against Axis forces in occupied Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The point about the Polish resistance has been made by me at Talk:Sisak People's Liberation Partisan Detachment in the past, and the claim of "the first resistance organized in Axis occupied Europe" is highly dubious. In fact, the claim is so utterly extraordinary that the source used for it may be of significant concern, if that is in fact what it says. This claimed basis for notability needs to be removed, as it is WP:BLUE that it is false. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote says: "resistance effort .... before the nazi Germany attacked the USSR". The text should reflect the source which referred to this "resistance effort" in connection with invasion of USSR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what the translation says. The claim is highly dubious, I have tagged it for now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. I corrected the text to reflect the source which referred to this "resistance effort" in connection with invasion of USSR and removed the tag you added. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You translated the source, your translation does say that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the text to match the claim made by the translated source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Either way, this looks like a pissing contest, which it really shouldn't. It should be noted that in SFRY, Dan ustanka naroda Bosne i Hercegovine commemorated July 27, 1941 events, that we seem to have described only at the Mladen Stojanović article. This all looks like it needs to be combined in a coherent single article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

To create another hodgepodge? No thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim is highly dubious and I'm deleting it, it is completely unsupportable and lacks any credibility. The Poles had been resisting in an organised way for months prior to this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The existence of these two separate articles, yet not an article about that Drvar uprising of July 27, while at the same time there's nothing about any of this at History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–45), is what actually makes Wikipedia's coverage of BiH in 1941 a hodgepodge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The existence of articles about notable events shouldn't be an issue, and in any case, my view is they should be offshoots of the NDH article, not the Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941-45) one, which strikes me as a bit ahistorical in terms of its title. I definitely agree there needs to be more articles about the uprisings throughout the NDH in 1941. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of Serbo-Croat translation of Tomasevich 1975

I believe the use of the translated 1979 Serbo-Croat version of Tomasevich's original 1975 work is in conflict with WP:NONENG, in that "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." In this case, the English source is not only of equal quality and relevance, the 1975 work in English is, in fact, the original work, and the 1979 is only a derivative of it. Given the English version is the original work, and this if English WP, it is inappropriate to use the translated version in preference to the English one, here or elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Its Yugoslav edition, not derivative of English source. Its not inappropriate to use Yugoslav edition if wikipedia editor do not possess English language edition.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMON SENSE --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take it to the community for a decision. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You certainly cannot force Antid to use English version, when he owns a SC translation and it is much more convenient for him; it is certainly not "inappropriate". However, the original English work should take precedence in case of any disagreement. If quotations are provided, they should be from the English edition, not back-translated SC edition. Now, page numbers probably won't match, but that's often the case with multiple editions of same English works, isn't it? Some AGF usually works well, although I understand it is currently at shortage with respect to Antidiskriminator. No such user (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I am saying. He has access to the sh translation via znaci, and the pages don't always exactly match my paper copy of the original. He has already tried to use a difference in wording between the two in a bid to have words removed from the Djurisic article, and there are echoes of the same issue with the Selbstschutz article and the Moslem militia article. It is exactly because of such behaviour that I am running low on AGF when it comes to Ad. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I am surprised with such premature GA nomination taking in consideration that the only source for almost all assertions about the uprising is one work of Croatian historian Davor Marjan. In one of earlier assessments the editor who is a main contributor to this article and nominator for GA status stated that such articles do not meet B class status.

• " needs more balanced coverage, almost all refs are Israeli or Jewish, needs supporting materials" (diff)

I propose to add more supporting materials to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

that is a very generic comment. You are referring to me, of course. What refs would they be? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator. This is the first and only warning you are going to get about this. Your trawling through my quick assessments of thousands of new and unassessed MILHIST articles to find something that mentions Israel and Jewish sources in a transparent attempt to discredit my work is completely and utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you ever make any further baseless allusions in any way that I might hold anti-Semitic views, I will take you straight to WP:AN and ask for an indefinite site ban based on your involvement in the Jews and Communism discussion at WP:AN, this comment and any further comments. Your involvement in the Jews and Communism discussion does not do you any credit at all. You blatantly tried to get the administrators there to investigate your conspiracy theory about a "travelling circus" for your own ends, and now that appears to have failed, you are trying to make allusions about my editing to link me to that matter. The specific case you are referring to was one where an infamous comment was made against Jews and Israel prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War , and the sources in the article at the time I quickly assessed it did not in my opinion include sufficient balance of non-Jewish and non-Israeli sources. There were two reasons why the article did not meet B-Class, and they were the issue of the range of coverage (sources) and the lack of any images or infobox etc, ie both criteria b2 and criteria b5. If the article had an infobox or image, it would have had no problem being MILHIST C-Class, and a couple more non-Israeli/non-Jewish sources would have made it MILHIST B-Class.

Now, regarding this article. There are no similarities between that article and this one in terms of balanced sources. Yes, Marijan is used extensively, because Marijan is a high quality academic source that details the activities that occurred during the uprising on a day by day basis, unlike the other sources who do not provide that level of detail. However, of the citations used in this article, about 25% are from eight other sources, so to characterise Marijan as the only source for almost all assertions about the uprising, or that the article lacks a good range of sources, is completely baseless. Marijan does not contradict the other sources used in the article regarding the details they do provide, such as the preceding massacres, neither do they contradict him. He is a well-published Doctor of History whose Masters thesis was on the Ustase militia, and the paper in question was published in the Journal of Contemporary History. If you want to be taken seriously here, please explain what your concerns are about using Marijan as a source, and provide reliable published sources of similar quality that contradict his account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I clearly referred to assertions about uprising, not prelude and background. Most of the first 18 references that include more of other sources cover background and prelude section. When it comes to text about uprising itself, almost all assertions are referenced with one work of Croatian historian Davor Marjan. Like I explained above, that is something you yourself believe is insufficient even for B class status. No doubt you know this, but you still wrote another unnecessarily harsh comment to me threatening to report me. Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh and contains violation of AGF which made editing of many articles unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist, like all other pages you chased me away from. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You did not. "Uprising" is the whole article. You didn't specify the "Uprising section", so how am I to know that is what you meant? Just one more example of your poor English communication causing unnecessary drama, again. After making a vague generalised complaint, your response to provide specifics is to withdraw. That is your usual response, and it has been repeated over and over for years. When you should be apologising for your completely unacceptable attempt to raise an issue related to anti-semitism, you complain that I am being too harsh. My complaint about your terrible behaviour was entirely justified, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even attempting to raise it. I am the only one that has the right to be offended here. Goodbye and good riddance. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That sort of character assassination by insinuation and out-of-context quoting is disgusting. No such user (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Moved to June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, per apparent consensus. No such user (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

---

June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina → June uprising in eastern Herzegovina – WP:LOWERCASE and the only English source located that uses the phrase renders it with uprising and eastern, per this Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think I found a couple of sources which use capitalized letters in the name of this event:
  • Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. Stanford University Press. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1. For Juretid's statement, see Mlinaric, Tito: der rote Rebell,p. 24. "Cited in Kovacevic and Skoko, "The June 1941 Uprising in Herzegovina," p. 102.
  • Tomasevich, Jozo (1 January 1975). The Chetniks. Stanford University Press. p. 477. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9. Bajic, Nevenka. "The June 1941 Uprising in Herzegovina." In Godiinjak Istoriskog druitva Bosne i Hercegovine, VIII, 225-44. Sarajevo, 1956.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• You do realise you are trying to use the translated titles of two articles written in Serbo-Croat, don't you? They aren't English sources, Antidiskriminator. I don't know how many times I am expected to try to explain this to you before you will comprehend it. They are both in the bibliographies of the Tomasevich books. There is only one English source, apply WP:LOWERCASE consistent with Redzic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In Tomasevich books two articles written in Serbo-Croat appear in translated form with capitalized proper name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not constitute real English usage. Tomasevich has translated them in his Bibliographies for the benefit of readers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your position here directly contradicts to your position at Talk:Pavle Đurišić where you insist on exact terminology used by Tomašević (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation is completely unfounded. I'll let the community decide whether your wafer-thin argument flies or not, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion. I pointed to two sources you extensively use on wikipedia that use capitalized letters in the name of this event to help to reach consensus. "Your wafer-thin argument flies" is another unnecessary harsh comment you write to me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, Antidiskriminator. It is not a discussion, you are just defending your title, as usual. Your position here is completely untenable. You have asked for independent advice about the capitalisation and appear to have rejected it, in favour of defending the indefensible. That really is your problem, and it is not "harsh" to point out the truth. You are not trying to reach consensus, you are blatantly attempting to manipulate non-English sources to make them appear to be English sources so you can retain the title you gave the article. It is transparent. Please be straight with the community and stop trying to use "work-arounds" when you are pulled up on legitimate issues. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You again contradict yourself. It is not about positions, and attacking and defending them. I can't see any other reason for your behavior except creation of a false narrative to discredit me and to discourage me and others from participation in discussion and editing. Please be so kind to stop with this kind of behavior. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you just don't get it. It is you that are defending your title with no basis. I merely pointed out how it was contrary to policy, moved it, and you promptly moved it back without a shred of basis in sources. You have misrepresented the source of title (that only appears in Redzic in English), as appearing in Tomasevich, when in fact the examples you gave were translations of article titles published in Serbo-Croat, that Tomasevich merely translated in the Bibliography of his books. Nice of him, but it doesn't show English usage. That fact that this is "die in a ditch" stuff for you is hard to fathom. I think if it was anyone else you would read the policy and accept you got it wrong, and just move it. But you get so entrenched you won't budge. It really is a waste of time, time better spent creating and expanding articles, which you have recently started to do in my area of interest. I'd like to encourage you to do more of it, but your article titles leave much to be desired. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am not "defending my title with no basis" as you try to assert here. I explained that the topic of this article is historical event which usually have capitalized names. I also pointed to two works of Tomasevich who used capitalized names for this event. It is more than a "shred of basis". It is not about positions, and attacking and defending them. It is about discussion. I'd like to encourage you to discuss i.e. your pragmatic contradictory approach to Tomasevich, instead to misuse talkpage of this article also to disseminate a false narrative aimed to discredit me and to discourage me and others from participation in discussion and editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a complete waste of my time discussing this with you. I have explained what you have done with the article titles. I will await other uninvolved members of the community to discuss the matter further. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Why uninvolved? Here is how scholars who are involved in the matter capitalize the title of this event:
  • "The June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina in 1941", Journal of Contemporary History (2/2003)
• It is also consistent with other articles on June Uprisings--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

you mean Časopis za suvremenu povijest 2/2003. Why didn't you mention that this is (another) translated title of a Croatian language journal article? Another attempt to "work-around" the fact we are talking about titles in English. This is getting very, very tiresome. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I would have thought that caps would be OK on Eastern, but checking book n-grams I see that lowercase is much more common for "in eastern Herzegovina". And uprising is clearly not part of a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps it would be easier to go by the correct English grammar. I am slightly inclined towards the position that they should stay capitalised as both, "June Uprising" and "Eastern Herzegovina" are nouns, thus written capitalised. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Fkp, that is NOT the "correct English grammar". You are confusing nouns, adjectives and proper nouns. "June" is a proper noun, spelled with an initial capital. "Uprising" is not a proper noun, it is just a noun. "Eastern Herzegovina" is not a noun, "Eastern" is an adjective denoting geographic situation, "Herzegovina" is a proper noun, spelled with an initial capital. Per Dicklyon, uprising is NOT part of a proper name. And in any case it would not be "easier" (whatever that is meant to mean), to ignore WP titling policy. It is used by only one source published in English, so we apply English usage per Redzic and WP:LOWERCASE. What would be "easier", would be following WP titling policy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Eastern Herzegovina" if considered an actual name of the territory then it should be capitalised, just as "Economy of South Korea" would be. It depends if we consider "Eastern Herzegovina" as a territorial unit or not. If we do, then it should be capitalised, but if we only consider "Herzegovina" as territory, then "eastern" would be an adjective, thus not capitalised. Regarding "June Uprising", I beleave that is actually a noun (both words) and as such they should both be capitalised, just as the "Revolution" in "Russian Revolution" is. You are missing the fact that we are not talking here about a month, June, but about an event called "June Uprising". ;) FkpCascais (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's just not right, and your example is inappropriate. South Korea is the common name for a country, eastern Herzegovina is a vaguely defined region in a vaguely defined region. How could it be a territorial unit? People don't even agree on the boundaries of Herzegovina, particularly between Bosnia (as a region) and Herzegovina. We have one English source here, Fkp. One. It is Redzic, who renders it as "June uprising in eastern Herzegovina". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you about "Eastern Herzegovina", it was only used as capitalised during the early 1990s period (Eastern Herzegovina) when a separate territorial unit was formed in it. However, regarding June uprising (I would say June Uprising), I am much more inclined to consider both words as a proper noun of the event. By now, I support June Uprising in eastern Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Sturmvogel_66 (who assessed the article for MILHIST) suggested it needs 1941 in the title. Perhaps one way of dealing with that would be Uprising in eastern Herzegovina (June 1941). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Augh... the brackets look so ugly... can´t we avoid them? FkpCascais (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm open to suggestions, but studious avoidance of the only English sourced title, and stubborn insistence on grammatically dubious capitalisation also results in an "ugly" title in my view. BTW, the other Herzegovina Uprising article is parenthetically disambiguated by year. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed capitalization: neither "uprising" nor "eastern" are used as proper nouns here. As to the disambiguation method, I'm uncertain: I too dislike parentheses, particularly in descriptive titles. Perhaps June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, or Eastern Herzegovina uprising, June 1941? (this unsigned comment by User:No such user)

• I'd prefer the former, commas are almost as bad as parentheses in my view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support "June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina". 23 editor (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support move per nomination. Current capitalization is contrary to the MOS. Anotherclown (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (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.

Although I voted in the discussion (and proposed the title), I boldly moved this article, to cut the WP:BURO. Should anyone object, there is WP:MR. No such user (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Tonogal"...

...might be a misspelling of Togonal. Not sure which is correct, Google search returns both. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Still better than Hermana Tonogala . 23 editor (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, my conjunctions are rarely on the ball. I'll see if I can find something definitive. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mijo Babić

Without mention of Mijo Babić this article does not fully addresses the main aspects of the topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you should add it. I'll fix your prose afterwards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in aftermath section

• The Aftermath section contains contradictory and mutually exclusive statement about the communist involvement in the uprising:
  • the uprising involved neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović nor the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ).
  • the KPJ in Herzegovina voted to join the mass uprising, but this only occurred on 24 June, when the uprising was already in full swing.

If the uprising indeed involved neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović nor the ... KPJ, then the text about the subsequent activities and Bosnia-wide revolt violate WP:NPOV because they are connected only with KPJ and their readiness to struggle against Axis. ...the uprising in Herzegovina did not advance until the Bosnia-wide revolt occurred at the end of July, by which time the KPJ was ready for active involvement in the fighting ignoring Chetniks who had significant role in anti-Axis actions in Herzegovina and Bosnia-wide revolt (i.e. Siege of Rogatica (1941), Capture of Olovo (1941)....) and ignoring the fact that KPJ was not ready only ..for active involvement in the fighting but to misuse uprising for communist revolution (Leftist errors (Yugoslavia)).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

POV issue

There is full scholarly consensus that motive of Serbs in NDH to rebel was struggle for survival the Croatian genocide.

I think that this sentences of the current text of the article:

• the Ustaše students in Trebinje shot nine Serbs and arrested another fifteen, apparently due to their links to the inter-war Chetnik Association,......
• The gendarmerie commander in Bileća believed that the reason for the rebellion was that the local Serbs were wedded to the idea of Greater Serbia,......
• .... local Serbs wanted the NDH authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Davor Marijan, this was a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action...
• Professor Marko Attila Hoare states that the full-scale uprising resulted from the Ustaše retaliation against attempts of the Serbs of eastern Herzegovina to defend themselves, combined with the launching of the German invasion on 22 June -

give WP:UNDUE weight to victim blaming pro-Ustaše POV. This text implies that Serb irredentistic ideology motivated them to rebel while Serb poor choices caused Croatian radical actions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is no pro-Ustasha POV in the article, it is completely neutral. It states what the reliable sources say. Do you have sources that contradict what is in the article about these specific issues/events? For example, do you have a source that contradicts the opinion of the gendarmerie commander in Bileća about the motives of the local Serbs? Claiming a "full scholarly consensus" without specific sources regarding these specific matters is pointless. And I hope you are not planning on a repeat of what happened with the Pavle Đurišić article, with multiple threads attempting to make some sort of point, but a complete lack of any editing of the article. That is tendentious behaviour and I will not hesitate to report it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retaliation"

The sentence:

Professor Marko Attila Hoare states that the full-scale uprising resulted from the Ustaše retaliation against attempts of the Serbs of eastern Herzegovina to defend themselves, combined with the launching of the German invasion on 22 June.

...is a bit awkward, I'd say, and it does seem to suggest - taken out of context - that there was some tit-for-tat stuff going on, which I don't think would be a proper description of the events.

Also:

On 3 June, there were several incidents in which armed villagers spontaneously retaliated against the local authorities. That afternoon, 20 Ustaše were entering Donji Drežanj to confiscate firearms when they were attacked by a group of armed villagers.

Here, "retaliated against" does not fit with what is described in the second sentence. "Resisted", perhaps? GregorB (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input GregorB and your confirmation that text authored by Professor Marko Attila Hoare is not a proper description of the events. It is very important to have in mind the context. Having in mind the context of genocidal state of NDH what do you think about the following sentence:

• .... local Serbs wanted the NDH authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Davor Marijan, this was a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action...

Is this sentence a proper description of the events? Do you think that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice? What would be the good choice for them? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm commenting on the text only, I haven't seen the source (I'd be interested in Hoare's exact wording).

"Leave them alone" - surely there is a better wording. Branch Davidians would like to be left alone too. GregorB (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The context here is in the early period of genocide of Serbs committed by NDH. Maybe you are not so familiar with that topic. Try to imagine, instead, the early period of holocaust in Nazi Germany instead of Serbs in NDH. In that case the sentence would look like: .... local Jews wanted the Nazi German authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Foo Foo, this was a poor choice that gave the Nazi Germany an excuse to take radical action...

Would you GregorB still think that the only issue of the wording above would be the better wording of "leaving alone"? Would you say that desire of local Jews that Nazi Germany should leave them alone (or any better worded expression) and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice? What would be the good choice for Jews? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I don't disagree with the basic point of the sentence you provided - quite the contrary - it's just that the choice of words ("leave them alone") is perhaps unfortunate, as if it's about receiving unwanted phone calls or the like, and not something much more serious. GregorB (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will provide a quotation from Hoare, and we can go from there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In relation to the first query, on p. 28 Hoare says

Small-scale armed attacks by Serb bands on Ustashas, Croatian policemen and soldiers occurred during the April War in many places throughout the NDH, but the first mass uprising in Bosnia-Herzegovina began in June. As the Ustashas attacked Serbs in eastern Herzegovina, the latter responded in early June with ambushes of Ustasha units. Ustasha retaliation coupled with the news of the outbreak of the German-Soviet war resulted in a full-scale uprising in eastern Herzegovina by 24 June. At spontaneous mass rallies sparked by the news of the Axis attack on the USSR, the Serb peasants of several villages of the Nevesinje and Gacko districts voted on 23-24 June for an all-out struggle against the Ustashas, which then broke out across eastern Herzegovina as rebel bands attacked gendarme, Home Guard and Ustasha stations.

Hoare specifically uses the term "retaliation" in this passage. Am interested in GregorB's view on how the wording could be improved to better reflect the source. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not primarly about source misinterpretation, but also about source selection issue. I will point here to discussion about the source issue at Glina massacres article which ended with delisting GA status of that article. I am afraid that this article suffers from the same issue. In one of my earlier comments I already pointed to this issue (link) in relation to Marijan. In relation to poor choice of Serbs issue based on Marijan, Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to present a quote from work of Davor Marijan for claim that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. The entire article is sourced reliably. I have provided a quote from a reliable source for the passage in question. Please explain how I have misinterpreted the source in this instance. If you have reliable sources (rather than your opinion) that contradict this passage in the article, then quote them here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I will repeat my polite question: "will you please be so kind to present a quote from work of Davor Marijan for claim that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I am dealing with one issue at a time. Kindly explain what has been misinterpreted in the quote from Hoare, or how the passage in the article can be improved now you have access to the quote in question. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you misinterpeted the source. Someone who does not AGF (not me of course) might get the impression that you know I caught you red-handed which is the reason why you continue to avoid to present the quote. Here is the quote:

Stajališta su pokazala da se kontaktirano stanovništvo opire priznanju nove vlasti ili se pokušava postići mir zadržavanjem stanja kakvog jest, odnosno bez predavanja oružja i ulaska oružništva NDH na teritorij, što oružništvo nije moglo prihvatiti. Cijena takvog postupka bila je za srpsko stanovništvo vrlo nepovoljna i držala je otvoren prostor radikalnim ustaškim akcijama.

No "poor choice" victim blaming...... The quote instead also explains that Serbs were constructive and tried to achieve the peace and status quo ("pokušava postići mir zadržavanjem stanja kakvog jest"). That is not mentioned in the article. Having in mind that Ustaše planned to genocide Serbs before the war even began, trying to find reasons to blame Serbs for anti-Serb actions of Ustaše in Eastern Herzegovina can only be seen as pushing the pro-Ustaše POV. Since this discussion will hardly result with consensus about the main issues of the article, I will try to resolve the issue of the article by including more participants in it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll deal with one thing at a time, thanks. I'll get to this when you answer my question about the first quote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retaliation", part II

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for providing the Hoare quote. In retrospect, I can say that the first sentence discussed here ("Professor Marko Attila Hoare states", etc.) is an appropriate summary of the source. As far as the wording is concerned, perhaps it could be improved upon, but I have no specific suggestions or objections.

In the second sentence ("On 3 June, there were several incidents", etc.) I feel that, as already suggested, "resisted against" is a better wording. "Retaliation" suggests a retributive action generally uncoupled from its cause ("tit for tat"), while in this case, the villagers' reaction was apparently directly aimed at stopping the confiscation of firearms, so it qualifies as direct (armed) resistance. GregorB (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day GregorB, thanks for your feedback on the first sentence regarding its appropriate reflection of the source. The full context of the second sentence in question is actually from Tomasevich, 1975, p. 133 and reads:

On June 1, in several towns and villages there occurred shootings of Serbs, and many shops owned by Serb merchants and artisans were seized on various pretexts. Two days later (ie on 3 June) there were several instances of armed retaliation by villagers; those villages were then burned by Ustasha units, and there were mass shootings, thus the scale of violence mounted.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)