Talk:Vullnetari

General comment

• Smilja Avramov: A counsellor of Milosevic who among others (in reaction to the prosecution of Serb war criminals) declared that the Hague tribunal is illegal and Croatia is in many respects a pawn in a much larger Catholic expansionist plan...Croatian national leaders had no clear idea of national self- determination, unless it was founded on the genocide over Serbs
• Among others it's claimed that Shaban Polluzha was a member/leader of the unit, however, all other sources maintain the view that he was interned by the Italians in 1941, briefly joined BK in 1942, in 1943 became a Partisan commander and in 1944 fell out of favor as he refused to move his troops north to Syrmia after claiming that they were needed in the Drenica area to defend the population against Chetnik attacks[1][2][3] i.e. according to Nenad Antonijevic the Yugoslavs accepted in their ranks as a partisan commander in 1943 someone who in 1941 was a collaborationist leader of a unit that indiscriminately massacred Serb civilians.
• If there's going to be an article about this fairly unknown unit, it should be written without any approach that tends towards nationalist victimization or revisionism and apologism.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Slobodan Milošević, his trial and Croatia are irrelevant for this article.

The sources your presented here do not prove that Shaban Polluzha did not participate in September 1941 activities.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the disregard of WP:RS and the reverts (WP:BRD) I added some necessary tags.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your bold edits were reverted. Per BRD you should discuss, not tag bomb the article. Until you point to discussion at RSN with consensus that some sources used in this article are not RS don't tag it as such based on irrelevant arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For sure that authors like Smilja Avramov are heavily POV especially regarding ethnic conflicts in ex Yugoslavia and that affects the credibility and quality of this article. Per BRD your edits are the "bold" ones and wikipedia needs less than nationalist sources that fail RS so openly. Aigest (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Digging further ..."Avramov’s ‘expertise’ in the domain of international affairs appears to cover the secret machinations of an international anti-Serbian conspiracy at the hub of which are various world elite organisations such as the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group or Opus Dei. Throughout the 1990s, she was frequently interviewed on such topics by the Serbian press and the electronic media. Four of Avramov’s recent books – The post-heroic war of the international community against Yugoslavia (1995), The Trilateral (1998), Opus Dei (2000) and Civil society and NGOs (2006) - deal with the role of secret and semi-secret international organisations in the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In these works one finds numerous tropes typical of conspiracy theory: she alleges that the Russian revolution was masterminded and financed by ‘banking houses from Europe and the United States’, that Olaf Palme, JF Kennedy and Aldo Moro were all killed by the Trilateral Commission because they broke the vow of secrecy, and that the destruction of Yugoslavia was a joint endeavour of the Vatican and the US establishment..." link. Well that is too much for a credible source Aigest (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• J.B: In your book you also mention the Elders of Zion...

• Avramov: Yes.
• J.B: ...and you mention that they are no longer...
• Avramov: ...no, they are active... I merely said when they were founded. I did not go into the Elders of Zion, but they are... I think that I mentioned it in a single sentence that they are still operating. In fact they are the most secret of all secret organisations, you know. At this point anyone who thinks that Avramov is RS should WP:STICK.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Until you point to discussion at RSN with consensus that some sources used in this article are not RS don't tag it as such based on unrelated arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for RSN when dealing with Serbian authors that promote conspiracy theories (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). That being said on the morrow I'll remove it and admin intervention will be asked if disruption is continued.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes RSN is needed. Zion issue is not related.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)You added even more unreliable sources and you still insist that somehow RSN is needed for the conspiracy theorists you use as sources i.e so I'll ask for admin intervention as I've always done in such cases.-— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the sources I used are unreliable. Your arguments are not related to the topic of this article. Please don't repeat they are unreliable unless you can support your claims with consensus reached at RSN.

Don't forget to ask admin's intervention because you violated WP:BLP when you wrote comments about authors ("conspiracy theorists") of the sources you claim unreliable, "like you've always done in such cases".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about Antidiskriminator? Discussing the reliability of the work of a living person on a talkpage, when that criticism is relevant to the article in question, ie Byford is a psychologist with published works regarding conspiracy theories, is completely justified. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) The editor is question is apparently you, Antid? And I wasn't canvassed to this talk page, I was asked if I had any sources for this newly created article which I had not yet noticed (I have pretty much every Balkans WW2 article on my watchlist. Pretty desperate ad hominem ploy if you ask me... Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A quick run down on Smilja Avramov: she's a Serbian "ultra-nationalist" [4] who was Milosevic's adviser, as previously stated she claimed that the UN had no legal authority to prosecute Milosevic and claimed that Croat self-determination cannot exist without its basis on the genocide of Serbs. She also denies that genocide occured at Srebrenica [5], she was wanted by Mladic as his legal defense [6], and even referred to Karadzic and Mladic as the "two greatest figures of recent Serbian history." [7] She also thinks Germany is continuing "Nazi policies". [8] By no means is she a reliable source. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that PRODUCER (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

(unindent)So after I had to ask for admin intervention now Antid. comes back again with unreliable sources. Among others we have a Serb Orthodox priest Atanasije Jevtic, a nationalist writer, who has produced such work as [(Europeans) are hypocrites and one need to unmask that world and its neo-colonialism. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can point to discussion at RSN with consensus that some sources used in this article are not RS don't tag it as such based on irrelevant arguments and canvassing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on sources can be attained here and legitimate concerns over reliability have been brought up. No one is required to go to RSN and answers there are not "official policy". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus attained here that sources are not reliable. Position of canvassed editors does not constitute consensus. Please revert your tagging of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Labeling the evaluation of sources you don't agree with as canvassing won't change the issue that Smilja Avramov is someone who wrote that the Elders of Zion are a powrful secret group/there's a Catholic-Jewish united front against her faction/Croat self-determination can only be based on genocide over Serbs. It also doesn't affect the fact that Atanasije Jevtic is someone whose work either focuses on defending antisemites like Nikolaj Velimirovic or on attacks against the perceived enemy ("Europeans) are hypocrites and one need to unmask that world and its neo-colonialism"). That being said I've already asked once admin intervention so if there's any tag teaming I'll ask for it again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No. That is not how you should proceed in case of dispute over some source. Instead of posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions you should just take it to RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Known opinions argument is your selective attribution of views and motives, but please do take Smilja Avramov to RSN if you think that it's that important and after that every single source you've added, but I'll stick to WP:RS when dealing with such sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Kosovars

Solved:Assertion is sourced and verified.

(unindent)I can't verify the claim that Vullnetar=Kosovar and the source probably doesn't say that.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Let me remind you that you canvassed the editor (Peacemaker67) who added Tomashevic because you asked him about Tomashevic. Here is what Tomasevich (available online) says:"armed groups of volunteers (known as Kosovars or Vulnetars)". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Asking for sources isn't canvassing and you're misrepresenting them.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Well, you asked for the source and now you have source which says "armed groups of volunteers (known as Kosovars or Vulnetars)". I did not interpret or represent the source. I quoted it. Let me remind you what you said in one of your last comments: " I'll stick to WP:RS ". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Batakovic

Solved:Information about the number of victims is supported not only by Batakovic, but other source as well

Batakovic makes an extraordinary claim. Where did he got this number? In his book there is not a single reference on this particular claim. Because he is not a contemporary he must have been using another source (unless he just made up that number). Which is the original source on that particular claim? Aigest (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Number of casualties on Kosovo and Metohija during WWII presented in many other sources are higher then 10,000 so there is nothing extraordinary in this claim.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Well I couldn't find this number anywhere except in his book and this kinda make the claim a little bit extraordinary. I asked for the original resource or reference he is using in this particular claim. Do you know it? Aigest (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC) My point was that his claim is not extraordinary because of the number of the casualties on Kosovo and Metohija during WWII mentioned in other sources. I will try to find some when I have time. I don't know what original resource he used in this particular claim.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I found one source which directly supports what Bataković wrote about estimations of the number of Serb/Montenegrin victims: (p 478 and 479): "Najrealnije procene, na osnovu dostupnih arhivskih izvora, ukazuju da je u toku Drugoga svetskog rata na Kosovu i Metohiji život izgubilo oko 10 hiljada Crnogoraca i Srba, među kojima su većina stradali kao žrtve terora i zločina albanskih kvislinga." - My translation: "Most realistic estimations, based on available archives, indicate that during WWII on Kosovo and Metohija about 10,000 Serbs and Montenegrins were killed, most of them as victims of terror and crime of Albanian quislings." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC) That's Nenad Antonijevic i.e not RS.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (unindent)Where does one start his evaluation of Nenad Antonijevic as a source? From his comparisons of the situation of the Serbs to the Holocaust or to articles like this one[9]?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) That does not prove him being unreliable source. On the contrary. What you presented shows that he is specialized in this subject. Unless you can point to RSN discussion which contain consensus that works of Antonijević are unreliable please don'r bring this issue again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist websites as sources

(unindent)Do you really think that you can use on wiki nationalist websites as sources? Makedonsko Sonce may pass as a reliable source for you, but it doesn't meet any of the RS criteria.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The source is not website. The source is professor Dr. Gorgi Malkovski who is expert in the subject of this article. Website only published opinion of professor Dr. Gorgi Malkovski.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source actually is Makedonsko Sonce, it might be quoting a professor, but it is the source (and its fact checking etc) that is examined to establish if it is a WP:RS, not the professsor himself. And this book indicates that Makedonsko Sonce reflects a specific nationalist political view [10]. It seems that they have an agenda other that fact-checking and may in fact have a nationalist bias. I'd say anything from it is questionable at best. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact all I could find is some videos of him defending the now infamous (and withdrawn) Macedonian encyclopedia. Also I found less than 4-5 citations, so I wouldn't call him an expert. Of course Antidiskriminator responded in an WP:IDHT manner [11]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He wrote a book on this topic, therefore he is specialized in this subject. Because he is an expert in this topic he is author of the part of Macedonian Encyclopedia which is monumental work of Macedonian historiogrpahy.

Peacemaker67 is canvassed into this page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If he was an expert there would be a reasonable amount of citations and this monumental work was withdrawn[12] and will be completely revised. Btw I never implied that he wrote any part of the mk encyclopedia. The medium is a nationalist website per the evaluation of third-party sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you consider I was canvassed onto this page is not an excuse for not responding to legitimate concerns. At the very least he needs to be named in the text as the source of the opinion iaw WP:INTEXT.Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I did respond to concerns. I explained that the source is not website but professor dr Gorgi Malkovski who is historian specialized in this subject and therefore he was co-author of Macedonian Enclyclopedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

then where is the in-text attribution to the good professor's opinion? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

He is also author of many other works on this subject like:

1. Profašističkite i kolaboracionističkite organizacii i grupi vo Makedonija, 1941-1944 godina
2. Bugarskata fašistička organizacija "Branik" vo Makedonija : 1941-1944
3. Sovetuvanje za sobiranje obrabotuvanje i objavuvanje na memoarski i arhivski materijali za NOV i Revolucijata
4. Sveti Nikole i Svetinikolsko od 1912-1945 godina
5. Živeeja, se borea i zaginaa vo viorot na Revolucijata 1941-1945 godina : spomen-kniga na zaginati borci i žrtvi na fašističkiot teror i na spomenični odbeležuvanja od Sveti Nikole i Svetinikolsko
6. Bibliografski pregled za Ohrid i Ohridsko od vesnikot "celokupna B'lgarija" za periodot maj 1941 - dekemvri 1943 godina
7. Balističkata organizacija vo Makedonija vo Vtorata svetska vojna : (1941-1944 godina)
8. Ljuben Ǵeorǵievski Ljupta, Ilindenske iskre. Peta makedonska narodnooslobodilačka udarna brigada. ("Narodna armija". Beograd 1981., 186. + Ilustracii. - Zapisi o ratnim brigadama., 51)
9. Makedoncite muslimani od Vels i veleško vo narodnoosloboditelnata vojna i revolucijata (1941-1945)
10. Izvori na osloboditelnata vojna i Revolucijata vo Makedonija 1941-1945. Tom I, kniga sedma: Dokumenti na Tretiot oblasten komitet na Komunističkata partija na Makedonija, april 1943 - avgust 1944. Izbor i redakcija: d-r Mile Todorovski (Novinsko izdavačka organizacija "Studentski zbor" - Skopje, Institut za nacionalna istorija Skopje 1983, 371)

I think that any further attempt to discredit Ǵorǵi Malkovski (i.e. "I wouldn't call him an expert") should be treated as disruption.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)If you're considered an expert or not on a subject doesn't depend on the number of works you author, but on how other scholars evaluate it i.e. citations. There are hundreds of thousands of fringe scholars that have written dozens of books, but you won't see them quoted anywhere.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. But my point was "professor dr Gorgi Malkovski who is historian specialized in this subject" and "He is also author of many other works on this subject". Therefore I think that insisting on positions like "I wouldn't call him an expert", "If he was an expert" or comparing him with "hundreds of thousands of fringe scholars that have written dozens of books, but you won't see them quoted anywhere" is disruptive attempt to discredit him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

However, if the good professor's opinion is from the website/online version of the newspaper then it needs to be assessed for its reliability based on the source of the opinion (which is the good professor). The text that is attributed to him therefore needs to be attributed to him in the text of the article, not just in an inline citation. Eg "According to Professor Howsyourfather, the Vulnetari .....". Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit

I did some copy editing of the page. Feel free to look the changes over. Please, if there are questions, then discuss on this page. Cheers. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are there two different ways of spelling Vulnetari; one is with an "o" and the other is with a "u"? Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Version with "o" (voluntari and volnutari) was mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with CE of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the editors, who contributed many hours on this article, are welcome. I am just doing my part to make a good article great. Cheers. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(←) Geraldshields11 asked me to take a look, so I have. One comment: the quotations in the footnotes (does it really need so many?) and the long strings of hexadecimal characters in the URLs, mean that some citations fill nearly a whole edit window, making it a real pain to edit the article. I found it really very difficult. If you want such long citations, I strongly recommend using List-defined references, which take the footnotes out of the flow of the text and make editing both the text and the footnotes much easier. --Stfg (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Stfg from Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong claims sourced to Serb authors

Some strong claims on the article are sourced exclusively to Serb authors. In case other, non-Serb, academic sources are not found, those claims will be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you do that I will report you. Consider this as a warning.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator I did it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Discuss these matters on the talk page, using reliable sources independent of the subject, and do not edit war over this, it will get you blocked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, many of the sources of the article were written in Serbia during the most intense periods of conflicts in the Balkans. For example, about Smilja Avramov (who is used on the article and narrates about conspirancies against Serbs): "Nikolic also honoured Smilja Avramov, a retired law professor known for being a strong supporter of the politics of Yugoslav late president Slobodan Milosevic, who died in 2006 during his trial for war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Avramov was the first one to testify in Milosevic’s defence at his trial" [13]. I wish Antidiskriminator reports me or someone else, there his actions on enwiki and srwiki (including the reason why Antidiskriminator was banned on srwiki, his support for solving content disputes with off-wiki violence) will be showed before admins, and maybe a new topic ban will be imposed on him. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti added this gem on my talkpage "Attempt to justify Fascist collaborators" [14]. I went by the academic source, and the claim about 'justification' is just gross. With Ktrimi, yes you are right about certain Serb historians, and caution ought to be exercised. The same way that historians from Albania during the communist era are not used (with some editors who will go unnamed over the years highlighting problems), the same due diligence ought to be applied here where Serb historiography was tainted with political motivations.Resnjari (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)