Talk:May 1941 Sanski Most revolt

Title

This is getting quite tiresome, Antidiskriminator. Yet another new article with an inappropriate title. This title does not apparently exist in English, per this. Only one of the two Cyrillic versions appears in one of the sources used, per this. Given the lack of a common name in English, a WP:NDESC might be appropriate. But even before we go there, the word "Uprising" needs to be lower case, as there clearly is no source in English that treats this as a proper noun. I'm pre-emptively moving it to lower case while we discuss what to do about the title in general. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I contested your move and explained you why. Please revert yourself and initiate RM if you still believe you are right.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I note, without surprise but with some resignation, that you have completely failed to address my concerns about the article title. This was not a controversial move. I've said the title has no basis whatsoever in English and have provided evidence for my contention. You haven't provided any evidence to challenge that. All I have done is adjust the completely inappropriate title, that makes it appear this term has some basis as a proper noun, and bring it into line with WP:LOWERCASE. There is nothing controversial about that. Of course, once a couple of days have elapsed and it is reasonably clear whether you have any evidence at all for the article title, I will decide whether to submit a RM for a change to a WP:NDESC title or similar. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"uprising"

One of the sources used in this article (disregarding for a moment that it as such needs to be analyzed) says explicitly:

3. Oružani sukob koji se dogodio između Srba u Selima Tramošnja, Kozica i Tomina 6, 7. i 8. maja 1941. godine sa hrvatskim ustašama, koje su u pomoć pozvale nemačke snage, nije poprimio karakter ustanka.

[12] Otpor proslavljanju Đurđevdana u selima kod Sanskog Mosta prerastao je u oružani sukog Srba i ustaša, a u gušenju pobune uključile su se i nemačke trupe. Usledio je masovni zločin u Sanskom Mostu i vešanje streljanih Srba u parku ovog grada.

IOW this Drago Njegovan doesn't think this was an uprising, rather an "armed conflict", a "revolt", followed by a "mass crime". They also don't name the event after Đurđevdan like we do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I expected you. Another source used in the article:

• Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u drugom svetskom ratu: 1939-1945. Vojnoizdavaćki i Novinski Centar. p. 178. Mesec dana od izbijanja aprilskog rata i 18 dana od kapitulacionog akta došlo je do sukoba srpskih seljaka iz okoline Sanskog Mosta, sela Kijevo i Tramošnja 6, 7. i 8. maja 1941. godine, poznatog kao Đurđevdanski ustanak sanskih seljaka.

There are many other sources using the same name for this event. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing here, it looks like another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results. I've tried to do some more of that to see how the sources actually call this, and found these events discussed in much more detail in Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century Page 75, Paul Mojzes, 2011, which in turn references Praća-Veljović, “Genocide in Sanski Most,” pp. 75–82, that might in turn be part of the Šušnjar 1941. compilation we also have referenced. Yet, Sofija Praća-Veljović is a "retired teacher, Belgrade", and the English in that document is really shoddy. But that's not the weird part - the weird part is that this source actually discusses how this was a staged, fake uprising that was made up by the local Ustaše so that they could bring the Germans in and start the mass murder of Serbs. *gasp* Regardless of the quality of this source, one thing seems clear - the end result is what really matters most in all of the sources about this - the gruesome mass murder of 27 civilians. I'll see if I can try to refocus the article accordingly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the aforementioned Šušnjar 1941. compilation looks like a really biased primary source, given that it seems to be a collection of works by refugees or at least meant for refugees, published by the Oštra Luka/Srpski Sanski Most municipality. We really need to find better sources than that. Mojzes' book says the pictures of the mass murder victims were distributed widely, so there must be some reliable, third-party sources out there that describe this that will allow us to properly reference this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your comment here, it looks like another hodgepodge:

1. You first cherry-picked one source that says this event did not gain characteristics of uprising
2. When I pointed to another source which is also used in the article that emphasizes that this event is known as "Đurđevdan uprising" and when I explained there are more sources which support this name,
3. you ignored my comment and pointed to work of Mojzes which discuss this event in more details
4. then you noticed that Mojzes which relies on compilation Šušnjar
5. then you complain that Šušnjar "looks like a really biased primary source", although the author of the source in question is contemporary author Petar Dodik and although you yourself noticed that this source is used by Mojzes
6. then you tagged the article without justification

Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Joy has over-stepped the mark, the tags are appropriate. The Dodik source (for example) is of some considerable concern, as the main elements of the "uprising" and consequences are sourced from it alone. Joy hasn't cherry-picked it (he has questioned another source), Dodik is the key source used in this article for the events that are the subject of the article. There is a spelling error in the title of the book! As I pointed out early on, the title doesn't exist in English, which I proved above. Given WP:TITLE, I would think that a WP:NDESC would be best here, especially as Đurđevdan is pretty much unknown in English, and the notable subject here is not the supposed "uprising" (which appears to have been Serb villagers spontaneously defending themselves from attacks by the Ustase using whatever was at hand), but the response, which resulted in 27 civilians being killed and hung in the streets and park of Sanski Most. I suggest a useful NDESC might be "May 1941 Sanski Most killings". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect.

• You rushed to join Joy without carefully reading this discussion. Joy cherry picked Drago Njegovan, not Šušnjar.
• If Šušnjar was unreliable I doubt Mojzes would use it.
• This is not the first time you complain that some "title doesn't exist in English". Please read WP:ENGLISH.
  • It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).
• This event has not received much attention in the English-speaking world. Per source I presented, this event is known as Đurđevdan uprising.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to comprehend English. Perhaps I was not explicit enough for you. I have amended my comment to clarify what I meant. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You changed the comment after I replied to it (diff). That is not allowed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, of course it is "allowed". Who are you, the talk page police? You clearly misunderstood my comment, so I clarified it. I really wish you would actually try to address the issue of the title and sourcing instead of rabbiting on about inconsequential stuff. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No its not. Per WP:REDACTED: "Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I did not "follow" Joy here, as you have claimed. Mine was the first comment on this talk page, I have it watchlisted because it is related to Yugoslavia in WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Its not whatever. Please be more careful in future not to violate wikipedia talkpage guidelines.

Please don't misinterpret my comments. You put "follow" under quotation as if I used that term, which I did not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ad, your comment wasn't ignored, I simply had another few data point to convey in addition to my earlier comments. Had I wanted to respond specifically to that comment, I would have done so. The general sourcing problems stand, and that comment actually helps illustrate my point - you underlined only the "Đurđevdan uprising" part of that phrase, and ignored the "of the Sana peasants" part. I know the shorter phrase has a better ring to it, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that we can just do away with the remainder. Likewise, I know that seeing a secondary source refer to a primary source looks good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should use the latter ourselves indiscriminately. Overall, it is you who appear to have entirely sidestepped the spirit of my good-faith criticism and instead posted what is essentially an ad hominem rant. I'm not sure you realize just how far off all this anger is from the decorum prescribed by WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you ignored my comment because you did not respond to it and continued to present only those sources that do not mention the existing title to advance your position.
• If "the shorter phrase has a better ring to it", why did you tag the article? Template:Cleanup-articletitle says this tag should be used "to mark articles that have titles that may be in violation of one or more of Wikipedia's Naming conventions." You haven't presented any convention violated by the current article title, which is based on WP:ENGLISH, as I explained above.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really advancing a position that this shouldn't be called "Đurđevdan uprising", I'm simply saying that if we want to claim so, the article needs to cite those reliable sources that claim that instead. Sources that are unreliable shouldn't be used in the article at all; we shouldn't synthesize an article out of a variety of conflicting and/or dubious claims. The title is not in concert with naming conventions, indeed it doesn't fit into the spirit of the "use English" guideline, simply because "Đurđevdan" is not an English word. If there was a clear consensus in reliable sources that this imported title was also used in English sources, that would be fine, but I don't see anything approaching such an assessment. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides, Branko Petranović doesn't consistently refer to this event as an uprising, either. In a (probably illegally scanned, but hey) book at http://znaci.net/zb/4_25_1.pdf he quotes Gutić's infamous speech, but there's no mention of any of these uprising circumstances, just Govoreći o programskoj orijentaciji NDH, Viktor Gutić, ustaški povjerenik i stožernik u Banjaluci, u svom govoru u Sanskom Mostu .... Again it seems that these war crimes and a pattern of persecution that is the notable topic here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really advancing a position that this shouldn't be called "Đurđevdan uprising" - Why did you put Template:Cleanup-articletitle then? I politely ask you to please remove it.
• "if we want to claim so, the article needs to cite those reliable sources that claim that instead." - How can you say this after my repeated explanations that the article does cite reliable source which emphasizes that this event is known as "Đurđevdan uprising"?
• You first say "Petranović doesn't consistently refer to this event" and then you say that "there's no mention of any of these uprising circumstances". How can you say Petranović doesn't consistently refer to this event if he did not mention it in another work?
• "Use English" does not mean literary "use English" but follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about as per above presented quote from WP:ENGLISH. Therefore Đurđevdan does fit into the spirit of the "use English" guideline. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator later posted this to my talk page:

Take for example:

1. Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u drugom svetskom ratu: 1939-1945. Vojnoizdavaćki i Novinski Centar. p. 178. which is available online here (link)
2. Dodik, Petar (2011). Šušnjar 1941. : proceedings - papers, testemonies and documents. Opština Oštra Luka. p. 58. ISBN 978-99938-41-08-1. which is available online (link)
3. Lukač, Dušan (1967). Ustanak u Bosanskoj krajini. Vojnoizdavački Zavod. p. 60. which is available online (link)
4. etc.

Ad, you still seem to be blithely unaware of the simple fact that whatever you can Google isn't automatically the best and the authoritative collection of reliable sources about a topic. Yes, it's not false that there's a work of Petranović out there that mentions this phrase. At the same time, it's still one work by him, and one work published by a Yugoslav Army institution in 1992. You don't think we should aim to find something better than a foreign-language work published in a time and place that was embroiled in a war at the time? I've already spelled out the concern regarding the Municipality of Oštra Luka paper, I won't waste any more effort on that. Regarding Lukač, that's clearly another Army work, though from a different time - a time with much more socialist lingo for one thing... it says:

Ali u nekim krajevima gde nije bilo komunista, niti simpatizera Partije, srpsko stanovništvo nije se pridržavalo ove taktike već su grupe seljaka ili pojedinci pokušavali da se suprotstave ustaškim nasiljima. Tako je grupa seljaka iz sela Srpsko Kijevo, jugoistočno od Sanskog Mosta, 6. maja pružila otpor ustašama koji su počeli da vređaju verske običaje kod Srba i da ometaju krsnu slavu kod nekih seljaka. [...]

Ustaški stožer u Banjaluci odlučio je da ovo okupljanje srpskih seljaka iskoristi kao povod za šire akcije protiv srpskog naroda na ovom terenu i uopšte u Bosanskoj krajini. Lansirane su vesti da se okupljaju ogromne „četničke snage", koje ugrožavaju ustašku vlast i prete i samom okupatoru, a sve radi opravdanja akcija koje su bile u planu i pripremi protiv Srba. 60

Neprijatelj je centar pobune — zaselak Sjenokose u selu Srpskom Kijevu — potpuno spalio, pohvatao u obližnjim selima oko 450 Srba, između kojih je odabrao 100 i zadržao, a ostali su privremeno pušteni kućama. Iz ove grupe talaca izdvojeno je 9. maja 27 muškaraca, uglavnom iz zaseoka Vidovići, i streljano. Radi zastrašivanja naroda leševi streljanih su obešeni po drveću u parku, u Sanskom Mostu. 62 Ovim do tada najmasovnijim zločinom u Bos. krajini, Nemci su upotrebili jednu od istrebljivačkih metoda koje su već ranije počeli isprobavati u Srbiji i Sloveniji i dali očigledan primer ustašama kako treba sprovoditi akciju uništenja našeg naroda. 63

(BTW no mention of Đurđevdanski ustanak in there AFAICT)

So, at this point, I honestly have to ask you - did you even read this document? Do you not see how this was not an organized uprising, aimed at destroying or taking over the position of an established authority, but rather a desperate act of revolt against war crimes of an occupying force, followed immediately by a series of even worse war crimes by the same force? I suppose I can see the rationale in trying to paint these events as an uprising - to provide a kind of a memorial to those peasants who acted bravely in the face of glaring mortal danger. But, that's not really an encyclopedic endeavor, because a sober, generic assessment of these events is that it was really a massacre of civilians. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead to reply to my above good faith question, you presented part of my comment on your talkpage taken out of the context. Here is diff of my edit in which I explain you why your accusation that I created "another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" is unjustified. You took the above part out of the context and brought it here to mislead the uninitiated readers that I presented the above sources to argue with about the title of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of google to find online sources is certainly not contrary to policy per se, but that's orthogonal to my argument. No policy is telling anyone to make these kinds of errors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For the third time, please reply to my above good faith questions:

1. Why did you put Template:Cleanup-articletitle tag if you are "not really advancing a position that this shouldn't be called "Đurđevdan uprising"
2. Why did you write "the article needs to cite those reliable sources that claim that" although article does cite reliable source (Petranović) which emphasizes that this event is known as "Đurđevdan uprising"?
3. Why did you say "Petranović doesn't consistently refer to this event" if he did not mention this event in another work you brought here?

I already explained you that your accusations that I created "another hodgepodge ....by trawling Google search results" are unjustified. Please please be so kind to drop the stick and stop with your attempts to sidetrack this discussion. Look at the title of this section. It says "uprising", with quotation marks. Its better to stay focused to the subject of discussion here. You objected to the term uprising, contrary to multiple sources cited in this article which directly support "uprising" (устанак, устаници) term:

1. Šućur, Krstan (2011). Šušnjar 1941. : proceedings - papers, testemonies and documents. Opština Oštra Luka. p. 58. ISBN 978-99938-41-08-1. Most of the activists from the right bank of the Sana River and the Đurđevdan uprising leaders were hiding in the forests near Kmećani.
2. Bokan, Branko (1972). Podgrmeč u NOB.: Podgrmeč do ustanka i u ustanku 1941. Vojnoizdavački zavod. p. 447. "Устаници су успјели потиснути усташе, које су у паници побјегле у Кијево и Сански Мост тражећи помоћ од њемачког гарнизона из Приједора" [Ustanici means people who participate in the ustanak or "uprising"]
3. Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u drugom svetskom ratu: 1939-1945. Vojnoizdavaćki i Novinski Centar. p. 178. Mesec dana od izbijanja aprilskog rata i 18 dana od kapitulacionog akta došlo je do sukoba srpskih seljaka iz okoline Sanskog Mosta, sela Kijevo i Tramošnja 6, 7. i 8. maja 1941. godine, poznatog kao Đurđevdanski ustanak sanskih seljaka. [A month after April war broke out and 18 days since capitulation, Serb villagers from Kijevo and Tramošnja near Sanski Most, participated in the conflict on 6, 7 and 8 May 1941 which is known as Đurđevdan uprising of Sana villagers.]
4. Đurđev, Branislav; Antonić, Zdravko; Redžić, Enver (1973). 1941. [i.e. Hiljadu devetsto četrdeset i prva] u historijinaroda Bosne i Hercegovine: Naučni skup, održan u Drvaru od 7. do 9. oktobra 1971. godine. Veselin Masleša. p. 75. Neprijateljsko reagovanje i odmazda na ustanak ... [The enemy swiftly reacted and retaliated to the uprising....] {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
5. Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Commission to Preserve National Monuments Hadžimuhamedović, Amra (2003). "Šušnjar Memorial Complex, the architectural ensemble". Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Preserve National Monuments. Retrieved 6 June 2014. To quell the uprising, German army troops were sent to the area from Prijedor, ....

Although you were advised to initiate RM you did not do it because you admitted that you "don't really know the best move destination". Instead you decided to invite people "who read history books about WWII in Yugoslavia" if they "remember hearing" about this event(!?). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This level of discussion is descending into wikilawyering again. I think I've actually responded to each of your three questions earlier, but you've apparently failed to listen. You're still picking apart sources from snippets, and even taking pieces from phrases and sentences in order to try to synthesize support for this claim. And, if it needs to be said, you again cited sources with egregious unreliability problems. You're implying that I'm assuming bad faith yet you're still not showing any evidence that you've actually read these sources for what they want to say, and that you've given any thought to the preponderance of reliable sources about this specific period overall, which would enable everyone else to believe you that you've made the right call by picking that phrasing, and that the phrasing is in line with the article title policy. I'm not assuming, or assuming bad faith; based on the information provided, I'm assessing a lack of adherence to the policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I did not notice your straightforward replies to my questions above in the huge walls of text you wrote to complain about me and my conduct. The further discussion might further increase this wall of text and might discourage participation of uninitiated readers in this discussion. Therefore I will not insist on your replies. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Title and scope RfC

The following discussion 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.

---

This is not a conventional RfC close.

From reading through the discussions, looking through the sources and doing a bit of research of my own, I have come to a conclusion that there are reasons to be concerned about this article, which **may** incorporate a revisionist or fringe historical narrative. I intend to bring the article to the attention of WP:ANI, rather than attempt to draw conclusions from the discussion. Please note that, although I feel there are grounds for legitimate concern about the article, I do not feel that I have enough information to allege any actual wrongdoing on the part of contributors to the article, and none should be imputed. I will post a further message in the near future.

ETA: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Durdevdan_uprising_article. Editors involved here should feel free to comment there, including by telling me that I have misunderstood the whole thing, if that is appropriate. Thanks.

I'm requesting comment from other editors with regard to what should be the title and scope of this article. We've had a rather unproductive series of discussions on this talk page, and I'd appreciate a few fresh pairs of eyes. I'd like to know if people who read history books about WWII in Yugoslavia remember hearing about this revolt as such, about the resulting massacre (whether as a consequence of the revolt or as such), and whatever other aspect of this story seems relevant to the title and scope of the article. Thanks in advance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this event before now. From a local perspective it is a very important part of history, but the horrible truth is that, from a global perspective, it's one of thousands of such events that occurred during WWII. That does not mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia), as the event certainly is notable. So would be any revolt or reprisal in that war.

Title: Are there other alternative names that could be considered as a title or redirect?

First paragraph: The first paragraph should include the actual date, the English name for the holiday (St. George's Day), the two parties/forces involved, and the location.

Introduction: Somewhere in the introduction, but not necessarily in the first paragraph, you should include the number of casualties in each side in the fighting and the number of casualties in the reprisal action. (By casualties I mean people killed, people wounded, and people captured.) Discussion of why this happened should be left until later; the intro should include just the objective facts about what took place.

Article: Here you should include the events leading up to the event, starting with the beginning of the Axis occupation and leading up to how exactly the Muslim Ustaše "desecrated" the holiday. Include something here about the importance of the holiday and how it is celebrated. The Slava is a uniquely Serbian custom which should be mentioned briefly in the article. (I wasn't aware of it until now, and it's very interesting.) Include the religion of each group the first time you mention it, but otherwise use it sparingly.

This event will be viewed, for most readers of the English article, more as part of WWII than as part of the ethnic and religious conflict that has been ongoing in the Balkans for centuries. The article should reflect that, if you agree.

Proof reading should be done by a native English speaker, as there are some issues with grammar, particularly the use of 'a' and 'the'; this is commonly seen in translations from Slavic languages).

The article is well researched, but in some places it is too detailed. How do we know for sure it was 38 grenades?

Again, this is an important event and, while the above may seem overly critical, the community can make this article better. Roches (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As another English-speaking editor noted in the first comment on the talk page, there's no common English title for the event. We can come up with a variety of WP:NDESC-abiding titles, for example:

May 1941 Sanski Most uprising

May 1941 Sanski Most revolt

May 1941 Sanski Most massacre

The month is necessary because there were other massacres in the same location in the same year, the Serbian Wikipedia mentions August 1941 "Sanski Most massacre" at sr:Масакр у Санском Мосту. The location is a bit fuzzy, because the revolt happened in nearby villages, but even the various inadequate Serbian sources advocated earlier generally align it with the terms Sana/sanski, so it may be good enough, especially if we focus the article more on the resulting massacre and the hanging in the center of the town. The villages of Tramošnja and Kijevo appear to be 5 and 10 km southwest of the city, respectively. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The massacre, described in the aftermath section, happened after this uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The chronological order matters, but it's not the end-all of history articles. Besides, when we know from sources that the uprising was directly incited by war crimes done for the purpose of being able to engage in a massacre, then it's incongruous to focus on the uprising as the main topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Joy is wise; I agree. bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This uprising was certainly not incited by subsequent massacre of 27 people, nor there is any logic to name it after it. If some editor believe that the title of this article should be renamed please initiate regular RM discussion. That was already advised to Joy twice (diff and diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, (with respect to Ed) that is unnecessary, the purpose of the RfC is to establish consensus on title and scope, which we appear to be working towards. It is not just about a move. In my view, May 1941 Sanski Most revolt would be an appropriate descriptive title in English with sufficient scope to cover what was a spontaneous revolt in response to persecution, as well as the resultant massacre. The Merriam Webster definition of uprising is "a usually violent effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country", and of revolt is "to fight in a violent way against the rule of a leader or government". My preference would therefore be with revolt rather than uprising, as this wasn't an attempt to change the govt, it was an spontaneous response against persecution by local thugs. Such a title places the topic in time and place and specifies the type of event. The current title doesn't do the first two things at all, and as I have pointed out a couple of times already, Đurđevdan is completely unknown in English. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The title of article about Đurđevdan is Đurđevdan. If move is contested the only way is to initiate WP:RM. There are plenty of sources which support term uprising. That is why I am opposed to your proposal. If you insist on it please initiate WP:RM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The weak consensus (at the moment) of this RfC appears to be that this article's scope should include the persecution, revolt and massacre. When this RfC closes, someone will probably submit a RM to move it to the best descriptive title for the agreed scope. We'll see. Until then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. You know very well that this discussion is continuation of rename/delete campaign of articles that I recently created. This campaign is pursued by you and Joy. You Peacemaker67 dedicated most of your wikipedia life to punish me because I wrote a negative review (completely justified) based on your request at WikiProject Serbia. Joy wants to punish me because I pointed to misuse of his admin tools which led to his recent block. No uninvolved editors participated in this discussion and supported your position. There is no consensus here which can serve as basis for RM request. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as I was thinking we were making a modicum of progress here, you go back to this conspiracy theory nonsense. *shakes head in disbelief* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disbelief? Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. No doubt you know this is one of many articles I recently created that you and Peacemaker67 tried to rename or delete.

This PROD of the article about the largest and the most elite military unit of Mihailović's Chetniks by Peacemaker67 (diff) is probably enough for sanctioning him. Also, anybody can see that two of you are involved in this dispute and that you were recently blocked (I was mentioned in connection with your block). No uninvolved editors participated in this discussion and supported your position. You should really stop going in circles and not listening to others and initiate WP:RM process if you think you have valid arguments for renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Replying also to the distinction between uprising and revolt - yes, that is my understanding of dictionaries as well, the word uprising connotes a much more organized, directed effort to do something, but this was civilians scrambling to fight for their lives against an invading military force. It's possible to conjecture that, had they had some more success in their fight against this terror, we would have seen this documented in more history works and described in terms that more closely match the definition of an uprising. But, that did not happen, and instead this is remembered because of the egregious mass murder, followed by even more mass murder three months later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I said they (Ustaše and whatnot) committed war crimes, these crimes logically led to a backlash, and then they pumped up the backlash as an uprising in order to get the Germans to get in there, which logically led to confrontations and German casualties, which in turn led to a massacre in retribution. That's I believe what's in two of those sources that we discussed earlier. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. There are more than dozen sources which directly support term "uprising". They are not written by Ustaše and whatnot. They are written by contemporary scholars.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of "creating a false narrative"... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We're talking past each other again, and I see no reason to believe that I'm causing the disconnect. Ad, you added sentences into the article saying a local forest ranger who was member of Ustaše, intentionally wounded himself and reported to Ustaše authorities in Sanski Most that he was attacked and wounded by Serb peasants and The Germans responded to Ustaše requests for help. If this doesn't indicate conspiracy (an actual conspiracy), I don't know what does. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop going in circles and not listening to others. If you insist on your position please be so kind to follow wikipedia rules and initiate WP:RM. Any further can only create huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the renaming discussion. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We already had this question on our Talk pages - abruptly ending the RfC in favor of RM doesn't seem helpful to me. Nevertheless, a month will have passed in ten minutes from now, curiously enough, so we might as well proceed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title: The article title should use a place name familiar to English speakers. "May 1941 uprising in northwest Bosnia" is a possibility; it uses the description in the Sanski Most article. Otherwise readers will not know, just from the title, that the event occurred in the Balkans. I know this is far from a perfect solution, because the area was not called Bosnia in 1941 (among other things). Some thoughts: It's clear from the conflict on this talk page that this event is controversial even today. It's also clear that everyone involved wants this story to be told. From a global perspective, so many horrific things happened in the war that only the very worst atrocities in the Balkans have been documented in English. But all events of this nature can and should be documented in Wikipedia. This one is particularly important because it is a very early event in the Axis occupation of the Balkans. I am concerned that conflict about how to tell this story might lead to the story not being told. That is, unless the editors focus on how to tell this story in an objective, NPOV manner, it will be overlooked. Don't be concerned about the meaning of individual words. Avoid speculation on why people did what they did. Ultimately, as a Canadian I think Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for this event. I think most English speakers will see the violence in the same way: the Nazis used old hatreds to turn people against each other. The occupation force decided who would be the perpetrators and who would be the victims. I hope that helps a little; any editor may feel free to invite me back via my talk page (or mention my username) if you think my input would be useful. I may not be able to help too much and I may take some time to respond, but I remain willing to comment. I hope you can understand that I think this article should focus on the horrific fact that ordinary people killed, and were killed, because of their religion or ethnicity. That is the "never again" message that gives meaning to WWII in the modern world. Roches (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2014 (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.

Quotes and words which are not in English

Hi there, I recently made a copy-edit for this article. The non-English portions were of some concern to me as they might not be very helpful for someone who only speaks English. I checked at the Tea House to ask an experienced editor and it was suggested I leave it intact. I notice another editor has turned the non-English portions into question marks. (Hi there, waving). Is there a way to make the quotes a bit better? Perhaps 'someone' with both languages could translate them? I would try but I would likely muck it up. Cheers, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia can help you. tahc ^chat 23:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e Myrtle. The editor responsible is currently on a T-BAN for this subject and can't respond, but I can say that I have asked for them to provide translations of quotes in Cyrillic elsewhere (rather than editors having to rely on Google Translate), and they basically refused. I think they have to be left there for now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tahc and Peacemaker67 for you replies. Let's leave it be for the time being then. Kind regards and happy editing, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on May 1941 Sanski Most revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kwrEj3LA?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_7/Croatia.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_7/Croatia.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_7/Croatia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on May 1941 Sanski Most revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714223718/http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=1832 to http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=1832
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714223718/http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=1832 to http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=1832

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)