Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Liberation Front of Slovenian People

Liberation Front of the Slovenian People should be added to Formation section and a link could also be provided to TIGR, as many TIGR members joined partisans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Raid at St. Lorenzen -> Raid at Ožbalt

This section is incorrect and contains wrong information.

Firstly it given impression as if there was some some outside command of the raid by some "Allied escape organization". Instead it was organizsed solely by POWs Ralph Churches and Les Laws with one outside Slovene informant (first breakout) and them in connection with Slovene Partizans (second raid).

Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria and even though near the border, this is not Slovenia. There was no resistance to Nazi government in Austria. The raid happened in Slovenia in place called Ožbalt near Lovrenc na Pohorju in Slovenia. Seven freed POWs spent the first night in Lovrenc na Pohorju, and the Šercer's Brigade operating in Slovene Styria and Pohorje just liberated Lovrenc na Pohorju from German presence in days around first breakout. Also in Sankt Lorenzen (1) in Austria there is no railway, which was maintained by POWs; while the railway goes directly through Ožbalt next to Drava river (2) (larger map with both shown (3)). Both places, Sankt Lorenzen and Lovrenc na Pohorju, are quite close, maybe that's the reason for the mixup.

I modified the original article, but it should be still moved to name Raid at Ožbalt (for some reason I can't do that). It should be checked by someone with better english skills and section in this article should be modified accordingly. I've also added some more outside documentation to the original article. Žarišče (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Be advised: Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name in English. In English sources, the raid is called "Raid at St. Lorenzen". All else is irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria. Railway doesn't go through Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald. Unless you are saying that POWs were reparing an imaginary invisible railway, this section is incorrect. Žarišče (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, all I know is that sources call the whole thing "Raid at St. Lorenzen". I have no idea where it is... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent POV

The Partisans were a movement that represented virtually every party and movement in Yugoslavia that opposed the Serbian-dominated monarchical dictatorship of the pre-war period. Many representatives in the AVNOJ were not socialists at all. The communist party led the coalition, but did not "dominate" it. Your wording, whatever its source, is unencyclopedic and quite incorrect, as it implies forceful control over other parties, movements and individuals of the AVNOJ. The communist party had neither the desire, the need, nor indeed the means to force people to enter into the People's Front coalition and support them in the middle of fighting Germany in one of the largest guerrilla wars in history.

There are many professional works on WWII Yugoslavia, and I've studied a lot (most?) of them. Before trying to bring your "communist exposition crusade" to these and similar articles, I would recommend, in the most friendly manner imaginable, that you read detailed works on the subject such as those of prof. Tomasevich [1] (without a doubt the most detailed and objective professional work on the subject, based mostly on OKW reports).

P.S. There is absolutely no reason to push the flag of the communist party into the article, simply because you think we need a little "red for communism". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And in Slovenia, partisan movement spread from activities of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People. Liberation front was founded on 27th of April 1941, which means that resistance in Slovenia has nothing to do with Axis invasion of Soviet Union, as the text suggests. Resistance day, celebrated on 27th of April, is still a holiday in Slovenia. And as you can read on the page about Liberation Front, it was a coalition of following groups: Communist Party of Slovenia, Christian Socialists, people from Sokol movement and individuals, with other groups joining later (such as pre WW2 resistance group TIGR). To say that partisan ideology was communist is simply a facutal blunder and POV. Žarišče (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How about actually adding some citations to the article which support these positions? Per WP:BURDEN the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Right now all I'm seeing is the replacement of sourced content with unsourced material and the wild allegation of POV pushing on the part of those editors who are actually using sources to what they are adding and are also kind enough to add edit summaries to the changes they have made. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you not noticed the link? Communism is obviously included into the "left-wing coalition" entry, and the article clearly states the movement was led by the communist party. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The source which is being used for Communism (Fisher) states that While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito. It would seem to be not NPOV to simply disregard that and leave other things in the ideology section which are not even currently sourced. If there are any other sources relating to ideology then please provide. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you continue to replace sourced content with unsourced material - the administrators will blocke you. Lt.Specht is absolutely right. BoDu (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they will follow your advice.

What is there to source? That the Partisans were the military wing of the People's Liberation Front? I presented Tomasevich's work here on the talkpage (which was ignored), where the Stanford scholar clearly describes the PLF as being the umbrella coalition of which the Partisans were essentially a military arm. The communist party was the leading member of the PLF, but the PLF obviously included other non-communist parties. Ideology of the PLF = ideology of the Partisans. How would you describe the ideology of the PLF? Communist?

In these sort of disputes the best thing to do is simply present the whole matter. I propose "Left-wing coalition, led by the communist party, republicanism, federalism" (the fact that the AVNOJ's goal was the formation of a federal republic is stated clearly in their declaration following the Second Session of the AVNOJ). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tomasevich's book was not ignored by myself. Although, I have only had the chance to briefly skim through it, which is why I requested if you know exactly what pages relate to politics/ideology it would be helpful. I'm in no way opposed to all aspects of the Partisans ideology being listed, as long as they are all properly sourced and cited (with reliable secondary sources, not proclamations/primary sources). In addition, according to Fisher, the Partisans main ideology was Communism, and it cannot be ignored. Having "led by the communist party" totally distorts what the source says. Lt.Specht (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, what you are doing is the WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original research. BoDu (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(BoDu, you're not really doing or writing anything constructive here, though your POV-pushing nonsense contribution to the edit war is appreciated. The nonsense you've pushed will be easily removed with a quick skim through any real source. Hope you're having fun, Chetniks were traitors. :)

@Specht, let me get a few things straight:

• The Partisans were the military arm of the Unitary People's Liberation Front (JNOF). Is this disputed?
• The ideology of the JNOF is the ideology of the Partisans. Is this disputed?
• There were many other distinctly non-communist political parties and factions that were included in the JNOF (in fact they actually far outnumbered the communists in every sense). Is this disputed?

If none of the above is disputed, I cannot see how we can be allowed t generalize in such a way as to present the JNOF as "communist". The source you've cited merely refers to the communist party's leading role in the coalition, a fact that should and has been pointed out. It is not a source that labels the whole movement as exclusively communist. (Tbh, I'm trying to avoid having to dig through five books just to prove a very obvious point that follows logically from the most basic facts. If the Partisans were of the JNOF, then they cannot be labeled as simply "communist", simple as that.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about JNOF things to comment (and it's article is completely unsourced...). I would say however, whatever the ideology of the JNOF might of been, and if it was the "political arm", it does not necessarily mean that all of the Partisans believed the same things. As one could say the NSDAP was the "political arm" of the German army during WWII, but not all German soldiers adhered to its ideology. What you honestly seem to be proposing is some kind of original research, if the JNOF was the political leadership of the Partisans, then automatically all of the Partisans would hold the same. Also, Fisher does not merely refer to the Communist Party's leadership, the source says "While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito." I also agree that labeling the Partisans in their entirety as Communist would be wrong, and more ideological stances should be added (properly sourced of course with attribution of the ideology to the Partisans). Lt.Specht (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is somewhat flawed. The NSDAP was the "political arm" of the SS, not the Wehrmacht (i.e. the SS was the military arms of the NSDAP). Since all SS troops were NSDAP members (apart from the non-aryan divisions), it is safe to say that the SS were Nazis. It is not safe to say the Partisans were communists, not by a long shot, since they were not the military arm of the communist party, but of the political coalition which the communist party founded, and which included utterly non-communist parties such as (a large faction of) the Croatian Peasants' Party.

I take your point that the Partisans might not've all necessarily shared the ideology of the JNOF in exact proportion to the parties included therein. In fact I'm willing to grant that most of them were likely communists by the end of the war, however: we do not know that. Reading your source I start to wonder whether it is possible to WP:VERIFY his claim. If there are no primary sources, the sentence is reduced to blind speculation on the part of an author. The whole thing then boils down to "Fisher considers that the Partisans were mostly communists". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure if WP requires secondary sources to contain inline citations of primary sources being used. I believe it is the other way around and primary sources require secondary sources for interpretation. I can't be certain if Fisher does or doesn't make reference to a primary source with that phrase as the notes and bibliography sections of the book is unavailable on Google Books. However, in the Acknowledgments section she states that "During my PhD and book research, I interviewed more than one hundred Slovaks and Croats from political parties, government ministries, NGOs, the media, academia, and cultural organizations in an effort to better frame my approach to the complicated issues that are discussed in this book. While many of those interviews are feferenced directly in the text, other interviews provided me with insightful background information..." Her book has also cited somewhat in other works [2], and is published by an academic publisher. There are also literally dozens, if not more, of other reliable secondary sources which make note of the Partisans communist ideology or it being part of their ideology, and others labeling them as communists [3]. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If an author's assertion is not backed by primary sources (interviewing 60 Croats is not a primary source), but is thus his own professional opinion, requesting that such an assertion be attributed to the author in the text is pretty standard - particularly if the statement is contested. In other words, the encyclopedia should state this is the author's own opinion.

Secondly, there is no question that communism was one of the ideologies of the Partisans, and I do not see the point of your confirming an unchallenged fact. Its just that they stood for a wide range of political views besides. Whether communism was the ideology of the majority of the movement just isn't known, and there is no way we can know whether it was. On that subject the only kind of information can possibly be author speculation (unless an assertion of that kind can be found that is backed-up by primary sources). To use your own words, we are dealing with highly controversial political labeling here, and cannot be too careful in pursuit of NPOV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, saying that the communist party had a leading and founding role in the JNOF coalition is perfectly correct, it is even correct to state that their influence over the coalition increased significantly after the numerous military successes brought on by commanders who belonged to the communist party (particularly Josip Broz Tito). What I'm having trouble with is the assertion that the Partisans were "mostly communist(s)". This is unknown and highly speculative. The JNOF and Tito were actively backed by Winston Churchill, a staunch opponent of communism (a move that was later vindicated when Yugoslavia broke with the communist bloc). The Partisans are not a "standard-issue communist movement" the likes of which you can find in the Cold War, they are very much more complex and rather unique in their political diversity. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Lt.Specht, this issue is not resolved. Should you not respond I will edit the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have that much more to add for my opinion. Right now the article does not state that the Partisans were only or mostly communist. Other ideologies are welcome to be added if properly sourced. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not invited to express opinions, but to work towards WP:CONSENSUS on a text acceptable to both. You are under the wrong impression. If I do not edit the article to facilitate discussion, that does not mean we have agreed upon a version, nor that you've managed to force your opinions through. You may find this is very unlikely to work.

Quite simply, "Communist-led" is the most widely agreed-upon term describing Partisan ideology. This is what the infobox will say under "Ideology:". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be totally incorrect, dozens of reliable academically published sources do not state the Partisans ideology was only "Communist-led", they state that it was Communism or in part Communism. Oxford and MIT press would not be publishing this stuff if it was wrong. I would challenge you to find a source which states the ideology was "Communist-led". Lt.Specht (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If other sources exist which describe other ideologies it could be added as such "Communism, federalism, republicanism...etc." Lt.Specht (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Herr Leutnant, please have a look at this link [4]. You really seem bent on making me waste time proving the obvious. "Communist-led" is also how the movement is described on Britannica, and by Wikipedia consensus on the World War II article itself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Koven, please do not edit-war, lets keep the article stable while the discussions are on. Feel free to join-in however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Koven's edit used encyclopedia britannica and a google search as references, neither comply with WP:RELIABLE, so I have reverted it. (Hohum ^@) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact that the Partisans were led by communists (they also had communist political commissars). Having "Communist-led" for the Partisans ideology is a completely different thing, however. After looking through some of the books in the search result its important to note that many of them discuss further what the ideology/goals of the Partisans were rather than just only the fact that they were led by communists. For example, in Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed (Columbia University Press, 1995) by Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine the authors write on page 136:

"...Finally, it became a struggle for a revolutionary social transformation, since the Communist Party of Tito and his Partisans espoused an ideology that advocated an end to the old order. These three conflicts were interwoven and at times indistinguishable. They resulted in violence and devastation of unprecedented proportions, but they also led to a radical recasting of Yugoslav society along lines dictated by Tito and his triumphant Partisans. Bosnia, in the geographic center of Yugoslavia, was at the heart of these epic struggles. Its rough, mountainous terrain and the immediately adjacent areas of Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia became the primary theater of conflict between the Communist-led Partisans and the German and Italian invaders who relentlessly pursued them."

Another source that I found seems to sum everything up, that the Partisans were indeed led by communists, and that some of the Partisans espoused the same ideology.

"The Partisans, under Tito, were Communist-led and gathered all the others in the resistance for all-out war against the Germans. In the end, the Chetniks fought arm in arm, according to Radomir, with the Germans against their brother Yugoslavs, opposing the Partisans as Communists, though in fact, the Partisans were only a partially Communist group." The monks of Mount Athos: a western monk's extraordinary spiritual journey on eastern holy ground (SkyLight Paths Publishing, 2003) by M. Basil Pennington.

To conclude, its quite easy to see that the Partisans were at least partially communist, and espoused the ideology of communism. Having simply "Communist-led" under ideology completely distorts what dozens of sources say, and is certainly not NPOV. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And because various groups joined Partisans (such as Christian Socalists in Slovenia, and other groups in other republics of ex-Yu) it is also quite easy to see that the Partisans were also at least partially under influence of other ideologies, such as Christian Socialism. Editors of the article should name the ideologies of all participants of the partisan movement, not just communism, or extract commonalities of those ideologies (and that's how I understood Director's "Left-wing coalition, republicanism, federalism"). Žarišče (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, Lt. Specht, you are really funny guy. Žarišče (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What I personally find rather hilarious is that some editors are now removing material which is cited by Prof. Tomasevich's book which is "without a doubt the most detailed and objective professional work on the subject". By the way, from page 96:

"The Communist-led resistance in Slovenia was part of the general Communist-led resistance throughout Yugoslavia, whose objective was to establish a Communist-ruled Yugoslav state."

If there's any sources which describe "Christian Socialism" or "Left-wing coalition, republicanism, federalism" then please show them. Otherwise this is starting to be tedious and obvious POV pushing with no sources to back up any claims. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to be a nationalist, if enemy occupies the country and starts to execute a plan for destruction of an ethnic group. Anyway I don't have Tomasevich's book so I don't know what he wrote. Is he dealing with situation in Slovenia at all? Slovene partisans were never under command of Yugoslav resistance and it's political head. Resistance in Slovenia didn't start in 1941 but in 1920's with Slovenes living in then fascist Italy. Slovene partisans were a heterogeneous group, made of many different grupation, and their units were politically joined in common Yugoslav command structure only in May 1945. This is so, and no matter what sort of nonsense Wikipedia has, it will still be so. Žarišče (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Historian Janko Prunk's articles, among other "Way of Christian socialists in the Slovene Liberation Front". Žarišče (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox War Faction

In the Infobox War Faction under

• ideology; there is (beside Communism) Slovene nationalism which leads to Slovenes?
• headquarters; there is mobile, maybe to list couple of them?
• area of operations; there is Axis-occupied Yugoslavia, but Rijeka, Istria and Trieste were part of Italy before the war. Maybe a note would be sufficient here?
• strength; there is up to 800,000 men, maybe max. 800,000 men at the end of the war (if Partisans had 800,000 men at the begining of the war, things would be different?)
• opponents; there is no Chetniks.

Can this be corrected, deleted or improved? Kebeta (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian nationalism too?

The 800,000 figure is misleading... for most of the war there is much less. Still it says "up to 800,000" on there... so that is somewhat of a problem, as far as I'm concerned. (LAz17 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Agreed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian Partisans

LAz, you are highly POV in this issue, plus you are not terribly well informed (you were dead wrong on the issue of Croatian Partisans, you were dead wrong on the issue of Chetnik collaboration). There is absolutely no way you will introduce this POV which is, I stress, your own personal view and idea that "Croats joined the Partisans when it was all over". This has already been thoroughly disproved by sources. Quoting Cohen's objective figures based on actual research:

"By the end of 1943 Croatia proper, with 24% of the Yugoslav population, provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Macedonia combined which collectively accounted for 59% of the Yugoslav population."

I am sorry, but you are dead wrong and you have seriously flawed preconceptions about WWII Yugoslavia ("it was all Serbs", etc). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1) You will not remove this sourced statement: "As the movement penetrated the mainstream and reached critical mass, by 1943 the majority of Croatian Partisans were Croats.".
• 2) You will not introduce the unverifiable claim that "Only in 1944 did Croats join the Partisans in significant numbers, not because they preferred a multiethnic Yugoslavia, but because they preferred a Yugoslavia that was not cleansed of Croats".
  No source could possibly verify this subjective nonsense claim with any kind of primary source whatsoever, thus immediately placing it below the verifiability requirements of WP:V (how in the world does can this person fathom the thoughts and motivations of Croatian partisans?). Not only that, it is actually directly contradicted by serious objective data.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What I put up is sourced. I put a direct source there ,and you ignore it.

I do not say it was all serbs. You on the other hand are the one who is pov. But your nationalism is yugoslav commie nationalism.

Lastly, it is wrong to talk to partizans in croatia as "croatian partisans", because croats did not compose 100% of the partizans there. It's like what they did way back when, when they created the croatian orthodox church, in an attempt to say that serbs did not exist. (LAz17 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Do not lie with your sources. You have mis-sourced things before, until you got put in line with the draza mihajlovic mediation. The source for the lie that you claim, [5] on page 94 says nothing about total composition in 1943. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

I am wrong on one thing... it's page 95, not 94 in the link. Sorry. But, regardless, Bosnia and Herzegovina contributed far more in terms of partizan divisions back then. Therefore there is no reason to have subsection croatia and not one for bosnia. It is well known what fueled partizan ranks early on - croat savagery on the serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

The 1943 thing can not be sourced. As can be seen, the source is wrong, because there is source number 61. Therefore, what can we say about that huh? The book is not the source, the book simply states a source which we do not have. (LAz17 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

If you had read my post you would have read this. The claim is unverifiable by standards of WP:V. There are no primary sources quoted. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the claim is utterly unsourced. Furthermore, no primary source could possibly back-up the claim presented.

The subject of that section are not Serbs in Croatia, but Croats.

The statement is on page 95. I am not concerned with your criticism of a published scholar. Unlike your source, this statement is verifiable as it has multiple primary sources. It was published by a peer-review university press. Its the strongest possible source ("Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science" WP:V)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That statement is no better than the one I put. Source 61 on page 95 is not available. So it could be a neonazi website for all we know. See how you are one sided?? (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

The Kaufman source is the best one to use. It is from an accredited journal, which you for some reason claim is not. University sources - I spit on what you call university sources - a university press does not mean anything. University presses simply publish things to make money. Journal articles from accredited journals is what matters. That is my source, check it out [6] in the International Security journal via harvard and MIT - pretty top of the line source. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

AGAIN: WP:V. The source is better than the one you put as it is verifiable, while your is not verifiable. The source does not have to be available on the internet to be used (translation: nobody cares you cannot read it). A "neo-nazi website" is not a primary source at all, so I seriously doubt it would be listed in a scholarly university.

The book itself is quality, the statement is NOT. Why? Beacuse it is unverifiable by Wikipedia policy - the statement has no primary sources do you get it? Its like it isn't even there as far as Wiki is concerned. What are we even talking about?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Look lets cut to the chase: does your secondary source have a primary source to back up the (ridiculous) claim (as is required)? Yes or no? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The cohen source is not a scholarly university source. Take university out, but you may say from a university press. But that is the point - university press things are made for popular reading. They are not academic. What makes something academic is if it is in the journals. Until there is a source where cohen's claim came from, stop putting it in. (LAz17 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

You do not know what a university press is:

"A university press is an academic, nonprofit publishing house that is typically affiliated with a large research university, and publishes work that has been reviewed by scholars in the field."

Texas A&M University Press is a university press, i.e. "the most reliable sources where available". You might also read what peer review is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand that my source is from a big journal. Peer accredited, the top of the line from Harvard. You just can't top that with your uncertain thing. Sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

For the sixth time in this thread: I understand completely that your source is from a big journal. Ok? Are we past that? You won't repeat that again will you? The issue is NOT that your source is unreliable.

Now read this carefully because, seventh time: The issue is that the statement you are sourcing with it does not have primary sources. Ok? Primary sources. No primary sources to back up that statement from your author. Primary sources behind that silly claim: none. What does that mean? That means that the statement is unverifiable as fact. Do I need to repeat this for the eighth time? No primary source - no good. Primary source - good.

Next, it is absolutely and totally irrelevant that you cannot see that primary source for free on Google Books. Ok? So, the fact that you yourself, some random guy on Wikipedia, cannot see page 262 of some non-free book for free right here and now - does not invalidate the fact that there is a primary source.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If my source is not unreliable then why are you so keen to remove it?!

Cohen's source can not be confirmed. Whereas what I am saying is common knowledge - While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs. [7] (LAz17 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources. Because it does not have primary sources.

Cohen's CAN be confirmed. Easily. You just need the book. It is absolutely and totally irrelevant that you cannot see that primary source for free on Google Books. Ok? So, the fact that you yourself, some random guy on Wikipedia, cannot see page 262 of some non-free book for free right here and now - does not invalidate the fact that there is a primary source.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it does not have to be primary sources, then we clearly have my article which is fine by that logic. At any rate, if cohen is not the original source then he should not be used as the source. You seem quite bothered by the thought of having that checked. That's a shame, really. (LAz17 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Information needs to be:

• 1) published in a secondary source, primary sources alone cannot be listed as they constitute WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
• 2) supported by primary sources listed in the secondary source. Otherwise its just author opinion, and particularly if its directly contradicted by university publications.

Cohen meets both criteria. Kauffman (who was NOT published by Harvard that was an obvious lie on your part) does not support his statement with any primary sources. I know. I read the article. The sentence is dribble.

Again, please by all means do check whatever you like. Just don't tell me that Wikipedia should reject a top quality source because you cannot read one of its pages. We will not be disregarding sources based on their availability on Google Books. Your demand to see the book yourself is your own problem, not mine. I do not have to buy you a book to "make you believe me". Wikipedia demands that the source be published and supported with primary sources. That it is. The fact that its not completely free shall not be grounds for its rejection. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have opened a discussion on kaufmann bellow so I addressed that there. He is the primary source and he has been republished.

As for your cohen source - you clearly do not know how to cite material. It is a fact that one does not cite cohen, but that one cites "so and so, in cohen." You clearly failed or did not take the basic english composition sequence required of all bachelor degrees in the US. The second semester of the composition sequence really grills you down on the sources. And then in your field, if you even are an academic, you gotta publish or at least write papers to get the degree - in writing those papers you gotta cite stuff, and you would clearly lose points by citing the way that you do. But, you are from Croatia... in the former Yugoslavia the pre-university school system is superior to that of the US. So, people there are ready to jump into medical school right away - that is what you are in. In the US however people have to go through college and then go to medical school. That's an extra four years, or three - but for those extra years they have to have the english sequence and in it they learn not to cite improperly, which is what you clearly do. (LAz17 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

What nonsense. No. You do not know how someone cites material. You have obviously never even read Wikipedia policy, and have no knowledge of scientific referencing methods. Material is considered valid only when it is published in peer review. Enough of this charade. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bought the book. Cited from p. 95 (relevant notes are on p. 197):

"The majority of Partisans in Croatia were Croats.⁶¹ By the end of 1943, Croatia proper - which contained about 24 percent of the total Yugoslav population - had provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Macedonia, which, combined, made up 59 percent of Yugoslavia's population.⁶² Overall, the Partisans from Croatia were 61 percent Croat and 28 percent Serb, the rest comprising Slovenes, Muslims, Montenegrins, Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Jews and Volksdeutsche.⁶³"

• Note 61: From 1941 through 1945, there were a total of 228,474 Partisans in Croatia, of which 140,124 were ethnic Croats and 63,710 were ethnic Serbs. See Yugoslav state records, Jelic (1978), p. 304.
• Note 62: Irvine (1993), p. 171.
• Note 63: Đuro Zatezalo, Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945 (Karlovac, 1985), pp. 53-55, cited in Irvine (1993), pp. 171-72. Most of the Serbian defectors returned in response to an offer of amnesty. Of more than one dozen prominent defectors brought to trial in mid-July, 1944, five were executed and the rest received long prison sentences.

While I know you will now try to discredit J. A. Irvine, simply because of the apologetic nature of your attitude, it should be quite fascinating to see you try. Should you actually continue to dispute the verifiability of the data I shall copy-paste this whole quote on WP:ANI and ask people whether they too think the way you do (LoL). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1) IF, and a big IF, those are the real sources, then you should learn from that example - to learn how to source materials. Cohen is not the source!! The way to do it is "so and so IN this and that".

2) The note on comparing yugoslav population is complete bullshit. The reason why is because for example... vojvodina had quite a few people. But partizan activity there was zero for most of the war. Hence it is stupid to compare total populations of other republics. If we did we would clearly see that most of the partisans came from bosnia and herzegovina, not from croatia. So why elevate the croat ones any more than others? That very discussion is POV, directed towards favoring the croats.

3) note 63 clearly states that this was the situation in 1945. In other words at the end of the war. We should note that year if we are going to include those figures in the article. Further, we all know that by then many ustasha had joined partisan ranks. It's interesting to see that even at the end of the war, the serbs were over-represented in Croatia. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

1) It is extremely annoying to be lectured on sources from someone who has no idea whatsoever how to source anything at all. Cohen is the secondary source, those are his primary sources. It is absolutely incredible that you demand primary sources here, and yet you have none yourself in your Kauffman source.

2) I do not care what you think about the note.

3) No, that is not the 1945 situation. It is the name of the book which stored the data "Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tuđman source

Tudjman is not acceptable whatsoever as a source. He is an active holocaust denier. At any rate, I do not recall him speaking out against the ustashe or nazis, as he glorified them and even claimed that genocide is a natural phenomenon. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please remember this with care: you do not get to "proclaim" sources as "invalid". Tuđman, while unpopular certainly unpopular among Serbs (and some Croats like me :), is not considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia. Do not remove sources and engage in section blanking - that will not go well for you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not me declaring that the source is not valid. Mein Kamph can not be an acceptable source. Joan Peter's from time and memorial, a fraud book about the jewish-palestinian conflict is a BAD source. Tudjamn is a BAD source, weather I like him or not. The guy openly said that "genocide is a natural phenomenon" - does that make it acceptable to be put into an encyclopedia, just because some fanatic bigot said something?

My actions with removal of his stuff is clearly in good faith. (LAz17 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Yes. You are "declaring" Tuđman to be an unreliable source. And no, you cannot declare any book an unreliable source - not even Mein Kampf. In short its not your rules we will be following, but Wikipedia policy. In other words: nobody cares what your personal opinion on the author might be. Your opinions, just like mine, are completely irrelevant. Go on the net and find someone (from outside Serbia or Croatia) who is his professional peer and thinks what you do if you want to discredit him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just gave examples of how tudjman discredited himself. It's all the same with you guys - if it is from the University of Belgrade's Geography department(republished on rastko) then it's supposedly biased. But coming from the propaganda machine of croatia - then it's not biased. Tudjman is not reliable, that's simply something that everyone should accept. The guy said that only half a million jews died in world war II. So how on earth is he reliable? His claims are factually wrong. Hence the reason to discredit his nationalist propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

I do not give a damn about anything you have to say. Find a historian that agrees with you or stop trying to discredit a historian. You are not his equal in the field of history. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tudjman discredited himself by being a holocaust denier and by claiming that genocide is a natural phenomenon in his book wastelands of history. He is a POV biggot. There is no other way to describe his factually incorrect nationalist hatred that he has gone about spreading for quite some time. (LAz17 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Again: you are not called upon to say who has or has not "discredited himself". How would you know, are you a historian? You seem unable to understand that you, some random internet person, are not someone who can discredit published scholars based on the fact that you think they "discredited" themselves. Why should I care that you say he discredited himself? Find someone with a history degree that agrees with you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ANY holocaust denier has automatically discredited themselves by simply denying the holocaust. It is not just me ripping on him, countless people have ripped on him. The guy was a nationalist bigot. Or... perhaps you too believe that 6-7 million jews did not die in world war two, that only half a million died? Perhaps genocide really is a natural phenomenon as tudjman suggests? If you do believe that factually racist bull-crap, then you have no place here. But that's not the point - you obviously do not believe the nationalist racist propaganda that this guy has sewn. The fact is that you are simply using him to extract as many sources that you can in order to built your own croat POV case to elevate the standing of the croats on this page and to reduce the standing of the serbs. Your insistence that Tito should not be called slovenian is proof of that. Your earlier insistence several months ago that the serbs were not the bulk of the partisans is another such example of how your ethnically motivated POV is very problematic. (LAz17 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please stop repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again. I do not care what you think about Tuđman - nobody does. Please show that SOMEONE ELSE thinks the way you do. Someone wi9th a degree.

But for the love of all that is good: stop saying what you think of Tuđman. I do not care. This is not a political forum. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of university published books on this subject. I don't think it's necessary to argue over the inclusion of an author and work as controversial as this. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, I am no fan of Tuđman, but before he is excluded I want to see someone evidence that his work is indeed controversial and discredited. In short, I do not believe LAz's own word on this. He likely has his critics, can it be so hard to find a negative review of his books? Or evidence that they are indeed controversial? Understand: in Croatia all we hear is praise for the old crook... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the book was first published in 1989 it's difficult to find online reviews of his book but he certainly was criticized for his revisionism and antisemitism. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Tuđman may be a historian but he also had a political agenda and there is no denying that. We must either take the book as a whole and, because of its nature, compromise the integrity of the article or ignore it all together and rely on the scholarly works that are readily available. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was impossible for LAz to find the above. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I just feel that it is totally stupid to go about finding sources that show such trivial information. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Kaufmann source

Please provide publication details about this source. It seems it was never actually published in scientific literature. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lolzors dude. Lolzers. Lolzers ^x3!!!

Whew. What a blast. This only proves that you do not even read what I write. I think that discussing with you is just about done. Do look at the link that I already provided [12], you can clearly see at the bottom of page six, harvard's "international security, vol. 20, no.4, spring 1996, 136-175". Just in general, even though you do not like to even bother considering stuff that you do not like, do take the time to do that. Really, do.

I found this article many years ago when I took a class in international relations. We used that charming book "conflict after the cold war, arguements on cuases of war and peace by betts". It's a classic. Kaufmann was republished in part six of the book. [13] They could have done more though. They really did not give him enough there, it should be the centerpiece article of the entire book... but at least he got some credit. (LAz17 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

On second thought, perhaps you might wonder if kaufmann even exists? You know, first the article does not exist, then the guy himself does not exist, who knows what other things might be used? Here, [14] , you even have his contact info so you could go and harass him about that publication or another of his very many publications. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please answer the question, do not avoid the main issue. Does Chaim Kauffman quote anyone or anything in support of his statement that:

"In 1944, with German withdrawal imminent, did Croats join the Partisans in significant numbers, not because they preferred a multiethnic Yugoslavia, but because they preferred a Yugoslavia that was not cleansed of Croats."

Is there any primary source there? Anything at all? If not, the sentence can only be attributed to Kauffman personally. Is there any primary source there? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1)Spell the guys name properly dude.

2)Kaufmann is the original source. Just like Irvine is for your other stuff up above. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Lol... "the original source"? Um, there is no such thing. Once again you've shown that you have no idea how sources work in either Wikipedia nor scientific literature.

Kaufmann is a secondary source. Kaufman has no primary source. The sentence in there is Kauffman's own opinion. It is dribble. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Partisans

As it happens, numerous sources say that the partisans were for the most part serbs. In the beginning and in the end. So, it's fair to say that if there is a Croatian section, there should also be a Serbian section. Whereever you put your nose you can see that the sources indicate that the Serbs were pretty much the partisans. I confirmed this earlier, but Direktor just had to make a new section called Croatian Partisans. A reminder, While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs. [15] - we could find this stuff anywhere, from basic history books to articles and etc...

This section that I opened in the talk page is not about discussing weather or not this is SO, it is so and it is on the current page of the article. But there is no reason to elevate the croats in a section when they were a minor part. For crying out loud, the higher command was almost ALL serbian. (LAz17 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

Ok, present scholarly secondary sources citing primary sources. Nothing more, nothing less. That means published works of scholars that call on actual research. Yugoslavia kept very good records of this, you know. No Googled newspapers or TV shows, please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

TV shows, google, wtf? What kind of idiot do you take me for?

This however is the least of the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Just make sure your secondary sources are scholarly and that the relevant claims are supported by primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your recent edits constitute WP:VANDALISM, and are in clear violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Quoting WP:BRD:

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person.

LAz, you've ruined whole sections of the article and altered quoted text while inserting unsourced POV of the most nonsensical order. You will be reported for this outburst. Please revert these edits so that we may continue our discussion in a calm manner. Should you not do so, I will bring your behavior to the attentions of the administrators.
Be sure of one thing though: your edits will not stay in the article by means of WP:EDIT WAR. The ONLY way to permanently playce your edits there is here, on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, your edits are vandalism, for you claim that [16] international security is not a good source. You spit on my accredited source, and tell me that I should look for things from peer reviewed journal. International security is one such source, and even better it is a top of the line source, from the top university in the world, Harvard.

So when you accuse "unsourced POV", first look at what it is. Your criteria is "I do not like this, therefore it is unsourced POV". Sorry buddy, it does not work like that. (LAz17 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

My edits are not vandalism. Yours are. Perhaps you do not believe me?

My criteria is exclusively that of Wikipedia i.e my criteria is WP:V: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". You have no idea how sources work, read Wikipedia policy. Why am I even discussing this? A statement with no primary sources is unverifiable. I'm asking you again: please revert to the version before the conflict started. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous version was no better than this version. There was no source for it - well if you call 61 a source - but 61 is not available to be viewed. It is 61 that should be the source, not cohen. And what is 61? We don't know. Therefore it's nothing, until we do know. I think that the action for going forward here is via taking this to mediation. (LAz17 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Understand: nobody cares that you cannot read 61. Wikipedia does not require the source to be available on the internet. How can I explain this more directly? Stop saying you cannot read the source because that does not matter in the slightest. Not to me, not to Wikipedia. Nobody in their right mind would demand that sources be free on Google Books for them to be accepted.

LAzo, what you're doing is the most typical POV vandalism imaginable. Please listen to me: revert yourself and lets try to do this without bothering the admins. I assure you, you have violated policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

LAz please, lets not escalate this nonsense. Revert to the version before today so we can discuss calmly. The version will not stay on by edit-warring - it never does.

I am not reverting because I do not want to edit-war with you, but I will revert you and report you should you not please put the sources and the article back to yesterday's version (tonight). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting has nothing to do with escalation. The only possible solution here is mediation. That is the only way that your biased opinions stopped ruining the draza mihajlovic article. That worked. Therefore I hope that this would work here, right? (LAz17 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

"Reverting has nothing to do with escalation." Actually - yes it does. If you read any WP:Dispute Resolution guide whatsoever you would know that it does. Before a mediation starts, the article will be reverted to the state from before the conflict began, and then we will be spending the next two months waiting for a mediator, and then the next four discussing the basics of scientific literature and verifiability whilst writing whole books on the mediation pages. Be my guest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me the resources to go about dispute resolution and I'll go about that. The fact is that it is pointless to argue with you if something is not as you want it to be. That is how under extreme pressure the draza mihajlogic article is being made exactly how you do not want it to go. Therefore we have to go through that same procedure here, to get third, fourth, perhaps fifth people to come here and help build a new article that does not have your communist propaganda all over the place. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

producer??

Explain your extensive deletions, including the entire section of ethnic makeup here [17] (LAz17 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)). Especially troubling is the removal of this gem, [18] , that states the ethnic makeup in 1944 - Serbs and Montenegrins: 64%, Croats: 26%, Slovenes: 6%, Bosniaks: 2.5%, Others/Unknown: 1.5%... (LAz17 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Its repetitive. There's already a section regarding the composition of partisans and it should be under that section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)