You've got mail

 
Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Forza bruta (talk), 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Hi Peacemaker. In the Operation Storm article I noticed two different editors added content about “chauvinism” and the Ustase genocide against the Serbs [1] and [2]. However I don’t see what connection that has with Operation Storm, Milosevic, Tudjman or the war of the 90s. And while cited sources confirm obviously the genocide happened it doesn't connect it with the article’s subject. It seems to me there is an axe to grind (not you obviously but the other two diffs I mentioned) to bring up the Genocide in relativizing with crimes done in the 90s. As if Operation Storm was the “final solution”. It doesn’t make sense to be at the beginning of the background of the article. I’ve notice these users copy and pasting the sentence in many articles about Balkan towns, cities, anything Croatian related as of late. As I see no mention of genocide waged by Chetniks during WWII. The former one seems to be banned for biased edits. I in no way support the disruption and attacks from the IP. But I don’t really see the reason for the content you restored. How is it related? Thanks again for the good work you do on here. I’ve been taking long breaks myself as the nationalist point scoring and pov worries on here have driven me to my whits ends. OyMosby (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is central to the propaganda associated with the war, which of course didn't reflect the reality of the HDZ etc. It isn't in the lead, but is an important part of the background, because such propaganda was central to the creation of the RSK and exodus of Serbs from it in the aftermath. This could be much better explained in the article, but some mention of the use of the NDH as a propaganda tool to influence Serbs against Croats and its role in the exodus is pretty important in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I should add that it depends on the reliable sources. If the reliable sources state that the memory of the Ustase genocide in WWII was a factor in the Croatian War of Independence and Bosnian War, then it should be in the article background. If not, then it shouldn't. I haven't got the time to drill down into this now, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the case. It certainly was when I was there in 95-96, with Serbs referring to Croats as Ustashas and Croats referring to Serbs as Chetniks etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I see your point. It provide background to what the Ustase were and how it was a depiction or mindedness had at the time. Would prefer to see a source discuss it specifically. However I have seen myself Croats and Serbs use Ustashe and Chetniks crimes as justification or vilification so I agree with your point. However than the genocidal acts of the Chetniks should also be given background for the readers. Seemed odd though to start right away in the background with it though. Especially seeing two editors who harbor Serbian nationalist sentiment adding it to the article and countless others. As you may have noticed in the uptick of Balkan editors and edits this year. Thank you for your service in the Balkans. Putting yourself in a dangerous position to protect strangers, I cannot stress enough how commendable that is. Have you ever written about your experiences from then? OyMosby (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is definitely an uptick in former Yugoslavian POV here over the last six to twelve months. I haven't done any writing, but have thought about it though. Maybe one day. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do. Would be really interesting to read about your experiences as a peacekeeper at the time. Of course I know you are busy these days. Take care and stay safe in these strange times. OyMosby (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
One more thing just to be clear. I was not talking about the mention of NDH or Ustase in general. But the necessity of the Genocide of Serbs sentence. Unless we are saying that the Genocide from WWII was used in the propaganda itself? Sorry just wanted to make sure we were clear on the matter. OyMosby (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The genocide is part and parcel with any mention of the NDH and Ustase. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense for background and context. Just wanted to be clear. Thanks for taking time to write. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears now it was agreed on its removal per Griboski’s edit? Why the change of mind? OyMosby (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m really not focussed on this at present, I think the Background section needs some work, but don’t have time right now. Unfortunately the editor that wrote all the Croatian War of Independence articles is inactive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Just that previous another editor tezwoo had removed the same part about the Genocide by the Ustase and you were adamant about restoring it as per our conversation so wondered why the change when Griboski removed it. Also I had assumed you were the original writer of the article. OyMosby (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hello PM. While having a look at that discussion, though I do not want to get involved there as I want to write some new articles while the weather outside is the most enjoyable of the year, the first sentence of the Ustashe came to mind. It says that the Ustashe "was a Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization". WP:Terrorist says that " Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". According to this, since the Ustashe is widely described as "terrorist" by reliable sources, it may stay in the first sentence but with attribution. On the other hand, the WP:Terrorist page says for itself that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I know a single term in the first sentence is not that much important, but anyways I would like to have your opinion on the interpretation of the guideline in the case of the Ustashe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Tomasevich (2001, p. 32) describe it as terrorist. Which I think is entirely deserved, and it should remain in the first sentence of the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the description as "terrorist" is entirely deserved. If I am not mistaken, members or supporters of the organization continued with terrorism acts even after WW2. So we apply "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The Ustashe were and the neo-Ustashe are absolutely terrorists. They orchestrated assassinations, bombings and so on. Let alone the systematic genocide they waged. Essentially a Catholic ISIS. OyMosby (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Chetniks

Fair enough on the infobox. But in your edit here you may have accidentally removed content instead of moving. OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I was still moving it and condensing some stuff, it is back in now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah at the time it only showed the previous edit. Thought it was a mistake. But I am the mistaken one, hehe. Sorry. Not trying to hound or anything. Was just there at the time. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Easy done. BTW, I am going to reduce the size of the infobox, it is currently a grab-bag with no sense to it. I mean, why is Novak in the list of leaders when his unit was about 300–400 strong and of no political or military importance? It is just there to bolster the idea that the Chetniks were multi-ethnic when they were almost exclusively Serbs/Montenegrins. Also the battles list is POV, it makes it look as if the Chetniks were resisting/fighting the Axis throughout the war, when in many of those battles they were actually on the Axis side. We need some discussion of the criteria for inclusion in the infobox for commanders and battles, and the whole Allied/Axis thing is just confusing. IMHO, the infobox is just a magnet for POV pushers and we should pare it right down. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I have been told by some editors (won’t name names) who present the Chetniks as if they were a very progressive multi-ethnic organization so I wouldn’t be surprised that is being pushed. Even portraying them as bigger anti-fascists than Partisans and as true Yugoslav fighters. Anyone saying otherwise or speaking of crimes are simply “Ustashe sympathizers” from seeing conversations on the talk pages. These articles have been pov battlegrounds for years From what I see. Hats off to you for having the patience and nerves to work on them. Cheers. OyMosby (talk)<
Some editors seem to actually believe this stuff, but it is largely because they are basing their views on the work of a significant group of Serbian historians who have departed from global scholarly rigour, turned into historical negationists, gone nationalist and have been writing pseudohistory. This has also been occurring in Croatia. No doubt their work suits the nationalist and anti-communist point of view of the editors in question. In Serbia this revisionism has extended to Serbian primary and high school textbooks which contain complete fabrications about the Chetnik movement and completely ignore its widespread collaboration with the Axis. The Serbian government itself has been involved in mass revisionism (including through school textbooks, but also through the various commissions and rehabilitations) for political reasons because they have wanted to portray themselves as anti-Milošević/anti-socialist, which has been the underlying political theme in Serbia since 2000. Frankly, any historical works that have come out of Serbia since 1990 that haven't been positively reviewed outside of Serbia are suspect until proven otherwise IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)