Highly biased source[edit]

Đuretić was expelled from the Yugoslav Communist Party for national intolerance and chauvinism, was one of the strong Serbian nationalists within SANU, was close to Vojislav Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party and was involved with trying to whitewash the war crimes of Radovan Karadžić. At best, he must be attributed inline as a highly biased Serb-chauvinist source. The name of the book alone gives the game away. Another one that wasn't translated... I wonder why? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another selfrefuttal. If some authors was expelled from Communist Party and elected to be member of academy, it is not indication that their work are unreliable. On the contrary. Nevertheless, I don't object attribution.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously he is highly biased, although you refuse to acknowledge that, in fact you seem to think that is an advantage rather than something to be wary of. This just demonstrates your clear POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following source explains many of the problems with using Đuretić as a source, including his revisionism:

Радановић, Милан (2011). "Историјска политика у Србији након 2000. Примери манифестовања спреге између академског историјског ревизионизма и државне ревизије прошлости". In Веселиновић, Ана; Атанацковић, Петар; Кларић, Жељко (eds.). Изгубљено у транзицији: критичка анализа друштвене трансформације (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14. 07. 2014. Retrieved 11. 06. 2014. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |access-date= and |archive-date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) [Radanović, Milan (2011). "Historical Policy in Serbia after 2000. Examples of Manifestation of the Link between Academic Historical Revisionism and State Revision of the Past." In Veselinovic, Ana; Atanackovic, Petar; Klaric, Zeljko (eds.). Lost in Transition: A Critical Analysis of Social Transformation] Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was also a member of the 1996 convocation of the Senate of Republika Srpska, appointed by another convicted war criminal, Biljana Plavšić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also this (copied from below to keep it in the same thread) further explains his extreme views and bias, and questionable status as a historian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Role of Italians[edit]

Does it look odd for Italians to aid unknown Serbs (Yugoslavs) against their supposed allies NDH (that had protection of mighty Germany), and then few weeks later some of them would shoot on them? -- Bojan  Talk  03:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Italians were up to all sorts of skullduggery, so it wouldn't surprise me, but I'll be looking for corroboration in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject as I rewrite the article. It can stay there for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes no seance that gave arms. It would be well known sooner and latter and Mussolini would have problem with Hitler. Also rebels might use same arms against dealers (Italians) especially if communist are present (and they were, indeed) -- Bojan  Talk  03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it is possible. From the beginning, the Italians did not like the NDH and sought to undermine it is numerous ways, including by supporting Chetnik groups. The question is whether this was occurring during this uprising or whether it was later. We'll see what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know for that. But one thing is clandestine undermining of NDH, totally different thing to (openly -> ustashe might find number of Italian rifles next to dead rebels and they will certainly ask how rebels got it) arm potentially own enemies against allies (officially) and infuriate Hitler who was winning the war against USSR (at that time). -- Bojan  Talk  03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Italians captured tens of thousands of Yugoslav rifles in the April War, and usually used these and captured ammunition to arm Chetniks, as many were former Royal Yugoslav Army troops and already familiar with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, they gave captured Yugoslav rifles to NDH. I doubt they foreseen that their once favorite Pavelić won't collaborate and appearance of Partisans and Chetniks. So how many would they have to arm rebels (even Chetniks might not be trustful, if you know that their king is siting in London) -- Bojan  Talk  03:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Italians were arm Ctehniks to fight partisans, not NDH. -- Bojan  Talk  03:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This just comes down to what the reliable sources say, not our opinions or assumptions. You'd be better off spending your time looking for sources that talk about the uprising and the Italians involvement than discussing it here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't me who wrote that Italians gave political and material support. So I ask for sources and logic. I would accept even pro-chetnik source backed by strong primary source that Italy materially supported (where, how much) (pro-Italian) rebels to from July till September 1941 to fight against NDH) All facts I wrote on this talkpage I backed with secondary source (who is both professional historian and witness, if not and participants of these event) Otherwise, i will delete every instance of Italian support. -- Bojan  Talk  04:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is sourced to a primary source, Bokan, so I have deleted the reference to the Italians providing arms for now. If I find a reliable secondary source that refers to it, I will re-add it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevertheless, it should be noted that Italy undoubtedly tried and succeed in exploiting the uprising for their cause: deploying their units in zone II (or III, i had to check sources). -- Bojan  Talk  04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm reconstructing guerrillas hierarchy prior and during the uprising. Mane Rokvić might toke part on attack onDrvar, but I sources give credit (even before I begun editing this article) to Slavko Rodić as man who made plan for attack on Drvar. It appears that Tešanović also did take part in the uprising (it is without much significance that he read command using battery lamp, but it is important that he did that in front of detachment organized by Slavko (Rodić?), but I couldn't find in which detachment he was and his role. Lukač list three detachments (Crvljivica, Kamenica, Javorani) attacked Drvar on 27 July, but Tešanović wasn't high in hierarchy of these 50-100 men strong detachments or wasn't even member of them. Bogunović was part of the uprising, but his rank was somehow equal to Simo Bajić's rank in Grahovo area (Lukač: Ove snage, pod rukovodstvom Sime Bajića, Pere Boltića i Brane Bogunovića, napale su na neprijateljsko uporište Strmicu, koju je branila jaka grupa ustaša i domobrana, i oslobodile ovo mesto. - Bajić and Boltić were communists; Boltić survived the war, described attack on Strmica and he didn't give any credit to Bogunović). Role of priest Ilija Rodić is totally unclear, I haven't find his name in any source I've checked. -- Bojan  Talk  03:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kosta Nikolić source[edit]

Kosta Nikolić is a Serbian historian known for his anti-communism, and for promoting academic historical revisionism including trying to rehabilitate Serbian WWII collaborators like Milan Nedić. I consider this source needs to be used very carefully, especially for anything controversial, and he should be attributed in-line at all times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence for these claims includes [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verification needed for Bosnia i Hercegovina (1970)[edit]

The citations to this source have no pages listed, and link only to a bare bones Google Books entry. A search of Worldcat shows no book of this name, and there is therefore no oclc, publisher or even any idea of what sort of book it is. Currently it lacks enough information to verify it is consistent with the material that is cited to it. I am tagging it briefly, but if no further information is received about the book, I will be deleting it and all information cited to it shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source and material deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved

Summary of sourcing problems[edit]

Having now translated the titles of all the sources used and investigated their authors, my initial rough assessment that there are serious sourcing problems with this article have been borne out. See the above sequence of threads for my observations about all of the questionable sources. There are at least seven sources which are WP:PRIMARY which are not reliable because they are not third-party sources. There are another four sources that are not verifiable as there is insufficient information about the source to be able to establish if the material that is being sourced to them is correct. And there are three sources that are blatantly biased, written by Serbian historical revisionists and/or those with an axe to grind regarding the Partisans and the Yugoslav communists. The combination of these fourteen questionable sources makes much of the material in this article highly dubious, especially when they represent nearly half of all sources currently used, and 42 of 79 citations. There is a strong anti-Partisan POV throughout, bolstered by this dubious sourcing. This is overwhelming evidence to justify the POV tag I placed on the article when I initially read it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there are three sources that are blatantly biased, written by Serbian historical revisionists and/or those with an axe to grind regarding the Partisans and the Yugoslav communists. I am interested to know which are those and where are your evidences for the claim? I see none so far. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the relevant threads above. If you can't see it, you are clearly biased yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from a fair explanation about Đuretić, you have given nothing but generalisations, such as "Westerners are more neutral", "he's a revisionist" (where are the reference for such claims, not all people are interested in WW2, you know). Not to mention the accusations, which is an ongoing ping-pong match between you two.
Calling me "clearly biased" is bordering with personal attack, which is uncalled for, to say the least. You do not know my thoughts on the war and parties involved, as I have not expressed them fully so far! Another thing, do we need 7 separate sections on the TP, for every concern raised? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that you think the author of a hagiographical book on the convicted genocidal war criminal Mladić (Milanović) is unbiased is a demonstration of your bias. It is not a "personal attack" if an assertion is backed up by clearly demonstrated behaviour. To the latter question, yes we do need separate threads, they are different subjects, with different issues being identified in each one. In my experience, lumping different issues into one thread on a controversial article means nothing is ever resolved and the discussion wanders all over the place. I will provide sources for my claims about bias in the relevant threads above in the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing on Mladić should not be relevant. Đuretić is simply a bad historian and a liar. Here is partial list of his lies -- Bojan  Talk  02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is relevant, because Mladić is a convicted genocidal war criminal, and trying to whitewash his actions is reprehensible. But thanks for the Politika source, that adds to the reasons why Đuretić should not be used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is irrelevant. Example (Godwin Law): we have to ardent Nazis: one Joseph Goebbels and one Erich von Manstein. Let say that both say something that is undeniably true, like Earth orbits around Sun (or something related to WW2). Our instant reaction is to dismiss whatever comes from Goebbels's mouth, while we might believe if it comes from von Manstein, although he was a Nazi, too. Đuretić here is Goebbels, his reputation was ruined due to his lies, not because he supports Mladić. Usually, something written from chetnik apologetic is worse than anything written in socialist Yugoslavia. Why? Because Chetniks and Chetnik apologetics have more thing to hide: die beste example is Kosta Nikolić. He was editor of history textbook in Đinđić's era. In first edition there wasn't a single word on chetnik collaboration and war crimes, while Partisans ones who collaborate with Axis (March Talks episode) and blood-thirsty war criminals. After public outcry, in new edition of textbook is inserted a chapter dealing with Chetnik collaboration, but only with Italians, while not one word with collaboration with Germany and Independent State of Croatia. Collaboration was even defended smart move, cause that would mean salvation of Serbian people from Ustashe regime, but again nothing on Chetnick war crimes. Partisans remained blood-thirsty war criminals and collaborators. So, Nikolić's reputation is ruined because of his lies, not because he was admirer of Milan Nedić (personally I think he was more admired Mihailović than Nedić) Source: Dubravka Stojanović (Ph D Historian https://pescanik.net/skolska-istorija/ -- Bojan  Talk  04:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are at cross-purposes. This is why I try to keep discussion in seperate threads. We are discussing both Đuretić and Milanović. They can be both unreliable (your argument on Đuretić, based on his work) and biased (my argument on Milanović, based on his demonstrated bias towards Mladić). In addition, Đuretić is also biased based on his demonstrated bias towards Nedić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never read or heard for Milanović until this article. She might be honest historian, although she is for Mladić. But Đuretić and Nikolić's reputation is questionable after many lies they repeat, so they are unreliable, not because they might like Mladić, too. -- Bojan  Talk  02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories