Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Blurred information

The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks.

• This information is WP:OR because sources from the article do not speak this. Chetniks and also mobilisation at the end of 1944 increased the number of Partizans in Serbia, also every year of WWII has some other Partisan ethnic origin numbers. In 1944 Croats are not minority in resistance movement. They could have been(minority) after the massive mobilization and transition of the Chetniks to the Partisans in Serbia etc but then and this information must be stated. Mikola22 (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not Original research. Stop abusing "original research" as means to delete whatever you do not like. I can ask for admin oversight on this, if needed. We have RS here which are stating the same thing and the same fact was stated by Tito himself, look it up. 12:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

When it is not Original research then cite the source which has this information as a fact(minorities of Croats). We have a source in the article that talks about the number of Partisans in 1944 and they are not minority in that source according to Tito. Mikola22 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks” Over the entirety of the war according to the records of recipients of Partisan pensions from 1977, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 53 percent Serb, 18.6 percent Croat, 9.2 percent Slovene, 5.5 percent Montenegrin, 3.5 percent Bosnian Muslim, and 2.7 percent Macedonian. Much of the remainder of the NOP's membership was made up of Albanians, Hungarians and those self-identifying as Yugoslavs. According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat, 10 percent Slovene, 5 percent Montenegrin, 2.5 percent Macedonian, and 2.5 percent Bosnian Muslim.” So calling Croats a minority is POV pushing in the lead and downplaying contributions. I STRONGLY welcome admin oversight in this matter. OyMosby (talk)<

No POV pushing is what you are doing currently by presenting only half of information, Serbs were majority throught the war and Hoare also presents that. Here are the full citation "By the end of 1941 in the territory of the NDH Serbs comprised approximately one-third of the population but perhaps 95% of all Partisans. For the first year of its existence the rank-and-file of the Partisan movement was overwhelmingly Serb and though this numerical dominance lessened as the war progressed the Serbs continued to participate disproportionately in the movement at an all-Yugoslav level until the end of the war. The 1st and 2nd Proletarian Brigades were initially composed predominantly of Serbs from Serbia; the 3rd Proletarian Brigade of Serbs and Montenegrins from the Sanjak; and the 4th and 5th Proletarian Brigades of Montenegrins and Serbs from Montenegro. In Croatia (including Dalmatia) Serbs formed a majority of Partisans until 1943; in Bosnia-Herzegovina they formed a majority throughout the War that was never less than about two-thirds. NDH military intelligence estimated in late 1943 that about 70% of the Partisans' 3rd and 5th Bosnian Corps, that had jurisdiction over most of Bosnia proper, was Serb and that 30% was Muslim and Croat.ii By early May 1944, according to Tito, 44% of all Partisans in Yugoslavia as a whole were Serbs, 30% Croats and 2.5% Muslims.iii This represented the lowest that the Serb numerical share of the Partisan movement ever reached. At the end of 1977, according to the records of recipients of Partisan pensions, Serbs comprised 39.7% of the Yugoslav population but 53.0% of the recipients of such pensions. By contrast, Croats comprised 22.1% of the Yugoslav population and 18.6% of recipients. All other nationalities except Montenegrins and 'Yugoslavs' were under-represented among the recipients. In Bosnia-Herzegovina the Serb preponderance was greater still: overall 64.1% of all Bosnian recipients of Partisan pensions were Serbs, 23% were Muslims and 8.8% Croats." So that is from DR. Mark Atilla Hoare pg 4 only confirm the same statistic from other historians

Where is the problem? Serbs did make a majority and Croats did make a significant minority. And I also agree. put an administrator and lets deal with this. Also the second information posted from Mikola22 already exists in the article with the same author so it is unnecessary doubling. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

You can falsely accuse me of POV pushing all you like (I didn’t accuse you personally but that that sentence itself is pov in the article), I presented the sources stating Croats to be more than a minority like any other ethnic group. Remember the paragraph deals with late 1944 number not beginning of the war. If I am pov pushing than you are calling the scholarly sources POV pushing as well. 30% compared to 44% is not just a “minority”. Your quotes back my stance that the intro is misleading. I presented no “half information” that is what you did by saying Italin capitulation was the reason for the increase in Croat representation which is a part theorized truth by a source not the only reson.OyMosby (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

44% presents a majority if there is no other greater percentage and 30% presents significant minority in this case and yet again this was only at the end of 1944. Read the whole section, please.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

The intro material in question was added a day ago without any consensus. I am aware that 44>30 but minority implies same as all the smaller ethnic group make-ups. The percentage difference doesn’t seem that drastic to say minority. But again lets leave it to admins to settle the dispute. However mean time the stable version did not have this in the intro.OyMosby (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree about admins. Disagree about stable version since I cannot find who posted it a day ago. Maybe you should discuss it with Sadko or with other users. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

It was added yesterday [Here] but not by Sadko. In fact the whole intro was redone. The passage in question gives no context tothe fact that there was a Higher population of Serbs than Croats in Yugoslavia-and that Croatia proper(of which by 1942, with 24% of the Yugoslav population, provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Macedonia combined (though not more than Bosnia and Herzegovina) and by October 1943 the majority were ethnic Croats (in Croatia region)[this is cited in the article]. Again given that in Yugoslavia there were far more Serbs than Croats population size. That context should be also presented in the intro. OyMosby (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Partisans in whole Yugoslavia, that is the part that should be (and it is already included) in composition section (Croatian part), why dont you ping then user Morningstar1814 and discuss it with them. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

How do you mean? Excluding Bosnia, adding all those other regions (Including Serbia) is a sizeable portion of over representation in relation to Croatia’s population size. All regions of Yugoslavia except Bosnia. Yes it is in the Croatia section but the intro is a perspective and summary of the whole article And that seems relevant context for the intro if we include the sentence in question as initially stated in this thread by Mikola22. Again I understand numbers, but they aren’t so far apart. Where as Bosniak and other groups were far smaller it implies Croat representation to be as small. At least it seems to present itself that way. Also please note I ask for admins not to go after anyone but to offer a fresh pair of neutral eyes on the matter. Tis all. @Morningstar1814: being that you had reworked the intro yesterday could you please chime in? Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: "Where is the problem? Serbs did make a majority and Croats did make a significant minority". Where in the sources write this fact "significant minority"? Source in the article claim that "by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat" This is not "significant minority" fact. Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Because majority of Croatian partisans were Serbs up until 1943. and remained significant part until the end of war and as in other parts of Yugoslavia Croatian partisans were of mixed ethnicity in different ratio. So to put this into lead requires more unnecessary details which are explained in composition section. Lead should remain summarised. Go ahead call admins discuss it and then also discuss with the user Morningstar1814. As for Mikola22 again 30% compared to a 44% is a minority, significant (you know BIG)User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact you are both ignoring so lets repeat : "By early May 1944, according to Tito, 44% of all Partisans in Yugoslavia as a whole were Serbs, 30% Croats and 2.5% Muslims.iii This represented the lowest that the Serb numerical share of the Partisan movement ever reached." So the percentage decreased during the years.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t ignore your “repeated” quote since if you fully read my replies I me tion those figures”......I also mentioned Croat representation increased through the years. I said that already. Never ignored this. And the intro paragraph talks about 1944 not 1941, so you pretty much proved my point. The paragraph isn’t a snapshot of 1941 but the entire span of years. So your comment of “decreasing during the years” isn’t relevant to the sentence we are talking about. As Serb representation ratio was high in 1941 but not the entire war. OyMosby (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your point being? If you count the whole period of war (1941-1945) the ratio was 53% Serbs 18% Croats, so again you know majority(53%) significant minority (18%) or if you only want to count 1944 (30% but again article is about Partisans through the whole war). And the Serb representation was high enough trough whole war to be called majority.

Definiton of the word significant: "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 (

My point being the paragraph talks about the time line at 1944. And that 44 to 30 isn’t that big a difference to say minority to lets say Slovene and Muslim (2%) portions. They are not all the same minority portions. Hence better wording is needed or context. I never denied that Serbs made the highest number of all throught the war, the wording is my issue. Which is why restating numbers isn’t conducive to this talk. Look at the intro as is now: “ Primarily a guerilla force at its inception, the Partisans developed into a large fighting force engaging in conventional warfare later in the war, numbering around 650,000 in late 1944 and were organized in four field armies and 52 divisions.. The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks. The main stated objectives of the Partisans were the liberation of Yugoslav lands from occupying forces and the creation of a federal, multi-ethnic communist state in Yugoslavia.” The 53% and 18% figures is that from source or averaging? The intro is talking about the overall outcome. Else shall we state each year and stats? Again let’s wait for Morningstar1814 input. OyMosby (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes from the source, you can read it above, about your problem with the wording, look it is obvious that we are disagreeing, so lets see what will User:Morningstar1814 answer and after that I dont know maybe @Sadko: since he also was part of discussion and we let admin to deal with it. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020

Sorry I was answering when you reedited. Agree let see what will Morningstar1814 say. After all it was their edit.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry for my numerous re edits. I tend to have a bad habit of constantly re-editing my replies as my mind keeps coming up with things to say right after I submit my comments. It drives some people mad haha. Personal flaw of mine, OCD. Fair enough. And just want to put out it out there I can understand your views on this and where you are coming from. I hope no ill feelings. We disagree but that’s what talk pages are for. Hashing it out. Hopefully the others can give input. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for your kind words.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was alerted to this topic with regard to an improper edit, that I undid it on simple WP:V grounds without examining the discussion above. I will merely remind everyone that observing verifiability is not optional, and that whenever material is posted without inline citations, and challenged, the onus is on the poster of unsourced information to provide a citation, rather than vice versa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well then please address to a User who posted it and also please dont add the same information that already exists in article.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Please understand that you have now the same information under composition and under the new section you created. It is the same author too. You are unnecessary doubling the same infoUser:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020

@Theonewithreason: Transfer what you think to a new section or delete. New section has priority. Mikola22 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: you used an improper edit summary, it did not explain that you were removing a duplicate cited sentence. Please review Help:Edit summary for the future. I misread the edit summary, it did mention something about duplication before, but it was apparently too convoluted for me to parse it. Apologies. With regard to the sentence without citation in the lede, as it is challenged and remains without citation, I will remove it again. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section on that topic - if you're not going to carefully source it, don't add it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:@Theonewithreason:@Mikola22: Hello all, I was reworking the lede the other day so that it sufficiently summarize the most important contents of the article. I do admit that not enough thought was put into the wording of the line regarding the ethnic composition of the Partisans, which was a last minute addition to the lede. I'm happy to defer to you all and accept the outcome of this discussion. That said, a few more points from me:

1) The "majority Serb" line was meant to refer to the ethnic composition of the Partisans over the entirety of the war, not in 1944, and that is backed up through Hoare's sources in the body. 2) Late 1944 was chosen as a data point only for the "650,000" line to offer an idea about the overall size of the Partisans. 3) If we think the wording of the lede is confusing to the reader, could come across as contentious or does not reflect the nuances of the Partisan's ethnic composition throughout the war, I'd recommend that we either drop the line from the lede altogether or rephrase it so that we'd show the multi-ethnic nature of the movement without quantifying it. Let the reader do that by referring to the actual numbers given in the body. --Morningstar1814 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the talk of ethnic composition is useful other than as a lightning rod for these kinds of discussions. If we look at e.g. the article Yugoslavia, it seems nobody noticed any need to even mention the demographics of the country in the lead section there, despite the fact its multi-ethnic nature was actually quite relevant for it. So what exactly would be the point of trying to do it in this lead section? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

May be best to leave the line out and let the article speak for itself and let the reader interpret. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and OyMosby. Also ethnic numbers vary through the years and make conclusion in the leed that Croat Partisans represent "significant minority" is not exactly in historical context and in line with some sources which exist in the article. Later in 1944, we had a massive mobilization in Serbia, also and some number of Chetniks become Partisans. With this information it would mean that they have all been together in the Partisan Movement since 1941. Serbs make up the majority but for "significant minority" fact we need some additional sources. Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even cherry-pick anything like that, because that still seems like editorializing. Instead - there should be plenty of reliable secondary sources on this topic, as any other for historical events that had transpired seventy odd years ago. If there this is something that is regularly and normally mentioned in them, that would support this kind of a phrasing, sure, let's include it with citations. But until something like that is done, doing this seems like meaningless flamebait. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

All the sources confirm that the Serbs were majority through the years, about the voting I disagree but I will not change the last edit made by user: Joy so I will respect your decision also would like to point out that recent edits made by user:Mikola22 in the newly created section [[1]] also exist under composition section so they are again doubled @OyMosby:@Morningstar1814:@Joy: so maybe you could do some edits about that. I reached my quota for today.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020

They do indeed. The information needs to be included in the lead as it is very relevant. If we have sources which are claiming and describing the Croat part as "noteworthy/significant/notable minority" that can be added as well and other ethnic groups could be listed afterwards. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You say "all the sources" - so please cite some. I went looking in the Composition section, and the first listed source is from Hoare, and I was able to find it on Google Books, where page 207 of the referenced book says "The Partisan movement would consequently be disproportionately Serb in ethnic composition - though not to the extent claimed subsequently by Serbian-nationalist propaganda". That does nothing to assuage the WP:UNDUE concerns raised here, in fact it exacerbates them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that Hoare is undue and not reliable? His extra comment is irrelevant. You got to be kidding. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:INTEGRITY. Misrepresenting what sources say is far from a triviality. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I should mention that I also try to check the other citation there, from Milazzo, but https://books.google.com/books?id=GZ6-DwAAQBAJ&q=predominantly%20Serb%20movement didn't let me find page 186 nor did it find such a phrase in there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well if you are so interested in that, please scroll up to my first comment where I quoted Hoare, he is very detailed in that, also the same info can be found with Goldstein ,Jakovina etc. meaning that they are agreeing so the info is definitely not misinterpreted User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I found that at https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2412618/pdf and this claim is indeed stated there, in context of concluding how the Serb population in the first part of the war was "probably" part of either Partisan or Chetnik armed band "for purposes of defense, plunder, or national revenge". So, by extension, should an article about WWII in Yugoslavia lead with "Most of the Serb population of Yugoslavia during WWII was armed for various purposes, including plunder", or would we all recognize that this was WP:TENDENTIOUS? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You are missing a point since it is obvious that you dont read sources. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 29. November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Uncomfortable topic: Mass executions

I have read the entire article, and there is not one mention of the executions or crimes of the partisans. I understand we should not try to degrade partisans but if the chetniks and others can have their crimes presented why are the Yugoslav partisans given special treatment? I am new to Wikipedia, so please do not take offense, I am not on a crusade against the partisans but historical accuracy is necessary to tell the entire story. It seems to be a common theme for all partisan wiki pages, except this one, to mention their crimes as well as their actions for freedom that is all. 173.77.40.215 (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article addresses this topic in the section Yugoslav Partisans#Atrocities. Doremo (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

the atrocites section maybe? 142.54.9.83 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

i would argue wikipedia is biased against communists (of no fault of its own) but it does mention these 'atrocities' 142.54.9.83 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)