Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 23 January 2020

My Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Destroyer Dubrovnik

Hello!
I would like to ask why my supplement in Infobox of destroyer Dubrovnik (Premuda part) was deleted?
This is proof for PU hull symbol on Premuda during service in Regia Marine - here. --Андрејевић (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As it is a Featured article, everything in the article needs a reliable source. I'm afraid that a modelling website doesn't qualify as reliable. If you can find a reliable source for it, it could be added. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this photo is from some italian book but unfortunately I don't know what book it is. This is a photo I have, it's a little better than the one on that italian site. → photo (Premuda) The destroyer Beograd (Sebenico in Regia Marine) had hull symbol SB, destroyer Ljubljana (Lubiana in Regia Marine) had hull symbol LA. Photos of Beograd with SB hull symbol are in Le Navi del Re (Achille Rastelli) and journal Marine Arsenal, Band 40, Kriegsmarine in der Adria 1941-45 (D. Freivogel) → photo (Sebenico) I found a scanned photo of the destroyer Ljubljana from a book but I don't know which one. Hull symbol LA is seen. → photo (Lubiana) PS. When we already discussing: Full battle load of destroyer Dubrovnik was 2884 metric tones. This is what German sources say. I also found old paper with data from the late 30's when in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia testing was perform with the displacement of the destroyer Dubrovnik, where the load of the ship was 2690 metric tons. → Displacement ;--Андрејевић (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those photos don't appear to be public domain, so they can't be used, and those without an identified reliable source in which they were published cannot be used for the hull symbols. Anything of Freivogel's is reliable, so the hull symbol for Beograd could be added with that reference if you know what page the image is on and it says the year when the image was taken. As far as the displacement characteristics of Dubrovnik are concerned, I will stay with Chesneau and Lenton at this stage, as they are naval specialist historians. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that these photos should be included in the article, but that they are evidence of these hull symbols. Maybe these pictures can be put as an external link. For Freivogel, page is 16 and date of first photo (no colored Beograd) is 1941, and second photo (colored Beograd) is 1942 (Beograd in 1943 had another type of camouflage). For this second photo we have one more suorce, Le Navi del Re (Achille Rastelli) page 172. One more thing, I found this site for Beograd from 1943. → Sebenico - Associazione Venus For Dubrovnik, I will try to find a book from which the photo is white-colored Premuda with black PU hull symbol. But it will be hard. For displacement I found this book with data of displacement (in metric tones). → Front page; Displacement The tests were conducted on October 12, 1939. → Date --Андрејевић (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't external link to copyvios, so unless the images are PD, they can't be external links. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I can't find Le Navi del Re or Marine Arsenal on Worldcat or Google Books, so unless you can provide a full citation for one or the other (and a page for the former), I don't see how the hull symbol for Sebenico can be added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

update re wikiproject

Hi Peacemaker67. it's been nice making your acquaintance here over the last day. I wanted to let you know about a bit of news. i am a new coordinator at WikiProject History. I took that role simply by volunteering for it. at this point, none of the other past coordinators are active there at all any more. I have over ten years' experience here, and I have a lot of interest in history topics. I figured that since you are the lead coordinator on one of the WikiProjects that is most active, and one of the most similar in focus to our on project, I would give you a heads-up. I would like to start getting people involved in WikiProject History. a whole lot of people signed up to say they are members there. However, I haven't gotten a lot of replies to my posts recently, asking people to just write back and let me know what their interests are, what they'd like to do, whether they'd like to be available, etc etc.

If you'd like to be involved there, we would welcome that. Alternately, i welcome any input you may have. if there is anything we can do for you, feel free to let me know. but please let me know any suggestions you may have, eg on ways to get things up and running, things we should be doing, ways to get people involved, etc.

By the way, I am already thinking of you as a quasi-coordinator for WikiProject History. Congratulations, you've been volunteered! lol all kidding aside though, given your experience here at Misplaced Pages and with running a great project, I'd be glad to have your input any time. and any role you wish to take at WikiProject History, you are welcome to do so. I'd be glad to hear your comments or thoughts on this. Feel free to be in touch. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very interesting. I suggest you post on our project talk page to inform all our project members that someone is working at WikiProject History. There is a fair bit of cross-over between our projects, but I had thought yours was largely moribund. I'll take a look and make some suggestions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that is really excellent. I am glad to have your involvement. In fact, I am contemplating creating a list of active co-coordinators, facilitators, volunteers, etc, or something like that. the reason for this is that given the project itself is moribund right now, and yet we supposedly have hundreds of members signed up, means that we need some means to call attention to whomever is actually active and actually available to help others.

what does someone do if they want to resume systematic Quality Assessment of history-related articles, for example? or if they need help with an article? Or if they need help with a template, or formatting, or coding etc etc? the least we can do as a WikiProject is provide some data set, or directory or something, of users who are actually active, available, ready and willing to help others on this. adding myself was just the tip of the iceberg.

my real role and title should be "admin coordinator." meaning that I will be glad to handle the admin tasks of actually trying to get the project up and running, and assembling a few people to actually do so and to help others. but then we should add roles for others such as eg people working on quality assessment, people who can answer questions, people who have areas they help with, people who know how to write templates (unlike me) etc etc etc.

at some point I may create such a list, and probably start by adding your name. is that okay? I hope it is. there is no extra work that you would neeed to do. I simply want to have at least two or three names provided there of editors who are active in a role to help others, and who can answer questions from other editors.

by the way, I will retain the title of "admin coordinator" for myself. this simply means I am the person who took it upon myself to do the actual admin tasks, update the page, contact others, etc etc. Anyone else is free to volunteer for this role and title, just as I did. it is simply a descriptive label to describe the sort of things that I plan or hope to do there. I hope that sounds okay. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally the term "admin" refers to sysops. I would just go with coordinator, that's what most WikiProjects use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

need some assistance

Hi Peacemaker67. I aprpeciate your help and input recently. I wanted to write to ask if you might be willing to comment at WikiProject Council? I am trying to get that page to be active again. I really need some help and input. many people there have been highly supportive, but one or two recent commenters are questioning the whole effort. I could really use some help input from you and from some of your other coordinators, in other words from people who have xtensive and active involvement in active Wikiprojects. could you please let me know if that's okay? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the WikiProject Council, sorry. I think you'd be better off trying to identify a few other editors who are interested in reviving WikiProject History. A few things that work for us at Milhist are having a monthly newsletter where we highlight achievements by individual editors, an assessment area where editors can submit articles for assessment/re-assessment, and a simple system of awards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

hm okay. well, I do appreciate your reply on that. thanks for your input. I will give that some thought. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Honest

I consider you as honest admin but if you remove valid source, my actions for improve articles are complicated operation. For every single source and every simple correction, new section needed in talk page? Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest discussing this on the article talk page (which I watchlist), not here. For example, you need to explain why tributetoliberty.ca is a reliable source. But do this on the article talk page, not here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated

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.

Hey Peacemaker. Thank you for taking the time to edit the Chetnik page pertaining to the MacDonal quote. It has been a quote used many times by people to deny the genocide Chetniks pursued during WWII. However there are still editors who actively on Misplaced Pages deny the genocide, even using that quote as an argument despite me presenting a number of reputable sources saying otherwise. Ironic as MacDonald denies the Serbian Genocide. Editors such as Sadko who seems to be an apologist as far as Chetniks are concerned and puts forward points that seem hostile towards Croats or Bosnians. Nolanfranyeri Is another editor that appears to deny the genocide as well. I’ve seen too much to still think it was good intentions and just mistakes. As I had a debate with Sadko on my page. If Tomasevich is not a valid source than who is? It seems to me that their is an agenda by some editors. And I suspect that the person who first introduced that MacDonald quote, in which MacDonald was arguing a totally different subject matter, had ill intentions to mislead readers. It really disturbs me to see editors with such aims. How have you dealt with these sort of problems? People pushing povs even extreme ones? Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a political platform but a neutral wealth of information. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, frankly it is a poorly worded sentence in MacDonald's book, and I think the later quote is worse, and isn't consistent (as he claims) with Lemkin (or the Srebrenica case). Unfortunately I have not been able to find an academic source that criticises MacDonald's interpretation of the definition of genocide. Having said all that, his is a minority view regarding the killing, conversion and expulsion of Serbs from the NDH by the Ustashas, which clearly was genocidal in intent and practice. It is unlikely that any sources would consider the killing of Croats by the Chetniks to be genocidal in intent (it is usually couched as revenge or counter-terror), although some sources say the Chetnik killings and expulsions of Muslims in eastern Bosnia was genocidal. As to how to deal with POV-pushers, I tend to deprecate local sources (particularly those from the post-Yugoslavia period on all sides, which are often very biased) and generally use foreign academic sources like Tomasevich, Hoare, Ramet, Milazzo, Roberts, Pavlowich, Mojzes etc on controversial matters within the former Yugoslavia. If the POV-pushing is clear and persistent, and I can provide enough diffs, I take the editor(s) to WP:ANI or another relevant dramaboard for the community to deal with them. I rarely use my admin tools for anything controversial regarding Yugoslavia in WWII because I might be seen as WP:INVOLVED. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were in agreement with it being labeled genocide. Given you agree the MacDonald quote is poorly written. However Tomasevich, Parsons and Redzic claim it as genocide. It has been stated in multiple sources that Chetniks pursued a Greater Serbia over the region that is to be rid of any non-Serbs and targeted both Croats and Bosniaks. It being partly repisal shouldn’t mean it wasn’t perusing of Genocide. Revenge doesn’t negate it being genocide. I believe it was stated on the Chetnik page that mass killings in Eastern Bosnia occurrd by Chetniks before any significant Ustashe atrocities took place. If killings of Bonsiaks would be considered Genocide, why not Croat civilians as well? Chetniks didn’t specifically target Ustase sympathizers only. Some sources make the claim that it was revenge against Bosnians as some were aligned with the Ustase. Regardless 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with the description of what was done to Croats being referred to as genocide. That is false equivalence. What sources specifically say that the killing of Croats by Chetniks was genocide? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted three in my previous reply. See the citations. I don’t see how it is false equivalence. What do you call aiming to wipe out an ethnic group from a new established state? I fail to see how when this befell the Croatian population, the term doesn’t apply. Both Croats and Bosnians were targeted. As was any non-Serb. Far less died in the 90’s genocide yet it was still deemed genocide. I wouldn’t make the claim if I didn’t come across convincing sources. Also it just seems logical but personal opinion is irrelevant. I’m surpised you never came across, not one, source that called it genocide. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not correct. Tomasevich makes a general comment about genocidal actions in his conclusion, then lists some mass killings. Tellingly, in his 1975 book about the Chetniks, he does not say their killing of Croats was genocide. The second one I can't verify, and Redžić doesn't say that about Croats, he is referring only to Bosnian Muslims. Can you provide a quote from Parsons? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Pardon? On page 747 in his book War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945 , he states that the use of "widespread genocide" was the reason for high amount of human loss in Yugoslavia and that it was also used in revenge. He then goes on about how 'Serbs perished at the hands of the Ustashe" and that "Croats and Muslims perished at the hands of Chetniks". He clearly is painting both as acts of genocide. He claims that Italians up to September 1943 and Germans thought the war assisted in this genocide. Partly independently and partly through puppet regimes. Also saying Italians used the Chetniks, for example, to assist in killing of the Croatian population in parts of territory under Italian control (conflict with MacDonald). As for Redzic, sorry I gave the wrong page, page 155 is the one. Here he details how "after 3 year long Chetnik campaign against the Croats and Muslims, conducted int he form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to form an ethnically homogeneous territory for ther expansionist Serbian state" the order to incorporate Croats and Muslims into the Yugoslav army was "too late" and "unrealistic" as Chetniks became "desperate" for additional fighting power against Partisans. I am trying to get access to the page for Parson's. Will get back to you. Also, the wiki pages for list of massacres that were carried out in WWII Yugoslavia, there were a number of large scale massacres carried out by Chetniks against Croats specifically. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, please be civil enough and stop badmouthing me, it is not your first time. @Nolanfranyeri: you have been mentioned as well. If you have some sort of dispute or a problem with my views - bring it on, like a serious person would do. I did not report your remark that I was mentally unstable, or whatever the wording was (you will know what I am talking about). I shall not tolerate it in the future. And no, as Peacemaker said, crimes done by the Yugoslav army to Croat civilians can not be labeled as genocide, and most probably the same goes for Bosniaks (although the scale of crimes and massacres is much bigger, widespread and it's yet another shameful part of the WW2 in YU). Naturally, you will try to label me and whoever does not agrees with your POV as genocide deniers, but - be it on your honour, if such a concept interests you at all. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hosting a free-for-all on my talk page. Take your disputes to article talk or your own talk pages, not mine. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. Note that IP's POV pushing/holy war has continued - Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are proving my point. I never called you mentally unstable. You are doing nothing but attacking me and it’s pointless. You claim I am POV pushing yet my edits are backed by sources I include. I said you were POV pushing and off comments in talk sections and based on your overall actions on Misplaced Pages not on the sole discussion of genocide. Claiming I’m on a “Holy War” is just laughable. You tried to use MacDonald’s quote to argue against Genocide. And using thebterms “crimes carried out by the Yugoslav army”.... That isn’t bad faith? I’m not engaging with you any further on this talk page. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

I’m not interested in such internet drama. I stated an observation. And it seems more accurate now. My main objective is discussion of the sources I showed you. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cont. Discussion on Sources

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.

Peacemaker67, I apologize for intruding on your talk page but since I was called on by 74.101.190.2 and Sadkσ in the thread above before I had a chance to reply, I thought it'd be fitting if I replied here.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument or an edit-war over this issue so I'm only going to be making one statement.

IP editor, you claim that I deny the genocide done by the Chetniks. Okay, first of all, it states that some historians contend that genocide was committed against Muslims. Though, even that is a little muddled since it's a quote from a scholar describing what others claim but he doesn't specifically name names. From what I can gather on the Chetnik articles, it's mainly from ethnic scholars from the Balkans who may have their own biases, but as long as they can be considered WP:RS I'm fine with it. Still, it's a minority view but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if that statement is accurate.

Now, I have seen no RS that state that genocide was committed specifically against Croats. I don't question the fact that the Chetniks killed a lot of Croats, and simply because they were Croats. However, you need to have RS that state that the Chetniks perpetrated a genocide against Croats during World War Two. Personal feelings, interpretations and opinions are irrelevant to this issue. That's now how Misplaced Pages works.

Yes, plenty of books talk about the Chetniks and the 20 December 1941 memorandum. I don't dispute that it calls for a "cleansing of national minorities" and a "Greater Serbia". The memorandum itself however, is not what we (certainly not Misplaced Pages editors) use to determine whether or not specifically genocide against a group of people happened. I don't even deny that the Chetniks perhaps tried to commit genocide or at the very least, ethnic cleansing, based on that. The question is, whether or not they actually did. That's why we rely on reliable historians on this subject before making such claims. Our own interpretation don't matter.

I should also note that the authenticity of the directive is disputed and whether or not it actually came from Mihailović. The memorandum should also be looked at within the context of the situation which is not something that's often done. By December 1941, the Ustashe had already set up concentration camps in the NDH and committed a large number of massacres against Serbs, by then already having likely killed many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. So, the desire to ethnically clean areas held by the Ustashe and others by that point need to be put into perspective. But that is beside the point.

There's also a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Often people confuse the two or think the two are the same. By legal definitions, they are different, though ethnic cleansing certainly is a component of genocide. Ethnic cleansing is mainly the expulsion of a population. But various ethnic groups immediately think that whenever atrocities are done against their group, that it automatically makes it genocide. In fact, genocide is hard to prove. That's why when we do see an example of it, it usually receives wide coverage and recognition in scholarship.

From the editing you've been doing, you seem intent on trying to find ways to downplay or excuse the Ustashe crimes while trying to elevate Chetnik crimes. So it's clear there's a bias going on. I don't say that as a personal attack, that's just what looks like to me. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that if there's reliable sourcing to advance those beliefs. I admit that I am biased as well, but I always try to edit and present arguments based on sources and information that is available and refraining from inserting my own opinions. I don't make edits based on feelings.

The reason I changed your recent edit to the Genocide template, is because you added "Genocide of Croats and Bosniaks" as the title to the article link. Having it phrased that way is problematic because as I stated above, there are no sources that explicitly state that genocide was committed against Croats. Also, atrocities against Muslims were far greater in volume than against Croats, which is the reason why I suspect some are deeming it as genocide but not over Croats. Yet, you are even adamant about having Croats listed before Bosniaks, despite the fact that it's not in proportion to the crimes or even alphabetical for that matter.

I am somewhat sympathetic to ethnic POV editors because it often comes from a place of feeling like they've been wronged and some injustice has to be corrected, but I'm sorry that's not what Misplaced Pages is based on. I am actually opposed to having the Chetniks listed at all there to be honest, because as I see it, the genocide template is there to list the most egregious and clear-cut examples of genocide, not for listing cases that are dubious or held by a small minority of scholars. I copy-edited the title to "Chetnik crimes against Bosniaks and Croats" because the article that's linked talks about.. World War Two crimes by the Chetniks, mainly against Bosniaks and Croats. Notice how even the other listings above regarding the Nazis don't state "Nazi genocide against Poles" or "Nazi genocide against Soviet POWs", and they were killed in the millions.

I should add the Chetnik War Crimes, particularly the Genocidal crimes section is problematic. It's essentially a bunch of quotes, cherry-picked and mainly sourced to Croatian websites.

You were also reverted, not just by me, but by two other editors on the Mass Killing/Genocide denial page because in your fervor, you again wrote "Genocide of Croats and Bosniaks" while linking to a page that doesn't explicitly mention the denial of mass killings.

Hope that helps clear things up. I'm glad to discuss things further on my talk page. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You have made edits based on emotion and personal opinion before. On the Genocide of Serbs page for example. And have been reverted and called out by other editors for it. Strange you accuse me of doing that. You are using your own opinions in your response as well as edits you have made. And making claims of my character that are untrue. In interactions with me you did not use sources to prove my sources wrong. Never did I make edits that I didn't back up with factual sources. That is incredibly dishonest to say. And proving my initial point. Firstly, accusing me of downplaying or excusing Ustashe crimes is definitely a personal attack and false. Not once did I excuse their genocide against Serbs or downplay in any of my edits or talk posts. Including other events and actions that contributed to their formation and crimes is not excusing or downplaying. I included insight from Tomasevich, a well respected historian who made the claims. They weren't my POV or opinions or just my feelings. However you demonstrated such attributes by deleting parts of my edit taken from his book. Because you felt it wasn't correct. Based on what I don't know. Not my issue. Peacemaker agreed with the edit, is he also excusing or downplaying Ustase crimes? You almost alluded to him doing so in the talk page and I countered your reply to him. There is no such think as a justified genocide. A another editor had stated on that talk page to one of you. Would it be excusing and downplaying 9/11 if we acknowledge that The West's actions in the Middle-East contributed to it? Of course not. Doing so is a way to shut up dialogue and insight into where these terrorists group come from. A valid comparison as I personally view the Ustashe as a Catholic form of ISIS. I am also not elevating Chetnik crimes as I am editing based on sources I came by. Had I edited based on my own personal research then you would be valid in your claim. The editor who shall no be named, labels those who question Chetnik anti-fascist loyalty or opens discussion about Chetnik crimes as Ustashe apologists. And he claims I have no honor? Please. That was the posts of his that was the last straw for me. So my issue was mainly with him. You deny the genocide happened ( I mean this in a literal sense in that you don't feel there are enough sources that validate it). Fine. But when deleting my edits, at least include edit comments stating your reasoning. Also notice how I don't have issue with Peacemaker or other editors with disagreeing with my point. I have no issue with disagreement.

Yes I am biased in that I fear that groups of victims and perpetrators will fall between the cracks of history due to failed acknowledgment. Failure to acknowledge history lead to the atrocities of the 90's. Denial of Ustahse and Chetnik crimes lead to history repeating itself . And this is a place for facts, no matter how unfavorable or uncomfortable they make one's self. If you want some of the truth heard, you have to have all of the truth heard.

Also note, you claim one would not say "Nazi Genocide against Poles" yet you made a recent edit to the genocide templates to say "Genocide of Serbs by Ustashe" I simply followed your formatting. Also as for why Croats and Bosnians, that is the order the sources put it in. Genocide of Croats and Muslims. Most of the time Serbs, Croats and Bosnians is not written in alphabetical order. So meaningless point. I reverted your edit so that is why it went back to that order. I am not pushing anything with that. Other editors who reverted me did so because I did not include citation next to the link. I have provided multiple sources stating Genocide against Croats as well.

I have included RS that states the killing of Croats as genocide. Personal feelings, interpretations and opinions are irrelevant to this issue (Taker your own advice here). The sources speak for themselves.

Many of the sources are not "Croatian Websites" and the Chetnik page literally talks about the Chetnik Directive if 1941 to form a Greater Serbian ethnically cleansing of non-Serbs to which the Chetnik head leader was aware as per multiple sources. You even said you don't deny that Chetniks tried to committee genocide. But they never fully succeeded in finishing. Neither did the Ustashe finish. Thankfully both were stopped. But complete extermination is not what only defines Genocide. The Bosnian genocide was not in whole but still regarded a genocide as that was the intent. But you basically are saying to do believe that was the Chetniks goal during WWII. Cited sources saying so matters. I don't base my edits on my feelings. I explain my edits through citation of books or other documents.

In many of my posts, I explicitly talk about The Ustase Genocide and how the Chetnik Genocide was largely in revenge of Ustahse crimes. I also stated multiple times that the number of Serb victims was way higher than number of Croatian or Bosniak victims. So you point about context is moot. I make aware the context many times. By your logic, I should accuse you of excusing or downplaying Chetnik crimes. But I won't because that would be nonsense and opinion driven. Just because genocide is committed in revenge doesn't negate it was genocide. I will clarify this with a excerpt from Tomaseviches book in reply to Peacemaker.

My edits aren't citing my opinions. I made those edits because I had sources to present as backing them. otherwise I wouldn't have made such edits. I will not entertain this pointless argument of personal matters further. I am here to discuss the validity and strength of the sources I found. I am not looking to spam this talk page with such wasted energy back and forths. So I won't respond to them further. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As to not continue the disruption of Peacemaker67's talk page, I've responded to you on my talk page 74.101.190.2. Thanks. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Cont. Discussion on Sources...Again

From before the interruption......On page 747 in his book War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945 , he states that the use of "widespread genocide" was the reason for high amount of human loss in Yugoslavia and that it was also used in revenge. He then goes on about how 'Serbs perished at the hands of the Ustashe" and that "Croats and Muslims perished at the hands of Chetniks". He clearly is painting both as acts of genocide. He claims that Italians up to September 1943 and Germans thought the war assisted in this genocide. Partly independently and partly through puppet regimes. Also saying Italians used the Chetniks, for example, to assist in killing of the Croatian population in parts of territory under Italian control (conflict with MacDonald). As for Redzic, sorry I gave the wrong page, page 155 is the one. Here he details how "after 3 year long Chetnik campaign against the Croats and Muslims, conducted int he form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to form an ethnically homogeneous territory for ther expansionist Serbian state" the order to incorporate Croats and Muslims into the Yugoslav army was "too late" and "unrealistic" as Chetniks became "desperate" for additional fighting power against Partisans. I am trying to get access to the page for Parson's. Will get back to you. Also, the wiki pages for list of massacres that were carried out in WWII Yugoslavia, there were a number of large scale massacres carried out by Chetniks against Croats specifically. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Chetniks were responsible for mass killing of Croats, they were. I'm uncomfortable with using Redžić for a claim of genocide against the Croats because of his ideological alignment with the Partisans and their propaganda against the Chetniks. I'll wait until you have Parsons before addressing Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

To stay on topic I moved this discussion to another talk section....again.... I will get back to you about Parson's as I am having a hard time looking for that page online.74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

Since you are a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history I though I would ask you this question.

In the case of the Afghan-Sikh Wars, is a source needed for the result to display either Afghan or Sikh victory? Or can the result be taken from the fact that one side won all the battles in the war?

If you are interested, this is the discussion, under the section Source misrepresentation. In all honesty, I could care less who won this war, I am only concerned with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and avoiding personal interpretations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day Kansas Bear. We only use a result for the whole war that is in the reliable sources. It is OR to analyse the results of individual battles and decide on an overall result. Sometimes a good approach where there is legitimate disputation over a result can be to put "See Aftermath section" in the result field of the infobox and explore what the sources say in that section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ustase

Sorry for asking this, but could you please change Category:Fascist organizations in the Ustase article to Category:Fascist parties, which was the original one? -- 191.33.124.106 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. p. 747.
2. Samuel Totten; William S. Parsons (1997). Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts. Routledge. p. 430. ISBN 978-0-203-89043-1. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
3. Redžić, Enver (2005). Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Second World War. New York: Tylor and Francis. p. 84. ISBN 978-0714656250.